    [House Hearing, 108 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                  H.R. 135, H.R. 495, H.R. 901 and H.R. 1284

    =======================================================================

                              LEGISLATIVE HEARING

                                   before the

                        SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER

                                     of the

                             COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                          ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                             Tuesday, April 1, 2003

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 108-12

                                   __________

               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
                                WASHINGTON : 2003
    86-198 PS

    For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
    Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
    Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001

                             COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

                     RICHARD W. POMBO, California, Chairman
           NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member

    Don Young, Alaska                    Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
    W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana     Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
    Jim Saxton, New Jersey                   Samoa
    Elton Gallegly, California           Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
    John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee       Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
    Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland         Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
    Ken Calvert, California              Calvin M. Dooley, California
    Scott McInnis, Colorado              Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
    Barbara Cubin, Wyoming                   Islands
    George Radanovich, California        Ron Kind, Wisconsin
    Walter B. Jones, Jr., North          Jay Inslee, Washington
        Carolina                         Grace F. Napolitano, California
    Chris Cannon, Utah                   Tom Udall, New Mexico
    John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania       Mark Udall, Colorado
    Jim Gibbons, Nevada,                 Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
      Vice Chairman                      Brad Carson, Oklahoma
    Mark E. Souder, Indiana              Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
    Greg Walden, Oregon                  Dennis A. Cardoza, California
    Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado         Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam
    J.D. Hayworth, Arizona               George Miller, California
    Tom Osborne, Nebraska                Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
    Jeff Flake, Arizona                  Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
    Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana           Ciro D. Rodriguez, Texas
    Rick Renzi, Arizona                  Joe Baca, California
    Tom Cole, Oklahoma                   Betty McCollum, Minnesota
    Stevan Pearce, New Mexico
    Rob Bishop, Utah
    Devin Nunes, California
    VACANCY

                         Steven J. Ding, Chief of Staff
                          Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
                     James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
                   Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel

                                     ------

                        SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER

                       KEN CALVERT, California, Chairman
            GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California, Ranking Democrat Member

    George Radanovich, California        Calvin M. Dooley, California
    Greg Walden, Oregon                  Jay Inslee, Washington
    Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado         Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
    J.D. Hayworth, Arizona               Dennis A. Cardoza, California
    Tom Osborne, Nebraska                George Miller, California
    Rick Renzi, Arizona                  Ciro D. Rodriguez, Texas
    Stevan Pearce, New Mexico            Joe Baca, California
    Devin Nunes, California              Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia,
    Richard W. Pombo, California, ex         ex officio
        officio
                                     ------

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Hearing held on April 1, 2003....................................     1

    Statement of Members:
        Calvert, Hon. Ken, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of California........................................     2
            Prepared statement on H.R. 135, H.R. 495, H.R. 901, and
              H.R. 1284..............................................     2
        Doolittle, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of California........................................     8
            Prepared statement on H.R. 901...........................     9
        Hayworth, Hon. J.D., a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Arizona, Prepared statement on H.R. 495...........   108
        Linder, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Georgia...........................................     3
            Prepared statement on H.R. 135...........................     5
        Napolitano, Hon. Grace F., a Representative in Congress from
          the State of California....................................    13
        Ose, Hon. Doug, a Representative in Congress from the State
          of California..............................................     7
            Prepared statement on H.R. 901...........................     8
            Sacramento Bee letter submitted for the record...........    72
        Renzi, Hon. Rick, a Representative in Congress from the State
          of Arizona.................................................    14
            Prepared statement on H.R. 495...........................    14
        Solis, Hon. Hilda L., a Representative in Congress from the
          State of California........................................    11
            Prepared statement on H.R. 1284..........................    12

    Statement of Witnesses:
        Eriacho, Wilfred, Sr., Chairperson, Zuni Indian Tribe Water
          Rights Negotiation Team....................................    87
            Prepared statement on H.R. 495...........................    89
        Gleick, Dr. Peter H., President, Pacific Institute...........    76
            Prepared statement on H.R. 135...........................    78
        Keys, Hon. John W., III, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation,
          U.S. Department of the Interior............................    21
            Prepared statement on H.R. 135...........................    27
            Prepared statement on H.R. 901...........................    22
            Prepared statement on H.R. 1284..........................    25
        Lujan, George, South El Monte, California....................    96
            Prepared statement on H.R. 1284..........................   101
        Lynch, Robert S., Attorney at Law, Robert S. Lynch &
          Associates, Phoenix, Arizona...............................    84
            Prepared statement on H.R. 135...........................    85
        Niello, Roger, Sacramento County Supervisor..................    64
            Prepared statement on H.R. 901...........................    66
        Roder, Aileen, Program Director, Taxpayers for Common Sense..    58
            Prepared statement on H.R. 901...........................    59
        Rosier, Theresa, Counselor to the Assistant Secretary, Indian
          Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior...................    29
            Prepared statement on H.R. 495...........................    30
        Starsky, Jeffrey, Councilman, City of Folsom, California.....    52
            Prepared statement on H.R. 901...........................    54
        Whitehead, Michael, Director, San Gabriel Basin Water Quality
          Authority..................................................    94
            Prepared statement on H.R. 1284..........................    95

    Additional materials supplied:
        Association of California Water Agencies, Statement submitted
          for the record on H.R. 135.................................   108
        Donnelly, Thomas F., Executive Vice President, National Water
          Resources Association, Statement submitted for the record
          on H.R. 135................................................     3
        Felix, Lawrence C., Vice President, Cardinal Industrial
          Finishes, Letter submitted for the record on H.R. 1284.....    98
        Figueroa, Blanca, Mayor, City of South El Monte, California,
          Letter submitted for the record on H.R. 1284...............    39
        Iriarte, Philip L., City Manager, City of Industry,
          California, Letter submitted for the record on H.R. 1284...    35
        Miklos, Hon. Steve, Mayor, City of Folsom, California,
          Statement submitted for the record on H.R. 901.............    50
        Wallach, Patricia A., Councilwoman, City of El Monte,
          California, Letter submitted for the record on H.R. 1284...    37

       LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 135, TO ESTABLISH THE ``TWENTY-FIRST
     CENTURY WATER COMMISSION'' TO STUDY AND DEVELOP RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A
     COMPREHENSIVE WATER STRATEGY TO ADDRESS FUTURE WATER NEEDS; H.R. 495,
    TO APPROVE THE SETTLEMENT OF THE WATER RIGHTS CLAIM OF THE ZUNI INDIAN
     TRIBE IN APACHE COUNTY, ARIZONA, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; H.R. 901, TO
       AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO CONSTRUCT A BRIDGE ON
      FEDERAL LAND WEST AND ADJACENT TO FOLSOM DAM IN CALIFORNIA, AND FOR
       OTHER PURPOSES; AND H.R. 1284, TO AMEND THE RECLAMATION PROJECTS
    AUTHORIZATION AND ADJUSTMENT ACT OF 1992 TO INCREASE THE FEDERAL SHARE
          OF THE COSTS OF THE SAN GABRIEL BASIN DEMONSTRATION PROJECT.

                                  ----------

                             Tuesday, April 1, 2003

                         U.S. House of Representatives

                        Subcommittee on Water and Power

                             Committee on Resources

                                 Washington, DC

                                  ----------

        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:04 p.m., in
    room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Ken Calvert
    [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Calvert, Tancredo, Hayworth,
    Osborne, Renzi, Pearce, Nunes, Napolitano, Inslee, Grijalva,
    Rodriguez and Baca.
        Also Present: Representative Ose.
        Mr. Calvert. The Subcommittee on Water and Power will come
    to order.
        The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on H.R.
    135, H.R. 495, H.R. 901, and H.R. 1284. Under Committee Rule
    4(g), the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member can make opening
    statements.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. KEN CALVERT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                      FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Mr. Calvert. Our Subcommittee continues to pursue balanced
    and integrated water management approaches for growing and
    competing water uses. Today, we will focus our attention on
    four bills that make existing water supplies go further,
    improve the dependability and security of the water
    infrastructure for long-term use, and promote cooperative
    efforts to implement best water management practices.
        H.R. 1284, introduced by the distinguished Ranking Member,
    Mrs. Napolitano, increases the Federal share of the cost of the
    San Gabriel Basin Demonstration Project in California. H.R.
    495, authored by our distinguished Arizona colleague, Mr.
    Renzi, approves the settlement of longstanding water rights
    claims of the Zuni Indian Tribe, the State of Arizona, and
    local water and power users.
        In response to a Federal decision to close a road over a
    Federal facility that has severely impacted local communities
    and thousands of commuters, H.R. 901 authorizes the Secretary
    of Interior to construct a bridge on Federal land near Folsom
    Dam in California to enhance the security of the dam and the
    reservoir. And H.R. 135 establishes a commission to develop
    recommendations for a comprehensive, long-term national water
    strategy.
        These bills attempt to find common sense solutions to the
    many problems facing our communities. I thank our witnesses for
    coming here today, and look forward to hearing from them on
    these important bills.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Calvert follows:]

    Statement of The Honorable Ken Calvert, Chairman, Subcommittee on Water
           and Power, on H.R. 135, H.R. 495, H.R. 901, and H.R. 1284

        Our Subcommittee continues to pursue balanced and integrated water
    management approaches for growing and competing water uses. Today, we
    will focus our attention on four bills that make existing water
    supplies go further, improve the dependability and security of the
    water infrastructure for long-term use, and promote cooperative efforts
    to implement best water management practices.
        H.R. 1284, introduced by the distinguished Ranking Member, Mrs.
    Napolitano, increases the Federal share of the costs of the San Gabriel
    Basin demonstration project in California.
        H.R. 495, authored by our distinguished Arizona colleague, Mr.
    Renzi, approves the settlement of longstanding water rights claims of
    the Zuni Indian Tribe, the State of Arizona, and local water and power
    users.
        In response to a Federal decision to close a road over a Federal
    facility that has severely impacted local communities and thousands of
    commuters, H.R. 901 authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to
    construct a bridge on Federal land near Folsom Dam in California to
    enhance the security of the dam and the reservoir.
        And H.R. 135 establishes a commission to develop recommendations
    for a comprehensive, long term national water strategy.
        These bills attempt to find common sense solutions to the many
    problems facing our communities. I thank our witnesses for coming here
    today, and look forward to hearing from them on these important bills.
                                     ______

        Mr. Calvert. Mrs. Napolitano is going to be here shortly.
    In the meantime, are there other members who have an opening
    statement? With that, we will start the opening statements with
    the Members who are here today, and when Mrs. Napolitano
    arrives, we will take time for her opening statement.
        I will recognize Mr. Linder for your opening statement.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN LINDER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                       FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA

        Mr. Linder. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank
    the Committee and the staff for putting H.R. 135, the ``21st
    Century Water Commission Act of 2003'' on the agenda of today's
    hearing. I appreciate the opportunity to testify before the
    Subcommittee about the value of creating a water commission to
    ensure the future of our Nation's water supply well into the
    21st century.
        Last May, I testified before this Subcommittee on behalf of
    my initial water commission bill, H.R. 3561 Since that time, my
    staff and I have worked with the Chairman, his staff, and other
    interested parties, to create a new and improved version of
    this water bill, H.R. 135.
        In particular, I would like to mention two individuals who
    worked closely with us on H.R. 135, Mr. Bob Lynch and Mr. Tom
    Donnelly. Mr. Lynch is an attorney with extensive expertise on
    water rights issues in Arizona, as well as Mr. Donnelly and the
    National Water Resources Council.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Donnelly follows:]

          Statement of Thomas F. Donnelly, Executive Vice President,
                      National Water Resources Association

        Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, my name is Thomas F.
    Donnelly and I am the Executive Vice President of the National Water
    Resources Association. On behalf of the membership of the Association,
    it is my privilege to present testimony on H.R. 135, a bill to
    establish the Twenty-First Century Water Policy Commission.
        The National Water Resources Association (NWRA) is a nonprofit
    federation of associations and individuals dedicated to the
    conservation, enhancement, and efficient management of our Nation's
    most precious natural resource, WATER. The NWRA is the oldest and most
    active national association concerned with water resources policy and
    development. Its strength is a reflection of the tremendous
    ``grassroots'' participation it has generated on virtually every
    national issue affecting western water conservation, management, and
    development.
        During the last Congress, the National Water Resources Association
    presented testimony in opposition to the legislation. Since that time,
    Mr. Lynch and I have had the privilege of working with Congressman
    Linder and his staff on the proposed mission of the Commission and its
    makeup. We have both been impressed with Congressman Linder's
    dedication to improving the manner in which we manage our nation's
    water resources and his flexibility in drafting H.R. 135. We applaud
    his dedication to improving the manner in which we manage our nation's
    water resources and improved Federal agency coordination.
        We are pleased to announce our support of H.R. 135 and look forward
    to working with Congressman Linder and the Committee on this
    legislation. We trust that the Commission will keep in mind the unique
    hydrologic characteristics and related needs of the arid and semi-arid
    West. We hope that the Commission will address water quality and
    quantity problems on a regional basis.
        In the West, water infrastructure is every bit as important as
    transportation infrastructure. It is essential to the continued
    economic growth and development.of the region. Water infrastructure
    needs continue to exist, particularly rural water supply. However, on
    the whole, the approach to meeting these needs will be quite different
    from those of the past. No one envisions a future infrastructure
    development program and financing arrangements like the original
    Reclamation program, which facilitated the development and
    unprecedented economic growth of the West during much of this century.
    Future projects are more likely to include non-structural features,
    environmental enhancement, proven best management practices, innovative
    approaches to water quality/quantity concerns and greater levels of
    non-Federal financing.
        Following are a few of the issues we would recommend that the
    Commission include in its mission:
        Today, many of our existing projects are beginning to show their
    age. It is essential that we rehabilitate these projects in a timely
    and cost effective manner. Currently, rehabilitation costs are handled
    like operation and maintenance expenses and are required to be repaid
    within one year. Major rehabilitation projects can run into the tens of
    millions of dollars, making them beyond the ability to repay in one
    year. Reclamation's customers are not looking for a Federal handout,
    simply repayment terms that allow these much needed rehabilitation
    projects to go forward.
        An essential element, which is currently missing from the Federal
    planning equation, is a basin-by-basin infrastructure and programmatic
    needs assessment. Such an assessment cannot be developed without the
    active involvement and, perhaps, leadership of the nation's governors,
    water resources professionals, and state and local officials. We would
    strongly recommend that this be a primary mission of the Commission.
        Several water development projects have been authorized by the
    Congress but remain unfunded. These projects should be reviewed to
    determine if they still meet the needs they were authorized to address.
    These projects should be prioritized on a state and regional
    (watershed) basis and Congress should determine what project benefits
    are in the Federal interest for funding purposes.
        In closing, I wish to express NWRA's appreciation for Congressman
    Linder's willingness to address the concerns raised by our members and
    I thank the Chairman and the Committee for this opportunity to present
    NWRA's thoughts and recommendations regarding this legislation.
                                     ______

        Mr. Linder. These two folks made huge constructive
    contributions in changes in our bill, and I understand they are
    testifying on behalf of the bill.
        With these revisions to the bill, H.R. 135 also has support
    from the Association of California Water Agencies and other
    water groups.
        Some of the more notable revisions included in H.R. 135 are
    as follows:
        A ``Findings Section'' listed in the beginning of the bill
    has been added to express the sense of the Congress that the
    Nation's water resources must be utilized to their fullest
    capacity. This section also states that the Congress finds a
    comprehensive strategy to increase our water supply vital to
    the economic and environmental future of our Nation.
        Another revision is that the commission will be composed of
    seven members named by the President, who are of recognized
    standing and distinction on water issues. The previous
    commission was composed of 17 members. This smaller number will
    allow for the commission to function more effectively, we
    think, thus increasing the likelihood that the commission's
    recommendations will be enacted.
        In addition, the powers and duties of the commission have
    been modified and clarified. It will now be required to submit
    an interim report within 6 months of when it starts its
    activities, ongoing reports after that for every 6 months while
    it is conducting its work, and a final report within 3 years of
    its inception. The commission will also be required to hold at
    least ten hearings, with one hearing being in Washington, D.C.,
    to take testimony from Federal officials, and other hearings in
    distinct geographical regions of the U.S. seeking a diversity
    of views, comments and input.
        The future of our Nation's water supply is a serious and
    critical issue. Many states across the Nation are currently
    facing a water crisis, or have in the last several years. Once
    thought to be a problem only in the arid West, severe droughts
    last summer have caused water shortages up and down the East
    Coast. States once accustomed to an unlimited access to water
    are now experiencing problems the West has had for decades.
        I have read countless articles chronicling these crises, as
    no doubt has every member of the Subcommittee. Newspaper
    articles have described not only how rivers and wells are
    drying up all over the country,. but also that aquifers are
    being challenged by salt water intrusion, and now fish,
    wildlife and crops are being threatened, also. Meanwhile,
    projected population growth for the United States means that
    water demand will continue to increase in coming years. We must
    develop a water strategy to meet future demands now, before
    full-blown water shortages hit.
        Let me be clear. My bill does not give the Federal
    Government more control over water. Rather, this commission
    will coordinate water management efforts on all levels so that
    localities, states and the Federal Government can work together
    to enact a comprehensive water policy to avoid future water
    shortages, without encroaching on state and local governments'
    traditional authority over water policy.
        The 21st Century Water Commission will work to ensure an
    adequate supply of fresh water for U.S. citizens over the next
    50 years. It will not place increased mandates on state and
    local governments, and it will seek to eliminate conflict and
    duplication among governmental agencies. Most importantly, it
    will reduce the bureaucratic red tape many local communities
    face when trying to build water reservoirs and other
    infrastructure needs.
        The bill will also consider all available technologies for
    increasing water supply efficiently while safeguarding the
    environment, recommending means of capturing excess water for
    future droughts, suggesting financing options for public works
    projects, and will fully respect the primary role of states in
    adjudicating, administering, and regulating water rights and
    uses.
        The United States and its resources have changed
    dramatically over the past three decades. We simply cannot
    afford to maintain the status quo with something as critical as
    our Nation's fresh water supply. It is time to get ahead of
    this issue, rather than stay ``behind the curve'' as Congress
    does far too often.
        Providing all Americans with fresh water is a matter of
    life and death, and I hope that the Committee will support my
    objective of ensuring an adequate and dependable water supply
    of fresh water for all Americans throughout the 21st century.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be happy to take any
    questions, should you have some.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Linder follows:]

     Statement of The Honorable John Linder, a Representative in Congress
                           from the State of Georgia

        I wish to thank Chairman Calvert, Ranking Member Napolitano, and
    the other distinguished members of the Subcommittee on Water and Power
    for putting H.R. 135, the ``21st Century Water Commission Act of
    2003,'' on the agenda of today's hearing. I appreciate having the
    opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee about the value of
    creating a water commission to ensure the future of our nation's water
    supply well into the 21st century.
        Last May, I testified before this Subcommittee on behalf of my
    initial water commission bill, H.R. 3561. Since that time, my staff and
    I have worked with Chairman Calvert, his staff, and other interested
    parties, to create a new and improved version of this water bill, H.R.
    135.
        In particular, two individuals I have worked closely with on H.R.
    135 are Mr. Bob Lynch and Mr. Tom Donnelly. Mr. Lynch, an attorney with
    extensive expertise on water rights issues in Arizona, as well as Mr.
    Donnelly and the National Water Resources Council, are two notable
    authorities on water issues who testified on H.R. 3561 last year, and
    offered constructive suggestions on ways to improve the bill. I
    understand that today they will testify in support of H.R. 135.
        With these revisions to the bill, H.R. 135, also has support from
    the Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA), and other water
    groups.
        Some of the more notable revisions included in H.R. 135 are as
    follows:
         LA ``Findings Section'' listed in the beginning of the
    bill, has been added to express the sense of the Congress that the
    nation's water resources must be utilized to their fullest capacity.
    This section also states that the Congress finds a comprehensive
    strategy to increase our water supply vital to the economic and
    environmental future of our nation.
         LAnother revision is that the commission will now be
    composed of seven members named by the President, who are of recognized
    standing and distinction on water issues. The previous commission was
    composed of 17 members. This smaller number will allow for the
    commission to function more effectively, thus increasing the likelihood
    that the commission's recommendations will be enacted.
         LIn addition, the powers and duties of the commission have
    been modified and clarified. It will now be required to submit an
    interim report within six months of when it starts its activities,
    ongoing reports after that for every six months while it is conducting
    its work, and a final report within three years of its inception. The
    commission will also be required to hold at least 10 hearings, with one
    hearing in Washington, D.C., to take testimony from Federal officials,
    and other hearings in distinct geographical regions of the U.S. seeking
    a diversity of views, comments, and input.
        The future of our nation's water supply is a serious and critical
    issue. Many states across the nation are currently facing a water
    crisis, or have in the last few years. Once thought to be a problem
    only in the arid West, severe droughts last summer have caused water
    shortages up and down the East Coast. States once accustomed to an
    unlimited access to water are now experiencing problems the West has
    had for decades.
        I have read countless articles chronicling these crises, as, no
    doubt has every Member of the Subcommittee. Newspaper articles have
    described not only how rivers and wells are drying up all over the
    country, but also that aquifers are being challenged by salt water
    intrusion. And, now fish, wildlife, and crops are being threatened,
    too. Meanwhile, projected population growth for the United States means
    that water demand will continue to increase in coming years. We must
    develop a water strategy to meet future demands now, before full-blown
    water shortages hit.
        Let me be clear. My bill does not give the Federal Government more
    control over water. Rather, this commission will coordinate water
    management efforts on all levels so that localities, states and the
    Federal Government can work together to enact a comprehensive water
    policy to avoid future water shortages--without encroaching on state
    and local governments' traditional authority over water policy.
        The 21st Century Water Commission will work to ensure an adequate
    supply of fresh water for U.S. citizens over the next 50 years. It will
    not place increased mandates on state and local governments, and it
    will seek to eliminate conflict and duplication among governmental
    agencies. Most importantly, it will reduce the bureaucratic red tape
    many local communities face when trying to build water reservoirs and
    other infrastructure needs.
        The bill will also consider all available technologies for
    increasing water supply efficiently while safeguarding the environment,
    recommending means of capturing excess water for future droughts,
    suggesting financing options for public works projects, and will fully
    respect the primary role of States in adjudicating, administering, and
    regulating water rights and uses.
        The United States and its resources have changed dramatically over
    the past three decades. We simply cannot afford to maintain the status
    quo with something as critical as our nation's fresh water supply. It
    is time to get ahead of this issue, rather than stay ``behind the
    curve'' as Congress does far too often.
        Providing all Americans with fresh water is a matter of life and
    death, and I hope that the Committee will support my objective of
    ensuring an adequate and dependable water supply of fresh water for all
    Americans throughout the 21st Century.
        Thank you. I'll be happy to answer any questions Subcommittee
    Members may have.
                                     ______

        Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
        Why don't we go ahead and get the opening statements of all
    the Members who are here present, and then we'll ask questions.
    That way we will be able to free all of you up to go about
    doing your business.
        With that, Mr. Doolittle, you're recognized.
        Mr. Doolittle. Mr. Chairman, could I request that the
    primary sponsor of this bill go first?
        Mr. Calvert. Without objection.

     STATEMENT OF THE HON. DOUG OSE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                      FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Mr. Ose. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the Member from
    the district next door.
        Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee,
    thank you for providing this opportunity to testify today and
    provide the Committee another opportunity to consider a new
    American River crossing downstream from the Folsom Dam. Today I
    ask that you support H.R. 901, authorizing the Bureau of
    Reclamation to construct a new bridge on Federal land west of
    and adjacent to the Folsom Dam.
        It gives me little satisfaction to appear before you on
    this matter. As you may recall, Congressman Doolittle and I
    proposed in June, 2001, that the Bureau of Reclamation be
    authorized to commence with the construction of a replacement
    arterial carrying traffic from one side of Folsom Dam to the
    other. Since then, our concerns about the security of the dam
    itself have been recognized by various bodies. The most recent
    of which is the Defense Threat Reduction Agency and the Bureau
    of Reclamation, which has moved unilaterally to close the road.
    I share the concern that priority must be given to issues of
    homeland security.
        The consequence of the closure has been that up to 18,000
    cars per day that were using the road atop Folsom Dam are now
    impacting the streets and neighborhoods of the surrounding
    community. The city of Folsom is incurring significant
    unanticipated expenses in handling the traffic safety issues
    because of the actions of the Bureau in closing the Road. These
    added costs are directly related to the homeland security issue
    identified by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency and acted
    upon by the Bureau, to wit, the closure of the road.
        It is noteworthy to mention that in yesterday's Wall Street
    Journal, on page A-12, White House Office of Management and
    Budget Director Mitch Daniels is quoted as saying that
    relieving air carriers of their increased security costs
    ``could have a certain logic to it.'' I think you will see that
    in the supplemental we're going to look at at the end of this
    week.
        You may hear today the same arguments that were put forth
    last time around that the Bureau doesn't build bridges. I have
    in my pocket a list of at least 17 bridges that the Bureau has
    built since 1970. Having come from a construction background,
    it would seem that if you estimate construction time for a
    bridge at about 2 years, start to finish, then the Bureau has,
    in fact, been in the bridge construction business since I
    entered high school.
        Mr. Chairman, this is an issue of homeland security that is
    adversely affecting a number of communities across multiple
    congressional districts. Given these facts and the history of
    the Bureau, I urge that the Committee favorably report H.R. 901
    to the full Committee.
        Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to testify today.
    I would be happy to answer any questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Ose follows:]

    Statement of The Honorable Doug Ose, a Representative in Congress from
                      the State of California, on H.R. 901

        Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, thank
    you for providing this opportunity to testify today and provide the
    Committee another opportunity to consider a new American River crossing
    downstream from the Folsom Dam. Today, I ask that you support H.R. 901,
    authorizing the Bureau of Reclamation to construct a new bridge on
    Federal land west of and adjacent to the Folsom Dam.
        If gives me little satisfaction to appear before you on this
    matter. As you will recall, Congressman Doolittle and I proposed in
    June, 2001, that the Bureau of Reclamation be authorized to commence
    with the construction of a replacement arterial carrying traffic from
    one side of the Folsom Dam to the other. Since then, our concerns about
    the security of the dam itself have been recognized by various bodies.
    The most recent of which is the Defense Threat Reduction Agency and the
    Bureau of Reclamation has moved unilaterally to close the road. I share
    the concern that priority must be given to issues of homeland security.
        The consequence of the closure has been that up to 18,000 cars per
    day that were using the road atop Folsom Dam are now impacting the
    streets and neighborhoods of the surrounding community. The City of
    Folsom is incurring significant unanticipated expenses in handling the
    traffic safety issues because of the actions of the Bureau in closing
    the road. These added costs are directly related to the homeland
    security issue identified by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency and
    acted upon by the Bureau. It is noteworthy to mention that in
    yesterday's Wall Street Journal, on Page A-12, White House Office of
    Management and Budget Director Mitch Daniels is quoted as saying that
    relieving air carriers of their increases security costs ``could have a
    certain logic to it.''
        You may hear today the same arguments that were put forth last
    around that the Bureau doesn't build bridges. I have in my pocket a
    list of at least seventeen bridges that the Bureau has built since
    1970. Having come from a construction background, it would seem that if
    you estimate construction time for a bridge at about two years, start
    to finish, then the Bureau has in fact been in the bridge construction
    business since I entered high school.
        Mr. Chairman, this is an issue of homeland security that is
    adversely affecting a number of communities across multiple
    congressional districts. Given these facts and the history of the
    Bureau, I urge that the Committee favorably report H.R. 901 to the full
    Committee.
        Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to testify today.
                                     ______

        Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
        Mr. Doolittle.

       STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                 CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Mr. Doolittle. Mr. Chairman and members, thank you very
    much. It's just about a year ago that we were here, as Mr. Ose
    pointed out, seeking essentially the same relief that we seek
    today. This Subcommittee at that time was gracious enough to
    grant it to us.
        All that has changed now, Mr. Chairman, since a year ago is
    that, in a rather precipitous decision, with basically 1 week's
    notice, the Bureau of Reclamation announced that it was closing
    permanently access across Folsom Dam, access which had been
    relied upon for nearly 50 years by the city of Folsom. The city
    of Folsom straddles both sides of the American River. Until 3
    years ago, there were only two bridge crossings that ran
    through there. One was, of course, the Folsom Dam, which we
    talked about, and the other was the Rainbow Bridge.
        Because of the concerns the city had for the amount of
    growth and making sure that, since occasionally the road over
    the dam could be closed for maintenance and so forth, they felt
    that in order to ensure appropriate access for emergency
    vehicles, et cetera, that serve both sides of the community,
    that a new bridge was needed. I think it's very significant
    that this community, which is not all that large--it's a city
    of about 50,000--funded entirely with no cost sharing of any
    kind the construction of a brand new bridge at a cost of $75
    million. So there were then three crossings over the American
    River that linked the two halves of the city of Folsom.
        Since the 1995 bombing in Oklahoma City, the Federal
    Government has been concerned about certain key structures, and
    Folsom Dam has been one of those. That is why Mr. Ose and I
    introduced legislation last year to address this problem. We
    knew that with the change in circumstances, circumstances that
    really didn't exist back in the 1950's when the dam was built,
    that it was now to be considered a terrorist target. And since
    this dam is the main source of flood protection for the city of
    Sacramento downstream, and since that dam and reservoir are a
    vital part of the California Central Valley project, which
    provides water for families, fish and farmers, which provides
    water to assist with the Sacramento San Joaquin Delta
    situation, and the power plant of the dam generates a huge
    amount of power for the local region, this has become a very,
    very sensitive area.
        The Bureau of Reclamation decided to close the road out of
    safety concerns for the dam as a target. We wish we would have
    had more notice over that because this has caused a real
    congestion nightmare for Folsom and for the people of this
    region. My district adjoins Mr. Ose's, and until the road was
    closed, there were 18,000 trips a day over this road. These
    people are now having to find other ways to cross the river.
    That means there is a tremendous amount of congestion on the
    two remaining bridges.
        For that reason, we seek passage of this bill and your
    approval for authorization of a new bridge and connecting
    structures to be borne at Federal expense over the American
    River.
        I thank you for your attention. You have the complete
    statement before you that I have submitted for the record.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Doolittle follows:]

       Statement of The Honorable John T. Doolittle, a Representative in
               Congress from the State of California, on H.R. 901

        Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, today I ask for your
    support of H.R. 901. This bill would authorize the Bureau of
    Reclamation (Bureau) to construct a new bridge and related connecting
    structures on Federal land west of and adjacent to the Folsom Dam,
    which is located next to my district.
        You may remember that last year, I testified before this Committee
    regarding this same issue. At that time, I explained that the immediate
    construction of a new bridge to replace the current road that runs over
    the top of Folsom Dam was essential to the people of Northern
    California for two reasons: First, and foremost, it would greatly
    improve the safety and security of the entire region. Second, it would
    enhance the efficiency of the region's transportation system. I
    concluded my remarks last year by explaining that should the Bureau
    make the decision to close the existing Folsom Dam Road before a new,
    alternative bridge was built, the district I represented would suffer a
    significant economic, environmental and transportation impact.
        Today, nearly a year later, I come before you to report that the
    very situation I feared has occurred. On February 28, 2003, with almost
    no notice, the Bureau permanently closed Folsom Dam Road to both
    motorized and pedestrian traffic. As I sit before you, the communities
    that Congressman Ose and I currently represent are bearing the brunt of
    that decision and Congress' inability to act. As such, I come before
    you with one clear, simple message: Congress can wait no longer to
    build this bridge. We must act now.
        As way of background, let me briefly explain the history of this
    issue: Following its completion in 1956, the Folsom Dam included a two-
    lane maintenance road on its top intended for the use of the Bureau.
    Over the years, as a service to local drivers, the Bureau has allowed
    restricted use of the Folsom Dam Road to the public. In the decades
    since its construction, however, the growing communities both north and
    south of the crossing have come to depend on the dam road as an
    important transportation route. Over the years, this has created
    numerous problems for both the Bureau and the public. As I mentioned,
    these problems came to a head on February 28, 2003, when the Bureau
    permanently closed the dam road to both motorized and pedestrian
    traffic.
    THREAT TO SECURITY
        Recently, I received a security briefing that revealed that Folsom
    Dam could be a potential terrorist target and that the public's access
    to the road running on top of the dam was of particular concern. These
    concerns were not new, however. In fact, in the aftermath of the 1995
    Oklahoma City bombing, the Federal Government expressed increased
    concern for the security of important structures such as dams, bridges,
    and power plants. Since that time, the Bureau has been particularly
    wary of Folsom Dam's appeal as a potential terrorist target. As you may
    know, the dam is the Sacramento area's primary defense against the
    intense flooding that the American River has historically generated.
    Furthermore, the Folsom Dam and Reservoir serve as a vital part of the
    Central Valley Project. They control the flow of water that is critical
    to farmers, families, and fish not only in the Sacramento Region, but
    also in the Bay-Delta and Southern California. Finally, Folsom's
    hydroelectric plant provides a significant amount of the energy
    consumed in the area. Given how crucial this facility is to the safety
    and vitality of California's capital, it is critical that it remains
    secure from the efforts of those who seek to harm our well-being.
    IMPACTS ON THE COMMUNITY
        Beyond the public safety factor, the current situation also causes
    numerous other problems. The eastern portion of the Sacramento suburban
    region, which I represent, is the fastest growing area in California.
    Traffic congestion is a growing concern for the City of Folsom and the
    neighboring communities that I represent. The demands placed on the
    Folsom Dam Road by the thriving commercial centers and neighborhoods
    that have developed nearby exceeded the structure's capacity. This
    road, which was originally designed to only accommodate maintenance
    crews, was handling 18,000 cars per day when it was recently closed.
    Now, most of those cars are traveling through already congested streets
    in the City of Folsom and other surrounding areas. Just a few years
    ago, the City of Folsom self-funded a $75 million bridge downstream
    from the dam to improve the flow of traffic. Nevertheless, a crossing
    at Folsom Dam remains one of the area's most important traffic needs
    and is the most convenient link between South Placer County, Folsom,
    and Western El Dorado County. Furthermore, it is a key route for
    workers commuting to and from the major job centers in the vicinity.
    Besides commuters, it also serves local shoppers, students, and
    visitors enjoying Folsom Lake's popular recreational opportunities.
    THE SOLUTION
        The solution to these traffic problems, as well as the severe
    security concerns, is the same--to replace reliance on the Folsom Dam
    Road by building a new bridge. H.R. 901 would authorize the
    construction of a four-lane structure just downstream of the dam. It
    also calls for the construction of necessary linkages from the bridge
    to existing roadways. Upon completion, the Bureau would transfer
    ownership of the facilities to the City of Folsom.
        Many of this bill's opponents continue to ask the question, ``Why
    should the Federal Government be responsible for building this
    bridge?'' The answers are clear and compelling. First, Folsom Dam, the
    reservoir, and surrounding land are owned and operated by the Bureau.
    As such, the Bureau should take responsibility for closing a major
    transportation artery on its property by providing an alternative
    crossing. Second, the Federal Government has primary responsibility for
    the security of Federal facilities. Consequently, it should provide an
    alternative to the Folsom Dam Road that is going to protect Folsom Dam
    and downstream communities. Third, when the dam was first built, the
    reservoir inundated three existing two-lane river crossings. The Bureau
    compensated for that loss by allowing public access to Folsom Dam Road.
    Because the Bureau has now closed that road, proper mitigation should
    be expected for that action. Finally, the City of Folsom has already
    done its part to address both the security and transportation needs of
    the area. Since September 11th, its police department has cooperated
    with the Bureau to improve security measures at Folsom Dam and, as I
    stated earlier, the city recently built a $75 million bridge further
    downstream without any Federal assistance.
        H.R. 901 has the endorsement and support of local governments, the
    business community, and local transportation advocates. In fact, today
    you will hear favorable testimony from the City of Folsom and the
    County of Sacramento. They will explain in greater detail the
    precariousness of the current situation and the great need for this
    bill.
        I would like to remind my colleagues once again that one year ago I
    was seated before you with a similar piece of legislation, H.R. 2301,
    which the Committee reported out. Since that time, the need to protect
    Folsom Dam has increased, the local transportation needs of the region
    have grown, and the Federal Government has done nothing to resolve the
    problem. I therefore request your favorable support of H.R. 901 and ask
    that you allow for a markup of this needed legislation as soon as
    possible.
                                     ______

        Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
        Mrs. Solis.

    STATEMENT OF HON. HILDA L. SOLIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                      FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Ms. Solis. Thank you, Chairman Calvert, and also Ranking
    Member Napolitano, for holding this important hearing today.
        I am here to testify in support of H.R. 1284, which amends
    the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of
    1992. The bill would increase the Federal cost share for the
    San Gabriel Basin groundwater clean-up project.
        During the project's onset back in 1992, the Federal
    Government was authorized to pay 25 percent of the cost of
    projects to clean up local water supplies. In 1996, the funding
    level for the program was capped at $38 million, funding only a
    portion of the projects that had been designed. As a result of
    the cap, projects in the southern portion of the basin were not
    funded. Those included two of my cities that I currently
    represent, the El Monte operable unit and the South El Monte
    operable unit in my district.
        Since the cap was put in place, the southern operable units
    have been working with EPA to develop groundwater clean-up
    plans. Now we need money to make the clean up happen. Clean up
    literally means the difference between healthy and unhealthy
    families. This area is contaminated with perchlorate and other
    chlorinated solvents known as volatile organic compounds, or
    VOCs.
        Each of these contaminants can cause serious health
    complications. Perchlorate increases chances of cancer and can
    induce thyroid problems. We've had several of our wells, I
    know, in the basin that have already been closed because of the
    traces that we found there. VOCs are also harmful to the
    central nervous system, the kidneys and the liver, and can
    cause a higher risk of cancer, especially leukemia.
        The pollution that these communities have sustained has not
    only impacted their health and environment, but also their
    economy. Unemployment in the area is about 9.3 percent.
    According to the U.S. Census, 26 percent of the residents there
    are found to be below the poverty line. It has been difficult
    to attract businesses there because it's known as somewhat of a
    blighted area. One of the factors preventing those businesses
    and jobs from coming to the area is the pollution.
        When the cap was put in place, these areas lost the chance
    to access Federal funds to clean up the environment and protect
    the health and safety of our economy there. Now we have the
    opportunity to make a difference in this region by helping them
    accomplish these much-needed goals.
        Once again, I would like to thank the Chairman and the
    Ranking Member for holding this very important hearing. I know
    this is something that the members of our local delegation that
    represent that area are very much interested in seeing cleaned
    up.
        I know in the past Congressman David Drier has also lent
    his name and support for this effort. So I would like to thank
    the Committee for sponsoring this hearing today.
        Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Solis follows:]

    Statement of The Honorable Hilda L. Solis, a Representative in Congress
                          from the State of California

        Thank you, Chairman Calvert and Ranking Democrat Napolitano for
    holding this important hearing today. I am here to testify in support
    of H.R. 1284, which amends the Reclamation Projects Authorization and
    Adjustment Act of 1992. This bill will increase the Federal cost share
    for the San Gabriel Basin groundwater cleanup project.
        During the project's onset in 1992, the Federal Government was
    authorized to pay 25% of the cost of projects to cleanup local water
    supplies. In 1996 the funding level for the program was capped at $38
    million, funding only a portion of the projects that had been designed.
    As a result of the cap, projects in the southern portion of the basin
    were not funded, including the El Monte Operable Unit and the South El
    Monte Operable Unit in my district. Since the cap was put in place, the
    Southern Operable Units have been working with EPA to develop
    groundwater cleanup plans. Now, we need money to make the cleanup
    happen.
        Cleanup literally means the difference between healthy and
    unhealthy families. This area is contaminated with perchlorate,
    trichloroethene and other chlorinated solvents known as ``volatile
    organic compounds'' or VOCs. Each of these contaminants can cause
    serious health complications. Perchlorate increases chances of cancer
    and can induce thyroid problems. Trichloroethene has been shown to make
    people more susceptible to lung and liver tumors. VOCs are harmful to
    the central nervous system, the kidneys and the liver and can cause a
    higher risk of cancer, especially leukemia.
        The pollution that these communities have sustained has not only
    impacted the their health and environment, but also their economy.
    Unemployment in the area is 9.3%. According to the U.S. Census, 26% of
    the residents live in poverty. It has been difficult to attract
    businesses and jobs to the area. One of the factors preventing those
    businesses and jobs from coming to the area is the pollution. When the
    cap was put in place, these areas lost the chance to access Federal
    funds to clean up their environment, protect their health and help
    their economy. Now we have the opportunity to make a difference in this
    region by helping them accomplish these much-needed goals.
        Once again, I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for holding
    this hearing. I urge the Subcommittee to favorably report this
    legislation and yield back the balance of my time.
                                     ______

        Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentlelady.
        Before we get to questions, Mrs. Napolitano has an opening
    statement, and Mr. Renzi wants to speak to his bill, H.R. 495.
        With that, Mrs. Napolitano.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                 CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for
    my not being here on time. It won't happen again.
        I certainly want to thank you for allowing me to talk out
    of turn, so to speak, on the four bills that we have before the
    Subcommittee that represent and give a snapshot of the many
    pressing water issues facing our Nation.
        Mr. Linder's H.R. 135 will establish the ``21st Century
    Water Commission'', which I feel is long overdue, in addressing
    our Nation's need to take a more proactive role in crafting a
    long-term water management plan with the participation of all
    States and coordination between the regions that they serve.
        Congressman Renzi's H.R. 495 would approve a consensus plan
    negotiating between the State of Arizona and the Zuni Indian
    Tribe, local water agencies and the local power company. This
    can very well be the successful model to help settle long-
    standing water rights claims and might prove successful enough
    to be able to help other communities with water problems to be
    able to deal with the issue.
        My own H.R. 1284 would raise the existing cap, as was just
    explained by my colleague, Congresswoman Solis, of the San
    Gabriel Basin demonstration project that was unfortunately
    capped before some of the other areas with water problems were
    able to get their request for funding and actually their
    programming up. This is a Superfund list that can also be used
    to help other urban areas deal with contaminated aquifers.
        Finally, Congressman Ose's and Doolittle's 901, it's a
    dilemma that faces many of our communities after 9/11, with the
    increased costs for security that should be borne, I would
    hope, by homeland security, but is now on the Bureau of
    Reclamation's lap. I have spoken to the representatives of the
    city of Folsom early in March and they assured me they would
    work to achieve bipartisan support. But I am concerned, in that
    I have learned that this does not enjoy the support of the
    local area Democratic members and that an alternative bill,
    892, has been introduced in the House with a companion bill by
    Senator Feinstein. But I do look forward to hearing all the
    testimony so that we may have further clarification on what can
    be an agreeable and win-win situation for everybody.
        Mr. Chair, I thank you for holding the hearing. I want to
    thank the panelists, including my colleagues who took time out
    to come and present us with their thoughts and what their needs
    are for their areas.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentlelady.
        Mr. Renzi is recognized for an opening statement in regards
    to H.R. 495, water rights for the Zuni Indian Tribe.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. RICK RENZI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                       FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA

        Mr. Renzi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Zuni Indian Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act of 2003
    will codify the settlement of the Zuni Indian Tribe water
    rights for its religious lands in northeastern Arizona.
    Congress first recognized the importance of these lands in 1984
    when it created Zuni Heaven Reservation.
        The small communities upstream from this reservation have
    been fully appropriated and, knowing this, the prospect of
    dividing this limited water with other users has created an
    uncertainty.
        To resolve that uncertainty, and to avoid costly
    litigation, the Zuni Tribe, the United States on behalf of the
    Zuni Tribe, the State of Arizona, including the Arizona Game
    and Fish Commission, the Arizona State Land Department, and the
    Arizona State Parks Board, as well as the major water users in
    the area, negotiated for many years to produce an acceptable
    settlement to all parties.
        I would like to commend the work of Senator John Kyl of
    Arizona on this important legislation. His leadership and
    perseverance has brought us to this point of a good settlement.
        Mr. Chairman, I would also like to commend the work of the
    rural communities of the First District of Arizona, including
    the city of St. Johns, the town of Eagar, the town of
    Springerville, and the State of Arizona. in addition, the Salt
    River Project, Tucson Electric Power Company, St. Johns
    Irrigation and Ditch Company, the Lyman Water Company, and the
    Round Valley Water Users' Association, as well as those I
    mentioned earlier.
        Mr. Chairman, I would ask that you allow my full remarks
    and testimony to be submitted for the Committee.
        Mr. Calvert. Without objection, so ordered.
        Mr. Renzi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Renzi follows:]

      Statement of The Honorable Rick Renzi, a Representative in Congress
                     from the State of Arizona, on H.R. 495

        Chairman Calvert and members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the
    opportunity to testify on H.R. 495, the Zuni Indian Tribe Water Rights
    Settlement Act of 2003. The Senate companion, S. 222, introduced by
    Senator Kyl, passed the Senate on March 13, 2003. I would like to
    commend the work of Senator Kyl on this important legislation.
        The Zuni Indian Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act of 2003 would
    codify the settlement of the Zuni Indian Tribe's water rights for its
    religious lands in northeastern Arizona. Congress first recognized the
    importance of these lands in 1984 when it created the Zuni Heaven
    Reservation (Pub. L. No. 98-498, as amended by Pub. L. No. 101-486
    (1990)).
        The small communities upstream from this Reservation have been
    fully-appropriated. Knowing this, the prospect of dividing this limited
    water with another user created uncertainty. To resolve that
    uncertainty and to avoid costly litigation, the Zuni Tribe, the United
    States on behalf of the Zuni Tribe, the State of Arizona, including the
    Arizona Game and Fish Commission, the Arizona State Land Department,
    and the Arizona State Parks Board, as well as the major water users in
    this area, negotiated for many years to produce an acceptable
    settlement to all parties.
        This legislation would provide the Zuni Tribe with the resources
    and protections necessary to acquire water rights from willing sellers.
    In addition, this legislation will restore and protect the wetland
    environment that previously existed on the Reservation. In return, the
    Zuni Tribe would waive its claims in the Little Colorado River
    Adjudication. The Zuni Tribe will grandfather existing water uses and
    waive claims against many future water uses in the Little Colorado
    River Basin. This legislation exemplifies that the Zuni Tribe can
    achieve its needs for the Zuni Heaven Reservation and avoid a
    disruption to local water users and industry. In addition, the United
    States can avoid costly litigation and satisfy its trust
    responsibilities to the Zuni Tribe.
        I would like to commend the work of the parties to the Zuni
    Settlement. The parties consist of rural communities in the First
    District of Arizona, including the City of St. Johns, the Town of Eagar
    and the Town of Springerville. In addition, the State of Arizona,
    specifically, the Arizona Game and Fish Department, the State Land
    Department and the Arizona State Parks Board, Salt River Project,
    Tucson Electric Power Company, St Johns Irrigation and Ditch Company,
    the Lyman Water Company and the Round Valley Water Users' Association.
        I urge members of the Subcommittee and Full Committee to support
    the Zuni Indian Water Rights Settlement Act.
                                     ______

        Mr. Calvert. I want to thank all the members for attending
    this afternoon and for offering your testimony on good
    legislation.
        First, Mr. Linder, I want to congratulate you on what I
    know has been a long-term effort. We have talked over the years
    about this and I think it's very timely for you to bring this
    legislation forward. As you well know, fresh water is not just
    an issue in the West, though it seems to many of us up here
    that we spend most of our time talking about water issues in
    the arid West. But as you well know, and as we in this country
    are now learning, water issues are shared by virtually every
    corner in every State in this country. So I look forward to
    working with you to make this H.R. 135 law and that we can work
    toward coming together with a water strategy for the 21st
    century.
        A question I have for you. What progress do you believe the
    States, in general, are having in developing their own water
    strategies to meet these demands?
        Mr. Linder. We have a significant problem in Georgia, where
    we have three States suing each other--Georgia, Florida and
    Alabama--over access to water from two watersheds that
    originate in Georgia. The most valuable resources we have in
    Georgia are huge aquifers, and they have declined to such a
    level that salt water is seeping back into them, which will
    make them worthless.
        We have had in the last several months a significant amount
    of water to fill up our lakes again and to recharge the
    aquifers. But there is no question that we've been working for
    four or 5 years now with neighboring States to try and find
    ways to sort out the rights to this water that does come from
    two watersheds.
        The Corps that is dealing with the lakes we have in Georgia
    is trying to move toward regional water planning, watershed
    planning for the whole 32 counties. There is one watershed, for
    example, instead of just the counties that touch on access to
    the water. There is a significant amount of money being spent.
        There are 90,000 people in the Federal Government that do
    nothing but water. There are 270,000 people in State and local
    governments, and none of them are talking to each other. This
    whole idea is to get them to coordinate it and talk to each
    other.
        Mr. Calvert. On to the Folsom Bridge issue, of course--and
    we're going to be hearing from Commissioner Keys later, but I
    wanted to hear from Mr. Doolittle and Mr. Ose regarding this.
    We are revisiting this issue. From your perspective--and you
    said this in your opening statement, and I want to hear it
    again--do you believe that access over the Folsom Dam was
    closed because of the issues regarding homeland security? Mr.
    Ose.
        Mr. Ose. Mr. Chairman, that's an excellent question. I was
    in Sacramento the week of the 21st of February. I received a
    call from the Bureau of Reclamation person at the time, a
    fellow named Larry Todd, who was in Sacramento to brief the
    regional director of the Bureau of Reclamation on this issue,
    having just received an analysis from the Defense Threat
    Reduction Agency as to the exposures that Folsom Dam, for lack
    of a better word, enjoys for a terrorist act.
        I was given a classified briefing by Mr. Todd. It was
    completely surrounded by the issue of homeland security and
    terrorist acts that would otherwise undermine homeland
    security. That was the only subject on the table. It was the
    only subject broached.
        Mr. Calvert. Just for the record, are there any estimates
    of damage to property and loss of life that would occur if, in
    fact, the Folsom Dam was to be destroyed?
        Mr. Ose. Mr. Chairman, I'm a little bit unclear on what I
    can put in the public domain and what I can't. I have that
    information and I would be happy to share it with you
    privately.
        Mr. Calvert. It is certainly significant, huge?
        Mr. Doolittle. May I volunteer an answer, because mine is
    not based on the terrorism threat.
        There is $40 billion worth of assessed valuation property
    in the American River flood plain. In one study that I saw, of
    what would happen if there were a flood--which obviously would
    happen if the dam were blown up--it's hard to conjecture. But
    the study I saw, which was done by the Corps of Engineers, I
    believe projected a property loss from $6-20 billion, and a
    loss of life of about 100 lives.
        You must remember that the city of Sacramento is
    essentially at sea level, maybe slightly below in places, and
    these vast levees that impound the American River rise more
    than 20 feet high. So when you've got a river at flood stage
    and the levee breeches, you will have a tidal wave of water
    engulfing the homes that lie in its path.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
        Mr. Ose. Mr. Chairman, I can tell you the exposure that was
    defined did not relate to the concrete portion of Folsom Dam.
    What was described to me was that in the winter time, when the
    storage and flood protection raises the level of the water from
    what is currently at 419 up to 475, when you put a vehicle on
    the earthen portion of the dam, which is the winged sides of
    the dam--and an analysis was done if such a vehicle exploded,
    much like they did at the Oklahoma City thing--you would
    displace enough earth that the structural integrity would be
    compromised and the earthen portions would collapse. That's the
    threat that was analyzed.
        Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
        Any other questions for the panel? Mrs. Napolitano.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Ose, you mentioned that bridges had
    been built by the Bureau of Reclamation since 1902. When was
    the last one built, approximately?
        Mr. Ose. To answer your question directly, the last one
    that I'm advised was built was Douglas Creek at Bobby Thompson
    campground, known as Black Water No. 1, for the Forest Service,
    in 1999. Prior to that, there's a Nazlini Wash bridge in
    Chinle, Arizona, 260 feet--
        Mrs. Napolitano. So they're more recent, they are recent.
        Mr. Ose. Correct. There are 17 of them here that I've been
    able to identify since--
        Mrs. Napolitano. Then my next question would be--The
    projected cost is about $66 million?
        Mr. Ose. That is correct.
        Mrs. Napolitano. What percentage is that of the Bureau's
    budget?
        Mr. Ose. I don't know the answer to that question.
        Mrs. Napolitano. OK. It turns out to be not quite 10
    percent, but close to that, according to the information I
    have. My concern is that it would take away a large portion of
    the Bureau's funding to deal with other projects that have been
    waiting on line, probably much like yours, but that actually
    have been the focus and goals of the Bureau. Although I know
    the Bureau is interested in reclamation and the storage, et
    cetera, I am concerned about what impact that would have. Would
    you mind--
        Mr. Ose. If I may, that was one of the things I found most
    interesting about this article in the Wall Street Journal
    yesterday. This issue is so directly tied to homeland security
    and the added costs that come from our measures taken, it's
    very analogous, for instance, to the burdens we've put on the
    airlines. In this article in yesterday's Wall Street Journal,
    on page A-12, Mitch Daniels is cited as saying backing aid to
    the airlines to the extent of their added security costs
    pursuant to 9/11 ``could have a certain logic to it''.
        So I would contend that, under that same logic that would
    support an airline request for assistance on added security
    costs, the logic could easily be applied to this particular
    situation, also.
        We would have to work out in our regular order, you know,
    the amount that we would otherwise provide, whether it be under
    the Bureau's regular budget or over in homeland security. But
    it seems to me the foundation has been laid accordingly.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Following that same analogy, though,
    wouldn't it stand to reason that we should actually look also
    at transportation funds as well as homeland security funds, as
    well as the Army Corps of Engineers and Department of Interior,
    because they all are part and parcel of this project, if I may
    be so bold.
        Mr. Ose. I have thought about that, if the gentlelady would
    allow me to respond.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Certainly.
        Mr. Ose. I have thought about that, and the reality is that
    transportation and the Corps, they don't typically deal with
    issue of national or homeland security kinds of things. This is
    not a flood issue; this is not a transportation issue, if you
    will. This is an issue of homeland security, and that's what
    we're trying to address here. We're trying to bring to bear the
    authorization under the homeland security rubric, which is the
    reason for the closure of the road, to provide some relief to
    these communities.
        Mrs. Napolitano. I understand, and I agree that it has to
    be done somewhere along the line. My concern is how the funding
    is going to be put together and the fact that you're asking for
    authorization to turn it over to Folsom totally without any
    strings attached, so to speak, and the maintenance and
    everything else will be the concern of the Bureau.
        Mr. Ose. If I recall the bill correctly, the maintenance
    after the fact would be shifted to the city of Folsom.
        Mrs. Napolitano. The maintenance. I'm sorry.
        Mr. Ose. Yes.
        Mrs. Napolitano. OK. Then I stand corrected.
        But certainly the full funding, without any support--and I
    did talk to the members that came to see me in March, and I did
    specifically point out to them that normally projects of this
    nature do work better, for funding purposes and for other
    approval support systems, if there is a joint partnership with
    the community and with other agencies, including State
    agencies. I had not heard anything from anybody on that.
        Mr. Ose. If I may, if this recommendation to close the road
    had come from anybody other than the Defense Threat Reduction
    Agency, as a result of an analysis they had done in quantifying
    a homeland security issue, I would tend to agree with you. But
    the entire driving logic behind this--and I'm sure Mr. Keys and
    maybe some of the others can testify to this--was that this is
    a homeland security issue. It's not a Corps issue, it's not a
    Department of Transportation issue. This is a homeland security
    issue.
        Mrs. Napolitano. It would then have the purview of
    transportation and homeland security, because it is
    transportation-related, and it also is a issue of security of
    the bridge.
        Mr. Ose. I will be interested in Commissioner Keys'
    testimony. My understanding is the Defense Threat Reduction
    Agency are the ones who did the analysis.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you for clarifying. I appreciate it.
        Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentlelady. Any questions for this
    panel?
        Mr. Pearce.
        Mr. Pearce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My question will be
    for Mr. Linder. In section 4 of the bill, item (3) under that,
    it says the duties are to consult with representatives of such
    agencies to develop recommendations for a comprehensive water
    strategy, and then part (A) under that says it respects the
    primary role of States in adjudicating, administering and
    regulating.
        Do you foresee any way, when States coexist, when they
    share a border and yet have different water laws--for instance,
    Texas has the rule of capture, which means they can pump just
    about whatever they want, and New Mexico right next to it has
    an appropriating system based on beneficial use. Those are
    completely different logics that underlie the rule.
        How would the commission know how to sort that out?
        Mr. Linder. I have no answers. I have tons of questions.
    The whole idea behind this is to bring some people with
    expertise in water issues around the table together, to look at
    everything. We can look and see what Los Angeles has done in
    saving and conserving water. They've done a remarkable job, and
    Las Vegas is recharging aquifers in a very, very
    environmentally friendly way. Tampa has the largest
    desalinization plant in the Western Hemisphere. There's all
    kinds of things that may be going on that we should just bring
    to the same place and share the information.
        We lose a quarter of our water through leaky pipes.
    Philadelphia loses 85 million gallons of fresh water a day
    through leaky pipes.
        We have a fund that is a low interest borrowing fund that
    localities can borrow from for infrastructure needs. It may
    have to be enlarged. We may have to have a huge public works
    project just to begin to save the water that's being lost
    through pipes.
        So it is my hope that people who spend a lifetime thinking
    about these things will bring a lot of answers to the table and
    we can deal with them after the commission has done its work.
        Mr. Pearce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Just from a small State perspective, New Mexico's
    perspective, I sat in 2 days of hearings where the State of
    Texas was telling New Mexico that, because you're good friends
    with us, you should give us 50,000 acre-feet. When we as good
    friends didn't give them 58,000 acre-feet of the Rio Grande
    water, then they took us to court.
        My fear as a small State is that, with seven members and no
    balancing mechanism here, that small States would be
    disadvantaged extremely. And while I agree with the concept of
    your bill, I do have that deep-rooted concern, that the
    powerful will take the water from those who don't have quite as
    much political clout.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Calvert. Mr. Osborne.
        Mr. Osborne. I have a question of Mr. Linder.
        Traditionally, water issues have been State functions. My
    understanding is that this commission would continue to lead
    the primary focus at the State level and would simply be a
    coordinating agency, where we would try to gather best
    practices and make States better aware of what can be done and
    what is being done.
        Mr. Linder. The whole intention is to do just that, to
    bring some expertise to one table, to make a conscious effort
    to get around the country, to attend different hearings in
    different parts of the country, to find out what's being done
    in water policy, and to make recommendations.
        I think if we undertook, for example, a huge public works
    project to fix the leaky pipes in most major cities, the
    Federal Government can be very helpful in financing that.
    Conservation is the first step. But I do not--in fact, I have
    written it in here quite specifically, that this is not a
    Federal takeover of water policy. In fact, in May of last year,
    that was the first response to many people who responded to the
    bill. I made it as clear as I can, that water policy is still
    driven at the local level. But this can be helpful.
        Mr. Osborne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
        Any other questions for this panel? Mr. Baca.
        Mr. Baca. Yes, a couple of questions. I don't know if
    they've been asked, Mr. Chairman.
        Since most highway projects require at least some cost
    sharing, has the city of Folsom considered implementing a
    reasonable cost-share plan for this project? As I looked at it,
    I don't know if it was answered or asked before or not.
        Mr. Ose. Congressman Baca, this is a homeland security
    issue, that the reason the road was closed in the first place
    had to do with an analysis put forward by the Defense Threat
    Reduction Agency that identified Folsom as a very high
    potential target for terrorist activities. It's not a
    transportation issue; it's not a flood control issue. This is a
    homeland security issue related to getting vehicular traffic
    off of the dam road--excuse me, the road atop the dam--that
    would otherwise constitute a threat to the homeland security of
    our country.
        Mr. Baca. Is there any kind of matching funds or any other
    kinds of funds that would be coming up or not?
        Mr. Ose. As a result of its analysis as a homeland security
    issue, this proposal envisions having the Federal Government
    pay the entirety of the $66 million.
        Mr. Baca. Has there been any kind of feasibility studies
    that have been done?
        Mr. Ose. There have been some very preliminary design
    pieces, which I'm familiar with anecdotally. There has been an
    EIR done on a two-lane arterial on the land that the Bureau
    owns below the dam. But as far as any actual bid documents or
    construction documents, I'm not aware of those.
        Mr. Baca. And would those be presented to the Chair of this
    Committee, if there was any kind of feasibility studies done in
    that area, for consideration?
        Mr. Calvert. To answer the gentleman's question, anything
    that's done under the Bureau of Reclamation is under our
    jurisdiction, so we would have the opportunity to review those
    documents.
        Mr. Baca. Good. Thank you.
        Mr. Calvert. Mr. Inslee. By the way, Mr. Inslee, the Folsom
    Dam has nothing to do with global warming.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Inslee. We'll find a way. We'll find a way.
        Mr. Ose, I just want to know, do you think this is an issue
    of homeland security?
        Mr. Ose. I believe this is a serious issue of homeland
    security. To answer your question, without equivocation.
        Mr. Inslee. Thank you.
        Mr. Calvert. OK. Any other questions for this panel?
        I have one comment, and maybe you can answer this. For the
    record, I understand this is not an issue of whether or not
    we're going to obviously build on to the Folsom Dam, because
    if, in fact, even if the Folsom Dam was raised, which I know is
    somewhat controversial in that community, we still could not
    put transportation, I assume, on top of that facility for the
    exact reasons that we're here today; isn't that correct?
        Mr. Ose. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the
    Defense Threat Reduction Agency analysis of the homeland
    security threat exists whatever the condition of the dam is.
    They want the vehicular traffic off the dam.
        Mr. Calvert. So in order to get the vehicular traffic off
    the dam, we have to build a bridge?
        Mr. Ose. That's my belief, yes.
        Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
        Any other questions? If not, we certainly thank this panel
    for attending today. If you would like to join the rest of us
    up here for questions of other panelists today, you're
    certainly invited, if there's no objections from the people
    here today. I see none. So ordered. If not, thank you for
    attending.
        Mr. Calvert. Our next panel is the Commissioner of the
    Bureau of Reclamation, the Honorable John W. Keys, II, and Ms.
    Theresa Rosier, Counselor to the Assistant Secretary of Indian
    Affairs.
        Thank you for attending our hearing today. With that,
    Commissioner, you're recognized.

     STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN W. KEYS, III, COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF
              RECLAMATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

        Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, I have three different statements.
    I would certainly request that the full text be entered into
    the record.
        Mr. Calvert. Without objection, so order.
        Mr. Keys. I would also ask, is there any particular order
    that you would prefer me to proceed in?
        Mr. Calvert. We'll leave that totally to your discretion.
        Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, we'll hit them head on, then.
        Mr. Chairman, H.R. 901 would authorize the Secretary of the
    Interior to design and construct a bridge on Federal land west
    and adjacent to Folsom Dam in California which, when completed,
    would be transferred to the city of Folsom. H.R. 901 would also
    authorize $66 million to be appropriated for the bridge.
        When construction of Folsom Dam was completed in the mid-
    1950's, the narrow two-lane road built on top of the dam was
    intended to serve as an access road for maintenance of the dam
    and for incidental recreation access to the lake. In the
    ensuing years, as the population of Placer and El Dorado
    counties has grown, the road over Folsom Dam has become a major
    transportation artery, with about 18,000 cars using it every
    day.
        Folsom Dam is a flood control facility, protecting about
    700,000 people downstream. For security purposes, the Bureau of
    Reclamation closed the road over Folsom Dam on February the
    28th, 2003, for an indefinite period of time. This decision was
    not made lightly. The decision came after extensive security
    assessments from the Department of Defense's Defense Threat
    Reduction Agency. It was their professional recommendation, and
    the Department of Interior agreed, that it was prudent to close
    the road across the dam to protect the facility.
        Mr. Chairman, I would certainly offer a secure briefing to
    you and the members of your Subcommittee to cover the details
    of that assessment and the implementation and why it was
    implemented, if that would be the pleasure of the Subcommittee.
        Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
        Mr. Keys. I'm certainly aware that the Folsom Dam road
    closure has resulted in traffic disruption in and around
    Folsom. I recently met with Folsom city officials to discuss
    their concerns and the possibility of reopening the road.
        While we are willing to work with the surrounding
    communities, the responsibility of building a new bridge to
    handle current and future traffic is not within Reclamation's
    purview. As such, the Administration cannot support H.R. 901 as
    drafted.
        I do understand that a new bridge is warranted to handle
    current and future traffic, and I would urge the bill's
    sponsors and local stakeholders to work with the appropriate
    local, State and Federal transportation agencies to accomplish
    that.
        I might add that the Federal Government has started
    construction of a new bridge below Hoover Dam, and that one is
    certainly one that has been receiving a lot of attention after
    9/11. That structure is being funded, designed and constructed
    by the Department of Transportation.
        There are several other issues with H.R. 901 that we're
    concerned about. The Administration is concerned about the lack
    of any local cost share requirements. The city of Folsom and
    surrounding communities would be the primary beneficiaries of
    the new bridge to alleviate transportation issues in their
    communities. A local cost share requirement would be
    appropriate.
        Section (1)(b)(2) says ``The Secretary shall provide
    appropriate sizing and linkages to support present and future
    traffic flow requirements for the city of Folsom.'' This
    language clearly states that the Secretary would be placed in
    the position of providing ancillary roadway connections and
    analyzing future transportation logistics. These requirements
    are more appropriate for the Department of Transportation and
    are beyond the mission of the Bureau of Reclamation.
        In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, let me reiterate that the
    Administration understands and shares the concerns of the
    sponsors of H.R. 901 and the local communities about the
    additional traffic congestion caused by the closing of Folsom
    Dam road. The decision to close the road over the dam was not
    made in haste and was decided only after considerable review of
    the facts. However, Reclamation was entrusted with the task of
    protecting the Folsom Dam facility for the people who rely on
    it for flood control and water supply. I again urge the bill's
    sponsors and local stakeholders to work with appropriate local,
    State and Federal transportation authorities to address these
    traffic concerns.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Keys on H.R. 901 follows:]

       Statement of John Keys, III, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation,
                  U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 901

        My name is John Keys, III, Commissioner of the U.S. Bureau of
    Reclamation. I am pleased to provide the Administration's views on H.R.
    901, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to construct a bridge
    adjacent to the Folsom Dam in California.
        H.R. 901 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to design
    and construct a bridge on Federal land west and adjacent to Folsom Dam
    in California which, upon completion, would be transferred to the City
    of Folsom. H.R. 901 would authorize that $66,000,000 be appropriated
    for this purpose.
        When construction of Folsom Dam was completed in the mid-1950's,
    the narrow two lane road built on the top of the dam was intended to
    serve as an access road for maintenance and for incidental recreational
    access to the lake. In the ensuing years, as the population of Placer
    and El Dorado counties has grown (Placer County has been listed as the
    fastest growing county in the nation), and since the area adjacent to
    the dam is within the city limits of Folsom, California, which is one
    of the fastest growing cities in the state, the road over Folsom Dam
    has become a major transportation artery between these two counties.
    Over the last 20 years, traffic on this road has grown exponentially to
    the point that up to 18,000 cars were crossing the dam each day.
        Since Reclamation last testified before this Subcommittee on a
    similar bill last April, there have been some developments in the
    Folsom area that I would like to bring to your attention. First, it is
    important to understand that the primary purpose of the Folsom Dam
    facility is flood control for the estimated 700,000 people downstream
    of the facility. For security reasons, Reclamation closed the two-lane
    road over Folsom Dam on February 28, 2003, for an indefinite period of
    time. We took this action because Reclamation is responsible for dam
    safety. Our decision was largely based upon the results of an extensive
    security assessment under contract with the Department of Defense's,
    Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA). It was their professional
    recommendation, and the Department of Interior concurred, that it was
    prudent to close the road over the dam to protect the facility
        I am certainly aware that the Folsom Dam road closure has resulted
    in traffic disruption in and around Folsom. In fact, I recently met
    with several Folsom city officials who expressed their concern about
    increased traffic control costs and the possibility of reopening the
    road.
        While we are willing to work with the surrounding communities, the
    responsibility of building a new bridge to handle current and future
    local and commuter traffic is not within Reclamation's purview. Given
    that the closure decision was predicated on a homeland security issue,
    we are willing to discuss the issue with the Department of Homeland
    Security and the Department of Transportation to determine what role
    they can play in future transportation planning around Folsom.
    Unfortunately, the Administration cannot support H.R. 901 as drafted. I
    understand that a new bridge is in fact warranted to address current
    and future traffic, and I urge the bill's sponsors and local
    stakeholders to work with appropriate local, state, and Federal
    transportation agencies.
        When construction of Folsom Dam was completed in the mid-1950's,
    the narrow two lane road built on the top of the dam was intended to
    serve as an access road for maintenance and for incidental recreational
    access to the lake. In the ensuing years, as the population of Placer
    and El Dorado counties has grown (Placer County has been listed as the
    fastest growing county in the nation), and since the area adjacent to
    the dam is within the city limits of Folsom, California B which is one
    of the fastest growing cities in the state B the road over Folsom Dam
    had become a major transportation artery between these two counties.
    Over the last 20 years, traffic on this road has grown exponentially to
    the point that up to 18,000 cars were crossing the dam each day.
        Reclamation has always taken the job of dam safety seriously.
    However, as we have all unfortunately experienced the last few years
    culminating in the events of September 11, 2001, the traditional dam
    safety reviews are no longer adequate. The following events have shaped
    the evolution of Reclamation's security reviews at Folsom and at all of
    our facilities.
        In 1995, a spillway gate at Folsom Dam failed which necessitated
    closing the road for an extended period for both immediate safety
    reasons and to accommodate repairs to the spillway. As a result,
    traffic congestion adversely impacted the city of Folsom and severely
    restricted emergency traffic (police, fire and ambulance) from reaching
    one side from the other.
        After the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma was bombed,
    the Government closely examined the vulnerability of all its
    structures. Reclamation completed security assessments at Folsom Dam in
    1996, 1997, 1998 and 2001 and clearly documented the risks associated
    with open public access across this dam. The DTRA assessment was the
    latest of these reviews.
        After the events of September 11, 2001, Reclamation closed the road
    across Folsom Dam which again resulted in serious traffic congestion in
    the community. Subsequently, the road was reopened during daylight
    hours to cars and pickups, but was closed to large vehicles at all
    hours. This was the case until February 28, 2003.
    Additional Issues
        H.R. 901 would require Reclamation to build a bridge unassociated
    with project operations. Designing and building bridges is the not the
    primary function of Reclamation. Passage of this bill would require
    Reclamation to transfer limited resources from core mission activities
    such as those I outlined to this Subcommittee on March 5, 2003.
    Reclamation's request for California projects in the Fiscal Year 2004
    Water and Related Resources budget is approximately $190 million.
        The Administration has concerns with the absence of any local cost-
    sharing requirements in H.R. 901. Any Federal involvement in the design
    and construction of a bridge should have state and local cost sharing
    arrangements consistent with Federal policy. The City of Folsom and
    surrounding communities will be the primary beneficiaries of a new
    bridge to ease and improve the transportation issues in those
    communities, and a local cost share requirement would be appropriate.
    Further, section (1) (c) requires the Secretary to transfer the bridge,
    property, and easements to the City of Folsom at no cost. Any transfer
    of land should be made to reflect the fair market value of the land.
    The legislation also specifically states in Section (1) (b) (2), the
    ``Secretary shall--provide appropriate sizing and linkages to support
    present and future traffic flow requirements for the city of Folsom.''
    The paragraph clearly states that the Secretary would be placed in the
    position of providing ancillary roadway connections and analyzing
    future transportation logistics. These requirements are more
    appropriate for the Department of Transportation and are beyond the
    mission of Reclamation.
        In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, let me reiterate that the
    Administration understands and shares the concerns of the sponsors of
    H.R. 901 and the local communities about the additional traffic
    congestion resulting from the closure of the Folsom Dam road. The
    decision to close the road over the dam was not made in haste and was
    decided only after considerable review of the facts. However,
    Reclamation was entrusted with the task of protecting the Folsom Dam
    facility for the people who rely on it for flood control and water
    supply purposes. I again urge the bill's sponsors and local
    stakeholders to work with appropriate local, state, and Federal
    transportation authorities to address these traffic concerns.
        That concludes my prepared remarks. I would be pleased to answer
    any questions.
                                     ______

        Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1284 would amend the
    Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992,
    to increase the Federal share of the costs of the San Gabriel
    Basin Demonstration project by about $12.5 million.
        Based upon Reclamation's investigation of this project, we
    do not believe that a cost ceiling increase is warranted at
    this time. Therefore, the Administration cannot support H.R.
    1284 as written.
        There are three main components of the San Gabriel Basin
    Demonstration project: the Rio Hondo Water Recycling Program,
    the San Gabriel Valley Water Reclamation Project, and the San
    Gabriel Basin Demonstration Project. Reclamation is authorized
    to provide up to 25 percent of the cost of planning, design and
    construction of these projects for a Federal contribution of no
    more than $38,090,000.
        Through Fiscal Year 2003, $28,845,000 has been made
    available for those three projects. The Rio Hondo recycling
    program and the San Gabriel water reclamation project will be
    completed in 2004, and are within $900,000 of being fully
    funded for the 25 percent Federal cost share. That leaves $8.6
    million under the existing ceiling to cover the 25 percent
    Federal share of the San Gabriel demonstration project.
        In 1999, perchlorate was discovered in the groundwater of
    the San Gabriel Basin. In 2000, Congress created the San
    Gabriel Basin restoration fund, providing a 65 percent Federal
    cost share of costs for projects that would improve the quality
    of groundwater in the San Gabriel Basin. A total ceiling of $85
    million was placed in the restoration fund, with $10 million of
    that reserved for the Central Basin cleanup and $75 million for
    the San Gabriel Basin.
        We believe that the total funding ceiling provided by the
    title XVI authority and the restoration fund is sufficient to
    provide the Federal cost share for all projects that are
    contemplated for the San Gabriel Basin cleanup program. This
    title XVI project has more than $8 million left and the
    restoration fund has $25 million remaining. We believe that
    these ceiling levels will adequately cover future projects
    under this authority. The cost ceiling for the San Gabriel
    demonstration project authorized by title XVI does not need to
    be increased beyond its currently authorized limit.
        Mr. Chairman, I would add to that that we have had an
    excellent working relationship with the San Gabriel
    demonstration project people. We look forward to working with
    them for completion of this project.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Keys on H.R. 1284 follows:]

       Statement of John Keys III, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation,
                 U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 1284

        Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee, I am John Keys, III
    and I am the Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). I
    am pleased to be here today to comment on H.R. 1284, which amends the
    Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992, to
    increase the Federal share of the costs of the San Gabriel Basin
    Demonstration project.
        Based on our investigation of this project, we do not believe a
    cost ceiling increase is warranted at this time and therefore the
    Administration cannot support H.R. 1284 as written. We believe that
    there is sufficient funding available to provide the Federal cost share
    for all projects that are contemplated for the San Gabriel Basin
    cleanup program.
        Title XVI of P.L. 102-575, enacted in 1992, authorizes Reclamation
    to participate in the San Gabriel Basin Demonstration Project. There
    are three components of the project: the Rio Hondo Water Recycling
    Program with the Central Basin Municipal Water District, the San
    Gabriel Valley Water Reclamation Project with the Upper San Gabriel
    Valley Municipal Water District, and the San Gabriel Basin
    Demonstration Project with the San Gabriel Basin Water Quality
    Authority. Reclamation is authorized to provide up to 25 percent of the
    cost of planning, design, and construction of the project components
    for a Federal contribution of no more than $38,090,000.
        Congress provided the initial appropriation for the project in
    Fiscal Year 1994, and through the current Fiscal Year 2003, a total of
    $28,845,000 has been made available for the three components. Of that
    amount, all but $0.3 million has been obligated to existing agreements.
    With the exception of Rio Hondo and San Gabriel Valley Reclamation
    components, all existing agreements have been fully funded. The Rio
    Hondo and San Gabriel Valley Reclamation components, which are water
    recycling projects, should be completed within the next two years, and
    are within $900,000 of being fully funded for the 25 percent Federal
    share. This leaves a net available amount of $8.6 million before the
    ceiling is reached.
        The primary component of the San Gabriel Basin Demonstration is the
    groundwater cleanup program that will result in the Basin being used as
    a conjunctive use water resource for the region. Reclamation, working
    closely with the San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority since 1994,
    has executed 9 funding agreements with the Authority to fund specific
    portions of the cleanup work. All agreements have been fully funded for
    the 25 percent Federal share.
        Over the last ten years that the project has received funding, the
    schedules for all three components have slipped significantly. In light
    of this, the San Gabriel Basin Demonstration Project has consistently
    carried over significant amounts of unexpended funds every year as a
    result of the extended schedules. Due to these delays, the construction
    schedule is not firm. In addition, smaller agreements to cover cleanup
    projects in the El Monte, South El Monte and Puente Valley Operable
    Units are being implemented. An agreement has been executed with the
    Water Quality Authority to fund design activities for these Operable
    Units. We have executed an agreement for the Monterey Park Treatment
    Facility, which is in the South El Monte Unit. To date we have
    obligated $2.425 million for the project, and spent approximately
    $300,000 of that amount.
        We believe that the total funding ceiling provided by the Title XVI
    authority and the Restoration Fund, which may also be available for
    these projects, is sufficient to provide the Federal cost share for all
    projects that are contemplated for the San Gabriel Basin cleanup
    program. This Title XVI project has more than $8 million remaining
    under its ceiling after fully funding all current project obligations.
    The Restoration Fund has $25 million remaining under its ceiling after
    fully funding all current project obligations. We believe that this
    will adequately cover future projects being contemplated. Therefore,
    the cost ceiling for the San Gabriel Basin Demonstration Project
    authorized by Title XVI does not need currently to be increased beyond
    its authorized limit.
        In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I want to add that we have had an
    excellent working relationship with the San Gabriel Demonstration
    Project partners and look forward to working with them to complete this
    important project. This concludes my remarks. I would be happy to
    answer any questions at this time.
                                     ______

        Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 135 would establish the 21st
    Century Water Commission to develop recommendations for a
    comprehensive water strategy to address future water needs of
    the United States.
        The Department of the Interior supports efforts to address
    the future of America's water supply. In Reclamation's Fiscal
    Year 2004 budget request, we have proposed a program called the
    Western Water Initiative that is very consistent with what we
    perceive the intent of H.R. 135 to be. The Western Water
    Initiative would expand and focus on Reclamation's existing
    efforts to work with our partners to use technology and
    management techniques more efficiently and effectively to
    optimize water supplies.
        This Initiative has four major components. The first one is
    enhanced water management and conservation. That would include
    pilot projects to work with different irrigation districts and
    entities around the West, for canal lining programs, for
    control structures, check structures, and measuring facilities
    to find better ways to stretch the existing water supplies to
    meet needs. It would also include experimental work and current
    work that we're doing in establishing water banks to help
    address additional water needs that are out there.
        The second component of that program is preventing water
    management crises. Its main purpose is to take a look 25 years
    into the future to see where water needs occur that could not
    be met with existing infrastructure. It would let us look at
    where other water requirements may occur, such as are occurring
    in some places now with the Endangered Species Act, that are
    occurring now with growing populations and other requirements
    out there.
        The third part of our Western Water Initiative is the
    expanded science and technology program. There are three main
    components of that one.
        The first one is a hard look at desalinization and how we
    might bring the cost down for desalting seawater and brackish
    groundwater out on the plains. The goal that we have in that
    program is to reduce the cost of desalting water by about 50
    percent by the year 2020. Currently, it costs about $650 an
    acre-foot to desalt seawater. If we can get that below $600 an
    acre-foot, it's competitive in the high cost markets of the
    western United States.
        The second part of that science and technology program is
    adaptive management programs, such as we are implementing on
    the Colorado River below Glen Canyon Dam now.
        The third part of it is peer review, taking a hard look at
    the science that backs up our projects, so that we know we're
    on the right track when we develop biological opinions and
    biological assessments to address endangered species needs. The
    fourth part of that initiative is to strengthen Endangered
    Species Act expertise inside Reclamation.
        Mr. Chairman, my purpose in sharing our strategic vision of
    the Western Water Initiative with you is because H.R. 135 is
    generally consistent with this vision. There are a few
    specifics in H.R. 135 that we would like to share with you,
    though.
        We are pleased to see that the bill recognizes the role of
    States on water rights and water uses. They are our close
    partners in water issues in all 17 of the Western States. H.R.
    135 also differs from last year's bill by reducing the number
    of qualified commission members from 17 to 7. While the reduced
    commission size will reduce cost and maybe improve efficiency,
    we would still advocate emphasis on State representations.
        As H.R. 135 moves through the legislative process, we would
    encourage you to remember the responsibilities that Congress
    and the judiciary have placed on the Department of the
    Interior, special ones, such as the unique role the Secretary
    has as water master for the lower Colorado River.
        Lastly, the Administration objects to section 8(b)(2) of
    H.R. 135, which would give the commission the authority to
    detail to the commission ``such personnel as the Commission
    considers necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act.''
    Specifically, the Department of Justice has informed us that
    giving such power to an advisory commission raises
    constitutional concerns, including potential Appointments
    Clause problems. The Department of Justice recommends that the
    provision be amended to authorize and not require Federal
    agencies to detail personnel to the Commission.
        Mr. Chairman, that concludes my oral comments. I would
    certainly entertain any questions that you might have today.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Keys on H.R. 135 follows:]

      Statement of John W. Keys III, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation,
                  U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 135

        Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, my name is John Keys
    and I am Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. It is my pleasure
    to be here today to provide the Department of Interior's (DOI) views on
    H.R. 135, the Twenty-First Century Water Commission; a bill to develop
    recommendations for a comprehensive water strategy to address future
    water needs.
        The Department supports efforts to address the future of America's
    water supply. In Reclamation's Fiscal Year 2004 budget request, we have
    established a program called the Western Water Initiative that is very
    consistent with what we perceive the intent of H.R. 135 to be.
    Basically, this initiative expands and focuses on Reclamation's
    existing efforts to work with our partners to use technology and
    management techniques more efficiently and effectively to optimize
    water supplies.
        Reclamation has a long history of managing limited water supplies
    in arid environments. However, with increased population growth, aging
    facilities, severe drought, and environmental and health concerns, our
    skills and resources are being challenged like never before.
    Reclamation's Western Water Initiative is the beginning of what we hope
    will be the catalyst for a longer-term strategic approach to
    predicting, preventing, and alleviating water conflicts. It improves
    upon our historic proactive, rather than a reactive, approach to water
    management and conservation, desalination research and development,
    preventing water management crises, and strengthening Endangered
    Species Act expertise among Reclamation employees. Last year,
    Reclamation began identifying areas in the West that may have potential
    water supply problems today or 25 years from now. Using existing
    information, we identified areas where there was an increase in
    population, water-dependent Federally protected species and severe
    climatic conditions. The intent of this 25-year water supply study is
    to help us target funds in the Western Water Initiative to areas with
    the most critical needs.
        The new Western Water Initiative uses collaboration, conservation,
    and innovation to make sure every drop of water counts. This means
    improved water conservation, investments in science and technology, and
    modernization of existing infrastructures. This initiative will provide
    a comprehensive forward-looking water resource management program that
    will respond to growing water demands. It will position the bureau in
    playing a leading role in developing solutions that will help meet the
    increased demands for limited water resources in the West. This
    proactive initiative will benefit western communities that are
    struggling with increased water demands, drought, and compliance with
    the Endangered Species Act. The Western Water Initiative involves four
    major components:
        Enhanced Water Management and Conservation. Funding will be used
    for the modernization of irrigation delivery structures such as
    diversion structures and canals. This will also allow Reclamation to
    use existing intrastate water banks where they are available, and to
    promote intrastate water banking as a concept to help resolve future
    water supply conflicts.
        Preventing Water Management Crises. This initiative will enable us
    to provide effective environmental and ecosystem enhancements in
    support of Reclamation's project operations through proactive and
    innovative activities. For example, we are exploring ways of addressing
    issues at projects by identifying and integrating long-term river
    system ecological needs within the context of regulated river
    management. Pilot projects will be selected from a list of critical
    areas based on their potential for cost savings that could be realized
    from proactive planning. Pilot projects are anticipated to include
    environmental enhancements that provide support for project operations
    or optimization of project operations for both water supply and
    environmental benefits.
        Expanded Science and Technology Program. Reclamation will expand
    its Desalination Research and Development Program to research cost
    reduction of water desalinization and waste disposal. It will also
    expand the effective use of science in adaptive management of
    watersheds. This cooperative effort with the USGS would assist
    Reclamation in reaching decisions that are driven by sound science and
    research, are cost effective, and are based on performance criteria.
    Funding will also provide for peer review of the science used in ESA
    consultations and other environmental documents issued by Reclamation.
    This initiative will improve Reclamation's use of science and
    technology to address critical water resource management issues.
        Strengthening Endangered Species Act (ESA) Expertise. Funding will
    be used to strengthen staff expertise in implementing and complying
    with the Endangered Species Act, and will produce identifiable
    mechanisms in order to achieve continuity in evaluating biological
    assessments and/or biological opinions. This initiative will enable
    managers to acquire a greater understanding of the purpose, process and
    requirements of the ESA as it relates to Federal actions that are
    important to carrying out Reclamation's water resources management
    mission.
        My purpose in sharing our strategic vision of the Western Water
    Initiative with you at this time is because H.R. 135 is generally
    consistent with this vision.
        I am pleased to see the bill has been amended from the version in
    the last Congress, H.R. 3561, to specifically recognize the role of
    states on water rights and water uses. Last year I testified that a
    tremendous amount of research has already been done by Federal, state,
    local, and private entities. I am therefore pleased to see that the
    Commission would take this existing information into account before
    requesting additional studies.
        For the past century DOI agencies have played an integral role in
    the development of Federal water management policy and any new
    management policy should continue to have strong input from DOI. As
    H.R. 135 moves through the legislative process, we would again
    encourage you to keep in mind the responsibilities that Congress (and
    the Judiciary, in some cases) has placed on DOI--for example, the
    unique role the Secretary plays as Water Master for the lower Colorado
    River.
        I have already outlined for you the steps Reclamation hopes to take
    to improve water management in order to meet ever-increasing demands
    for water. Reclamation works in an environment of cooperation with
    state, tribal, and local governments and other Federal agencies. H.R.
    135 also differs from last year's bill by reducing the number of
    qualified commission members from 17 to 7. While the reduced committee
    size will reduce costs and perhaps improve efficiency, we would still
    advocate that due deference be given on membership to representatives
    from state government.
        Lastly, the Administration objects to Section 8(b)(2) of H.R. 135
    which would give the Commission the authority to require Federal
    agencies to detail to ``the Commission--such personnel as the
    Commission considers necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act.
    Specifically, the Department of Justice has informed us that giving
    such power to an advisory commission raises constitutional concerns,
    including potential Appointments Clause problems. The Department of
    Justice recommends that the provision be amended to authorize (and not
    require) Federal agencies to detail personnel to the Commission.
        Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I would be happy to
    answer any questions at this time.
                                     ______

        Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
        First we will hear from Ms. Theresa Rosier and then we'll
    have questions for both of you. Thank you. You are recognized.

        STATEMENT OF THERESA ROSIER, COUNSELOR TO THE ASSISTANT
      SECRETARY OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

        Ms. Rosier. Good afternoon, Chairman, and members of the
    Subcommittee. My name is Theresa Rosier and I am Counselor to
    the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs. I appreciate the
    opportunity to be here today to testify before the Subcommittee
    on H.R. 495, the ``Zuni Indian Tribe Water Rights Settlement
    Act of 2003.''
        I would like to abbreviate my testimony and submit my full
    written testimony for the record.
        Mr. Calvert. Without objection, so ordered.
        Ms. Rosier. The Administration supports H.R. 495. This bill
    is the product of a cooperative effort over the past 5 years
    that involves the Zuni Pueblo, the State of Arizona, the United
    States, the Salt River Project, and local water users in
    northeastern Arizona.
        The settlement agreement at issue here today concerns only
    the Zuni Tribe's relatively small water rights claim regarding
    the Zuni Heaven Reservation in northeastern Arizona. Zuni
    Heaven is a unique reservation, created fairly recently, to
    accommodate religious and cultural practices of the Zuni Tribe.
    As you all know, the main Zuni Reservation is in New Mexico,
    and this is where a majority of the Zuni members reside.
        According to Zuni religious beliefs, a lake formerly
    located on the Zuni Heaven Reservation is a window into Heaven.
    The lake and the surrounding wetlands, however, have recently
    disappeared due to upstream diversions and ground-water pumping
    in the surrounding areas. This settlement provides the Tribe
    with water and land to restore the lake for future religious
    purposes.
        H.R. 495 approves and authorizes Federal participation and
    a settlement agreement. When fully implemented, the settlement
    will constitute a final resolution of water rights claims of
    the Zuni Tribe and the United States on behalf of the Tribe.
        The settlement would secure for the Zuni Tribe
    approximately 5, 500 acre-feet per year, which includes both
    surface water and groundwater, and also provides for the
    rehabilitation, restoration of the sacred land, wetlands, and
    riparian areas of the Reservation.
        The surface water component of the settlement would be
    secured through the purchase of State law based water rights
    from willing sellers, as well as through flood flows of the
    Little Colorado River. To supplement surface flows in times of
    drought and to allow for restoration activities while the
    surface water rights are being initiated, the settlement
    provides the Tribe with groundwater rights of 1,500 acre-feet
    per year.
        The settlement here today involves significant cost sharing
    and cooperation between the Federal Government, the State, and
    local parties. The Tribe's non-Indian neighbors have agreed to
    assist in the acquisition of water rights, to store surface
    water supplies for the Tribe, and to make other contributions
    to help carry out the settlement.
        In addition, some water supplies for the settlement will be
    secured through a $6 million grant from the State of Arizona.
    H.R. 495 would authorize a total Federal contribution of $19.25
    million for the acquisition of water rights and also for
    necessary actions to restore the sacred lake, wetlands, and
    riparian areas of the Zuni Heaven Reservation.
        We believe the Federal contribution contemplated in H.R.
    495 is appropriate to facilitate resolution of the Zuni Tribe's
    water rights. The settlement is designed to release the United
    States from any potential damage claims that might be asserted
    by the Tribe, and also relieve the Federal Government of the
    obligation to litigate the Tribe's water rights claims. The
    United States does retain its ability to initiate enforcement
    actions, as necessary, in the future to protect the environment
    and water quality in this area. Resolution of the Tribe's water
    rights claims would provide certainty to its neighbors and to
    the Tribe, enabling both of them to make necessary plans for
    the future.
        Negotiated agreements among Indian tribes, States and local
    parties are the most effective ways to resolve water rights
    claims. The settlement embodied in H.R. 495 is an example of
    creative solutions that are fostered by the collaborative
    process.
        This concludes my testimony. I will be happy to answer any
    questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Rosier follows:]

     Statement of Theresa Rosier, Counselor to the Assistant Secretary for
          Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 495

        Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. My name
    is Theresa Rosier and I am the Counselor to the Assistant Secretary--
    Indian Affairs within the Department of the Interior. I appreciate the
    opportunity to appear before this Subcommittee to discuss H.R. 495,
    ``Zuni Indian Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act of 2003.''
        The Administration supports H.R. 495. The bill is the product of a
    cooperative effort over the last five years among the Zuni Pueblo, the
    State of Arizona, the United States, the Salt River Project and many
    local water users in northeastern Arizona. The Settlement Agreement has
    been signed by the Zuni Tribe and many other settlement parties.
    Background
        The Little Colorado River (LCR) Basin covers an area of
    approximately 17.2 million acres or 26,964 square miles in northeastern
    Arizona and northwestern New Mexico. The main stem of the Little
    Colorado River is entirely in Arizona. Therefore, this adjudication
    deals only with claims inside the borders of Arizona. Five different
    Indian tribes have reservations, or pending claims to reservation
    lands, within the Basin: the Navajo Nation, Hopi Tribe, Zuni Tribe, San
    Juan Southern Paiute Tribe and the White Mountain Apache Tribe.
        The Settlement Agreement at issue here concerns only the Zuni
    Tribe's relatively small water right claims at the Zuni Heaven
    Reservation located in the south eastern section of the Basin, at the
    confluence of the Zuni and Little Colorado Rivers. Zuni Heaven is a
    unique reservation created fairly recently to accommodate the religious
    and cultural practices of the Zuni. The main Zuni reservation, in
    contrast, is located in New Mexico. The majority of the Zuni members
    reside on the main reservation.
        According to Zuni religious beliefs, a lake formerly located on the
    Zuni Heaven Reservation is a window into heaven. That lake and the
    surrounding wetlands disappeared in recent history due to upstream
    diversions and groundwater pumping in the surrounding areas. The
    Settlement Agreement provides the Tribe with the water and land to
    restore the lake for use in future religious ceremonies.
        The Zuni Heaven Reservation was established by Congress in 1984
    through Public Law 98-498 and expanded in 1990 through Public Law 101-
    486 to further the religious and cultural needs of the Tribe. That
    legislation established the land base of the Reservation within the
    Tribe's aboriginal territory and facilitated the Tribe's regular
    pilgrimage from New Mexico to Arizona by authorizing the United States
    to obtain easements along the pilgrimage route.
        Since 1979, water rights in the Little Colorado River basin have
    been the subject of an Arizona state general stream adjudication. The
    United States filed a water rights claim on behalf of the Zuni Tribe in
    the state proceeding for water rights to Zuni Heaven. Mirroring most
    general stream adjudications, the litigation has moved very slowly.
    Recognizing that the Zuni claims lent themselves to settlement, the
    parties devoted significant effort to negotiations. The Settlement
    Agreement and H.R. 495, which would ratify that agreement, are the
    fruits of that negotiation.
    H.R. 495
        H.R. 495 approves and authorizes Federal participation in a
    settlement agreement, which includes three subsidiary agreements. When
    fully implemented, the settlement would constitute a final resolution
    of the water rights claims of the Zuni Tribe and the United States on
    its behalf. The Settlement would secure to the Zuni Tribe approximately
    5,500 acre-feet per year, including both surface water and groundwater,
    and provide for the rehabilitation and restoration of the Sacred Lake,
    wetlands and riparian areas of the Reservation. The surface water
    component of the Settlement would be secured through the purchase of
    state law based water rights from willing sellers, as well as through
    use of flood flows of the Little Colorado River. To supplement surface
    flows in times of drought and to allow for restoration activities to be
    initiated while surface water rights are acquired, the Settlement
    provides the Tribe with a groundwater right of 1,500 acre feet per
    year.
        The Settlement involves significant cost sharing and cooperation
    between the Federal Government and the state and local parties. The
    Tribe's non-Indian neighbors have agreed to assist in the acquisition
    of water rights, to store surface water supplies for the Tribe and make
    other contributions to carry out the Settlement. In addition, some
    water supplies for the Settlement will be secured through up to $6
    million in water protection grants funded by the State of Arizona. H.R.
    495 would authorize a total Federal settlement contribution of $19.25
    million. These funds would be used for the acquisition of water rights,
    as well as other actions necessary to restore the Sacred Lake, the
    wetlands and riparian areas of the Zuni Heaven Reservation. These
    actions include engineering, water and sediment distribution, removal
    of exotic vegetation, reestablishment of native vegetation, aggrading
    the river channel and other related activities.
        We believe the Federal contribution contemplated in H.R. 495 is
    appropriate to facilitate resolution of the Zuni Tribe's water rights.
    The Settlement is designed to release the United States from any
    potential damage claims that might be asserted by the Tribe and will
    relieve the Federal Government of the obligation to litigate, at
    significant cost and over many years, the Tribe's water rights claims.
    The United States would retain its ability to initiate enforcement
    actions as necessary in the future to protect the environment and water
    quality in the area. Resolution of the Tribe's water rights claims
    would provide certainty to its neighbors, enabling them to plan and
    make necessary investments based on the assurance that they have secure
    and stable water rights.
    Conclusion
        Negotiated agreements among Indian tribes, states, local parties,
    and the Federal Government are, in general, the most effective way to
    resolve reserved water right claims in a manner that secures tribal
    rights to assured water supplies for present and future generations
    while at the same time providing for sound management of an
    increasingly scarce resource. The known benefits of settlement
    generally outweigh the uncertainties that are inherent in litigation to
    the tribe, the state, other interested parties and the United States.
    The settlement embodied in H.R. 495 is an example of the creative
    solutions that can be found to resolve contentious water rights
    problems in the West.
        This concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer any
    questions the Subcommittee may have.
                                     ______

        Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentlelady.
        Commissioner Keys, you have written a directive that all
    added security costs as a result of 9/11 will be paid for by
    taxpayers due to the multipurpose nature of the Bureau's
    facilities; isn't that correct?
        Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, yes, sir.
        Mr. Calvert. Am I also correct that the Bureau closed the
    road because of the added 9/11 security concerns?
        Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, there are a number of threats that
    were evaluated since 9/11, and the closure was the direct
    result of those reviews.
        Mr. Calvert. Well, let me ask you another way. Would you
    assess the road closure if 9/11 had not occurred?
        Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, no.
        Mr. Calvert. Were any other bridges closed prior to 9/11?
        Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, the only time before 9/11 that we
    had closed roads was for a short time after the first attack on
    the World Trade Center, and for numerous times when we've had
    to do maintenance on the facilities.
        Mr. Calvert. All of that's true, but yet you indicate the
    Bureau cannot support funding for the bridge, even though the
    Bureau closed the road. Why is the Bureau changing its security
    costs policy only when it comes to building a bridge?
        Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, I don't see that as a change. What
    we are doing in other places--and it's even true at Folsom--is
    looking at the security forces necessary there, and then
    changes, you might say, to harden the facilities against
    attack. All of those costs we are trying to keep
    nonreimbursable.
        The example that I used at Hoover is one where another
    agency, that is more amendable or capable of designing and
    building a bridge, is handling that activity.
        Mr. Calvert. Is it true that the Federal Government is
    paying for the construction of that facility?
        Mr. Keys. It is a cost-shared effort at Hoover, between the
    States of Arizona, Nevada, and the Department of
    Transportation.
        Mr. Calvert. But a significant amount of that is being paid
    for by the Federal Government?
        Mr. Keys. That's correct.
        Mr. Calvert. The Bureau certainly has, as well laid out by
    our colleague, Mr. Ose, you certainly have the capacity to plan
    and design a bridge, and you have built bridges as recently as
    1999.
        Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, that's true.
        Mr. Calvert. What Bureau reservoirs currently allow
    automobile traffic?
        Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, we have--Mr. Chairman, I would
    rather answer that in a secure briefing, if I could.
        Mr. Calvert. OK. I understand. We'll have the opportunity
    to do that.
        I'm certainly involved in the Armed Services Committee, so
    I have been involved in some of these briefings. But much of
    this is in the public media and has been exposed, so I don't
    think we're exposing any classified information here today. But
    certainly there have been threats to this country and you must
    do your job, as I know you are, and doing it properly. But
    again, a point must be made that certain roadways are being
    closed because of homeland security concerns, and you've
    answered that in the affirmative, isn't that correct?
        Mr. Keys. That's correct.
        Mr. Calvert. What plans does the Bureau have to mitigate
    the effects of road closures, since these are Federal
    decisions?
        Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, in most cases, those roads are not
    being used for the volumes of traffic that are occurring at
    Folsom. We have no plans for reimbursements.
        Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
        The gentlelady from California, Mrs. Napolitano.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Commissioner Keys, thank you very much.
        I was wondering whether on Mr. Ose's 901, whether there's
    been any effort by you to suggest to Mr. Ose and the other
    cosponsors to work together with other agencies, such as
    Transportation, Interior, the Army Corps?
        Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Napolitano, yes, we have
    talked with the people from Folsom, we have talked to the
    people that represent them back here, and have tried to put
    them in contact with some of the other agencies involved.
        Mrs. Napolitano. But have you convened any meeting where
    all the agencies are at the table at the same time, rather than
    somebody going out and starting from point A all over again in
    making the presentation and being able to get the agencies to
    enjoin in a cooperative manner?
        Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Napolitano, I have not
    convened such a meeting, but I have personally talked to
    representatives of the other agencies.
        Mrs. Napolitano. And?
        Mr. Keys. All the other agencies that I've talked about are
    willing to sit down and talk.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Commissioner.
        Mrs. Napolitano. On my bill, H.R. 1284, you indicated you
    had done some investigation, or your Bureau had done some
    investigation, on the fact you feel there's enough money left
    in the VOC cleanup in the San Gabriel Basin.
        How did the Bureau arrive at this conclusion?
        Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Napolitano, in reviewing the
    requirements for completion of the project, the three units--El
    Monte, South El Monte, and Puente Valley--those three are the
    three that are not started yet. To get those started and
    complete them is about $11 million of Federal cost share
    requirement.
        In our title XVI appropriation, we have an $8.5 million
    ceiling left. There is also $25 million of ceiling left in the
    restoration fund ceiling that's left. So we feel there is
    plenty to cover those three projects that are left undone at
    this time.
        Mrs. Napolitano. But did the Bureau take into account that
    the coming projects that could be proposed by local entities
    may require more funding?
        I would like to enter into the record, Mr. Chair, a copy of
    the actual contaminated--this is the Superfund site. The two on
    the left are El Monte and South El Monte, and the one on the
    bottom, the blue one, is Puente Valley. They all tie in. They
    all are part of the Superfund list.
        Now, this is only what has been identified or is partly
    funded, while the bill itself, in 910, it only dealt with
    perchlorates. We're talking about VOCs in this area. The fact
    that it's twice as costly to be able to clean some of the
    other, the perchlorates, it is depleting some of the funds.
    Their estimates are running higher than they thought. The fact
    that when El Monte, South El Monte and Puente Valley came on
    board, the actual funding cap had been placed so they really
    didn't know how much it was going to cost.
        So how can you determine they are going to be able to fund
    out of the remaining funds available where there are still
    others that have not come on board dealing with this
    contaminated site, that have not been addressed because some of
    those cities did not have the expertise, they didn't have the
    ability to understand the whole impact or how it affected their
    drinking water.
        Again, as you heard the Congresswoman indicate, there are
    carcinogens that affect health, especially of the elderly and
    children and those prone to cancer.
        Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Napolitano, I would say that
    we have evaluated those plans that have been presented to us
    under the authorizations that we're working with. If there are
    some that are out there that are incomplete or are still
    developing, we could certainly listen to those and evaluate
    them. But everything that we have been given to this date shows
    that we could cover the Federal share of that expenditure.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Commissioner Keys, did you by any chance
    have your staff talk to the three cities that I have tried to
    put this bill forth on?
        Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Napolitano, yes, we did. I
    spoke with my field office just Friday about all of these
    projects and how they came up with the numbers that supported
    my testimony.
        Mrs. Napolitano. OK. But did you actually have your staff
    talk to the city managers? I have letters that I would like to
    introduce into the record, Mr. Chairman, from all three cities,
    where they indicate this is a need. Apparently somebody from
    one of the water agencies indicated to your staff that there
    was no need to raise the cap, which is erroneous, because I
    have testimony from all three cities stating that there is a
    need.
        Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Napolitano, certainly if
    there's other information out there that we don't have, we
    would welcome it into Reclamation.
        Mrs. Napolitano. I would really appreciate it,
    Commissioner, and I look forward to working with you. I would
    like to enter these into the record, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Calvert. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The information referred to follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6198.012

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6198.013

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6198.014

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6198.015

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6198.016

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6198.017

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6198.018

        Mrs. Napolitano. I certainly appreciate your willingness
    because it is, as you well know, a big site that continues to
    run into some road blocks here and there. I look forward to
    working with your Bureau to address those road blocks.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentlelady.
        Mr. Osborne.
        Mr. Osborne. I would like to thank Mr. Keys for being here
    today. I have a couple of questions.
        I gather from your testimony that the Western Water
    Initiative that you have already been working on is very
    similar to the concept of the 21st Century Water Commission
    that was envisioned by H.R. 135; is that correct? In other
    words, you feel there is some duplication or similarity here?
        Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Osborne, there are a great
    number of similarities. I do not believe they would duplicate
    effort because certainly the Bureau of Reclamation only works
    in the 17 Western States. The initiative of the 21st century
    bill is for all of the United States. So ours does just focus
    on the Western States. But they are complimentary.
        Mr. Osborne. There are a couple of statements that you have
    in your testimony that I would like to have you flesh out as
    little bit, if you could.
        You mentioned that Reclamation is to promote intrastate
    water banking as a concept to help resolve future water supply
    conflicts. Could you explain that a little bit to me, as to how
    that works?
        Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Osborne, we have used and are
    using water banks in several projects in the Western United
    States right now to address specific requirements associated
    with projects.
        This year, in trying to address the problems in the Klamath
    Basin project in Oregon, we have established a water bank of
    60,000 acre-feet there, where we have purchased that water from
    lands in the Basin--in other words, under a voluntary program,
    people have sold their water off of about 30-40,000 acres of
    land to produce 60,000 acre-feet of water to address the
    Endangered Species Act problems in the Basin. Setting that
    amount of water aside in a water bank, to be operated for the
    Endangered Species Act, frees the rest of the water supply in
    the Basin to be operated in its best manner for the irrigation
    in the Basin.
        We have similar type water banks where we have purchased
    water going on in the Snake River Basin in Idaho, Washington,
    Oregon, in California, and we are in the process of working
    with the States of New Mexico and Texas on purchasing water
    into a similar water bank on the Middle Rio Grande for this
    year.
        Mr. Osborne. Thank you. I guess my last question would be
    somewhat related. It says here that funding will be used to
    strengthen staff expertise in implementing and complying with
    the Endangered Species Act. So do you feel that staff knowledge
    and expertise can be improved in terms of implementing the
    Endangered Species Act and some aid is appropriate here?
        Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Osborne, our people need all of
    the expertise that we can give them in addressing the
    Endangered Species Act, so that we can keep our projects
    running and at the same time accomplish the requirements of the
    Act.
        Our projects are continually changing because of the
    demands on them, because of population growth, other
    requirements that are showing up that we didn't even plan for.
    For our folks to stay on top of those, we try to give them the
    best training that we can in dealing with the Endangered
    Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act and so
    forth. This is to give our folks every advantage in working
    those projects, so that they can accomplish that.
        Mr. Osborne. Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
        Mr. Inslee.
        Mr. Inslee. Thank you, Mr. Keys. In regard to the Folsom
    Bridge project, if that was funded out of your budget, what
    impact would that have on other water related projects in your
    budget--for instance, the Yakima River Enhancement Project up
    in the State of Washington.
        Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Inslee, our annual budget is
    about $850 million. Sixty-six million dollars is almost 10
    percent of that. We are currently operating under a flat line
    assumption. In other words, our budgets are being held level
    with all of the other requirements on the Federal Treasury. I
    would anticipate a significant impact on our budget if that
    were to happen.
        Mr. Inslee. Thank you.
        To fulfill Mr. Calvert's expectation, I wanted to ask you
    one question about global warming, because I don't want to let
    him down.
        Just briefly, could you tell me what the Bureau has been
    doing to try to assess the impact of global warming on water
    supplies, particularly in the Western United States, if you can
    just give me a summary of your efforts, to the extent you have
    some.
        Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Inslee, I don't have the people
    working for Reclamation that have that expertise. We work very
    closely with the Geological Survey and the National Academy of
    Science, who both have active programs underway evaluating
    global warming and what impacts there may be. We meet with them
    regularly and I have not seen a recent paper from them, but we
    get regular reports from them and we're working very closely
    with both of those agencies.
        Mr. Inslee. Could you share with me what information, at
    least in summary form, the Bureau may have ``ginned up'' in
    that regard? Would that be too difficult? Or could you ask your
    people to do that?
        Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Inslee, we haven't ginned up
    any information. We go to those agencies and they tell us
    what's going on.
        I will tell you that there are no short-term results from
    those things. There is nothing that we can take and say we need
    to operate a project or a storage facility this year to
    accommodate global warming. Certainly those are long-range
    projections, and we're still trying to take a look and see.
        I would certainly poll my people to see if we have any
    reports from those two agencies that we could share with you.
        Mr. Inslee. I would be very appreciative. Thank you very
    much.
        Mr. Keys. You're welcome.
        Mr. Calvert. Get some of that global warming over here,
    will you? I'm tired of this weather.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Renzi.
        Mr. Renzi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Keys, during your testimony you made reference to the
    Hoover Dam that connects the great State of Arizona with
    Nevada. I just want to clarify for you an issue as it relates
    to the Hoover Dam and the security issues revolving around the
    transportation across that dam. I'm sure you're aware that we
    did not close the Hoover Dam to passenger traffic. We have
    rerouted some of the cargo trucks.
        In addition, for the last several year, as my good friend
    from Arizona, Mr. Grijalva, knows better than I do, we tried to
    connect Canada with Mexico through the new Cana-American-
    Mexican highway, and Mr. Grijalva has worked for years to help
    us blend and be involved in commerce between the three nations.
        Given all that, after September 11th, the Hoover Dam was
    restricted to some traffic. We did not close the Hoover Dam. I
    see you want to say something.
        Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Renzi, we did close Hoover Dam
    for a short period of time, and certainly it was recognized,
    the interruption of traffic on a Federal highway. It was opened
    fairly shortly, I think like 3 days afterwards to passenger car
    traffic. And then, as time went along, it was impacting the
    commerce on each side of the reservoir there. We implemented a
    special permit program with those trucks that needed to do
    business across the bridge and we currently have that in place.
        We also have at Hoover--
        Mr. Renzi. I'm aware of the transportation, and I
    appreciate that. Let me just get to my point.
        Mr. Keys. Sure.
        Mr. Renzi. You may have closed the bridge or the dam for 3
    days, but what we really did was we accelerated the building of
    a bridge just downstream, called the Willow Beach Bridge. As
    you know, Arizona and Nevada for years had been hoping and
    planning for that bridge, and we were very much bogged down in
    environmental studies, which were accelerated themselves. In
    that acceleration that was caused by the security concerns of
    September 11th, the Federal Government will now pick up more of
    the lion's share as it relates to the building of that bridge,
    since Arizona and Nevada have not been able to set aside the
    moneys in the same time fashion that the Federal Government
    would now like us to build that bridge. That's just a matter of
    record and fact, sir.
        Mr. Renzi. Miss Rosier, thank you for your testimony on my
    bill and on the Zuni legislation.
        One of the issues that you spoke about in your testimony
    was that the United States can avoid the costly litigation by
    approving this settlement, and that we also have a trust
    responsibility to Native Americans in this country, a trust
    responsibility that included in 1984 creating Zuni Heaven. The
    Zunis move out of New Mexico into Arizona, and their birthplace
    is recognized, from my colleague, Mr. Pearce's district in New
    Mexico, and a place where they pass into eternity is recognized
    in Arizona. So it's a migratory type of history, as well as two
    reservations, two areas, that typically was connected by their
    own lands.
        In 1984, when we created Zuni Heaven and recognized a small
    piece of their original lands, we did not give them the water
    that goes with the land. We just gave them dry Arizona dirt. So
    I want to thank you for pointing out that we had a trust
    responsibility in your testimony today.
        I recommend to my colleagues that we move forward in
    providing not just the land but also the water. Thank you.
        Ms. Rosier. Thank you.
        Mr. Calvert. Mr. Pearce.
        Mr. Pearce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Commissioner Keys, is it possible to get a copy of your
    Western Water Initiative, and where did that originate and what
    was the approval process of that?
        Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Pearce, we can certainly share
    with you the Western Water Initiative. It was part of the
    Fiscal Year 2004 budget presentation to Congress. It is based
    upon existing authorities. We have authority to do water
    conservation work under a number of different Acts.
        The desalinization portions have been authorized several
    times. We could certainly share with you a copy of that and
    those authorizations.
        Mr. Pearce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Keys, were you with the Bureau of Reclamation when they
    filed suit against the State of New Mexico over the Elephant
    Butte Irrigation District?
        Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Pearce, I don't know what year
    that was.
        Mr. Pearce. Mr. Chairman, I would suspect it would be 5
    years ago, 4 years ago. Commissioner Martinez was there at the
    time.
        Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Pearce, I worked with
    Reclamation through 1998, and I came back as Commissioner in
    July of 2001. I have worked closely with Elephant Butte while
    I've been there on a number of issues.
        Mr. Pearce. Mr. Chairman, without being a lawyer, if I were
    to try to remember the circumstances, it was that the Bureau
    felt that, since they had built the dam and the structures,
    that they should own the water in the dam and should
    appropriate those waters instead of the State of New Mexico or
    the Elephant Butte Irrigation District.
        Mr. Chairman, I would ask if that's an ongoing practice of
    the Department.
        Mr. Calvert. Are you asking me that question, or are you
    asking the Commissioner?
        Mr. Pearce. Mr. Keys, yes.
        Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Pearce, I am not familiar with
    the case that you're talking about. I will tell you that every
    project we have ever built has a State water right, and we
    operate those projects within the State water rights. We have
    worked very closely with Elephant Butte on property issues. I
    am not familiar with a case where we have told the Elephant
    Butte folks that we own the water there.
        I would certainly get myself up to speed and come and talk
    with you, if you would like me to do that.
        Mr. Pearce. Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate that. It would
    be meaningful. Because as I read the comments of the text, I
    see that the initiative is to expand and focus Reclamation's
    existing efforts, and then further down, developing solutions
    that will meet the increased demands for limited water
    resources in the West.
        Those things begin to really concern me when the Federal
    Government begins to consider taking water rights away from
    State governments for possibly developing solutions for a
    limited resource. Again, I approach this from the perspective
    of a State that's lacking in political power and lacking
    economic horsepower in the courts. So I'm curious about exactly
    how you intend to expand your capabilities and by what
    authority. That's the reason I would like to look at the
    report.
        Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Pearce, not being
    argumentative, but I know of no case where Reclamation has
    taken water rights from a State. Certainly every piece of that
    Western Water Initiative would be implemented in close
    partnerships with all 17 of the Western States, to try to
    address future issues. From Reclamation's and Interior's
    viewpoint, the States are sovereign on water rights, and
    certainly every effort we would do would be to work with them
    in trying to stretch those water supplies further.
        Mr. Pearce. Mr. Chairman, I would also point out that the
    Commissioner's testimony mentioned the voluntary purchases of
    water rights, or the purchase of water rights from willing
    sellers, but the effect of that, Mr. Chairman, is to decrease
    the economy in an area, to decrease the economic base in an
    area. I'm in one of the States that is 60 percent owned by
    Federal or State governments, who have retired land out of
    productive use. It's causing extreme havoc in our county
    budgets and in our State budgets.
        Then, according to your own testimony, I refer the
    Commissioner to his own testimony, that they were not so
    concerned about the economic impacts at Folsom, but they are
    concerned about the economic impacts somewhere else. So it is
    that different value system that concerns me somewhat as I look
    at the West and possible actions by the Bureau of Reclamation.
        I will let the gentleman respond and will yield back.
        Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman. I'm sure Commissioner
    Keys will be more than pleased to come by your office and
    discuss these issues.
        We're going to try to get a couple of quick questions off
    before we have to go on recess. Mr. Rodriguez, do you have a
    question?
        Mr. Rodriguez. Mr. Chairman, let me apologize and thank you
    for having me at my first Subcommittee meeting of this
    Committee.
        Mr. Calvert. Welcome.
        Mr. Rodriguez. Thank you very much. I apologize. I just
    wanted to maybe get some guidance.
        We have had some real serious problems on the Mexican
    border with the treaty that we've had with Mexico, especially
    the State of Chihuahua on the other side. It is supposed to
    relinquish about 350,000 acre-feet of water per year and they
    haven't been doing that for some time now. They're always about
    1.7 million acre-feet. They released a certain amount recently,
    but we've had some problems, where the Rio Grande no longer
    flows into the Gulf.
        I was wondering, in terms of some guidance in that area
    might be helpful, and what you might suggest we do to be able
    to help some of the people in the lower part of the Rio Grande,
    especially on the Texas border.
        Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Rodriguez, that problem is
    being handled by the State Department and the International
    Boundary Waters Commission. We are working very closely with
    them to provide them the information that they need. But the
    State Department is the lead on that at the current time. I
    have no advice for you on how to handle that right now.
        Mr. Rodriguez. OK. Because we've had some difficulty in
    trying to come to grips with that. And two-thirds of that is
    owed to people downstream on the Mexican side, so they are also
    hurting. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman for that question.
        Mr. Nunes.
        Mr. Nunes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Keys, it's good to
    see you again.
        In your testimony in opposition to H.R. 1284, you talked
    about the funding ceiling provided by title XVI and that there
    was additional funding up to--I think it is $25 million
    remaining under the ceiling on the restoration fund. Can you
    clarify the difference between title XVI and its origination,
    and also the difference between the restoration fund and its
    origination?
        Mr. Keys. Title XVI was part of Public Law 102-575, passed
    in 1992. Every project that is authorized under title XVI has
    its own limits and fundings and authorizations that go along
    with it.
        When San Gabriel was authorized, we were authorized about
    $40 million there, and certainly we still have about $8.5
    million of that cost ceiling left. The restoration fund was
    authorized at $80 million, of which $70 million was dedicated
    to the San Gabriel restoration work. There is currently $25
    million of that ceiling left.
        Mr. Nunes. When was the restoration fund authorized? What
    restoration fund is this, and what authorized it?
        Mr. Calvert. If the gentleman will yield, I believe that
    legislation was offered by Mr. Drier--
        Mrs. Napolitano. 910.
        Mr. Calvert. --910, and it authorized the amount of money
    to put forward for the restoration of the San Gabriel Basin. It
    was a separate restoration fund, I believe.
        Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, it was authorized in the year 2000.
    Congress created the San Gabriel Basin restoration fund and it
    provided a 65 percent Federal cost share. It was authorized at
    $85 million, 75 of which was dedicated to the San Gabriel
    Basin.
        Mr. Nunes. Commissioner, thank you. As you know,
    ``restoration fund'' is a term that is used for many other
    issues.
        Mr. Keys. Yes.
        Mr. Nunes. So I wanted to clarify that it wasn't the same
    restoration fund that I've asked about, I think on four
    separate occasions. I still have not received, as of this date,
    anything in regards to the CVPIA restoration fund, as to its
    current account balance, nor any other issues as to what the
    money has been spent on in the last 10 years. I'm still waiting
    very patiently for that information, Mr. Keys, and I find it a
    little bit disconcerting that I haven't heard back from the
    Bureau yet.
        Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Nunes, I will get that to you
    as soon as I can.
        Mr. Nunes. OK. Thank you. I would appreciate it.
        Mr. Calvert. And I know from experience, Commissioner, he's
    not all that patient.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Keys. Thank you.
        Mr. Calvert. Mr. Ose, if you'll be patient, we have a
    series of three votes, and if this panel would please stay with
    us, we're going to go vote, come right back, and we will finish
    with Mr. Ose's questions. Then we have a panel here from the
    community of Folsom. So thank you very much.
        We are recessed until after the last vote.
        [Recess.]
        Mr. Calvert. While we're waiting for Mr. Ose, I thought I
    would ask the Commissioner a question on the qualification
    settlement agreement. As you know, the State of California, the
    primary folks in this agreement, have come to a tentative
    agreement. Is there any new news you would like to pass on to
    the Committee?
        Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, I don't have any news right now,
    other than to say there is a negotiating committee, or there is
    a group of people from Interior in California, yesterday and
    today, talking with those folks about the QSA and the
    settlement. So negotiations are underway.
        Mr. Calvert. Well, we certainly are looking to a positive
    resolution as soon as possible.
        Mr. Renzi, did you have any further questions for the
    Commissioner?
        Mr. Renzi. Yes, thank you.
        I just wanted to clarify the point that I made earlier when
    we were talking about the Hoover Dam. I appreciate your
    knowledge of the transportation that goes over it. I just don't
    want to make the fact of the impact as it relates to these
    local communities is something that the Federal Government in
    my State is willing to bear. I think it's probably relevant to
    the argument as it relates to Mr. Ose.
        I realize you have a tough job to do. We're looking at
    communities that are now being drastically impacted on the way
    they travel, and economically being greatly impacted. But I do
    believe it is reasonable that we consider particularly the
    funding mechanism that Mr. Ose is talking about putting
    together.
        Thank you for your testimony on the Zuni situation. It's a
    long time coming. Senator Kyl did a great job of pulling this
    together, and Congressman J.D. Hayworth worked on it before I
    was able to take over. I know we've got representatives here
    from Arizona, from the Zuni Tribe, who have for years
    persevered and have come a long way to make sure that we
    provide adequate resources along with the land to allow Zuni
    Heaven to become a reality.
        I had an opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to see a copy of the
    master plan of what Zuni Heaven will eventually look like. It's
    a beautiful garden spot that our nation will be able to be
    respectful of and also to be sure the trust responsibilities
    have been significantly discharged to the good people of the
    Zuni Tribe. So thank you for your leadership, too, and for your
    years of making sure we get to this point today.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
        Mrs. Napolitano.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Commissioner Keys, one last question.
        The Bureau of Reclamation had a toilet exchange program.
    Where is that at?
        Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Napolitano, I did not hear the
    whole question.
        Mrs. Napolitano. There was as toilet exchange program
    funded by the Bureau of Reclamation, up to maybe about a year
    ago, whereby I think it was the Met was charging nonprofits or
    schools to go out and exchange them for the high volume of
    water, two gallons or whatever it is, versus the low flush
    toilet. That was being funded out of the Bureau of Reclamation.
        I'm wondering whether the program is going to be refunded?
        Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Napolitano, I have to confess
    I don't know anything about it. I will certainly find out and
    get back to you.
        Mrs. Napolitano. I would appreciate it.
        Mr. Chair, I don't know if my witness who flew in to give
    testimony on the Puente Valley operating unit--I guess they
    told him we would be back a little longer than it was thought,
    and he must be outside waiting. So I have sent somebody to
    look. So, if I may, I would like to bring him in when he comes.
        Mr. Calvert. Without objection.
        Mr. Ose.
        Mr. Ose. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
        Mr. Keys, first of all I want to commend you on your
    presentation today. I know we don't agree on this issue, and
    we've had that conversation.
        When DTRA did its analysis of Folsom, what was the basis
    under which they looked at it, why that one and not others?
        Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ose, starting in September of
    2001, we started an evaluation of every structure that
    Reclamation operates, all of our dams, 346 of them, 58 power
    plants, and some other critical infrastructures. The DTRA
    analysis has been used on all of those, in addition to some
    RAM-D analyses that were developed by the Corps of Engineers.
    So that DTRA analysis is the same methodology that we've used
    on all of our facilities.
        Mr. Ose. In the context of homeland security, did the
    Folsom Dam issue rate high, medium or low?
        Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, I would prefer not to answer that
    outside of a secure briefing. We would certainly offer that to
    you and Mr. Ose and other members of your Subcommittee.
        Mr. Ose. I'm agreeable to that, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Calvert. We'll arrange for that to happen soon, with
    the Commissioner, Mr. Ose and myself, and any other interested
    members.
        Mr. Ose. Mr. Keys, if I may, I want to make sure I
    understood your earlier testimony; that is, that the Bureau
    has, in fact, built bridges?
        Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ose, that's correct.
        Mr. Ose. Was Reclamation responsible for their design?
        Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ose, each one of those was
    authorized as part of a water resources project, and we were
    responsible for the design and construction of those
    facilities.
        Mr. Ose. So like the one in Glen Canyon, that was done by
    the Bureau in its entirety?
        Mr. Keys. That's correct.
        Mr. Ose. Now, I'm told that, in fact, the Bureau's bridge
    designers in Denver have conceptual drawings on Folsom Dam. I'm
    only told that anecdotally.
        Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ose, we have looked at a number
    of options at Folsom, as we do at a lot of our facilities.
    There was an appraisal level report that was done at the field
    level on a bridge for taking the traffic off of the dam
    earlier.
        Mr. Ose. And the property where the new bridge would be
    proposed to be built, is that Reclamation land?
        Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ose, that's correct.
        Mr. Ose. OK.
        Mr. Chairman, I want to again thank you for having this
    hearing. I appreciate the opportunity to interact with
    Commissioner Keys. He and I disagree on this issue, as you have
    noted.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman for bringing this
    legislation forward. We will be marking up the legislation on
    Thursday, along with the Zuni Indian legislation, the San
    Gabriel legislation, and the Linder commission legislation,
    Thursday at 10 o'clock in the morning. So hopefully we can move
    this along to the full Committee as soon as possible.
        With that, if there are no further questions for this--Mr.
    Nunes.
        Mr. Nunes. Commissioner Keys, I apologize, but I just want
    to kind of go on farther from where we left off regarding the
    restoration fund.
        I realize that it's different than H.R. 1284. It's a
    different restoration fund than the CVPIA restoration fund. But
    I am a bit concerned that myself and other members have made
    requests in writing for an account of the CVPIA restoration
    fund money, and now, during our brief recess, when I went to
    vote, luckily another member's office was in here and they
    actually had, as of November 30th, 2002, the exact information
    that I have been requesting for 85 days, roughly.
        I realize that the information is hard to get and we don't
    have it. But obviously, at one point or another, the Bureau did
    get the information to another Member of Congress. So I find it
    a little disconcerting, Commissioner--and I know this is
    probably not your doing. But I want to kind of get to the
    bottom as to why I can't get some very simple numbers that
    greatly impact my district and the entire San Joaquin Valley to
    the tune of probably close to $100 million a year, I would
    guess.
        Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Nunes, your concerns are my
    concerns. I did not understand that we had those figures
    together. I will certainly find out and have them to you as
    quick as possible.
        Mr. Nunes. OK. And I can get this information to you, if
    that would help you get to the bottom of who actually has the
    numbers, at least as of 5 months ago.
        Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Nunes, I will get them myself
    from our agency, and if I cannot find them, I will come back to
    you and do that.
        Mr. Nunes. Thank you very much, Mr. Keys.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman. Again, I want to thank
    this panel.
        One last comment. Today is April 1st. It's not April Fools
    necessarily. But we understand from Interior--and maybe this is
    coming out of a different part of the shop over at Interior.
    But the crosscut budget for the Cal-Fed project was required to
    be brought in front of this Committee on April 1st. So if you
    could pass that along to our friends, I would appreciate it. We
    hope to get that this week because we need that in the
    formulation of our Cal-Fed legislation.
        Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, I will certainly take that back. I
    was not aware of that deadline, but we will take it back and be
    sure that that happens.
        Mr. Calvert. I would appreciate that.
        I want to thank you, Commissioner, as I always do, for your
    courtesy and for coming to this Committee and putting up with
    us for a little while. I appreciate that.
        Ms. Rosier, thank you very much. You both have a good day.
    You're excused. Thank you.
        Mr. Keys. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Calvert. Our next panel is Mr. Jeff Starsky,
    councilman, city of Folsom; Ms. Aileen Roder, Taxpayers for
    Common Sense; and Mr. Roger Niello, Sacramento County
    Supervisor. I ask unanimous consent to submit the statement of
    the Honorable Steve Miklos, the Mayor of the City of Folsom,
    California, for his statement. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The prepared statement of Mayor Miklos follows:]

                Statement of The Honorable Steve Miklos, Mayor,
                    City of Folsom, California, on H.R. 901

        Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, my name is
    Steve Miklos, and I am the Mayor of the City of Folsom, California. I
    appear today in support of H.R. 901, a bill to authorize the Secretary
    of the Interior to construct a bridge on Federal land west of and
    adjacent to Folsom Dam in California. I appreciate the opportunity to
    speak today regarding this legislation.
        I thank this Committee for holding this hearing today. While this
    is one of the first steps for this bill in the legislative process,
    many pieces of legislation never even receive a hearing. I believe this
    hearing serves as evidence that the Chairman of this Committee, Mr.
    Calvert, and the Members of this Committee take very seriously the
    problems and concerns facing the people of my City and of our entire
    region. On behalf of the citizens I represent, thank you for taking up
    the matter of H.R. 901 and demonstrating your desire to help us find a
    way to cope with the disruption caused by the closure of Folsom Dam
    Road earlier this year.
        I also wish to thank both Congressman Doug Ose and Congressman John
    Doolittle for their ongoing support for our City and our region. Our
    City appreciates deeply Congressman Ose's commitment to improving the
    lives of the citizens of Folsom, and we specifically commend him for
    introducing H.R. 901 very early in the First Session of the 108th
    Congress. Congressman John Doolittle has been a friend and strong
    advocate on behalf of Folsom for over a decade, and we look forward to
    continuing our work with him on behalf of our entire region.
        My colleague on the Folsom City Council, Councilmember Jeff
    Starsky, has testified regarding many of the specific problems
    associated with the decision to permanently close Folsom Dam Road. He
    has also drawn an accurate picture of severe problems caused by the
    road closure. I take this opportunity to expand several of the points
    covered in his testimony and extend the discussion further into public
    policy so the Committee Members can understand why we believe H.R. 901
    is the best legislative approach to achieve our goals.
        H.R. 901 is important legislation on several levels. Locally and
    regionally, the legislation will help relieve impacts of circumstances
    and decisions beyond our local control. Although our City and our local
    economy are relatively strong, we live in uncertain economic times. Our
    City continues to cultivate our strong economic base while
    simultaneously working to develop new business opportunities
    benefitting our City as well as our region. The closure of Folsom Dam
    Road has a significant negative impact on local and regional businesses
    of all sizes--from local ``Mom and Pop'' stores to our larger corporate
    citizens. We need Federal assistance to replace the closed crossing
    with a four-lane bridge as rapidly as possible--we cannot do it alone.
        The State of California is, as the Committee is aware, in difficult
    financial straits. The State of California is not in a position to
    provide significant assistance in our efforts to restore what was a
    major regional artery. We will continue to press our State government
    to help us solve our regional traffic congestion caused directly by the
    Bureau closing Folsom Dam Road, but we have slim hopes of actually
    securing the level of assistance necessary to mitigate the closure.
        On the Federal level, H.R. 901 is important legislation for at
    least two reasons. First, the legislation acknowledges the role of the
    Federal Government to assist local and state governments achieve
    important objectives that are not within the scope of non-Federal
    resources.
        Second, and more specifically relevant in the current situation
    facing Folsom, H.R. 901 correctly answers the question of
    responsibility for mitigating the impacts of the decision to close
    Folsom Dam Road. Those of us in local government know very well that
    responsibility for our actions rest with local government. If we
    condemn property under the law of eminent domain, we are responsible
    for making the property owner whole. When we temporarily close a road,
    we hear quite clearly from our constituents that we are responsible for
    getting that road open quickly. We understand that there are
    consequences to our decisions and that we in local government have a
    responsibility to mitigate negative consequences.
        Similarly, I emphatically believe it is the duty of a Federal
    agency with the authority to make a decision with such negative local
    and regional impacts to bear the responsibility to help mitigate those
    impacts. Without this kind of certainty of responsibility, local
    governments can be shuffled between Federal agencies for years without
    ever securing the assistance needed to resolve problems created by the
    decisions of Federal agencies. There are several public agencies which
    could, in theory, be responsible for funding the new bridge, including
    the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Transportation,
    and the Department of Defense via the Army Corps of Engineers. I would
    argue that none of these agencies are in any better or worse position
    to take charge of the new bridge. But the distinction between the other
    agencies and the Bureau of Reclamation is, in my mind, quite clear: the
    Bureau of Reclamation had the authority to close the road and it
    exercised that authority. Good public policy requires the Bureau of
    Reclamation to bear responsibility for replacing the river crossing
    closed by its decision.
        I have testified why I believe H.R. 901 makes sense and why I am
    urging the Committee to report the bill favorably as expeditiously as
    possible. I do not want to leave the Committee with the impression that
    I believe the Bureau of Reclamation is wrong to attempt to protect the
    dam from terrorist attack. Those of us testifying on behalf of H.R. 901
    recognize the real risks associated with allowing public traffic on
    Folsom Dam Road. Last year, I outlined for this Committee the
    devastating impacts of a breach of the dam and focused on impacts to
    our region's transportation infrastructure. I testified how providing
    the new bridge for traffic would protect our freeways, our light rail,
    our local streets and regional transportation corridors, our rolling
    stock, and our other transportation assets from loss and damage due to
    a massive flood. And I pointed out the inextricable link between
    transportation infrastructure and our local, regional, and national
    economy. Thus, a decision taken to protect our transportation
    infrastructure from flooding is a good decision, and we argued that
    traffic should be removed from the road and the dam should be closed to
    the public.
        But I also testified that Folsom Dam Road should have remained
    open--if at all possible and with proper controls in place--until the
    new bridge was in place. Folsom Dam Road was the easternmost river
    crossing downstream from the major river forks. It serves businesses
    and residents traveling between major employment centers in El Dorado
    County, eastern Sacramento County, and Placer County. Approximately
    18,000 vehicles a day cross the dam. The dam crossing is a major
    regional traffic connector providing access between jobs and housing in
    the three different counties. Some of our region's largest industrial
    and commercial employers used Folsom Dam Road, including Intel,
    Hewlett-Packard, and Blue Cross. And especially during the summer
    months, Folsom Dam Road was an indispensable crossing for visitors to
    Folsom Lake--the most visited state park in the State of California--
    and the region's parks and recreation facilities.
        The crossing at Folsom Dam needed to be moved off the dam, but the
    impact of doing so without a replacement bridge in place is and will
    continue to be devastating to the local and regional economy. Folsom
    Dam Road was an inadequate, but essential, transportation artery
    between the three counties. It was extraordinarily important for local
    circulation. Just as there is a balance between airport security
    measures and moving people efficiently onto departing flights, so too
    there must be a reasonable security system put in place to protect the
    dam while allowing the public to cross the dam until the new bridge is
    completed.
        I understand and appreciate the difficulty faced by Commissioner
    Keys and the Bureau of Reclamation generally. They understand the
    importance of the road to local and regional transportation and air
    quality, but they also understand their responsibility to safeguard
    Folsom Dam. However, now that the road is closed and the dam is secure
    from possible vehicular attack, the Bureau cannot avoid the
    consequences of its decision to close the dam. I do believe the Bureau
    has a limited budget and I encourage Congress to provide adequate
    funding to the Bureau so it can discharge its other responsibilities
    while making the City of Folsom and our region whole again. If the
    Bureau of Reclamation is not responsible for its decisions, then I fear
    we will suffer intolerable traffic, air quality, and negative economic
    consequences of the road closure for many, many years to come.
        Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to testify on behalf of
    the City of Folsom in support of H.R. 901. We understand that there are
    many new priorities in our nation now. We are mindful of the cost of
    the war in Iraq--both the human toll as well as the financial cost. But
    we do believe that we as a nation must not neglect significant internal
    matters, and for those of us in the Sacramento Metropolitan region, the
    new bridge at Folsom Dam is a significant matter. We need the new
    bridge to remain economically vital both locally and regionally. We
    need the new bridge to alleviate traffic directly resulting from the
    closure of Folsom Dam Road. We need the new bridge to help lessen
    pollution locally and regionally caused by cars idling while waiting to
    squeeze through new choke points. We urge you and your Subcommittee to
    support H.R. 901 and work towards its speedy passage.
        I would be happy to answer any questions you may have, and I thank
    you for the opportunity to testify today.
                                     ______

        Mr. Calvert. First I would like to recognize Mr. Jeff
    Starsky for his opening statement.
        Please try to keep the opening statements within the 5-
    minute time line. Any additional information will be entered
    into the record. So, with that, Mr. Starsky, you are recognized
    for 5 minutes.

              STATEMENTS OF JEFFREY STARSKY, COUNCILMAN,
                       CITY OF FOLSOM, CALIFORNIA

        Mr. Starsky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, distinguished members
    of the Committee. My name is Jeffrey Starsky. I am a
    representative on the city of Folsom's City Council, here on
    behalf of the 50,000 taxpayers which reside in my city. I want
    to express my appreciation for the opportunity to appear myself
    on behalf of my constituents and, in addition, on behalf of the
    three million users of the roadway that traverses the Folsom
    Dam, and the opportunity to have our voices heard at this very,
    very important hearing.
        I would first also like to thank Congressman Ose, our
    Representative and champion, for those of us in the city of
    Folsom. Congressman Ose's efforts and vision has helped us
    accomplish what has been a tremendously disruptive impact from
    the closing. In addition, we would like to thank Congressman
    Doolittle for his tremendous support. He has been a long time
    friend of our region.
        I think it is important to note that these two gentlemen
    have worked and, with the introduction of H.R. 901, are working
    on something that will not simply benefit the people they
    represent. This is going to benefit a region. As I said, three
    million people will traverse this roadway, or had until a month
    ago, traversed this roadway. These men are looking beyond the
    bounds of politics and are looking to help our region survive
    what will be a devastating economic impact.
        I would ask, Mr. Chairman, that my written comments be
    submitted, and I do not intend to read those. I just wanted to
    highlight a few of the salient points.
        Mr. Calvert. Without objection, your full statement will be
    entered into the record.
        Mr. Starsky. Thank you, sir.
        Briefly, just some history of this area. When this facility
    was constructed in the 1950's--it is important to remember that
    there were three crossings across the American River prior to
    the construction of this dam: the Mormon Island Bridge, the
    Rattlesnake Suspension Bridge, and the Salmon Falls Bridge.
    When the dam was constructed, the Salmon Falls Bridge was the
    only bridge that was relocated and reestablished across the
    river. The other two were never replaced.
        The two lanes across the Folsom Dam did help to address
    some of the transportation issues that were addressed by this
    facility. Of course, at the time the city was small, the region
    was very small. But now, as the region has continued to grow,
    this transportation link has been absolutely vital to the
    economic success of the area.
        Quickly, to talk about the impact itself on the city of
    Folsom, I can speak directly to those. Within the first week of
    the dam road closure, the city expended $38,000 just in
    additional security and additional law enforcement. We have
    seen a 40 percent increase in traffic accidents within our
    city, and we expect this could amount to as much as $15,000 per
    week in additional police and fire protection services.
        The loss of businesses in our city we are unable to measure
    at this time. It has simply been too early. I know I have
    spoken to several business owners that are along the immediate
    affected corridors. They have seen a 50 percent drop in their
    floor traffic. That, of course, has a tremendous impact on the
    sales tax, which is a direct benefit to the city of Folsom, as
    you are aware. California, as most of you know, is suffering a
    very serious financial crisis, and cities are at risk for funds
    through property taxes, and we're very, very concerned that an
    impact on sales taxes is our last bastion that will be
    impacted.
        By way of example, when the facility experienced the
    failure of a gate in 1995, 38 businesses within the city of
    Folsom closed as a result of that short-term closure. We are
    very, very concerned about the long-term impacts this time of a
    permanent closure.
        Most importantly, the impact is going to be in our
    redevelopment area. Our redevelopment is an area that we have
    tried to remove the blight. It is an old area. Many of you may
    not have the history of Folsom, but it dates back to the Pony
    Express. We have preserved our historic district in that
    setting, and we use it as a retail area. We try to attract
    businesses and tourism, which is being choked off by the 18,000
    additional vehicles that are traveling through and directly
    impacting that area.
        My last comment would be that I view this a little bit like
    when we, as a city, act and we take something. We have a
    transportation route here that has existed for over 50 years.
    It has been that region's transportation route. The Federal
    Government, by the actions of the Bureau, have taken that from
    us. When those of us that are on city councils act to take
    property or rights, we have to pay for those rights. We are
    asking that the Federal Government do the same.
        We do not dispute the contentions of the Bureau, that this
    is a national security issue. It absolutely is. All we're
    asking is that we be given mitigation rights, as the Federal
    Government has done in the past.
        Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Starsky follows:]

                 Statement of Jeffrey Starsky, Councilmember,
                    City of Folsom, California, on H.R. 901

        Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, my name is
    Jeffrey Starsky and I serve on the City Council of the City of Folsom,
    California. I appreciate the opportunity to speak today regarding H.R.
    901, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to construct a
    bridge on Federal land west of and adjacent to Folsom Dam in
    California.
        I wish to begin by thanking you and the members of the Subcommittee
    on Water and Power for holding this hearing this afternoon. The
    citizens of the City of Folsom, Sacramento County, El Dorado County,
    and Placer County need your assistance in helping us adjust to the
    recent closure of Folsom Dam Road, a major regional connector and
    lifeline for many local and regional businesses and families. This
    hearing today is a critical step in the life of H.R. 901, and
    demonstrates your concern and commitment to our city and our region.
        On behalf of the City of Folsom, I also wish to thank Congressman
    Doug Ose for his leadership and for introducing H.R. 901. Congressman
    Ose has served his constituents and the nation well since first being
    elected in 1999. Folsom is proud to have Congressman Ose represent us
    in the United States Congress, and we appreciate his commitment to our
    City, our region, and the State of California.
        In addition, we wish to thank Congressman John Doolittle for
    cosponsoring H.R. 901. Congressman Doolittle has served the City of
    Folsom in the House of Representatives for over a decade with
    distinction and honor, and our City values deeply his hard work,
    dedication, and commitment to our City and Northern California.
        By way of background, The Flood Control Act of 1944 authorized the
    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to build a dam on the lower American
    River. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers completed construction on
    Folsom Dam in 1956. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation now operates the
    dam. The reservoir holds just under one million acre feet of water when
    filled to operational capacity. The dam's power plant has three
    penstocks delivering 6900 cubic feet per second to turbines producing
    approximately 10% of the power used in Sacramento each year.
        Three river crossings were inundated and lost in the 1950's when
    the reservoir filled up: Mormon Island Bridge, Rattlesnake Suspension
    Bridge, and Salmon Falls Bridge. While the Salmon Falls Bridge was
    located upstream and is accessible today, the other two crossings were
    never replaced. Each crossing included two lanes, thus four lanes were
    lost as a direct result of dam construction.
        The Federal Government and others recognized security risks posed
    by traffic on Folsom Dam Road, but the matter never seemed urgent until
    September 11th changed America's way of thinking about security within
    the United States. In one morning, the issue of traffic atop the dam
    was transformed into a distinct and critical issue of national
    significance.
        The new bridge at Folsom probably would never have been the subject
    of its own congressional hearing without the tragedy of September 11th.
    It is likely the project would have continued to play a minor role in
    Sacramento's flood control debate. I believe this is an important point
    to remember--the need for the new bridge transcends flood control and
    is, in fact, a security issue.
        Even prior to September 11th, Congressman Ose and Congressman
    Doolittle recognized the need to move traffic off the dam to a new
    bridge. H.R. 2301, introduced in the last Congress, would have achieved
    that goal. Now, H.R. 901, introduced by Congressman Ose and cosponsored
    by Congressman Doolittle, carries forward the effort to provide a
    bridge to replace Folsom Dam Road which, by the Bureau of Reclamation's
    own admission, was a major transportation artery for the City of Folsom
    as well as Placer County and El Dorado County.
        Almost one year ago I testified before this same Committee in
    strong support of legislation authorizing construction of a bridge to
    replace Folsom Dam Road. During that hearing, my regional colleagues
    and I emphasized the need to ensure the security of Folsom Dam and
    Folsom Reservoir. We pointed out that removing automobile traffic from
    Folsom Dam would help prevent a catastrophic failure and flood caused
    by a terrorist act. We testified that a major breach caused by a
    terrorist act would result in a titanic flood--hundreds of thousands of
    lives would be at immediate risk, as would the capitol of the fifth
    largest economy in the world.
        We insisted that a new bridge replacing Folsom Dam Road would be
    essential for the physical safety and economic stability of our City
    and the entire Sacramento metropolitan region. We also outlined the
    costs and heavy burdens our City and our region would bear if the
    Bureau of Reclamation closed Folsom Dam Road prior to having a new
    bridge in place.
        As the Committee is aware, the Federal Government drew the same
    conclusions regarding the security of the dam. The Federal Government
    took action and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation closed Folsom Dam Road
    on February 28, 2003. I am here today to tell you that our prognosis of
    closure offered to you one year ago was, unfortunately, quite correct.
    The City of Folsom and the citizens of our region now bear the heavy
    burdens of the Bureau's sudden and complete closure of Folsom Dam Road.
        I am not suggesting that the Bureau's decision was unjustified or
    hasty. But, in fact, the closure did occur suddenly, with little
    warning, and with no plan in place for assisting the region in handling
    the disruption of traffic patterns established over decades.
        Last year, I testified that closing Folsom Dam Road without
    providing a replacement bridge would do significant and lasting damage
    to our local and regional economy and environment. Only a short time
    has passed since closure, but I can report that closure has, in fact,
    done significant damage to our local and regional economy and
    environment. For example, closure without replacement costs the City
    $15,000 a month in traffic control costs alone. These direct and
    quantifiable costs may seem insignificant viewed on the Federal level,
    but I can testify without reservation that the costs are enormous
    locally and regionally.
        Public safety has also been compromised by the closure.
    Specifically, our police and fire departments have lost a primary
    access which severely impacts response times. Also, the routes
    emergency vehicles must use are now are heavily impacted by traffic
    which has been re-routed from the now closed Folsom Dam Road.
        We are gathering additional facts regarding other direct costs to
    the City. As a procedural matter, I would request that the Committee
    leave the record open temporarily so the City can provide additional
    impact information as it becomes available. But the real costs to our
    economy and environment are widespread, enormous, and can neither be
    easily nor accurately quantified. We see these costs being borne by the
    people of Folsom and our region every day. We see 18,000 additional
    vehicles each day now clogging the streets of our City. We miss
    meetings and we are late to pick up our children from school. We burn
    expensive gasoline and pollute our air while waiting for traffic to
    cycle through intersections designed to carry a fraction of the traffic
    now imposed on the City.
        I can report to the Committee that businesses located along
    impacted roadways have suffered immediate and significant negative
    impacts. Negative impacts on businesses are not only felt near the
    closed road entrances, but also all along the newly heavily congested
    alternative routes. Customers are finding it very difficult to enter
    and exit parking lots, and traffic congestion has driven shoppers away
    from local business. It is important to note in particular that the
    impacted routes run through the heart of the City's redevelopment area,
    putting the City's significant redevelopment efforts and opportunities
    at risk.
        Last year, we framed the twin issues quite clearly: ensuring the
    physical security of Folsom Dam, and ensuring the economic security of
    the City of Folsom and our region. The Bureau's decision to close the
    road without a plan to replace the road addressed the first issue while
    simultaneously and immediately undermining the second. H.R. 901
    addresses the significant local and regional negative impacts of a
    Federal response to a grave national security risk. The Federal
    Government needs to take responsibility for these impacts and mitigate
    closure by way of providing a bridge.
        We who live in the Sacramento region are quite familiar with the
    negative impacts of the closure of Federal facilities due to national
    security concerns. In the past decade we have endured the costs of the
    closure of three major military facilities: Mather Air Force Base,
    McClellan Air Force Base, and the Sacramento Army Depot. In each case,
    the Federal Government's decision to close its facilities had
    significant, immediate, and lasting negative impacts locally and
    regionally.
        However, in the case of base closure, the Department of Defense
    worked with our region to mitigate the impacts of its decision to close
    the facility. The Air Force and the Army spent significant amounts of
    money to help our region during and after the closure of each facility.
    The Department of Defense assisted our region--through funding and
    technical assistance--in adjusting to the loss of the Federal facility.
    In short, the Department of Defense did not merely pull up stakes and
    put a lock on the gate.
        The positive results of the efforts of the Department of Defense
    are real and measurable. The facilities have transformed into important
    and positive economic engines for our region. The Federal Government's
    acknowledgement of responsibility for assisting local and regional
    government respond to base closure should serve as a model in the case
    of the Bureau of Reclamation's decision to close Folsom Dam Road.
    Without the same high level of Federal assistance, the impacts of
    Folsom Dam Road's closure on national security grounds will be borne
    entirely by the City of Folsom and the citizens of Placer and El Dorado
    Counties. Furthermore, the negative effects of closure will be felt
    throughout the entire Sacramento Metropolitan region.
        There are distinctions to be drawn between base closure and our
    current situation. While military bases do come with significant
    negative characteristics--for example, the costs associated with
    environmental clean up at closed bases are real and significant--
    military facilities also come with significant positive features and
    facilities. In the case of Mather Air Force Base--renamed Mather
    Field--the facility is now a major hub for freight movement thanks to
    its excellent runway and access to major surface transportation
    corridors. McClellan's superior facilities and transportation access
    have drawn important businesses to headquarter there. However,
    Sacramento would have been unable to take advantage of the positive
    attributes of these facilities without direct and active assistance--
    technical and funding--from the Department of Defense.
        In the case of Folsom Dam Road, there are neither direct nor
    indirect benefits to closure beyond ensuring dam security. While this
    is a critical objective, we cannot view this matter in the vacuum of
    national security. There are real and negative impacts as a direct
    result of closure without replacement. Borrowing from the Department of
    Defense model once again, national security needs are linked with
    economic needs. That is why DOD put so much effort and funding into
    base reuse. DOD recognized the shortcomings of trading military
    readiness for regional economic security without mitigation, and DOD
    took responsibility and action to help ensure a safe transition for the
    local and regional economy. We ask the Federal Government--
    specifically, the Bureau of Reclamation--to do the same in the case of
    Folsom Dam Road.
        As I testified last year, the new bridge would provide extremely
    important and direct benefits to our region. Our City and our region
    have attempted to address traffic congestion and air pollution for
    years. In fact, Folsom recently completed a new bridge across the
    American River at a total project cost of $75 million. This new bridge,
    which was built without Federal funds, dramatically improved automobile
    circulation in our city and regionally. However, the benefits of the
    new bridge have been severely undercut by the loss of the Folsom Dam
    Road as virtually all traffic formerly using the dam road now uses the
    new bridge or the old bridge nearby.
        There are other positive outcomes of going forward with the new
    bridge that are unrelated to security and are also critically important
    to our City and our region. A new four-lane bridge at Folsom Dam is an
    indispensable component of the six-county Sacramento Region's
    Metropolitan Transportation Plan, the area's Federally-mandated
    regional transportation plan for the next twenty years. But H.R. 901
    cannot be viewed as a congestion mitigation bill. The bill represents
    recognition by the Federal Government that it must help our region deal
    with its decision to close its facility.
        It was vitally important to get traffic off the dam as quickly as
    possible. However, we must also ensure that our goal is achieved in a
    responsible manner. We must work together to ensure that local and
    regional economic stability is maintained and traffic flow is managed
    as best as possible while the new bridge is under construction.
        Prior to the February 28th closure, approximately 18,000 vehicles a
    day crossed the dam. The road served as a major regional traffic
    connector providing access between jobs and housing in three different
    counties. Some of the larger industrial and commercial enterprises that
    benefit from this connection include Intel, Hewlett-Packard, Blue Cross
    and a number of other major employment centers.
        The people who used the dam road were traveling to and from work
    and school. They were conducting business and going shopping. They were
    enjoying the Folsom Lake Recreation Area, one of the most popular state
    recreational facilities in the nation with over one and a half million
    visitors annually. While the overriding concern is one of security, it
    is also clear that closing Folsom Dam Road without a replacement will
    be devastating to the local and regional economy.
        We learned the impact of temporary closure several years ago when
    repair work required lengthy Folsom Dam Road closures. Several
    businesses were forced to close and others were deeply hurt
    economically. Traffic was horrible, police, fire, and medical response
    times increased, and the situation aggravated an already dire air
    quality situation locally and regionally. In fact, Congress recognized
    the cost of limited closures and authorized up to $100,000 in
    reimbursement to the City of Folsom for its costs.
        Now the situation is much worse as we have experienced significant
    population increases locally and regionally and the closure is
    permanent rather than temporary. We must recognize the economic,
    traffic circulation, and air quality needs and realities in our region.
    It is important to note that these three matters are points of national
    significance and Federal involvement. The Committee should be aware of
    the remarkable growth of communities adjacent to Folsom Lake over the
    past decade. The City of Folsom's population grew from 15,000 to our
    current 56,000 in a few short years. Eastern Sacramento County, the
    City of Roseville and southern portions of Placer County, and El Dorado
    County can also report exponential growth levels. The recent permanent
    closure has been a terrible shock to our system.
        We are aware that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers previously
    recommended the construction of a temporary bridge to handle redirected
    traffic while the dam is modified pursuant to prior congressional
    authorization. While the Corps' interest in minimizing the impact of
    closure is well-placed, it still does not make fiscal sense to put $20
    million into a temporary structure when that amount covers almost one
    third the cost of a permanent, full-service structure. Congressman
    Ose's legislation recognizes the importance of spending our limited
    Federal resources prudently as well as the value of doing something
    right the first time around. Simple math demonstrates the fiscally
    responsible approach of foregoing the temporary fix and applying those
    funds to a permanent, four-lane replacement bridge.
        We would like the Subcommittee to know that we have endeavored to
    meet with other local interests regarding H.R. 901. Through those
    efforts, we feel we have covered enough bases to feel comfortable in
    fully supporting Congressman Ose's legislation. We met with the Bureau
    of Reclamation, our other regional congressional representatives, and
    our representatives in the Senate. We have talked with other local and
    regional governments as well as state officials. We believe that H.R.
    901 is the best approach to achieve our goals.
        Some continue to ask whether the Bureau of Reclamation should be
    authorized to construct the bridge. There are really three questions
    here: whether the Bureau has the capability to build the bridge,
    whether the Bureau should build the bridge, and whether the Bureau has
    adequate funding to build the bridge.
        Regarding capability, we direct the Subcommittee to a letter to the
    Sacramento Bee from Bureau Commissioner John Keys, wherein he wrote, in
    part:
            ``the reference to the Bureau of Reclamation not having bridge
            building capabilities is simply not correct. Reclamation has
            designed and built many large bridges throughout the West. The
            beautiful arch bridge that spans the depths of Glen Canyon in
            Arizona is one example'' Reclamation designed and built the
            Foresthill Bridge that spans the American River at Auburn--The
            property where the new bridge would be located is Reclamation
            land, and Reclamation is quite capable of building the bridge
            we'll design.
        The Bureau has as much capability to design and build the new
    bridge as other Federal agencies. It has built bridges in the past. In
    fact, it built the large bridge standing only a few miles upstream from
    the proposed location of the new bridge.
        Second, the Bureau should build the bridge. This project replaces a
    Federal facility operated by the Bureau of Reclamation and recently
    closed at the direction of the Commissioner of the Bureau of
    Reclamation. It is a Bureau facility and a Bureau responsibility. It is
    incorrect to suggest, as some have, that H.R. 901 ``throws the Bureau's
    mission out the window.'' The Bureau's mission to protect water and
    related resources led it to the decision to close Folsom Dam Road. It
    is not, as some would suggest, unreasonable for the Bureau to replace
    the crossing it closed in order to protect the dam. However, the City
    stands ready to assist the bureau and is willing to take on whatever
    tasks are appropriate to construct the project efficiently and
    effectively.
        Third, we do understand that the Bureau's current budget does not
    include funding for the new bridge. We support adding funding to the
    Bureau of Reclamation's budget for this project if additional funding
    is needed to build the bridge and allow the Bureau to carry out its
    other responsibilities. Congress and the Administration set Federal
    fiscal priorities, and Congress and the Administration can decide
    whether to provide funding to the Bureau of Reclamation to build the
    new bridge in light of the Bureau's decision to close Folsom Dam Road.
    Whether the Bureau or some other Federal agency builds the bridge, a
    decision to provide Federal funding of some flavor will need to be
    taken.
        Mr. Chairman, in closing I would once again like to thank you and
    your colleagues for holding this hearing today. We understand that your
    Committee is extraordinarily busy, and the fact that this hearing has
    occurred underscores both your commitment to ensuring the safety and
    security of Americans as well as the clearly established need for the
    passage of H.R. 901. We also again wish to thank Congressman Ose and
    Congressman Doolittle for all their work on this legislation and on
    behalf of the City of Folsom.
        The City of Folsom urges the Subcommittee on Water and Power to
    report favorably on H.R. 901 as soon as possible. I appreciate the
    opportunity to appear before you today, and this concludes my formal
    statement. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
        Again, thank you.
                                     ______

        Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
        Miss Aileen Roder. You're recognized for 5 minutes.

      STATEMENT OF AILEEN RODER, PROGRAM DIRECTOR, TAXPAYERS FOR
                              COMMON SENSE

        Ms. Roder. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon,
    Chairman Calvert, Congresswoman Napolitano, and other
    distinguished members of the Subcommittee.
        I am Aileen Roder, program director at Taxpayers for Common
    Sense, a national, nonpartisan budget watchdog group. Thank you
    for inviting me to testify regarding H.R. 901, legislation
    introduced by Representatives Doolittle and Ose, to authorize
    the Secretary of Interior to construct a bridge on Federal land
    west of and adjacent to Folsom Dam in California.
        Taxpayers for Common Sense strongly opposes H.R. 901. This
    bill ignores other, more appropriate approaches to replacing
    the bridge over Folsom Dam. It contains no local cost sharing
    for an enhanced bridge, circumvents the normal authorization
    process for bridge building, and tries to rewrite the Bureau of
    Reclamation's mission by making it into a highway construction
    agency.
        In February, 2002, the Army Corps of Engineers released a
    final environmental impact statement calling for a seven-foot
    raise of Folsom Dam in order to reduce Sacramento's flood risk
    to a 1 in 213 chance in any given year. The Corps plan includes
    the building of a temporary bridge southeast of Folsom Dam at a
    cost of $20-30 million. H.R. 901 ignores this and other
    additional proposals for a bridge to be built with appropriate
    local and Federal cost sharing by the Department of
    Transportation.
        H.R. 901 tries to circumvent the normal highway
    authorization process and local cost-sharing requirements for
    road building improvements. Instead of involving the Department
    of Transportation, the city of Folsom, the California
    Department of Transportation, or the Army Corps of Engineers,
    H.R. 901 drags the Bureau of Reclamation, a completely
    unrelated agency, into the process.
        The Bureau is in the water supply business, not the bridge
    building business. At a time when Federal deficits are the
    highest in history, H.R. 901 will crowd out legitimate Bureau
    of Reclamation funding for projects.
        California Members of Congress, including the two co-
    sponsors of H.R. 901, have previously opposed diverting Bureau
    funding. On January 8th, 2003, the entire California
    congressional delegation sent a letter to Secretary Norton and
    Attorney General Ashcroft requesting that settlement funds for
    Sumner Peck Ranch versus Bureau of Reclamation not come from
    the Bureau of Reclamation's budget. The delegation pointed out
    that Bureau funding should not be used for non-Bureau projects.
    We wholeheartedly agree and therefore believe it to be
    completely inappropriate to utilize Bureau funds to pay for
    projects outside its core missions, such as those anticipated
    by H.R. 901.
        This bill represents the second attempt by Congressman
    Doolittle to replace the bridge over Folsom Dam. In his June
    26th, 2001 press release regarding his original bill, H.R.
    2301, Congressman Doolittle stated, ``It is clear that a
    permanent, full-service bridge is needed to ensure greater
    transportation efficiency and commuter convenience.''
        We believe that the Federal taxpayer should not be picking
    up the whole $66.5 million tab for commuter convenience
    resulting from a bridge upgrade. Unfortunately, despite a
    debate on that bill, H.R. 901 fails to include any non-Federal
    cost sharing provisions.
        In closing, the Bureau of Reclamation should not be forced
    to deviate from its core mission by becoming a highway
    construction agency. Any bill authorizing construction of an
    improved Folsom bridge should strictly define Federal and non-
    Federal cost sharing. Such a bill should go through the normal
    highway authorization process, taking into account that the
    Corps is already contemplating construction of a two-lane
    bridge. Congress should not raid the coffers of agencies
    dependent on energy and water appropriations to pay for the
    traffic conveniences of a few local beneficiaries.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. I
    would ask that my full written statement be submitted for the
    record, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Calvert. Without objection, the full statement will be
    entered into the record.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Roder follows:]

                 Statement of Aileen Roder, Program Director,
                    Taxpayers for Common Sense, on H.R. 901

        Good afternoon, Chairman Calvert, Congresswoman Napolitano, and
    other distinguished members of the Subcommittee. I am Aileen Roder,
    Program Director at Taxpayers for Common Sense (TCS), a national, non-
    partisan budget watchdog group. I would like to thank you for inviting
    me to testify at this hearing regarding H.R. 901 which would authorize
    the Secretary of the Interior to construct a bridge on Federal land
    west of and adjacent to Folsom Dam in California. The bridge that
    formerly traversed Folsom Dam was closed to public use in February
    2003.
        Taxpayers for Common Sense strongly opposes H.R. 901, introduced by
    Representatives John Doolittle (R-CA) and Doug Ose (R-CA). This
    legislation overlooks other more appropriate approaches to replace the
    bridge that formerly traversed Folsom Dam. The most prominent proposal
    that H.R. 901 ignores is the current U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
    (Corps) plan to build a temporary bridge southeast of Folsom Dam in
    conjunction with their overall plan to raise the Folsom Dam seven feet
    in order to provide much needed flood control to the City of
    Sacramento. This bridge could be turned over to the City of Folsom and
    would resolve the security concerns that caused the Bureau of
    Reclamation to close the bridge over Folsom Dam to public use. H.R. 901
    also ignores additional proposals for a bridge to be built with
    appropriate local and Federal cost sharing by the U.S. Department of
    Transportation (USDOT).
        In February 2002, the Corps of Engineers released a Final
    Supplemental Plan Formulation Report/Environmental Impact Statement/
    Environmental Impact Report (FEIS). This FEIS called for a 7-foot raise
    of Folsom Dam in order to reduce the City of Sacramento's flood risk to
    a 1-in-213 chance in any given year. Recognizing the obvious impact of
    the raise on the dam bridge traffic, the Corps proposed a temporary
    bridge southeast of Folsom Dam. The bridge would be similarly sized to
    the bridge that formerly traversed Folsom Dam. The Corps stated that
    the bridge could be left in place if a local sponsor is identified to
    assume the operation and maintenance responsibilities. The Corps plan
    for the 7-foot raise received a favorable Chief of Engineer's report in
    November 2003. I have attached the applicable portions of the Corps
    FEIS to my testimony.
        H.R. 901 ignores the Corps proposal, and instead tries to end run
    the normal process for highway improvements and local cost share
    requirements for road-building improvements. Instead of involving the
    USDOT, or other entities such as the City of Folsom, California
    Department of Transportation (Caltrans), or the Army Corps of
    Engineers, H.R. 901 drags the Bureau of Reclamation, a completely
    unrelated agency, into the process.
        The Bureau of Reclamation's mission is to ``manage, develop, and
    protect water and related resources in an environmentally and
    economically sound manner in the interest of the American public.'' The
    Bureau is in the water supply business not the bridge-building
    business. Legislation that foists responsibilities upon the Bureau that
    are outside of its core mission sets a terrible precedent by
    potentially reducing the agency's effectiveness in managing the West's
    water supply. At a time when Federal deficits are the highest in
    history, monies allocated under H.R. 901 will compete with legitimate
    Bureau of Reclamation funding in the Energy and Water Appropriations
    bill.
        On January 8, 2003, the entire California congressional delegation
    sent a letter to Department of Interior Secretary Norton and Attorney
    General John Ashcroft expressing reservations regarding the
    misdirection of Bureau of Reclamation funds. This letter requested that
    settlement funds for Sumner Peck Ranch Inc. v. Bureau of Reclamation
    not come from the Bureau of Reclamation's budget. The California
    delegation pointed out that Bureau of Reclamation funding should not be
    used for non-Bureau projects. We agree that robbing the coffers of one
    agency to pay for projects that should legitimately be run through
    another agency sets up a system doomed to failure. Specifically, we
    oppose efforts to force the Bureau of Reclamation to fund and build a
    bridge when this is both outside its core mission and would compete
    with appropriate funding of Bureau projects. I have attached the
    January 8, 2003 letter to my testimony for submission to the record.
        TCS recognizes that the construction of a new bridge is potentially
    necessary now that the bridge that traversed Folsom Dam has been closed
    due to security concerns. We also recognize that a wider bridge may be
    needed, however, H.R. 901 sidesteps the essential process that USDOT
    has in place to evaluate the need for such improvements.
        H.R. 901 clearly envisions more than replacing the bridge that
    traversed Folsom Dam. This bill would likely upgrade the bridge from
    two lanes to four lanes. USDOT has a process and formula to identify
    when highway upgrades, such as improving a road from two lanes to four
    lanes, are justified. The City of Folsom and the State of California,
    in concert with the Highway Trust Fund, are the proper sources for
    bridge enhancement design and funding. Replacing or upgrading Folsom
    Dam Road is a transportation need and as such it is inappropriate to
    tap the general treasury or energy and water appropriations for
    funding.
        Despite the debate on cost sharing that occurred during the hearing
    and mark-up of H.R. 2301, a virtually identical bill from the 107th
    Congress, H.R. 901 fails to include any non-Federal cost sharing and
    instead forces Federal taxpayers to pay the entire cost of the bridge.
    While we recognize that security concerns are potentially a legitimate
    reason for some level of Federal funding, bridge upgrade costs should
    be borne in the normal fashion by the local beneficiaries of bridge
    expansion.
        H.R. 901 is the second attempt by Congressman Doolittle to pass a
    bill requiring the Bureau of Reclamation to build a bridge to replace
    the one on Folsom Dam. According to Congressman Doolittle's June 26,
    2001 press release on his original bill H.R. 2301, ``The region's heavy
    reliance on the Folsom Dam Road means that even temporary closures can
    snarl traffic through Folsom, inconveniencing drivers and harming the
    local retail-based economy.'' Representative Doolittle added, ``It is
    clear that a permanent, full-service bridge is needed to ensure greater
    transportation efficiency and commuter convenience.''
        Building a bridge to replace Folsom Dam Road may be necessary, but
    building an enhanced, four-lane bridge cannot be attributed to security
    or safety. Instead, this upgrade from a two to four-lane bridge is tied
    to local economics and the convenience of the City of Folsom's
    citizens. Further, the bridge that traversed Folsom Dam was intended as
    a maintenance road rather than to be used for commuter traffic. The
    Federal taxpayer should not be picking up the whole $66.5 million tab
    for ``commuter convenience.'' Further, recent articles in the
    Sacramento Bee (March 4, 2003), Folsom Telegraph (March 12, 2003), and
    Auburn Journal (March 14, 2003) found that the predicted post-dam road
    closure ``traffic snarls'' never materialized.
        H.R. 901 demands that the Federal taxpayer shell out $66.5 million
    and then outrageously requires the government to turn the bridge over
    to a non-contributing, non-Federal entity. Taxpayers should not have to
    entirely fund an upgraded bridge and then be forced to turn that bridge
    over to local entities that refused to contribute a dime to design and
    construction of that bridge. Caltrans and the City of Folsom should be
    required to pay a fair share of bridge replacement costs.
        In closing, H.R. 901 sets a dangerous precedence of derailing the
    Bureau of Reclamation from its core mission rather than staying true to
    the increasingly essential work of managing western water supplies. The
    Bureau of Reclamation is not now and never has been a highway
    construction agency. It is crucial that Federal and non-Federal cost
    sharing be strictly defined in any bill authorizing a replacement for
    Folsom Dam Road. H.R. 901 makes an end run of the normal highway
    authorization process, ignoring a common sense procedure set in place
    by the USDOT to evaluate the need for highway construction and
    upgrades. The replacement bridge planned by the Army Corps in their
    FEIS is estimated to cost $20 to $30 million compared to the $66.5
    million price tag of H.R. 901. Other proposals exist to have the USDOT
    replace the bridge with local cost sharing. Congress should not raid
    the coffers of agencies dependent on energy and water appropriations to
    pay for the traffic convenience of a few local beneficiaries.
        Thank you again for opportunity to testify today and I would be
    happy to answer any questions you may have.
                                     ______

        [An attachment to Ms. Roder's statement follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6198.006

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6198.007

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6198.008

        Mr. Calvert. Mr. Niello, Sacramento County Supervisor.
    Welcome. You're recognized for 5 minutes.

                    STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER NIELLO,
                      SACRAMENTO COUNTY SUPERVISOR

        Mr. Niello. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and members
    of the Subcommittee. My name is Roger Niello. I am a member of
    the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors and, in that spot, I
    represent the communities in Sacramento County surrounding
    Folsom Lake, including the city of Folsom. I am here in support
    of H.R. 901.
        I have previously transmitted written testimony, which I
    will abbreviate, and I ask that that be entered into the
    record.
        Mr. Calvert. Without objection, so ordered.
        Mr. Niello. I do thank you very much for holding this
    hearing this afternoon. I want to stress that Sacramento County
    also recognizes the hard work and dedication exhibited by
    Congressman Doug Ose and by Congressman John Doolittle on this
    extremely important issue to our communities. We truly
    appreciate Congressman Ose's and Congressman Doolittle's
    commitment to securing this new bridge to mitigate against the
    consequences of a very important homeland security issue.
        I am here to provide a regional perspective, if you will,
    on the impacts of closing the Folsom Dam road. I have been a
    businessman in the region for about 25 years, and I certainly
    know a lot about the power as well as the vulnerability of our
    regional economy. As a public official, I have learned about
    the importance to our public safety and our economy of a viable
    water supply, a reliable energy grid, and a functioning
    transportation system. I also serve on the Sacramento Area
    Flood Control Agency, so I am, I would say, painfully familiar
    with our vulnerability to flooding.
        Knowing this, and consistent with the testimony I gave last
    year, I fully understand the decision to close Folsom Dam road.
    It is, indeed, necessary for homeland security reasons. That
    decision, however, does, indeed, have some real impacts. The
    traffic impacts of the dam road closure were very well
    explained by Councilmember Starsky.
        It is just simply important, I think, to know that Folsom
    Lake presents a physical barrier to long-time established
    travel patterns needed by the citizens of the growing
    communities of El Dorado, Sacramento, and Placer Counties, for
    work, shopping, and recreational related travel between these
    socially and economically linked communities.
        Now that the road over the dam no longer provides a means
    to cross that barrier, all of that traffic must invade,
    literally, Folsom neighborhood streets. The impact is not only
    to Folsom, as was explained, but also to the lives and
    pocketbooks of many more regional residents and businesses.
        It is also important to stress that good planning requires
    that the new bridge be a full service, four-lane bridge.
    Congressman Ose's legislation properly requires that the bridge
    be designed and constructed with both current as well as future
    demands in mind, and this requires the allowance for four
    lanes.
        Now, as my testimony before this Committee last year
    indicated, flood control is certainly always controversial in
    our region. It's again important to note, though, that this
    legislation has absolutely no prejudicial effect on that flood
    control debate. As I mentioned, I am a member of SAFCA, as we
    call the flood control agency, and as a member of that board,
    I'm on record as supporting both the Folsom ``mini-raise'' as
    well as the Auburn Dam. With the closure of the Folsom Dam
    road, a replacement of this vital transportation link needs to
    be provided, regardless of which project or combination of
    projects is approved or constructed. In fact, now that the dam
    road has been closed, the bridge becomes a need independent of
    the flood control project, and it is now not just contingently
    needed due to a desired flood control project, but it is
    unconditionally needed due to the actual permanent closure of
    the dam road.
        There have been discussions about whether the Department of
    Interior is a bridge builder or not. The one thing that I want
    to stress on that is that the completion of this bridge is,
    indeed, the completion of the original Folsom Dam project which
    pledged to the local community whole with regard to impacts of
    the building of that dam. Of course, four traffic lanes were
    flooded, never retained other than by this bridge, which now
    has been permanently closed.
        So, to sum up, I would say this is not about redefining
    missions of Federal agencies; it's not about rewriting
    legislative processes. This is directly related to homeland
    security and, thus, it is truly independent of any flood
    control project and it fulfills a 50-year-old obligation by the
    Bureau to hold our communities traffic lane harmless, if you
    will, and thus I urge this Subcommittee to report favorably on
    H.R. 901.
        That concludes my testimony. Thank you again very much, and
    I would be prepared to take any questions that you have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Niello follows:]

                   Statement of The Honorable Roger Niello,
              Sacramento County Board of Supervisors, on H.R. 901

        Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Sub-committee, my
    name is Roger Niello, and I am a member of the Sacramento County Board
    of Supervisors representing the communities in Sacramento County
    surrounding Folsom Lake. I am honored to be here in support of H.R.
    901, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to construct a
    bridge on Federal land west of and adjacent to Folsom Dam in
    California.
        I join my friends and colleagues invited to testify today in
    thanking you and the members of the Subcommittee on Water and Power for
    holding this hearing this afternoon. This is truly a critical project,
    and we cannot do what needs to be done without Federal involvement.
    Sacramento County also recognizes the hard work and dedication
    exhibited by Congressman Doug Ose and Congressman John Doolittle on
    this issue. We truly appreciate Congressman Ose's and Congressman
    Doolittle's commitment to securing the new bridge and doing so in a
    fiscally responsible manner. Their legislation recognizes the present
    day realities of the impact of the closure of Folsom Dam Road on
    regional transportation and air quality issues, and we appreciate their
    leadership in taking on this necessary project.
        We urgently need the bridge authorized by H.R. 901 to mitigate the
    impact of closing Folsom Dam Road to ensure security at Folsom Dam and
    Folsom Reservoir. This new bridge is essential for the economic
    stability of our region. While the decision by the Federal Government
    to remove automobile traffic from Folsom Dam was driven by perfectly
    justifiable security issues, the impact of this decision has severely
    affected the region I live in. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this
    legislation and I urge you and your colleagues to act speedily on H.R.
    901 to make certain the bill is passed and signed into law as soon as
    possible.
        I am here to provide a regional perspective on the impacts of
    closing Folsom Dam Road. As a local businessman, I know quite a bit
    about the power of our regional economy. As a public official I have
    learned the importance to our public safety and economy of a viable
    water supply, a reliable energy grid, and a functioning transportation
    system. I also serve on the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency, so I
    am painfully familiar with our vulnerability to flooding and the
    devastating impact a major flood would have on Sacramento and on
    California. And I do not believe it is hyperbole to suggest that a
    major flood in Sacramento coupled with the immediate loss of a major
    water and power supply would have a significantly damaging impact on
    our national economy. Simply put, the triple whammy impact of a
    catastrophic failure of Folsom Dam would be beyond devastation. I fully
    understand the decision to close Folsom Dam Road, but that decision has
    some real and immediate impacts.
        The communities surrounding Folsom Lake depended on the Folsom Dam
    Road to provide a vital transportation link for the movement of people,
    goods and services. Over 18,000 cars per day utilized Folsom Dam Road
    to cross Folsom Lake. Folsom Lake provides a physical barrier to travel
    for the surrounding communities. In particular, the communities in El
    Dorado County must, for the most part, leave El Dorado County for
    employment. In particular, the traffic pattern from El Dorado County to
    South Placer County requires the crossing of Folsom Lake. The ability
    to utilize Folsom Dam Road enabled this traffic to skirt the community
    of Folsom. With the closure of Folsom Dam Road, all of that traffic is
    now forced to utilize surface streets in Folsom, directly impacting
    that local community. We have major traffic congestion and air
    pollution problems locally and regionally that are exacerbated by the
    closure of Folsom Dam Road. The bridge and linkages provided by H.R.
    901 will provide significant congestion relief upon completion and also
    anticipate and address future growth in our region.
        I also agree with my colleagues on the panel that good planning
    requires the new bridge to be a full-service, four-lane bridge.
    Congressman Ose's and Congressman Doolittle's legislation properly
    requires that the bridge be designed and constructed with appropriate
    sizing and linkages to support present and future traffic flow
    requirements for the City of Folsom and the adjacent Sacramento County,
    Placer County and El Dorado County communities.
        As I stated in my testimony before this Committee on this issue
    last April, flood control is always controversial in our region. It is
    important to point out, though, that this legislation has absolutely no
    prejudicial effect on the flood control debate. The new bridge will
    provide transportation and air quality benefits, and will do so without
    biasing the flood control debate or outcome. As I mentioned, I am a
    member of the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency. As a member of that
    Board, I am on record as supporting both the ``mini-raise'' as well as
    the Auburn Dam. With the closure of Folsom Dam Road, a replacement for
    this vital transportation link needs to be provided, regardless of
    which project or combination of projects is approved and constructed.
    In fact, now that the Dam Road has been closed the bridge becomes a
    need independent of the flood control project. It is now not just
    contingently needed due to a desired flood control project; it is
    unconditionally needed due to the actual permanent closure of the Dam
    Road.
        One of the reasons cited in opposition to having the department of
    the Interior construct this bridge is that the Department of the
    Interior is not in the bridge building business unless it is a part of
    a project such as the ``mini-raise.'' Setting aside that particular
    debate, it is my contention that the construction of the proposed
    bridge is the ``completion'' of the original Folsom Dam project. It is
    my understanding that the legislation that originally authorized Folsom
    Dam included a commitment to replace the bridge lanes that were flooded
    upon that project's completion. The utilization of Folsom Dam Road
    provided at least partial replacement for those lost cross-river access
    points. With the closure of the Folsom Dam Road, the replacement of
    that access has been removed. The bridge proposed in H.R. 901 would be
    a permanent replacement for this lost access. It is not only
    appropriate to have Interior build this bridge, but also it is a
    logical conclusion to the Folsom Dam project.
        H.R. 901 is the right legislation at the right time. The Sacramento
    region is in desperate need of additional flood control improvements
    and it is making progress towards that goal. While I support moving
    forwarded on our regions flood control protection, I also recognize
    that that process is ongoing. Additionally, our region has adopted a
    balanced transportation plan that invests in the needed infrastructure
    of our roadways and transit systems. For this part of the Sacramento
    Region, those communities surrounding Folsom Lake, there is not another
    more vital single project. The construction of the bridge and the flood
    control improvements, with the closure of Folsom Dam Road, are now,
    independent of each other. What is not separate is the real physical
    barrier that Folsom Lake presents to local traffic circulation.
        One final point on the impacts to local businesses by the closure
    of Folsom Dam Road. When one of the Dam's gates failed in 1996, Folsom
    Dam Road was closed for a period of several months. It has been
    reported to me by the Folsom Chamber of Commerce that 38 businesses
    failed in Folsom due to the impacts of that road closure. I am fearful
    that there could be a repeat given the impacts of the permanent closure
    in our current economic environment.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you again for holding this hearing and giving
    my colleagues and me from the Sacramento Region the opportunity to
    appear before you today. We also again wish to thank Congressman Ose
    and Congressman Doolittle for all their work on this legislation and on
    behalf of our community. I urge the Subcommittee on Water and Power to
    report favorably on H.R. 901 as soon as possible. This concludes my
    formal statement, and I would be happy to answer any questions you may
    have.
        Again, thank you.
                                     ______

        Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
        Ms. Roder, I appreciate your coming out and your knowledge
    of the core mission of the Department of Reclamation. Some
    people around here have been trying to find out what that
    mission has been for some time.
        [Laughter.]
        So, since you know it, I'm going to ask you a couple of
    questions and see if we can't come to some kind of conclusion.
        Is part of the core mission of the Bureau of Reclamation,
    as far as you know, homeland security?
        Ms. Roder. No, Mr. Chairman, not that I'm aware of.
        Mr. Calvert. It isn't. But based upon that, they have made
    certain determinations. Would you agree the Bureau of
    Reclamation made the determination to close vehicle traffic on
    Folsom Dam?
        Ms. Roder. My understanding is the traffic is closed, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Mr. Calvert. Based upon the testimony that you were here to
    listen to today, would you conclude, based upon what the
    Commissioner and others have said, that it was based upon the
    tragedy of 9/11 and the Department of Reclamation choosing to
    protect the people who live downstream of Folsom Dam?
        Mr. Roder. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Calvert. So, based upon that, do you agree that there
    is a Federal impact based upon that decision, some Federal
    impact?
        Ms. Roder. Certainly there is an impact, yes, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Calvert. Based upon the Federal Government?
        Ms. Roder. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Calvert. So your disagreement is what the amount of
    that impact is, what percentage?
        Ms. Roder. My disagreement, Mr. Chairman, is certainly that
    there should be a local-Federal cost share, and which agency
    should be responding to the needs of the community.
        Mr. Calvert. But you do agree that the Federal Government
    has a responsibility to some degree?
        Ms. Roder. We do believe that the Federal Government has
    some responsibility.
        Mr. Calvert. OK. We agree on that.
        This next question is for the Councilman for the city of
    Folsom, Mr. Starsky. I have a close friend there in your
    community, a good friend. I went from kindergarten through
    college with him, your chief of police, who has let me know
    that you have literally a disaster on your hands there in the
    community of Folsom, as far as traffic is concerned.
        Can you describe the impact of that Federal decision upon
    the community of Folsom?
        Mr. Starsky. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman, yes. Our police
    chief, Sam Spiegel, was probably the person most responsible
    for the immediate response to the closure of the roadway. The
    impacts are clearly that roughly six million additional trips
    by the end of the next 11 months will have been directed
    immediately through streets in the city of Folsom that were
    simply not designed for that kind of a load.
        By way of example--and again, I bring this down to the
    lowest level because that's where I talk to people, the people
    who can't turn out of parking lots because it takes eight light
    changes for them to get through a light of a major intersection
    within our city. That is devastating to the businesses.
        I have e-mails that have nearly crashed my system from
    responses from angry motorists, most of them not even within my
    city. They're outside my city.
        Mr. Calvert. That's the next question I was going to ask.
    Do you have an idea of what percentage of folks that are just
    passing through?
        Mr. Starsky. I would purely be speculating, but certainly,
    from my own anecdotal observations, I would say, of those
    18,000 trips per day, that 75 percent or more of those are from
    the surrounding counties.
        Mr. Calvert. Any trucks?
        Mr. Starsky. Trucks were prohibited from using the dam
    road--again, I apologize for that term. I guess we mean it both
    ways.
        Mr. Calvert. D-a-m.
        Mr. Starsky. Yes. But trucks were prohibited after the 9/11
    incident from using the roadway, so we've been dealing with
    that experience of those trucks coming through the city of the
    roadway and they've had serious impacts on our roadways.
        Mr. Calvert. It has a cumulative impact upon the other
    bridge that you have remaining; isn't that correct?
        Mr. Starsky. Absolutely. I think a key point for us was we
    designed and built, as was indicated earlier, the city of
    Folsom built a replacement bridge or an additional bridge to
    accommodate our growth plans. We spent--basically, we have
    effectively mortgaged our transportation future.
        Mr. Calvert. By the way, on that, how much Federal dollars
    went into that bridge?
        Mr. Starsky. None. That was--
        Mr. Calvert. None?
        Mr. Starsky. That was funded completely by the city of
    Folsom, $75 million. To give you some perspective, the city of
    Folsom's annual general fund budget is $38 million.
        Mr. Calvert. So no money went into the non-Federal bridge
    that is going through Folsom property at the present time.
        Mr. Starsky. That's correct.
        Mr. Calvert. And the so-called Federal bridge, that was
    shut down by the Department, is impacting the community and is
    what's causing this pain in your local area.
        Mr. Starsky. That's absolutely correct, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
        Mrs. Napolitano.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Starsky, you mentioned that there's an impact on the
    community, and as a former elected official at the local level,
    I understand what that can mean.
        Is there any indication to show there has been an increase
    in customers for your business community?
        Mr. Starsky. That's a very good question, Madam
    Congresswoman. Again, before I answer that, let me just say I
    want to thank you for seeing our delegation that came here a
    month ago. They said you were very gracious in listening to
    their concerns.
        Your question, in my opinion, is baited in marketing 101,
    and that is where I first took the assessment. How can you
    complain? You have 18,000 more customers coming past your
    businesses. The fact of the matter is that that's simply not
    true, and the reason why is, in speaking to the businesses who
    are directly in those routes, people refuse to pull into their
    establishments because they cannot get out. They cannot get out
    of the blocked parking lots. They can't afford to lose their
    place in line, so to speak. The majority of them that would
    normally, in speaking to most of the small businesses--coffee
    shops, retailers--they say that the people simply will not
    stop. One man, a coffee shop owner, told me he lost all of his
    regular customers because they were so frightened they could
    not get out of the parking lot once they got in. That has been
    the experience all the way throughout the entire city.
        Mrs. Napolitano. I would have thought at least there would
    be good news in some of the businesses that may have received
    customers after hours. You know what I'm talking about. It may
    have had some positive impacts on some of these businesses.
        Mr. Starsky. I was hoping for the same thing.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Miss Roder, you apparently have very good
    knowledge of some of the issues on the bridge building side of
    the Bureau. Do you have any idea of what the cost is of any of
    those bridges they have built? I understand there have been 17
    built, according to my colleague. Do you know the cost of any
    of those particular bridges, individually? For instance, the
    last one.
        Ms. Roder. No, Congresswoman Napolitano. Off the top of my
    head, I do not. I can answer that through written testimony.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Would you, please? I would be interested
    to learn if they're of the same size, of the same breadth and
    depth of what we're talking about at Folsom. I certainly
    congratulate Folsom for taking the initiative and building
    their own bridge at their own expense, to be able to provide
    access for their constituency.
        Mr. Chair, that's all I have. Thank you.
        Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentlelady.
        Mr. Ose.
        Mr. Ose. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Starsky, in terms of the bridge that Folsom built for
    $75 million, how long is it? Is it about a half mile?
        Mr. Starsky. That's correct.
        Mr. Ose. So half a mile would be $30,000 a lineal foot? Is
    that right? I'm trying to get to your question. I mean, $75
    million divided by half a mile, whatever that is. That should
    give you some indication of what the cost of the bridge would
    be on a relative scale.
        Mrs. Napolitano. If the gentleman would yield, I was
    talking about the bridge they built in '99. In other words, the
    cost of other bridges.
        Mr. Ose. I understand.
        Mrs. Napolitano. OK. Thank you.
        Mr. Ose. Mr. Chairman, I'm concerned about something. I
    listened to Ms. Roder's testimony, and I listened to
    Commissioner Keys, and I'm trying to reconcile the two of them.
    I asked Mr. Keys directly, has the Bureau ever built bridges,
    and he said yes. Miss Roder is saying that's not part of their
    responsibility. I went on and asked have you ever designed
    bridges, and he said yes. I'm not sure we're getting the truth
    here. I'm wondering whether we ought to bring Commissioner Keys
    back under subpoena to testify under oath.
        Mr. Calvert. I would be happy to acknowledge the fact that
    the Bureau of Reclamation builds bridges. That's part of the
    testimony. But if you would like to have a letter made part of
    the record, we can make that happen.
        Mr. Ose. I do have a letter here dated October 1st of 2001,
    printed in the Sacramento Bee. I would like to enter it into
    the record. It is signed by John Keys, III.
        Mr. Calvert. Without objection, so ordered.

        [The Sacramento Bee letter submitted for the record
    follows:]
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6198.019

        Mr. Ose. He is noted here as Washington, D.C. Commissioner
    of the Bureau of Reclamation. It's interesting. ``Reclamation
    has designed and built many large bridges throughout the West.
    The beautiful Arch Bridge that spans the depths of Glen Canyon
    in Arizona is one example. Reclamation designed and built the
    Forest Hill Bridge that spans the American River at Auburn. The
    conceptual drawings for the bridge at Folsom Dam came from our
    bridge designers in Denver.''
        I'm just a little bit confused. I appreciate you allowing
    me to enter that into the record.
        Mr. Niello, you and I grew up in Sacramento, so we know a
    little bit of the history. I want to make sure I've got it
    correct. In 1956, when Folsom opened, there were six lanes of
    crossings that were inundated with the filling of the Folsom
    Dam, is that correct?
        Mr. Niello. That's correct, and two of them have since been
    raised above the water and relocated, I believe. But the other
    four, the other two structures, remain submerged and never
    replaced in any way.
        Mr. Ose. So you had six lanes going across, two were moved,
    so you replaced two of them, so you're down four. Then the two
    atop the dam basically constitute a replacement of two more, so
    you're down two at that point. And then you close this and now
    you're down four. I mean, that's the math. You're the
    accountant. You tell me.
        Mr. Niello. We appear not to be making much statistical
    progress.
        Mr. Ose. OK. So we're down four lanes of crossings, is that
    correct?
        Mr. Niello. That is correct.
        Mr. Ose. Perhaps I should direct this to Ms. Roder.
        Ms. Roder, is it Bureau policy to basically not replace
    crossings, or do you know if the Bureau has a policy for
    replacing the river crossings that are inundated in a
    construction project of this nature?
        Ms. Roder. Congressman Ose, I'm not sure exactly what the
    Bureau policy would be on that. From our perspective, the city
    of Folsom has done very well because they receive flood
    control--
        Mr. Ose. OK. Mr. Chairman, if I could reclaim my time, do
    you know the answer to that question, or does somebody on staff
    know the answer to that question?
        Mr. Calvert. I can speculate, but rather than do that, we
    will get you a written response to your question.
        Mr. Ose. OK. I would appreciate that.
        Now, the other question I have--and I was just thinking
    about this walking over for the votes--we have established the
    road atop Folsom Dam was closed in response to the Defense
    Threat Reduction Agency analysis that occurred subsequent to 9/
    11.
        I would ask Miss Roder, relative to the occasion of 9/11, I
    could take your argument and suggest that perhaps the subway
    improvements in New York following the collapse of the World
    Trade Center should have a cost share figure and, in effect,
    the people of New York City should be punished for being
    victims. I don't understand the difference between that
    particular set of circumstances, where conceptually the people
    of New York City are held accountable for the adverse impacts
    of such an act, and the people of Folsom, under your scenario,
    being asked to pay for replacing a bridge they had nothing to
    do with closing.
        Can you reconcile those two things for me?
        Ms. Roder. Respectfully, Congressman Ose, this is a plan
    that was in place prior to September 11th, 2001. This
    legislation was originally submitted in June of 2001 to build
    this bridge.
        I would also submit that this bridge is looking at doing
    more than just replacing the existing or now closed bridge over
    Folsom Dam. It's looking to upgrade from two to four lanes.
        Mr. Ose. Well, we are going to examine that question.
    Incidentally, I was a cosponsor of that June, '01 legislation,
    having identified the need to take traffic off the dam.
        Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate the opportunity to come
    before the Committee and spend time on the dais. I have to
    scratch my head at the concepts that seem to be of popular
    distribution, when you blame the victim for circumstances that
    adversely affect their communities. I mean, I can't even
    imagine what it would have been like here had we blamed New
    York City for the consequences of the acts of those 19
    individuals, any more than I can imagine the logic that burdens
    a community with replacing river crossings when, in fact, it
    was done at the behest of some other party.
        I do appreciate being here. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
        One last comment. I want to thank the gentlelady. Ms.
    Roder, for mentioning the Sumner Peck letter, because I
    circulated that letter and was happy to see the judgment fund
    used instead of reclamation. I'm sure the gentleman from
    Sacramento really doesn't care who pays for it, as long as it
    comes from or is being picked up by the responsible parties at
    the end of the day.
        With that, we want to thank this panel. You are excused.
    Have a great day.
        Mr. Starsky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Calvert. Next we have a number of people that are going
    to be introduced by some folks that represent them. First I
    would like to recognize Mrs. Napolitano to recognize some
    people from the San Gabriel Valley.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        I would like to ask both Mr. Michael Whitehead, Board
    Member of the San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority, and
    Mr. George Lujan, from Riando College, South El Monte, also in
    his capacity on the council. Both of them have come at our
    request to speak to H.R. 1284 and the need for the expansion to
    include South El Monte, El Monte, and the city of industry, or
    otherwise known as the Puente Valley operating unit.
        As we had covered earlier, the three projects have been
    lumped into one, so that Congresswoman Solis is a cosponsor of
    this because two of her cities are El Monte and South El Monte.
    These are projects that were not readily available at the time
    the cap was placed on the project area, which, of course, is
    the Superfund list I talked about.
        As some of my colleagues here said, this affects 1.3
    million people because of the area it covers. So I look forward
    to hearing from both of them and I hope we will be able to shed
    some light on this.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentlelady.
        Mr. Hayworth would like to introduce a mutual friend of
    ours from the State of Arizona.
        Mr. Hayworth. Mr. Chairman, I thank you. He is a good
    friend, and I see him back there preparing to ``Enter and sign
    in, please.'' It's our friend Bob Lynch, who is not new to the
    Subcommittee. He has testified before this Committee on a
    number of occasions and has provided valuable expert testimony.
        He is a long-time friend of mine, and I hope the Committee
    will not hold it against him. Despite the handicap of being a
    friend of mine, he is a well-respected attorney in Phoenix and
    well known across our country. He holds undergraduate law
    degrees from the University of Arizona, a masters degree in
    natural resources law from George Washington University. His
    law practice, Robert S. Lynch & Associates focuses on
    electricity, water, and environmental and public land issues--
    in short, everything this Committee has an interest in.
        He is affiliated with the American Public Power
    Association, the National Water Resources Association, and the
    Central Arizona Project Association. He is an active
    participant in all the aforementioned organizations and he has
    served as President and Chairman of the Board of the Central
    Arizona Project Association.
        My friend from the 1st District, Brother Renzi, joins me in
    welcoming our friend, Bob Lynch. Bob, welcome.
        Mr. Calvert. With that, I recognize Mr. Renzi to recognize
    a representative from the Zuni Indian Tribe. Mr. Renzi.
        Mr. Renzi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        It is a pleasure of mine to introduce Mr. Wilfred Eriacho,
    Sr., who is the Chairperson of the Zuni Indian Tribe Water
    Rights team. He has been a critical part of the negotiation
    team that has allowed us to reach this point. It is through his
    hard work, along with my colleague, Mr. Hayworth and Senator
    John Kyl, that we have again reached this point of settlement.
        I want to thank you all very much for allowing us to go
    down this path with you and for the compromise that you've
    shown, particularly the ability to allow the agreement to have
    a feature in it which allows the voluntary aspect of the water
    users in the upper region to flow to Zuni Heaven. I am grateful
    for your compassion, your consideration, and welcome you here
    today. Thank you.
        Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
        I have the privilege of recognizing Dr. Peter Gleick,
    Director of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development,
    Environment and Security. He is here to testify, along with Mr.
    Lynch, on H.R. 135, the Linder Commission Initiative.
        With that, Mr. Gleick, I recognize you for 5 minutes. We
    try to keep our testimony, by the way, within 5 minutes. If
    there's any additional testimony or information, we will be
    happy to take it into the record. So, with that, Mr. Gleick,
    you're recognized for 5 minutes.

               STATEMENT OF PETER H. GLEICK, PRESIDENT,
                           PACIFIC INSTITUTE

        Mr. Gleick. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Napolitano,
    members, thank you for inviting me today to testify on the need
    for a National Water Commission for the 21st Century, and in
    particular, on the approach taken by H.R. 135.
        I believe there is, indeed, a need for such a commission
    and, in fact, about 3 weeks ago the Pacific Institute, which I
    direct in Oakland, called for a national water commission in a
    letter to the President and to Congress. Copies of that letter
    were attached to my formal testimony and I expect they will be
    entered into the record.
        Mr. Calvert. Without objection, so ordered.
        Mr. Gleick. I will also abbreviate my testimony here today.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
        Mr. Gleick. The United States has not had a national water
    commission for 30 years, since the 1968 National Water
    Commission reported to the President and Congress in 1973.
    Moreover, we have never had a national water commission with
    the authority and responsibility to review and recommend on the
    role of the U.S. in addressing international water issues. My
    comments today will address the idea of a national water
    commission with those responsibilities, and I will also provide
    some specific comments on H.R. 135.
        In short, I believe the idea of a commission is an
    excellent one, but I believe that the findings and duties
    described in H.R. 135 need some important modifications. I will
    offer some specific suggestions.
        As we enter the 21st century, pressure on the United
    States' water system and on international water resources is
    growing. Conflicts among users are worsening, international
    tensions are growing, and international attention to these
    issues is growing, as reflected by the recent meeting in
    Johannesburg at the Earth Summit, the World Water Forum that
    just ended about a week ago in Kyoto, with 10,000 participants
    from the international community, the fact that the year 2000
    is the International Year of Fresh Water, as named by the
    United Nations, there is growing attention to the failure to
    meet basic needs for water, growing international tensions and
    conflicts over water resources, the issue of climate change--
    I'm sorry the other representative is not still here--the
    controversy of dams, a whole series of international issues.
        In addition, here at home municipalities are facing
    billions of dollars of infrastructure upgrades and investments,
    growing disputes over the role of public and private
    participation in water resources, arguments over shared rivers
    between the U.S. and Mexico, concerns among our Canadian
    neighbors that perhaps the United States is going to take water
    from the Great Lakes in inappropriate ways. All of these issues
    are facing us, and they have received an enormous amount and
    are going to continue to receive a great deal of attention.
        In many cases, the answer to those problems requires smart
    State and local action and not national efforts. But national
    policies and actions are also needed, as is leadership at the
    national level.
        It is time, I think, for a new national water commission.
    The commission must be nonpartisan, it must include
    representation from across the many disciplines affected by
    water issues, including the sciences, economics, public policy
    law, pretty much anything you can think of is affected by water
    resource issues.
        As an example of some of the goals, I would like to offer
    first to reevaluate national water science and policy and offer
    guidance on integrating efforts that are now scattered among
    many Federal agencies. The United Nations has 23 different
    pieces that work on water. I think in the Federal Government
    alone it's probably 20. So there is need for integration.
        Recommend revisions or better enforcement of national water
    laws. We have national water laws on water quality, we have
    some national standards on water use efficiency. There are
    national laws related to water, but some of them need revision.
        Develop recommendations for flood and drought management,
    including implementing overdue changes that have already been
    proposed by Federal surveys and studies.
        Work to ensure the physical security of the nation's water.
    Obviously, in light of some of the discussion about Folsom
    recently, there is an urgent need to do that.
        Develop recommendations for the U.S. in identifying and
    addressing global water problems, including how to
    significantly accelerate efforts to meet the large and
    devastating unmet basic needs for water in poorer countries.
    The U.S. plays a role in this, but could play a larger and more
    effective one.
        Explore how to deal with the risks of climate change.
    Climate change is a real problem. The impacts on water
    resources in the United States will be real, but there is no
    significant comprehensive efforts in that area.
        Make recommendations for reducing the risks of
    international tensions over shared water resources, including
    how to resolve concerns with our neighbors, Mexico and Canada,
    and that, I would point out, can be tremendously useful in
    other international basins, including the Middle East.
        It is past time for an integrated and comprehensive
    national water strategy and for a stronger effort by this
    nation in solving water problems. In this context, H.R. 135 is
    a good idea, and I would like to commend Congressman Linder on
    proposing it. I offer some comments specifically in my written
    testimony.
        I realize I'm short on time, so let me just say three quick
    things. The principal focus of that bill seems to be to offer
    recommendations on improving and enhancing the nation's water
    supply. That's not our problem. If you look at the two figures
    that are attached to my testimony, you can see, in fact, the
    demand for water in the United States is going down, not up. We
    use 20 percent less water per person today in the United States
    that we used 20 years ago. We are improving our efficiency. The
    problem is not demand but how we manage our water resources. I
    have made some specific recommendations for wording changes to
    make this bill reflect, in fact, what I think is our greatest
    need; that is, how to manage our water resources more
    efficiently rather than how to enhance supply.
        Let me stop my comments there. I would be happy to take
    questions. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Gleick follows:]

    Statement of Dr. Peter H. Gleick, 1 President of the Pacific
                         Institute, Oakland, California
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        \1\ Dr. Gleick is President of the Pacific Institute, Oakland,
    California; an Academician of the International Water Academy, Oslo,
    Norway; and a member of the Water Science and Technology Board of the
    U.S. National Academy of Science. His comments reflect his own opinion
    and the recommended position of the Pacific
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mr. Chairman, Representatives: thank you for inviting me to offer
    comments on the need for a National Water Commission for the 21st
    Century. I believe there is indeed need for such a Commission, and on
    March 10, 2003, the Pacific Institute called for its creation in a
    letter to the President and members of Congress. I have attached for
    the record a copy of that letter (Attachment 1).
        The United States has not had a national water commission in place
    for 30 years, since the 1968 National Water Commission reported to the
    President and Congress in 1973. Moreover, we have never had a national
    water commission with the authority and responsibility to review and
    recommend on the role of the U.S. in addressing international water
    issues. My comments today will address the idea of a Commission
    generally, with some detailed recommendations. I will also provide
    specific comments on H.R. 135, a bill proposed to establish such a
    Commission. In short, the idea of such a Commission is an excellent
    one; but I believe the Findings and Duties as described in H.R. 135
    need clarification and revision if the Commission is to adequately deal
    with the water challenges facing us.
    International and Domestic Water Challenges
        As we enter the 21st century, pressures on United States and
    international water resources are growing and conflicts among water
    users are worsening. International attention to these problems is
    growing, as shown by the focus on water at the Johannesburg Earth
    Summit and the Kyoto Third World Water Forum. Moreover, 2003 has been
    declared the International Year of Freshwater by the United Nations.
        Globally, the realization is growing that the failure to meet basic
    human and environmental needs for water is the greatest development
    disaster of the 20th century. Millions of people, mostly young
    children, die annually from preventable water-related diseases. Climate
    change is increasingly threatening our own water systems and water
    resources abroad. Controversy is developing over the proper role of
    expensive dams and infrastructure, private corporations, and local
    communities in managing water. Yet the United States has not offered
    adequate leadership in providing resources, education, and our vast
    technological and financial experience to address these problems.
        Here at home, municipalities are faced with billions of dollars of
    infrastructure needs and growing disputes over the role of public and
    private water management. Arguments among western states over
    allocations of shared rivers are rising, as are tensions between cities
    and farmers over water rights. The U.S. and Mexico have unresolved
    disagreements over the Colorado and Rio Grande/Rio Bravo rivers, and
    our Canadian neighbors are concerned about proposals to divert Great
    Lakes or Canadian water for U.S. use. Communities are facing new
    challenges in meeting water quality standards and ensuring that safe
    drinking water is available for all.
    Responding to Water Challenges: A New Water Commission
        In many cases, the resolution of these problems requires smart
    state and local action. But national policies and actions are also
    needed, as is leadership at the national level. Unfortunately, there is
    inadequate attention being given to national water issues, and what
    efforts are being made are often contradictory or counterproductive.
    Responsibility for water is spread out over many Federal agencies and
    departments, operating with no overall coordination.
        It is time for a new national water commission. The Pacific
    Institute has called for the creation of a National Commission on Water
    for the 21st Century to provide guidance and direction on the
    appropriate role of the United States in addressing national and
    international water issues. The Commission must be non-partisan and
    include representation from across the many disciplines affected,
    including the sciences, economics, public policy, law, governments,
    public interest groups, and appropriate private sectors. While the
    duration of the Commission should be fixed, adequate financial
    resources should be provided to permit it to do a serious and effective
    job. The goals of the Commission should include:
         LRe-evaluate national water science and policy and offer
    guidance on integrating efforts now scattered among disparate and
    uncoordinated Federal agencies and departments. National budget
    priorities should also be re-evaluated and re-structured to ensure that
    the national objectives are more clearly supported.
         LRecommend revisions or better enforcement of national
    laws related to water, including laws governing water quality, the
    protection of aquatic ecosystems, the financing of water
    infrastructure, and national standards for improving water-use
    efficiency and conservation.
         LDevelop recommendations for flood and drought management,
    including implementing overdue changes proposed by previous reviews.
         LWork to ensure the physical security of the nation's
    water, by highlighting necessary steps that could be taken to reduce
    overlap and streamline responsibilities of the multiple Federal
    agencies working on water issues.
         LDevelop recommendations for the U.S. role in identifying
    and addressing global water problems, including how to significantly
    accelerate efforts to meet the large and devastating unmet basic human
    needs for water in poorer countries. These recommendations should
    address how best to apply the vast financial, educational,
    technological, and institutional expertise of the United States to
    these problems.
         LExplore how to deal with the risks of climatic changes,
    including how to adapt to the growing and potentially severe impacts of
    global warming for water resources.
         LMake recommendations for reducing the risks of
    international tensions over shared water resources, including how to
    resolve concerns with our own neighbors, Mexico and Canada, over shared
    water systems. These recommendations would be valuable in other
    international river basins where our experience, international stature,
    and expertise can be effective.
    The Need for U.S. Leadership
        It is past time for an integrated and comprehensive national water
    strategy and for a stronger effort by this nation in solving water
    problems abroad. While many water issues will remain local, to be
    resolved by community participation and efforts, our national
    government can no longer ignore the positive and effective role it can
    play both here and abroad.
        The need for such integrated thinking was further made apparent at
    the global water conference in Kyoto, Japan, which ended just one week
    ago. The meeting involved 10,000 of the world's leading water experts
    as well as a Ministerial meeting involving senior diplomatic officials
    from more than 150 countries. It offered an opportunity to demonstrate
    the commitment of the international community, nations, and non-
    governmental organizations to resolve serious water problems. The
    United States, with its great technical, financial, and educational
    expertise, is perfectly positioned to be a world leader in addressing
    water problems, yet the U.S. delegation came without the comprehensive,
    integrated, and informed positions necessary to play a leadership role.
    Indeed, the United States is perceived to be a marginal player, making
    contributions well below our capability and stature as a world leader.
    And while money is not the only answer, the size of the U.S. financial
    contribution to meeting basic water needs around the world is paltry--
    actually only one-quarter the size of Japan's and even less than
    Germany's. Instead, world leadership on these issues is being played by
    the Netherlands, Japanese, French, British, Germans, and others.
        It doesn't have to be this way. A more coordinated and considered
    set of positions on the size and form of U.S. contributions to global
    water problems, including financial, technological, and educational,
    could be developed by the National Water Commission for the 21st
    Century.
    Comments on H.R. 135 ``Twenty-First Century Water Commission''
        Finally, I'd like to offer specific comments on H.R. 135. I commend
    Congressman Linder and his co-signers for proposing this bill. As my
    preceding testimony should make obvious, I strongly support the
    creation of a national commission. I believe, however, that this bill,
    as written, will not meet the needs of the nation. In particular, the
    ``Findings'' of this bill are somewhat misdirected and the ``Duties,''
    while well-intentioned, are too limited and occasionally inappropriate.
        In particular, the Findings emphasize the need ``to increase water
    supplies in every region of the country.'' Overall water supply is not
    a problem, with some regional exceptions. And even in these regions,
    increasing supplies does not appear to be the most efficient, cost-
    effective, and timely response. The greatest water problems facing the
    United States are not shortages, but inefficient use, inappropriate
    water allocations, water pollution, and ecological destruction. Indeed,
    water use in the United States has decreased in the past 20 years,
    reducing pressure on overall supply. On a per-person basis, this
    decrease is substantial, as shown in Figure 1. Per-capita use in the
    U.S. has decreased 20 percent since 1980--a remarkable change. Figure 2
    shows that total economic growth in the U.S. has continued, even as
    overall water use has leveled off and even declined. Moreover, where
    the problem is ``shortage,'' the fastest, cheapest, and most
    environmentally acceptable solution will not be an increase in
    ``supply'' but a reallocation of existing uses and improvements in
    efficiency.
        Most of the proposed ``Duties'' of the Commission are clear and
    well designed. But others could be strengthened and refocused:
        Duty (2) should not be ``directed at increasing water supplies''
    but ``directed at improving water use and reliability.''
        Duty (3)(E) should not be aimed at ``increasing water supply
    efficiently while safeguarding the environment'' but at ``improving
    water-use efficiency and reliability of water supplies while
    safeguarding the environment.''
        Duty (3)(F) should not recommend ``means of capturing excess water
    and flood water'' but should rather ``means for managing floods using
    appropriate structural and non-structural approaches.'' This would be
    in line with recent Federal recommendations on comprehensive flood
    management.
        Duty (3)(G) asks for recommendations on ``financing options for
    public works projects.'' While this would be useful, given growing
    constraints on funding at the national and local levels, it should be
    broadened to make recommendations on ``financing options for
    comprehensive water management projects.''
        Duty (3)(I) asks for recommendations on ``other objectives related
    to water supply.'' Again, this should be broadened to make
    recommendations on ``other objectives related to water management.''
        On a relatively minor point: I believe the number of Commissioners
    should be larger than 7, as proposed in Section 5, paragraph (a). Given
    the diverse nature of the nation's waters, and the complex set of
    issues that must be addressed, broader representation is necessary.
        Finally, I reiterate the need to expand the scope of the Commission
    to address the role of the United States in solving international water
    problems.
        I congratulate you for considering this vital issue and for helping
    to raise national attention on the need to re-evaluate and re-focus
    efforts on sustainably managing our precious freshwater resources.
        Thank you for your attention.
                                     ______

                                     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6198.001

                                     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6198.002

                                     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6198.003

                                     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6198.004

                                     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6198.005

        Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
        Mr. Lynch.

              STATEMENT OF ROBERT S. LYNCH, ESQ., MEMBER,
               WATER RIGHTS TASK FORCE, PHOENIX, ARIZONA

        Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the
    Subcommittee. I'm Bob Lynch, an attorney in Phoenix, Arizona. I
    would ask that my written testimony be submitted for the
    record.
        Mr. Calvert. Without objection, so ordered.
        Mr. Lynch. Since no one has talked about why this bill
    shouldn't pass, I don't think I should spend my time talking
    about what a wonderful bill it is. It's a good bill and I'm
    here to support it. I want to talk about why it needs to pass
    quickly.
        On April 15th, Reclamation will convene a meeting in
    Boulder City, NV to talk about the shortages in the Colorado
    River and the coming impacts that we're already feeling. Glen
    Canyon Dam is holding 62 percent of Lake Powell's available
    supply. Lake Mead is down a similar amount. I mean, this is
    real and it's immediate. Our Governor Napolitano has
    established a drought task force within the last 2 weeks.
        I don't have to tell you, Mr. Chairman, about the problems
    in California. California has enough water problems that it
    could be its own country. But they're there, and we all know
    what they are. Colorado, the East Slope Reservoir, in spite of
    the blizzard, it will take another 4 years to fill, according
    to my friend Rod Caharich, who runs the Colorado River Water
    Board. It didn't help the Colorado River Basin at all. It was
    on the wrong side of the mountain. So we're still in deep
    trouble.
        Governor Owens from Colorado is going to ask that antennas
    be removed from the river basins. We can't do that because of a
    bird that happens to like Arizona but doesn't like Colorado,
    and it's endangered. If Mr. Tancredo was here, he would
    probably remember that he signed a letter on March 14th to
    Secretary Veneman, saying the Forest Service is still doing
    this bypass flow thing that the task force I was on that
    reported to Congress in '97 said they didn't have authority to
    do, and they're still doing it, and asking them to stop,
    especially in a drought, especially when we're talking about
    people's drinking water.
        In New Mexico, in February the Mexican section of the
    International Boundary and Water Commission toured Caballo and
    Elephant Butte. Elephant Butte was about 20 percent full and
    Caballo about 18. These are real problems. The litigation in
    New Mexico requiring intubation transfer from the San Juan
    that's on appeal to the 10th Circuit, Commissioner Keys has
    said publicly could destroy Reclamation's ability to manage
    their 248 reservoirs. These are real problems.
        There are other suits, suits that involve the Central
    Valley Project in Idaho, where the Justice Department has
    expanded the concept of the Winter's Doctrine beyond all
    reason, as far as I'm concerned. All of this needs to get
    corralled in some fashion. This study commission has a huge
    task. There are immediate problems.
        I know the Washington Post said that the East Coast drought
    is over. I'm glad they think so. I wouldn't take that to the
    bank if I were you, not when they were threatening to close the
    University of Virginia last fall when our daughter is
    graduating from there this year, wondering whether she was
    going to be able to.
        These are real problems, and they are nationwide. Mr.
    Linder talked about the problems which have been ongoing for
    years. We need this bill and I urge your quick action on it.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Lynch follows:]

                Statement of Robert S. Lynch, Appointed Member,
                      Water Rights Task Force, on H.R. 135

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Bob Lynch.
    I am an attorney in Phoenix, Arizona. I have worked on water and water
    rights issues, beginning at the Justice Department here in Washington
    in the late 1960's and then in private practice in Phoenix for over 35
    of the 38+ years I have been a member of the bar.
        In June 1996, then Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich appointed me
    to the Water Rights Task Force, a Federal advisory committee that had
    been established by the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act,
    P.L. 104-127. This seven-member advisory committee was chaired by
    Colorado water attorney Bennett Raley, now Assistant Secretary of the
    Interior for Water and Science. The Task Force met and conducted public
    hearings at a dozen locations, including one here in the Russell Senate
    Office Building. We received written documentation and heard testimony
    from interest groups and private citizens. At the Washington hearing, a
    Member of Congress addressed us.
        Our Task Force was directed to examine more narrow issues than
    those presented in H.R. 135. Nevertheless, the issues related to the
    role of Federal agencies and conflicts that arose between agency
    desires and state water rights. Our report was submitted to Congress in
    August 1997.
        You may remember that I appeared here last May to testify on Mr.
    Linder's prior bill, H.R. 3561. In my written and oral testimony, I
    questioned the structure of the entity that was to be tasked to acquire
    information about water supply issues in the twenty-first century. In
    sum, I recommended that an approach like the Water Rights Task Force be
    utilized, giving Congress a view from outside government as to the
    issues that lay before us in solving water supply problems.
        While I could not support H.R. 3561 as introduced last year, I am
    pleased to be able to appear before you today to support H.R. 135
    enthusiastically. I want to congratulate Mr. Linder both for his zeal
    in pursuing this subject and for his flexibility in listening to
    suggestions of others in crafting H.R. 135. Without putting too fine a
    point on it, I think this approach will work.
    BARRIERS
        This new commission will give the President and the Congress a
    fresh perspective on the complex subject of water supply and water
    rights. I am pleased that the bill calls for respect for state water
    rights and the primary role of the states that this country has
    historically recognized. Continued respect for the states is central to
    acceptance of any commission recommendations.
        We all know that water flows downhill or toward money. However,
    beyond the mere application of principles of physics or finance, this
    commission needs to take a hard, independent look at the barriers our
    laws and institutions, both Federal and state, present to problem-
    solving.
        To be of real value, this commission must be blunt, perhaps even
    brutally frank, in its assessment of how we manage water supply in this
    country and the extraordinary variability woven into that task in
    different regions.
        Some of the barriers this commission must establish are statutory.
    Some of the barriers are institutional. Some of the barriers are
    social. To overcome these barriers and be able to suggest paths to
    solutions, this commission will need to find strategies that can
    provide benefits to multiple interests.
        Virtually every problem related to water supply that I have
    encountered, at least in the last quarter century, whether
    environmental, municipal, or agricultural, could have been solved
    singly or in combination by more water. Yet we often do not engage in
    strategies to increase supply, or protect against floods and conserve
    flood flows, because others may gain an advantage or because we cannot
    necessarily quantify or increase our advantage.
        To the extent that this commission will be confronted by historic
    patterns of applied self-interest, it will need to suggest methods for
    reorienting some of our past water attitudes. Hopefully the commission
    will be charged with thinking outside the box. H.R. 135 lists an
    impressive array of duties for the commission. I am not sure how all
    these can be accomplished in the time allotted but it is certainly a
    worthwhile list.
    CONCLUSION
        Being a water lawyer, I tend to gravitate to articles in the
    newspaper about water. This last several years, most of them have been
    about drought. I have been impressed by the extent to which the drought
    has impacted so many different areas of the country. We in the West are
    used to having this problem and reading about our neighbor states and
    their drought problems. I, frankly, was not prepared for articles on
    the drought problems in Charlottesville where our daughter goes to
    school or Roanoke, where my wife's family lives. I have been aware of
    the problems in the Atlanta area for some time because of legislation
    that has been introduced and work that has been done in that area. But
    I didn't realize until the Governor of Maryland declared a drought
    emergency in seven counties near here how bad it had gotten in this
    area or in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and elsewhere.
        What Mother Nature has taught us recently is that not being
    prepared is not an option. Just last week, I read an article in our
    paper about a study that suggests that the Mayan culture of Mexico was
    driven out of existence by drought, not just over five years like the
    current drought in Arizona or seven or ten or thirty like the Southwest
    drought of the late 1800's. This study talked about a drought lasting
    one hundred years.
        We may already be behind the curve in looking at strategies for
    increasing our water supply. Whether we are or not, we are clearly at a
    point in our history where we must focus on this issue. H.R. 135 does
    just that. It is a good bill. It is a good idea. It is clearly an idea
    whose time has come.
        Thank you Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee for the
    opportunity to testify on this extraordinarily important subject.
                                     ______

        Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
        Mr. Renzi, do you have a special guest you want to
    introduce?
        Mr. Renzi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I was hesitant in my duties and I want to introduce to you
    the Governor of the Great Zuni Nation and Tribe, Arlen
    Quetawki, who I met in Phoenix not too long ago and who has
    been integral in helping us reach this settlement for Zuni
    Heaven. I know that you were involved in the negotiations, a
    newly elected Governor involved in the negotiations and the end
    game.
        I particularly want to thank you for reaching out to the
    local communities, as I mentioned earlier, the upstream users,
    and allowing the voluntary portion of this agreement to be part
    of the settlement. I think that shows the magnanimous aspect of
    your character, Mr. Governor, and of the people that you
    represent. So, with that, I recognize you today and I
    appreciate your traveling here to Washington, and thank you so
    much for getting us to this point. I'm grateful.
        Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
        With that, I recognize Mr. Eriacho for 5 minutes. Thank
    you.

      STATEMENT OF WILFRED ERIACHO, SR., CHAIRPERSON, ZUNI INDIAN
    TRIBE WATER RIGHTS NEGOTIATION TEAM; ACCOMPANIED BY HON. ARLEN
              QUETAWKI, GOVERNOR OF THE ZUNI INDIAN NATION

        Mr. Eriacho. Thank you, Chairman Calvert.
        ``Ko' don laik'yadik'yanawe?'' How are you to this time of
    day? My name is Wilfred Eriacho, Sr. I am the Chairman of the
    Zuni Water Rights Team. I thank Chairman Calvert and the rest
    of the Committee members for giving us the opportunity to
    testify before you on a very important topic for the Zuni
    Tribe. I especially thank Representative Renzi for sponsoring
    the bill, and for previous work done by Mr. Hayworth.
        With me today to assist me in my presentation are our newly
    elected Governor, Arlen Quetawki, Sr., Councilman Edward
    Wemytewa, who is in the audience back there, and our tribal
    attorney, Jane Marx. Also, I believe the Salt River Project has
    some representatives here in support of this bill.
        I have submitted a full written testimony, and I would like
    that to be included in the record.
        Mr. Calvert. Without objection, so ordered.
        Mr. Eriacho. I will do a synopsis of that written statement
    to inform you on the purposes of the settlement.
        On behalf of past, present and future generations of
    Ashiwi, the Zuni people, we present our tribe's water needs for
    a most important and sacred ancient site. This most important
    and sacred place was created in very ancient times as the final
    resting place for all Zuni people who have transitioned into
    their spirit form, to watch over and protect their Zuni
    children for as long as Koluwalawa, or Zuni Heaven, shall
    exist.
        In 1984, Congress set aside the Zuni Heaven Reservation for
    the express purpose of protecting the Tribe's long-standing
    religious and sustenance activities on those lands. Even today,
    Zuni religious leaders make a pilgrimage to that Zuni Heaven
    area every 4 years. In drought condition years, this pilgrimage
    is made more often. That 1984 legislation addressed the lands
    to be protected but did not cover the Tribe's water needs. For
    that reason, the United States, on behalf of the Tribe, filed
    water rights claims in the Little Colorado River general
    adjudication.
        Despite the strength of Zuni's litigation claims relating
    to its use and occupation of the area encompassing Zuni Heaven
    and its water since time immemorial, the Tribe was motivated by
    the desire to secure ``wet'' water and not just ``paper'' water
    rights. The proposed settlement before you today provides the
    Zuni a minimum of 5,500 acre-feet per year of water to develop
    and maintain its wetland restoration project. The Tribe will
    use both groundwater and surface water. Surface water will be
    acquired through voluntary transactions.
        Importantly, the parties set out to provide water to the
    Tribe without disrupting, to the greatest extent possible, the
    existing uses and expectations of the parties.
        In conclusion, this water rights settlement agreement will
    enable the Zuni people to restore their most sacred land area
    in the way it is described in ancient traditional historical
    accounts. It will enable them to develop wetlands for water
    plants, birds and other animals so important and necessary in
    carrying out the Zuni Kachina religion. Furthermore, it will
    ease the minds and hearts of the people, knowing that the
    spirits of their ancestors will once again be living in wetland
    conditions as were the land conditions at the very beginning.
        Past and present Zuni Tribal Councils, water rights team
    members, and tribal religious leaders have worked closely and
    reasonably with all non-Zuni parties to keep whole their water
    rights and land interest, and at the same time secure our
    interest to water and land for our sacred lands.
        The leaders of the civil government, religious leaders, the
    Zuni people, are satisfied with the terms of this settlement
    and respectfully ask that you approve it. Also, we have the
    agreement and support of the United States, the State of
    Arizona, and all local water users, including major groundwater
    pumpers.
        Esteemed members of the House of Representatives, on behalf
    of our Zuni people, I humbly ask and urge you to support the
    ratification of this proposed legislation for the water rights
    of the Zuni people at their most sacred land. As a
    representative of the Zuni Tribe's religious leaders and the
    Zuni Tribal Council, I bequeath on each of you a long and
    valued life trail. ``Don dek'ohanan yanitchiy adehy awonayadu.
    Elahkwa don yadon k'okshi'sunnahk'yanapdu.'' Thank you. May you
    spend the rest of the day in a good way to the evening time.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Eriacho follows:]

                Statement of Wilfred Eriacho, Sr., Chairperson,
                Zuni Indian Tribe Water Rights Negotiation Team

    Introduction
        Ko' don la:k'yadik'yana:we? (Literally speaking) How are all of you
    to this time of day?
        By appointment from the Governor and Tribal Council, going back two
    terms, I have served on the Water Rights Team since 1994. I am
    especially grateful to have been given the task of presenting to you,
    members of the Committee. I am very humbled to be in your presence.
    With me today to assist me in my presentation and to support the Zuni
    Indian Tribe Water Rights Settlement Agreement are Zuni Governor Arlen
    Quetawki, Sr., Tribal Councilman Edward Wemytewa, and the Zuni tribe's
    attorney, Ms. Jane Marx.
        We appreciate your consideration and ask for your support for H.R.
    495 which is identical to S.222, which has passed the Senate.
    Overview
        On behalf of past, present and future generations of A:shiwi, the
    Zuni people, we present our tribe's water needs for a most important
    and sacred ancient site. This most important and sacred place was
    created in very ancient times, as the final resting place, for all Zuni
    people who had transitioned into their spirit form to watch over and
    protect their Zuni children for as long as Ko'uwala:wa, the Zuni Heaven
    shall exist. This settlement will satisfy our water needs and put
    finality on our tribe's many centuries of endeavors to restore its role
    as owners and stewards of our most sacred ancestral final resting
    place.
        Honorable Congressmen, in our quest to re-establish our ownership
    and stewards of this most sacred place, we are all following in the
    footsteps of many great elected and traditional Zuni leaders. We are
    following in their footsteps to acquire lands and to continue to use
    Ko'uwala:wa, or referred to as Zuni Heaven, to practice our religion
    which was created for us in time immemorial. Today, we are here to ask
    for your support and advocacy to approve this settlement so that our
    Zuni people can achieve the peace of mind and emotional security so
    necessary to maintain a positive style and so that we can begin the
    important tasks of restoring the sacred land to its formal wetlands
    conditions.
    Significance of the Zuni Heaven and the Importance of Water
        The name Ko'uwala:wa is made from the words for Kokko (kachina )
    and ``uwalanne (village). Therefore, the true translation of that
    sacred place name is Kachina Village. It is the ancient and sacred
    village occupied by the Kachinas who are the ancestor spirit beings of
    departed Zuni people. This is the village where the spirit beings of
    departed ancestors of the living Zuni people reside. These spirit
    beings have lived here from time immemorial and will live here to
    perpetuity. Countless generations of Zuni people have, with their
    individual and collective prayers, made sacred corn meal and food
    offerings to these spirit beings asking for good and long life trails,
    moisture for Earth Mother, plentiful crops, courage, strength and other
    good things in life.
        In very ancient times when Zuni Heaven was created and established
    for the Zuni people, oral tradition describes the land area as being
    very wet with a waist high deep and swift flowing river running through
    it. In these oral tradition stories, this river is called K'yawa:na
    Ahonna or Reddish Brown River referring to a deep and swift flowing
    silt laden river. Since that very ancient beginning, past and present
    generations of Zuni people believe that the spirit beings, residing at
    Zuni Heaven, are responsible for the origin of clouds for rain, snow,
    hail and sleet that will bless Earth Mother with their moisture. The
    Zuni people believe that in order for the spirit beings to perform
    their responsibility of originating clouds that will deliver moisture
    to Earth Mother, they must reside in a land that is blessed with an
    abundant supply of both underground and surface water. That is, the
    land must be in the same wetlands conditions that existed when Zuni
    Heaven was first created and established. For this reason, the Zuni
    people have been very adamant about acquiring stable sources of and
    adequate quantities of water to be used to re-establish the wetland
    conditions that are needed by the spirit beings to bless Earth Mother
    with all forms of moisture.
        The traditional Zuni religion has three major components. The first
    component is the Ancient Rain Priesthood. The second is the Kachinas
    and the third is the Medicine Orders. All of these different religious
    components cooperate and collaborate to pray for the continued
    physical, mental and emotional welfare of the Zuni people. In the
    overall scheme of the Zuni religion, the Kachinas component has a very
    direct relationship to Zuni Heaven as that is where the Kachina spirit
    beings reside in perpetuity. The Kachinas component of the Zuni
    religion is supported, promoted, practiced and maintained by members of
    the six kivas in the tribe. The Kachinas component of the Zuni religion
    is the most active and visible throughout the calendar year. Through
    and with this religion component, all Zuni people, young and old, have
    continual connection with their departed ancestors and children through
    prayers, sacred prayer meal and food offerings, dances and other
    activities.
        During the many years of pre-history and history of the Zuni
    people, the practice of making a pilgrimage to Zuni Heaven has been
    maintained. Leaders of the six kivas and other appointees make this
    pilgrimage every four years, during early summer and normal non-drought
    years. During drought condition years, these pilgrimages were made on
    second or third years. A major purpose for the pilgrimage is to beseech
    the spirit being residents for all forms of moisture so that Earth
    Mother can support all plant and animal life necessary to maintain the
    lives of her Zuni children. Other important purposes include the
    validation of the Zuni people's deep belief in the religion associated
    with the Zuni Heaven and the Kachina component of the Zuni religion.
    This pilgrimage is a very important and major religious event that
    involves practically all members of the tribe and many non-tribal
    friends. The pilgrimage to Zuni Heaven is made on the Sacred Moisture
    Trail of the Kachina Beings. This Sacred Moisture Trail is the entire
    length of the Zuni River which starts at the headwaters of the Zuni
    Mountains, to the east, and ends where it empties into the Little
    Colorado River. Along this Sacred Moisture Trail, many sacred springs
    and seeps are visited where prayers, sacred corn meal and food
    offerings are made. When at Zuni Heaven, the pilgrims harvest water,
    water plants and animals, and minerals to take back to Zuni to be used
    during the years' cycles of religious activities.
        All forms and sources of water are most important and sacred to our
    Zuni people because from the dawn of their traditions and culture,
    farming has been a major life and culture sustaining occupation. Using
    the moisture absorbed by Earth Mother during the winter snows and the
    spring and summer rains, ancient Zuni farmers cultivated every
    available land to grow their precious corn along with other crops such
    as squash and beans. Traditional oral stories tell of ancient farmers
    cultivating fields irrigated by spreader dikes that controlled flood
    flows. To further validate the Zuni people as being skilled farmers,
    historical records show that during the early years of the American
    occupation of the current Zuni and Navajo land areas, Zuni farmers
    provided Fort Wingate and Fort Defiance Army Depots with enough corn
    and other crops to sustain their work efforts.
        Because of the importance and sacredness of all forms and sources
    of water, all prayers and songs of the three major components of the
    Zuni religion contain language asking for rain and snow to ensure that
    all crops have enough water to finish their life paths to provide
    sustenance for their Zuni children. According to Zuni beliefs Zuni
    Heaven is the sacred place where all forms of moisture originate.
    Therefore in order for the Zuni people and their lands to be blessed
    with rain, snow, sleet and hail forever, we have worked very diligently
    with all non-Zuni parties, entities, townships and the State of Arizona
    to obtain what we hope will be a permanent and adequate source of water
    to restore our most sacred land. We will use this water to restore the
    land area to as close to original wetland conditions as is possible.
    Today, we are here to ask for your support and advocacy to approve this
    settlement so that our Zuni people can achieve peace of mind and
    emotional security that is so necessary to maintain our Zuni traditions
    and culture.
        It is clear, therefore, why settlement rather than litigation is
    the preferable path for my people. As you know, in 1984 Congress set
    aside the Zuni Heaven Reservation for the express purpose of protecting
    the Tribe's long-standing religious and sustenance activities on those
    lands. As just described to you and testimony leading to passage of
    Pub. L. No. 98-498, 98 Stat. 1533 (August 28, 1984) revealed, water for
    riparian habitat and the Sacred Lake is essential to those activities,
    the very purpose for which Congress set aside the Reservation. That
    legislation, as amended by Pub. L. No. 101-486, 104 Stat. 1174 (October
    31, 1990), addressed the lands to be protected but did not cover the
    Tribe's water needs. The United States on behalf of the Tribe,
    therefore, filed water rights claims in the Little Colorado River basin
    general adjudication which has been pending since 1979. The LCR
    adjudication involves thousands of parties, including five Indian
    tribes.
        Despite the strength of Zuni's litigation claims relating to its
    use and occupation of the area encompassing Zuni Heaven and its waters
    since time immemorial, the Tribe was motivated by the desire to secure
    ``wet'' water and not just a ``paper'' water right. The settlement
    provides for real water to be acquired by the Tribe, in an area of the
    Little Colorado River basin where the surface water is already over
    appropriated and where there also exists significant groundwater
    demand. Equally important, the settlement also provides the resources
    to be able to restore the wetlands and riparian areas on our sacred
    lands, an outcome we would not obtain through litigation. This
    settlement, thus, restores the ecosystem necessary for our sacred
    practices and provides the parties, and Zuni in particular, the benefit
    of certainty and finality without spending numerous years and extensive
    resources in litigation. Moreover, this settlement resolves the Zuni
    Tribe's water rights claims with no adverse impacts on the water rights
    of any party in the LCR litigation.
    Overview of The Settlement
        This settlement is the culmination of the Tribe's attempts to
    protect and restore the sacred lands of Zuni Heaven. The Tribe's
    litigation claims are satisfied by providing water and resources to
    rehabilitate and restore to the Reservation a riparian habitat for the
    Tribe's religious and sustenance activities.
    Description of the Restoration Project and Water Needs
        Our restoration project will take a number of years to accomplish.
    Simply described, it involves acquisition of water rights, use of
    groundwater, aggradation of the LCR stream channel, removal of exotic
    plants that impede restoration of the wetlands, and planting and
    maintenance of native plant species. Although our goal is to restore
    the area to as close to natural, predevelopment conditions as possible,
    certain hydrologic conditions may have been permanently altered by
    upstream dams and surface water diversions as well as extensive
    groundwater pumping; significant engineering planning and design is
    needed, as well as the ``artificial'' maintenance of certain wetland
    and riparian areas. We will endeavor to create as natural an
    environment as is reasonably possible.
        With regard to the water requirements, the settlement provides Zuni
    a minimum of 5,500 acre-feet per year (afy) of water to develop and
    maintain its wetland restoration project. The Tribe will use both
    groundwater and surface water. Importantly, the parties set out to
    provide water to the Tribe without disrupting, to the greatest extent
    possible, the existing uses and expectations of the parties. The
    mechanism to accomplish this goal includes the voluntary acquisition of
    surface water rights from willing sellers in an area where water uses
    are changing and irrigation is declining. In the long run, the Tribe
    needs to acquire a total of at least 3,600 afy of surface water. The
    remainder of the minimum 5,500 afy of water needs will be met through
    appropriation of floodtype flows, development and ``harvesting'' of
    water from Zuni lands upstream of the Reservation, and groundwater
    pumping. The settlement recognizes the right of the Tribe to withdraw
    1,500 of groundwater free from objection by the parties. Notably, Zuni
    will need to acquire 2,350 afy of surface water rights over the next
    few years in order to effectuate the settlement and waive its claims.
        The Tribe's project includes two phases: a core, initial wetland
    development area that includes restoration of Hadin K'yaya, the Tribe's
    Sacred Lake. This area will be developed immediately using groundwater,
    and will be maintained in perpetuity even in periods of drought. The
    secondary wetland area will be developed using surface water, after the
    Little Colorado River channel has been aggraded, or raised up, on the
    Reservation, through removal of sediment upstream and relocation of
    that sediment to Zuni Heaven. The extent of the secondary wetland area
    is expected to fluctuate depending on surface water availability in
    wetter or dryer years.
        As noted above, the surface water rights will be acquired pursuant
    to state law. As such they will carry the associated state law priority
    dates. However, of great significance to the Tribe, once those rights
    have been acquired and severed and transferred to the reservation, the
    water takes on key attributes of a Federal right: the water rights
    shall be held in trust by the United States in perpetuity, the water
    rights cannot be lost by abandonment or forfeiture, state law does not
    apply to water uses on the Reservation, and the state has no authority
    to regulate or tax the use of the water. The settlement provides
    similar protection for the Tribe's use of 1,500 afy of groundwater on
    the Reservation.
    Contributions; Development Fund
        The settlement provides for a unique partnership among the Tribe,
    the United States, the State of Arizona, and certain individual parties
    to accomplish the goals of this settlement. First, in addition to the
    financial contribution of $19.25 million requested of the United
    States, the state parties, including the State of Arizona and other
    major groundwater pumpers, are contributing roughly $8 to $9 million
    dollars toward this settlement, and the Zuni Tribe itself has spent
    close to $5 million dollars to acquire certain key lands and water
    essential to the success of the project. The extent of shared funding
    is unprecedented in water rights settlements. Equally important,
    however, is the creative use of state programs to support the
    restoration and environmental goals of this settlement. In addition to
    contributions from its general funds, the State of Arizona is using two
    state programs aimed at endangered species protection and habitat
    conservation to fund its contribution to this settlement. Through use
    of these state funds, the Tribe will receive water rights to be used
    for its wetland restoration project as well as dollars that will be
    spent for wetland restoration and maintenance purposes. Ultimately,
    these efforts along the Little Colorado River stream will create more
    habitats for threatened and endangered species. Through this
    partnership, Zuni restores its sacred lands, and environmental
    protection goals are met.
        This agreement will establish the Zuni Indian Tribe Water Rights
    Development Fund managed by the Department of Interior into which the
    contributions from the State of Arizona and the United States will be
    deposited. From the Federal contribution of $19.25 million, $3.5
    million dollars will be made available immediately to secure water
    rights so that the settlement agreement can become enforceable. The
    remaining funds will be made available after the enforcement date. The
    Zuni Indian Tribe has extensive working knowledge of trust funds
    management and investment by the U.S. Treasury Department and
    Department of Interior's Office of Trust Funds Management. Our tribe
    has prudently used funds from prior settlement of land claims. We have
    used the prescribed regulatory process for drawing down funds under
    Secretarial control. We have also exercised the option of withdrawing
    monies under the American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of
    1994. The Congressional route for withdrawing of funds has also been
    successfully used by our Tribe.
        The Zuni Indian Tribe will use the settlement Development Fund in
    the manner prescribed by this proposed legislation and by the terms
    embodied in the agreement. Our trustees at the Southwest Regional
    office and the Office of Trust Funds Management are extremely aware of
    our adherence to Federal fiduciary standards, but more importantly, to
    the fiduciary standards of my people. We have met these standards in
    the past, and we will meet the standards contemplated in this
    legislation in furtherance of our restoration goals.
    Rationale for Certain Waivers and Compromise
        This settlement represents many hours of working with my people to
    develop a workable vision and concept for restoring our sacred Zuni
    Heaven given the present conditions at the Reservation. In addition,
    the settlement is the result of more than four years of extensive
    negotiations involving my water rights team and our water rights
    attorneys. As such, it contains negotiated compromises, some of which
    were arrived at only after a great deal of discussion and deliberation.
    Several provisions, described below, required a great deal of ``soul-
    searching'' and discussion by Zuni's water rights team and Council. We
    firmly believe, however, that this settlement, even with some difficult
    compromises, provides the best possible approach to securing an
    adequate amount of water of sufficient quality for our religious
    practices.
        The first of the significant compromises relates to taking lands
    into trust. As mentioned above, the Tribe has acquired certain lands
    near the Reservation that are critical to our ability to gather and
    send water down the Little Colorado River channel to the Reservation.
    Other lands along the LCR are also important to the project. To further
    this settlement and the needs of some parties to have certainty about
    the status of these lands now and in the future, the Tribe identified a
    key corridor along the LCR that contains lands we now own or may
    acquire in the future that will be taken into trust as part of this
    settlement. One section of land adjacent to the Reservation will also
    be made part of the Reservation; it is the expected location of much of
    the Tribe's groundwater pumping. The legislation provides that only
    these lands in Arizona will be taken into trust, absent a subsequent
    act of Congress authorizing additional lands into trust for Zuni.
        Before any lands may be taken into trust, the Tribe, the State of
    Arizona, and Apache County will enter into an intergovernmental
    agreement covering a number of water and land use issues that are
    identified in the settlement agreement. These issues include, for
    example, adoption of a tribal water code, jurisdiction by the Tribe
    over wildlife management, payments by the Tribe in lieu of state taxes,
    rights-of-way or easements for adjoining landowners, and protection of
    land remaining in fee status for the Tribe's religious practices. We
    support the intergovernmental agreement approach as a useful mechanism
    for sovereign governments to use to facilitate their relationship.
    After considering the nature of our land and water use in Arizona for
    sustaining our religion and culture, lands which are not the site of my
    people's homes or economic livelihood, we are also comfortable with the
    substantive agreements within the provisions to be covered by the
    intergovernmental agreement and believe they strike a reasonable
    balance of interests.
        The next area of significant compromise relates to waiver of future
    water quality claims. We know that this waiver covers new ground in a
    water rights settlement. Again, after a great deal of deliberation and
    consideration of the specific circumstances of this settlement, we are
    comfortable with the compromises contained in the approach to waiver of
    these future claims. Circumstances may differ in another case where,
    for example, a reservation is a homeland and is located in an area with
    more industrial or other development. Moreover, in our negotiations, we
    agreed to try to reach a settlement that would, as much as possible,
    maintain the status quo and the parties' existing water use
    expectations. This may not be a goal in another context. From the
    Tribe's perspective here, the location of the Reservation in a
    relatively undeveloped area of Arizona, combined with the state
    parties' agreement to provide water quality monitoring and data on an
    ongoing basis, along with the broad retention of regulatory authority
    by the United States to address water quality or environmental problems
    that may arise, provide us adequate assurance that a serious problem
    will not go unremedied, even if the Tribe is limited in the type of
    claims it can assert. On balance, Zuni believes that the overall
    benefits to us of this settlement outweigh the risks associated with
    the limited waiver of future water quality claims.
        Finally, I want to discuss briefly the issue of the timing of the
    Tribe's waiver of litigation claims and the acquisition of water rights
    as a condition precedent to such a waiver. As I mentioned earlier, the
    Tribe needs to acquire 3,600 afy of surface water rights in order to
    develop its project. The Tribe will waive its claims, however, when
    2,350 afy of the necessary 3,600 afy of surface water is acquired. This
    must be accomplished by the end of December 2006. Clearly, there is a
    risk to the Tribe of waiving its claims before it has acquired all of
    the necessary water rights. However, after significant thought, we felt
    it the wisest use of time and resources to structure the settlement in
    this fashion, for several reasons. First, under the settlement
    agreement and legislation, the Tribe has early access to $3.5 million
    dollars in order to secure the necessary 2,350 afy of water. Given the
    voluntary nature of the water acquisitions, we have attempted to strike
    an appropriate balance between a reasonably short time frame to
    determine whether the settlement will become finally enforceable, and a
    reasonable guess as to the amount of water at a reasonable price we
    expect could be acquired within the limited time frame. We did not want
    to be in a situation where we are forced to pay too much for any
    particular water right in order to satisfy the time deadlines, yet we
    need to know that we can reasonably expect to secure sufficient surface
    water to develop the project. The 2,350 afy amount is the parties' best
    estimate as to the amount of water at a reasonable price that we can
    anticipate acquiring with the initial funds by December 2006. We will
    then acquire the remainder of the water rights over time, with the
    State of Arizona expecting to contribute approximately 1,000 afy of
    water over the next fifteen years. We believe that this approach is
    fiscally sound and, in conjunction with our ability to use groundwater,
    provides us enough certainty about the ability to develop the entire
    wetland restoration project over time.
    Conclusion
        This water rights settlement agreement will enable the Zuni people
    to restore their most sacred land area to the way it was as described
    in ancient traditional historical accounts. It will enable them to
    develop wetlands for water plants, birds and other animals so important
    and necessary in carrying on the Zuni Kachina religion. Furthermore, it
    will ease the minds and hearts of the people knowing that the spirits
    of their ancestors will once again, be living in the wetland conditions
    as were the land conditions at the very beginning. Past and present
    Zuni Tribal Councils, it's Water Rights Team members, and tribal
    religious leaders have worked closely and reasonably with all non-Zuni
    parties to keep whole their water rights and land interests and at the
    same time, secure our interest to water and land for our sacred lands.
    The leaders of the tribal civil government, the religious leaders and
    the Zuni people are satisfied with the terms of this settlement and
    respectfully ask that you approve it. Initial work has already begun to
    re-establish the wetland conditions of the Sacred Lake area and
    adjacent Little Colorado River channel. The several sources of funds
    for wetland restoration work efforts will be sufficient to continue the
    work already started. We all know that it will take many years of
    sustained work efforts and funds to restore our sacred lands to the way
    that they were in the beginning. However, with this settlement, we have
    all made a good start and will continue the work efforts for as long as
    it will take.
        We firmly believe that with this settlement, the Zuni people and
    our non-Zuni neighbors, townships, entities and the State of Arizona
    have gained benefits that are so much better than a lengthy and
    expensive litigation. Expensive and protracted litigations may still
    remain for the northern reaches of the Little Colorado River, however,
    at least one portion will be forever resolved with the approval of this
    settlement. We further believe that the United States, on behalf of the
    Zuni tribe, will have fulfilled it's trust obligations with the
    approval of this settlement.
        Esteemed members of the House of Representatives, on behalf of our
    Zuni people, I humbly ask and urge you to support the ratification of
    this proposed legislation for the water rights of the Zuni people at
    their most sacred land. As a representative of the Zuni tribe's
    religious leaders and the Zuni Tribal Council, I bequeath on each of
    you a long and valued life trail. Don dek'ohanan yanitchiy a:dehy
    a:wona:ya:du. Elahkwa, don yadon k'okshi'' sunnahk'yanapdu. Thank you,
    may you spend a good day to the evening time.
                                     ______

        Mr. Calvert. Thank you for your testimony.
        Next, Mr. Michael Whitehead, San Gabriel Basin Water
    Quality Authority.

               STATEMENT OF MICHAEL WHITEHEAD, DIRECTOR,
               SAN GABRIEL BASIN WATER QUALITY AUTHORITY

        Mr. Whitehead. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Committee members.
    My name is Michael Whitehead. I am president of San Gabriel
    Valley Water Company, the utility that serves much of the San
    Gabriel Valley, but I come to you today as a member of the
    board of directors of the San Gabriel Basin Water Quality
    Authority.
        First of all, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that I have
    submitted written comments to the Committee, and I would, if it
    please the Committee, have those comments entered into the
    record and I would like to summarize that.
        Mr. Calvert. Without objection, so ordered.
        Mr. Whitehead. Also, Mr. Chairman, please also allow me to
    express my deepest appreciation to Congresswoman Grace
    Napolitano for introducing H.R. 1284, and to Congressman David
    Drier and Congresswoman Hilda Solis, who we heard from earlier
    this afternoon, for their support in cosponsoring this very
    important legislation.
        Title XVI, the program that has been quite beneficial to
    the San Gabriel Valley and the San Gabriel Basin, has enabled
    groundwater producers in the San Gabriel Valley to provide much
    needed wellhead treatment and to stem the flow of contamination
    that is flowing underground, to stabilize water rates and,
    above all else, to assure a reliable and safe supply of water
    to over 1.5 million inhabitants in the San Gabriel Valley. The
    program under title XVI has been one of the fundamental
    cornerstones of allowing us to advance that progress in the San
    Gabriel Valley. For that, we are immensely grateful.
        H.R. 1284 would extend that and lift that cap in an
    important way that would allow us to provide funding to
    additional programs. I mentioned earlier that it is one of the
    cornerstones. Others Commissioner Keys has mentioned, the other
    funding sources that the Bureau of Reclamation is also
    administering, all of those fit together and become very
    important funding sources. We have, in fact, through the Water
    Quality Authority, brought about agreements throughout the
    Valley, most notably recently in the Azusa Baldwin Park area,
    which has been plagued with a profound amount of groundwater
    contamination from volatile organic compounds, perchlorate
    and--I'm afraid to say a list too long to mention here today--
    of other contamination in the groundwater.
        As Congresswoman Napolitano observed earlier, we have
    similar problems emerging in the South El Monte, El Monte and
    the Puente Valley operable units, which are Superfund cleanup
    sites in the San Gabriel Valley. This legislation, as well as
    other funding we're seeking at the local, State and Federal
    level, will allow us to advance those projects.
        Just for the Committee's information, I will tell you that
    under the auspices of title XVI already through the Bureau of
    Reclamation, the Water Quality Authority has allocated funding
    to 10 groundwater cleanup projects, to clean up the groundwater
    and restore drinking water in the San Gabriel Valley. Seven of
    those projects have been completed and have been built and are
    in operation. Three additional projects are under design and
    will be built in the near future, thanks again to title XVI.
        I know the hour is late, and I know that others wish to
    speak, so I won't elaborate further. But I do, once again, want
    to thank Congresswoman Napolitano for your support. We could
    not have achieved the kind of success so far that we have in
    the San Gabriel Valley without that kind of support, and we
    certainly welcome it. For that reason, we urge this Committee
    and the Congress to approve H.R. 1284.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Whitehead follows:]

       Statement of Michael Whitehead, Member of the Board of Directors,
                   San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority

        Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Committee members and staff. My name
    is Michael Whitehead and I am a member of the Board of Directors of the
    San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority. Let me express my
    appreciation to Congresswoman Grace Napolitano for introducing H.R.
    1284 and Congressman David Dreier and Congresswoman Hilda Solis for co-
    sponsoring the legislation.
        The Title XVI program has provided the San Gabriel Basin with the
    ability to provide much needed wellhead treatment, stem the flow of
    contaminants, stabilize water rates and most importantly deliver safe
    and reliable drinking water to the residents of the San Gabriel Basin.
        By increasing the authorization for the San Gabriel Basin
    Demonstration Project, H.R. 1284 will allow us to continue the
    incredible progress that has been made over the last few years in
    cleaning up and utilizing the groundwater in the San Gabriel Basin.
    Title XVI has allowed us to maximize local dollars as we attempt to
    remediate groundwater contamination that threatens the drinking water
    supply of over 1 million residents of the San Gabriel Basin.
        In the time period since the Title XVI program was made available
    to the San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority, 10 projects have been
    allocated funding. Seven projects have been built and another three
    will begin construction in the near future.
        Without the funding for the treatment facilities local water
    producers would have been forced to shut down water wells due to
    migrating contamination. The closures would have forced local water
    purveyors to become reliant on Colorado River water at a time that the
    state's allotment is being cutback. This would have severely impaired
    our ability to provide water for users in the basin and forced us to
    rely on imported water.
        It is vital that we restore the basin's aquifer. Once we are able
    to remediate the contamination it is our belief that the Valley will be
    able to use the aquifer to meet all of the basin's water needs.
    Removing harmful contaminants from our communities groundwater supply
    will allow local water producers to better meet the needs of local
    residents at affordable rates. Lifting the ceiling on Title XVI makes
    certain that the basin is able to meet the water supply needs of future
    generations.
        We urge the Committee and their fellow members of Congress to lift
    the ceiling on the Title XVI program to allow us to carry out our
    mission of facilitating groundwater cleanup and providing a clean,
    reliable drinking water supply for the 1 million residents of the San
    Gabriel Basin.
        Thank you for allowing me to testify for the Subcommittee today.
                                     ______

        Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
        Mr. George Lujan.

                 STATEMENT OF GEORGE LUJAN, RESIDENT,
                          EL MONTE, CALIFORNIA

        Mr. Lujan. Thank you. I have also submitted written
    testimony. I am going to summarize the last part of it. I would
    like to have this testimony submitted, and I am also going to
    submit a modified copy to take into account the additional
    remarks that I'm going to cover.
        Mr. Calvert. Without objection, your full testimony will be
    entered into the record.
        Mr. Lujan. Thank you.
        Once again, I do want to thank all of you for having me
    here. With my appearance today, you will have heard from an all
    too frequently neglected stakeholder in this proceeding: the
    residents. I, as a disinterested party--interested in the
    resolution of this problem but disinterested in that I'm not a
    PRP, I'm no longer a city official, and I'm just concerned with
    the well-being of the people of El Monte, South El Monte, and
    the entire San Gabriel Basin.
        There were three areas that I thought were important to
    emphasize. These points have not been made in previous
    testimony, which I find surprising. I'm going to make those
    three now and then I'm going to add a fourth. It is important
    to be able to see why it is essential that this bill pass, or
    if this bill doesn't pass, I'm going to argue for something
    related in just a moment.
        First, let me point out that the cities of El Monte,
    Industry and South El Monte, have sought to have the 1996
    funding cap of $38 million lifted from the moneys provided by
    the 1992 Reclamations Act, to include an additional $12.5
    million. Because of the 1996 cap, these three cities were not
    able to benefit from the moneys provided.
        We have heard testimony from Mr. Keys earlier, and I do
    want to make sure that my comments will also conform to the
    issues that he raised earlier.
        The cities of El Monte and South El Monte are among the
    poorest of the various operable groups. Yet, for the sake of
    basic fairness, I would urge you to consider that the El Monte
    and South El Monte operables, the stakeholders, the PRPs, and
    now, I guess, the RPs, the responsible parties, almost alone
    among the people in the San Gabriel Basin stood up and tried to
    avoid the transaction costs which drive up cleanup efforts by
    not looking to attorneys but by trying to work with the EPA,
    the Federal Government, the local State agencies, the regional
    areas, in order to seek resolution.
        While I know it's an anecdotal point that ``no good deed
    goes unpunished'', I think it violates a point of basic
    fairness that these people should not be able to achieve the 25
    percent matching funds in order to get their projects funded,
    since they alone have stood up in order to work as closely as
    possible. Yes, the sword of Damocles was hanging over them, but
    these people stood up for what they felt they ought to do, and
    to the extent we want to make sure the polluter pays, we also
    want to make sure that there is some basic fairness in the
    process.
        As a matter of public policy, it is not appropriate to have
    those people who are the most cooperative to suffer the most in
    this effort. Hence, H.R. 1284 ought to be passed in order to
    make sure that, as a principle of basic fairness, this is done.
        Secondly, there is another consideration which has not been
    raised. Many of the PRPs in these operable units may not
    survive the remediation process without the sort of assistance
    provided by the bill.
        Now, the reason I mentioned Mr. Keys' testimony is because
    he said he was talking to several people, and I understand
    there was some pressuring to find out who were these people. I
    could say that I contacted South El Monte in order to secure
    their support for my testimony here. Of course, if I only
    talked to a secretary, I nonetheless spoke to someone at city
    hall.
        In point of fact, I spoke to Patricia Wallach, a
    councilmember of El Monte, yesterday. I talked to Larry Felix
    Friday and yesterday, and he provided a letter, which I would
    like to have entered into the record.
        Mr. Calvert. Without objection.
        [The letter follows:]
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6198.009

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6198.010

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6198.011

        Mr. Lujan. Thank you.
        In which at the bottom of the second page and top of the
    third page he indicates no knowledge of any type of
    availability of Reclamation moneys for his effort.
        Now, just as we have no rights unless we can defend them,
    similarly, we have no remedies unless we can take advantage of
    them. If this information is not made available to the PRPs and
    to the RPs, then it cannot be applied in order to defray some
    of the costs.
        The second point I want to mention is this. The economic
    viability of the region is in question because some of these
    PRPs are not able to survive this process and stay in business.
    Why is this a matter of public policy as well as a matter of
    basic fairness? It's because we may end up having a large
    orphan's share, assumed entirely be the Federal Government, if
    these people cannot have the economic sustainability in order
    to make sure that they own up to their obligation and continue
    paying for the water remediation. It is better to partially
    supply the moneys to these people in terms of a 25-75 match, in
    order to make sure that they're still around to continue
    meeting their obligation, so that the taxpayers at large do not
    meet this.
        Thirdly, it is in the public interest for this body to
    ensure every means to remediate this problem as soon as
    possible because the plumes are leaching into the Central
    Basin, and it is not simply a problem for the San Gabriel Basin
    PRPs but also for the residents and water users of the Central
    Basin.
        It is important also--and this is my fourth and last
    point--to remember, the city of South El Monte and the city of
    El Monte are not among the PRPs. In order to make sure the
    Bureau of Reclamation money is available if Mr. Keys does have
    it available, it is to make sure that these people, the
    stakeholders, the PRPs and the RPs, are told about this money.
        I'm certainly going to take this testimony back and share
    it with the PRPs of El Monte and South El Monte. But the city
    managers of El Monte and South El Monte have nothing to do with
    this because they are not responsible parties and they have no
    say in the allocation of the moneys or in the contribution of
    moneys to the water treatment.
        As I said, the city of South El Monte has once provided a
    great amount of money in order to allow for cleanup and to do
    various experimental projects. I would hope, and surely expect,
    this body to achieve such greatness of spirit, as you all are
    surely capable.
        If you don't pass this bill, H.R. 1284, then simply direct
    Mr. Keys to make sure that the $8 million that he says is left
    over from the cap, as well as $4.5 million to make the entire
    $12.5 million whole, is directed to Industry, South El Monte,
    and El Monte. Because remember, without the direct force of
    law, there is no reason that he has to do this. It really isn't
    a remedy. It's simply something on paper.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Lujan follows:]

                   Statement of George J. Lujan, Resident of
                           South El Monte, California

        Honorable representatives, members of the Committee:
        I want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.
    So far you have heard from various local and Federal elected
    representatives and from potentially responsible parties from the
    business community. With my appearance today, you will have heard from
    an all too frequently neglected stakeholder: the residents. I have
    spoken about this problem with Representatives Dreier, Napolitano and
    Solis, as well as members of their staff, in the past, and I want to
    thank them for their efforts in bringing some promise of relief to the
    heavily minority, economically distressed cities of El Monte and South
    El Monte.
        Recognizing the long-term threat facing the various communities
    across the San Gabriel and Central basins, I have long sought to do
    what I could to apply what resources could be brought to bear on
    remediating the proximate source of that threat: the various plumes of
    contaminated groundwater drifting across the San Gabriel Basin aquifer
    toward the Central Basin. With plumes containing volatile organic
    compounds, perchlorate, trichloroethene and other ``emerging''
    contaminants, there is a potentially serious health threat to everybody
    who lives and works in the various operable units in the San Gabriel
    Basin; with the health threat potentially affecting residents and
    workers, it is extremely difficult to attract and retain businesses in
    El Monte and South El Monte, especially with an unemployment rate of
    9.3 percent and in which 26 percent of the residents live below the
    poverty level.
        As a private resident, I studied CERCLA, the 1979 Superfund Act,
    it's 1986 reauthorization, the Torrez bill, the Smith bill, the Oxley
    bill and other relevant state and local legislation. I attended
    meetings of the Regional Water Quality Control Board and San Gabriel
    Basin Water Quality Authority, as well as local meetings held by
    business groups in the various operable units. I educated myself in
    issues relevant to my home and my city, and spoke with stakeholders
    affected by the problems and the attempts to remedy them.
        When I was elected to the South El Monte City Council, I did my
    best to look for ways to build bridges of cooperation among the various
    stakeholders. Our city was instrumental in various efforts to test the
    groundwater, to develop and implement ways of treating the groundwater,
    to work with the various state water quality control entities and the
    USEPA, and to safeguard the public's health and well-being. Even though
    the Citry of South El Monte was not a potentially responsible party, we
    contributed $40,000 to a WQA project that blocked one plume so that the
    South El Monte PRPs could qualify for $400,000 in contributions and
    matching funds to complete the project that they would not have
    otherwise gotten.
        The cities of El Monte, Industry and South El Monte, have sought to
    have the 1996 funding cap of $38 million dollars lifted from the monies
    provided by a 1993 reclamations act to include an additional 12.5
    million dollars.. Because of the 1996 cap, these three cities were not
    able to benefit from the monies provided. The cities of El Monte and
    South El Monte are among the poorest of the various operable groups.
    For the sake of basic fairness, I would urge you to consider the merits
    of passing H.R. 1284, but there is more. Consider this: In the first
    place, the cities of El Monte and South El Monte have been among the
    most open and cooperative of any of the operable units. To allow the
    other operable units to benefit from the already allocated monies from
    the 1993 funding while ignoring the publicly minded efforts of the PRPs
    of the El Monte and South El Monte operable units is simply unsound as
    a matter of public policy. Secondly, there is another consideration:
    many of the PRPs of these operable units may not survive the
    remediation process without the sort of assistance provided by this
    bill. The economic viability of the region is in question. Also, in
    terms of cost-benefit analysis, it is surely better to allow PRPs to
    stay in business so as to defray the cost of what would otherwise be
    orphan share assumed by the government. In the third place, it is in
    the public interest for this body to ensure every means to remediate
    this problem as soon as possible, not only for the health of the
    residents of El Monte and South El Monte, but for the sake.: of those
    living in the Central Basin. The plume is a menace that must be
    stopped.
        As I said, the City of South El Monte provided monies to facilitate
    actions contributing to the health and economic viability of our
    residential and business communities. I would hope and surely expect
    this body to achieve such greatness of spirit as it is capable of
    achieving.
                                     ______

        Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman, and I thank all of you
    for your testimony on the various legislative bills. It's been
    a busy day today. We have discussed four pieces of legislation
    that we intend to have a markup on Thursday, but we have a few
    other questions we need to ask.
        Mr. Calvert. Mr. Gleick, I listened to your testimony with
    interest. You made a comment that the per capita water use is
    down and that the issue of supply is not the problem.
        You know, I've been Chairman of this Subcommittee for 3
    years now, have been a member of the Committee for 10 years,
    and I can't remember anyone telling me that we don't have a
    supply problem in the United States. On the contrary, it seems
    that everywhere I go in the United States and have a water
    hearing, there is a problem with supply. There may be a dispute
    of where that supply should go, whether to the urban
    communities or the farming communities or the environmental
    community, whoever. But certainly there is a dispute. Certainly
    in California, in my experience with Cal-Fed and the
    Quantification Settlement Agreement, et cetera, et cetera,
    there is plenty of disputes. If we could make disputes water
    and water policy, we would have a flood. But, unfortunately we
    don't. So here we are today, I believe with a good bill that
    Mr. Linder has put forward, H.R. 135. As Mr. Lynch pointed out,
    I think there are very few people who object to the fact that
    we need to take another look at water in this country and what
    we're doing.
        Now, on global warming, I used to chair the Energy and
    Environment Committee, too, so I've been to every global
    warming conference in the world, I think, and have always with
    great interest listened to the folks. I suspect that if, in
    fact, we do have climate change issues, we can argue whether
    it's because of human participation or just natural elements in
    the world. I know there's a controversy around that, too,
    another dispute. Nevertheless, if, in fact, we do have a
    climate change, there are some who would argue that we may need
    more supply and more ability to collect water because the ice
    pack or the snowfall, which has been, in effect, a reservoir
    for us throughout the West, would be less, and there would be
    more rainfall.
        Do you have any comment about that?
        Mr. Gleick. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Those are all wonderful
    questions, and very astute.
        Let me clarify my comments. In this bill, the findings
    emphasize ``the need to increase water supplies in every region
    of the country.'' That is not the problem facing the United
    States. There are some regions and there are some times when
    supplies are short, absolutely. But even in these regions,
    increasing supplies is not the best solution. The best solution
    is rethinking the way we use water, reallocating water from one
    user to another, as you've heard some of the discussion here
    today. In fact, demand for water in the United States is going
    down, the total demand for water.
        I'm sorry that nobody else has told you that in the last 10
    or 15 years, but the reality is that the demand for water is
    going down. On a per capita basis, it's going down even more
    than that.
        That's good news. It's not bad news, it's good news. It
    means we have the ability to rethink the way we're using what
    we have and to use it more effectively and more efficiently.
        I am not disputing the need for such a commission. Such a
    commission can help us rethink the broad suite of water
    problems, and we certainly have very many water problems. But
    the focus of the findings and the focus of the duties I think
    are slightly misdirected, and that was the point of that set of
    comments.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
        Mr. Lynch, any comment about that?
        Mr. Lynch. Well, obviously I don't agree with Dr. Gleick.
    If per capita water use is going down, we're being overrun by
    capitas, because California is growing, Arizona is growing, the
    West is growing, and the very place where water supply is the
    biggest problem is the place where people are all moving. We
    can just stop them at the border and say ``I'm sorry, we're out
    of water.'' Well, we're not out of water. But we can't just go
    up to people and say, ``I'm sorry, you don't have any water
    rights any more.'' I mean, we do that under the guise of some
    processes now too much as it is. But this is a serious problem.
        As I outlined in my testimony, the problem is right in
    front of us. We need to get after it and we need to focus on
    the problems that face us immediately. There may be problems in
    other countries, but we need to concentrate on the ones we've
    got right in front of us.
        Mr. Calvert. Speaking of water rights, I think the Federal
    Government tried to do that in Imperial County the other day,
    didn't they? It didn't work out too well.
        Mr. Lynch. Yeah, but it worked out better than the Central
    Valley Project, and they're suffering with 50 percent
    allocation.
        Mr. Calvert. That's right.
        Mrs. Napolitano.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Dr. Gleick, the survey in your testimony
    indicates there is a reduction, although not quite as much as I
    would have liked to see. But there is a reduction of water
    usage.
        I also know Metropolitan Water in Los Angeles has data that
    indicates California has remained constant for the last 10
    years because of conservation, storage, et cetera, et cetera.
    So they're not using as much water. The fact that the
    Department of Interior is forcing California to go to 4.4
    million acre-feet itself indicates that we may be able to get
    there, but we need all the help we can get to be able to get
    there. That means utilizing every available type of
    conservation, storage, recycling, desal, the whole bit.
        Can you comment on that?
        Mr. Gleick. Yes. Metropolitan has done a wonderful job, as
    has much of Southern California, in reducing its per capita
    demand--that is, doing what we want to do with less water. And
    per capitas are growing, absolutely. Mr. Lynch is right.
    Population in the West especially, and in California, is
    growing.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thirty percent.
        Mr. Gleick. But we use no more water in California today
    than we used 20 years ago, with a very much higher population.
    And that's to our credit. It shows that we are doing better.
        If we focus this commission only on efforts to increase
    supplies, this commission will do nothing useful. I'm not
    saying in places we shouldn't discuss increasing supplies. I
    am, indeed, suggesting that we broaden the responsibilities of
    this commission to look at the entire suite of water management
    options that really face us, those that are most economically
    achievable, environmentally achievable, socially achievable. In
    some places, that's going to mean smart groundwater management
    and conjunctive use, and increases in groundwater supplies.
        I'm certainly not opposed to that, but I am opposed to this
    bill if it limits our options of such a commission to look at
    what really is the broad suite of problems facing us.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, sir. I appreciate that.
        Mr. Lynch, I know that Phoenix is facing a lot of hardships
    because of the cyclical, if you will, drought problem. Have
    there been many efforts in conservation? I know they've done it
    in California and Texas, and I'm sure they have done something
    in Arizona. Can you comment on what kind of conservation
    efforts have gone before you or that you're aware of in
    Arizona?
        Mr. Lynch. Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Napolitano, yes, there are a
    number of them. For instance, in order for agriculture to take
    Central Arizona Project water, all of their facilities had to
    become lined. They had to reduce their groundwater pumping. In
    fact, our Central Desert Basins are all in balance today
    because of that.
        The municipalities have instituted a number of conservation
    efforts. The zoning laws have changed in terms of facilities,
    and we are doing a relatively new program that we should have
    started when California did, of groundwater banking, which has
    been very successful.
        Our problem in the Central Deserts, where the Central
    Arizona Project is, is the problem of the Colorado River, the
    continued supply and the 5-year drought that has stymied things
    in the Colorado River Basin. Our rural areas are really
    hurting. In fact, this afternoon as we speak, our Senate is
    amending a bill to allow some emergency groundwater transfers
    in our rural areas that aren't normally allowed under our 1980
    Groundwater Act because of that. So yes, we're working as hard
    as we can at this. It's a major program, but this is a killer
    drought.
        Mrs. Napolitano. But wouldn't it then make sense to be able
    to address all the issues concerning water and its use
    throughout the United States, looking at every conceivable
    method of being able to address whether it's a drought, floods,
    et cetera?
        Mr. Lynch. Mr. Chairman, Miss Napolitano, yes. I think
    we're dealing with semantics here. Water reuse is increasing
    water supply. Vegetation management is increasing water supply.
    It can also help with flood control and flood management, and
    conserving flood flows to reduce damage as well as to increase
    water supply.
        I am not sure that Dr. Gleick and I are on a different page
    here, so much as the words sound differently. But I think the
    focus is on increasing our ability to have the resource, and
    that includes conservation as well as other things that can
    increase the usability.
        There is no more water. I mean, the water goes up in the
    sky, it floats around, it comes down again. It's all the same
    water, it's all the same molecules. It's where it's located at
    the time and the fact that it's not located where you need it
    at the time that is our problem. Helping with that management
    will be, I hope, the focus of this commission.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentlelady.
        Mr. Hayworth.
        Mr. Hayworth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I would like
    to thank all the witnesses for their patience and diligence and
    the testimony here.
        I would be remiss if I didn't offer a special word of
    welcome to my friends from the Zuni Tribe. Mr. Chairman and
    Governor, we thank you. I was honored to introduce the
    legislation in the 107th Congress that now bears the name of my
    good friend from Arizona's new 1st District, and I am pleased
    to be a cosponsor. I am pleased, also, to be a cosponsor of
    H.R. 135, and again to my friend, Bob Lynch, we thank you for
    your testimony as well on that.
        One question. I can recall in the 107th Congress you
    offered some cautionary notes on John Linder's bill. I suppose
    working with Congressman Linder, those concerns you had have
    been minimized now and we can move forward on this policy.
    Obviously, as you reflected in your testimony, we need it.
        I just wondered, from then until now, what has encouraged
    you along the lines of this bill?
        Mr. Lynch. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Hayworth, Mr. Linder has just
    done yeoman's service in working with the water community, with
    me and others. I have been privileged to work with him on this,
    and I think the redesign of this bill gives it a manageable
    focus.
        I remember in the Federal Water Rights Task Force how
    difficult it was for us just to coordinate schedules of seven
    people, just to be able to have the hearings and be around
    different parts of the country. So I think this bill is a
    focused attempt to address a major issue and I think it has a
    great chance of success. I support it 100 percent.
        Mr. Hayworth. Thank you, Bob. Again, my thanks to all the
    witnesses for their testimony, and to you, Mr. Chairman, for
    the hearing.
        Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
        Mr. Renzi.
        Mr. Renzi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also want to thank
    Congressman Hayworth and everyone who has taken the time to
    hang in with us today, particularly at this late hour.
        I would be remiss if I didn't thank the original author of
    this, Congressman Hayworth, for a specific portion of this
    legislation that I want to talk about real quick, more of a
    statement than a question.
        The idea that as more of our ranchers are moved off the
    public lands in Arizona, these ranchers have less and less
    income. Within this settlement agreement is a very insightful
    agreement that allows the ranchers to sell a part of their
    water to the Tribe. The Federal Government will participate and
    provide a percentage of that water that will go to Zuni Heaven.
    I think it's going to flow out of our apportionment that we
    have in Lyman Lake. But what's interesting is the concept that
    Congressman Hayworth developed, along with the Tribe, the idea
    that local water users, local ranchers, will now be able to
    sell their right rights.
        I am hopeful, in the spirit of cooperation and working
    together as a community, that you're still finding that
    friendship and you're finding that opportunity to be available
    to you, if you would like to comment on that.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Eriacho. Thank you, Mr. Renzi.
        That is correct. We went into these negotiations with the
    idea that we wanted the share of water that rightfully belonged
    to the Zuni lands, but at the same time not take anything away
    from the residents in St. Jones and Springerville and up along
    that river. Like I said in the statement a while ago, any water
    that we purchase is going to be on a voluntary basis. Anybody
    that wants to sell water to the Zuni, we're ready to buy, using
    the money the United States is going to give to us, and also
    lands, if it's attached to lands. So I think this is a good
    settlement and I think we have the backing of all of the
    participants.
        Mr. Renzi. Thank you.
        It's unique, in a time when we're in such a litigious
    society, at a time when everyone is suing each other over water
    and land, it's wonderful to see from the original author and
    from the Tribe the idea that we're going to be able to settle,
    and with the idea we're also going to be able to share in the
    benefits of this. Again, thank you so very much.
        Mr. Eriacho. Thank you.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
        I have a few comments to make, and Mrs. Napolitano may have
    some additional question. But while waiting for her, I wanted
    to make a comment to Dr. Gleick.
        I don't think you have anything really to worry about. I
    suspect that your views will be expressed and listened to and
    be a part of any future commission. In my experience with
    water, every element of water must be explored in order to have
    a balanced approach to this. Certainly conveyance, the issues
    of groundwater, reclamation, desalinization, the environment in
    general and how that water is shared within those various
    stakeholders is going to be necessary because NEPA is not going
    to go away. Maybe a few people would like to reform it a little
    bit, but I suspect it probably is not going to go away. So
    those various elements must be dealt with in a reasonable way
    in order to have a meaningful policy in the end, that is
    workable and we can deal with for the 21st century.
        As I mentioned earlier--and I'm sure Mrs. Napolitano has
    some comments--I think you've got some great assistants, Mr.
    Whitehead and Mr. Lujan, on H.R. 1284. Mrs. Napolitano is very
    tough minded about getting this bill done, and she's got some
    great supporters, not excluding myself, and also the Chairman
    of the Rules Committee here. So I suspect you have a very great
    opportunity ahead of you to pass this legislation. We will work
    to do that.
        As a matter of fact, Mr. Renzi is doing a great job in
    moving H.R. 495 and, in fact, we intend to mark up all three of
    these bills, along with another bill we heard earlier regarding
    the Folsom Dam, on Thursday, so we'll be moving those to the
    full Committee for final consideration, and with all haste.
        With that, do you have any final comments, Mrs. Napolitano?
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, too, want to
    thank all the witnesses for coming, especially my California
    friends, who are coming here during such cold weather and
    coming from the warm weather in California. I would like to
    thank you all for bringing us more information on how to deal
    with water.
        I would like to comment that sometimes people don't think
    about water. They just turn the faucet on or flush the toilet
    and it comes and goes. We have no concept about the issues of
    water delivery and the quality and quantity of water.
        I agree with Mr. Lynch, and I'm sure my tribal folks
    understand, that Mother Earth gave us the water to use and take
    care of and we need to be cognizant that we have a
    responsibility to take care of that water, and clean it,
    because it was given to us clean and we have polluted it. How
    we deliver it is going to be a challenge for all of us in the
    United States, to take a look at and understand and be
    cognizant of our own role in the solutions, not always
    government. I think the fact that we can work together, that we
    can bring it before this Committee, which has been very, very
    good about listening and acting upon those issues as they come
    before us, I think is very laudable.
        Mr. Chairman, I thank you and the Committee members. We
    must move forward, and I certainly look forward to coming back
    for the markup, which is on Thursday. I thank you all for your
    testimony and we look forward to more work ahead.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentlelady, and I thank this
    panel. I thank everyone for attending this hearing, and thank
    the members for sticking in there.
        With that, we are adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 5:47 p.m., the Subcommittee adjourned.]

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Hayworth submitted for the
    record follows:]

    Statement of The Honorable J.D. Hayworth, a Representative in Congress
                     from the State of Arizona, on H.R. 495

        Mr. Chairman, Thank you for holding this hearing today. I am
    particularly grateful to see that H.R. 495, the Zuni Indian Tribe Water
    Rights Settlement Act of 2003 is on today's agenda. I introduced this
    legislation in the 107th Congress, and am proud to be a cosponsor of
    this bill in the 108th Congress, now introduced by my colleague from
    Arizona, Mr. Renzi.
        This legislation ratifies the settlement agreement concerning the
    Zuni Indian Tribe's water rights on the Little Colorado River in
    Eastern Arizona. The bill will provide for a wetlands restoration at
    ``Zuni Heaven,'' an area of land along the Little Colorado River that
    is sacred to the Zuni Tribe of New Mexico. Consistent with the
    principles of tribal sovereignty, Indian self-determination and
    religious freedom, this legislation will settle ancient water rights
    and ensure that those rights are preserved for all future generations
    of the Zuni people.
        The Zuni tribe's water claim is no new development. In fact,
    litigation of the water rights on the Little Colorado River basin has
    been ongoing for nearly a quarter of a century. This legislation
    represents a culmination of this process in a way that will reduce
    expenses for all parties involved. Indeed, we should look at the
    settlement process demonstrated in this water settlement as a model for
    other settlements. The affected parties have recognized that final
    resolution of these water claims through litigation is counter-
    productive and hurtful to the Tribe, neighboring non-Indian water
    users, local towns, utility and irrigation companies, the State of
    Arizona, and to the United States. Therefore, negotiations have brought
    forward a settlement agreed to by all parties, and we now have the
    opportunity to codify this settlement by passing this legislation.
        I commend my colleague, Mr. Renzi, for bringing this bill forward
    in such a quick manner and making it one of his top priorities. Again,
    thank you Chairman Calvert for scheduling this legislation for today's
    hearing and working with us to get this bill through the Resources
    Committee.
                                     ______

        [A statement submitted for the record on H.R. 135 by the
    Association of California Water Agencies follows:]

      Statement of the Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) on
                                    H.R. 135

        The Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) appreciates the
    opportunity to submit comments to the Subcommittee on Representative
    John Linder's H.R. 135. ACWA represents 440 public water agencies in
    California, and our members supply over 90 percent of the water
    delivered in the state for residential, agricultural and industrial
    uses.
        ACWA is pleased to support H.R. 135, legislation creating a
    ``Twenty First Century Water Strategy Commission.'' This legislation
    represents an opportunity to come to grips with the complexity of
    modern water problems and assess the means to their resolution. These
    comments will spell out areas where California's water community
    believes the commission should devote special emphasis, and offer
    constructive input on its implementation.
        Given the variety of climates and uses that make up the national
    water supply picture, a twenty-first century water policy commission
    must confront the fact that new strategies and investments are needed
    to avert a water crisis in the western United States. For arid states
    like California, the uneven distribution of precipitation over the
    state's geography is a central fact of its existence. The American
    population continues move toward and grow in the west, in areas faced
    with resource constraints and increasing environmental demands.
    Capturing the water available for human uses in an environmentally
    sound manner in these areas is essential. Without significant
    reinvestment in aging agricultural and residential water
    infrastructure, the capacity currently available to do this will be
    overwhelmed. Among the first places this will happen is California.
        ACWA and its members devote a significant amount of time promoting
    the federal partnership in new and proven technologies to meet the
    water needs of the west. Conservation, recycling, desalination, off-
    stream storage, conjunctive use and groundwater management are just a
    few of the areas where local, state and federal programs working
    together have created spectacular success. Water conservation and
    recycling today allow California's largest city to live on nearly the
    same amount of water it used in 1976. The state Department of Water
    Resources estimates that California water recycling has expanded by
    about 100,000 acre-feet per year since 1990. And today, a half-dozen
    seawater desalination projects are under consideration that together
    could produce more than 120,000 acre-feet of water each year in
    California, enough for nearly a million people.
        Each of these examples illustrates the multi-faceted approach
    necessary to meet water needs in the west. ACWA is encouraged by
    specific language in the bill directing the commission's focus toward
    ``assessments...necessary to project future water supply and demand.''
    The commission's work will be most useful if it results first in a
    comprehensive assessment of needs, and not an immediate change in
    policy. The information presented to and by the commission can then
    effectively direct the federal investment that we already know is
    necessary toward the areas that will generate the greatest water yield
    for the money spent.
        The commission's work should also focus on the economic activity
    generated by water facilities. A variety of statistics are used to
    illustrate the business activity and economic stimulus made possible
    through public works. Some have claimed that as many as 40,000
    construction jobs are generated for every $1 billion allocated to new
    public water infrastructure. The commission's report should provide a
    clearer understanding of the economic contribution of water projects,
    both at the construction phase and in the long-term activity produced
    when the facilities come on line.
        But new infrastructure alone is not the only avenue to resolve
    national water challenges. The regulatory constraints put in place by
    wildlife agencies can and should be dealt with in a more efficient way.
    Existing water infrastructure, designed and built before the enactment
    of most environmental laws, is frequently ill-suited to complying with
    new goals of environmental restoration. It is not easy to smoothly
    overlay a wildlife agency's objectives onto a facility designed to
    export water or keep a floodplain dry. For this reason, new regulatory
    approaches that seek out opportunities to merge environmental goals
    with reliably operated water systems are extremely important to
    optimizing our existing and planned water infrastructure into the
    twenty-first century. ACWA believes that California's CALFED Bay-Delta
    Program is a successful example of this type of coordination between
    regulatory agencies, environmental demands and the water needs of
    people.
        A final area of concern for our members is in membership of the
    commission. ACWA appreciates the language calling for a broad cross
    section of government and geographic representatives, as well as the
    stipulation that these members bring ``recognized standing and
    distinction in water policy issues'' to the group. ACWA believes these
    members should acknowledge that increased water supplies, as well as
    the conservative use of existing water resources, will be essential to
    creating a meaningful and effective water policy for the United States.
        In the years since California's construction of the Central Valley
    Project and the State Water Project, no equally large water projects
    have been completed in California. The few regional facilities built
    have often required years of public review and inevitable political
    controversy. In the last 30 years, only two regional reservoirs have
    been built in California, even though eight million people have come to
    the state during that time. Other western states have not fared much
    better. Meanwhile, new commitments to environmental goals and programs
    to protect salmon have further directed away several million acre-feet
    of water to meet new environmental mandates. This rededication of
    resources, coupled with rapid population growth, has vastly
    destabilized western states'' water picture.
        H.R. 135 will enable policymakers to fully ascertain these facts
    and plan a long-term means of addressing them. California's experience
    has shown that it is not a scarcity of fresh water that confronts us,
    but rather the inadequate reclamation and reuse of water available to
    us that threatens western communities with shortage. ACWA looks forward
    to assisting in the passage of H.R. 135 and in promoting a sound and
    well-informed twenty-first century water policy.

                                       -