[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 1794 and H.R. 2040
=======================================================================
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, June 24, 2003
__________
Serial No. 108-31
__________
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
______
87-903 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
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
Randy Neugebauer, Texas
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 June 24, 2003.................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Calvert, Hon. Ken, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 2
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Napolitano, Hon. Grace F., a Representative in Congress from
the State of California.................................... 12
Statement of Witnesses:
English, Jim, General Manager, San Juan Water District,
California................................................. 9
Prepared statement on H.R. 1794.......................... 11
Rinne, William, Deputy Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation,
U.S. Department of the Interior............................ 3
Prepared statement on H.R. 1794.......................... 5
Prepared statement on H.R. 2040.......................... 5
Rockholm, Hon. Rocky, Mayor, City of Roseville, California... 6
Prepared statement on H.R. 1794.......................... 7
Additional materials supplied:
Johanns, Hon. Mike, Governor, State of Nebraska, Letter
submitted for the record on H.R. 2040...................... 20
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 1794, TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF THE
INTERIOR TO CONSTRUCT AND REHABILITATE FEDERAL WATER SUPPLY LINES
ASSOCIATED WITH FOLSOM DAM IN CALIFORNIA, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; AND
H.R. 2040, TO AMEND THE IRRIGATION PROJECT EXTENSION ACT OF 1998 TO
EXTEND CERTAIN CONTRACTS BETWEEN THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION AND CERTAIN
IRRIGATION WATER CONTRACTORS IN THE STATE OF WYOMING AND NEBRASKA.
----------
Tuesday, June 24, 2003
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Water and Power
Committee on Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:09 p.m., in
room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Ken Calvert,
Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Representatives Calvert, Osborne, Renzi, Pearce
and Napolitano.
Mr. Calvert. The oversight hearing by the Subcommittee on
Water and Power will come to order.
The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on H.R.
1794, a Bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
construct and rehabilitate Federal water supply lines
associated with Folsom Dam in California, and H.R. 2040, a bill
to amend the Irrigation Project Extension Act of 1998 to extend
certain contracts between the Bureau of Reclamation and certain
irrigation water contractors in the States of Wyoming and
Nebraska.
Under Rule 4(g) the Chairman and the Ranking Minority
Member can make opening statements. I shall begin mine.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. KEN CALVERT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Calvert. Our Subcommittee continues to seek balanced
and integrated water management approaches that ensure water
and power available for communities in the West. Today we will
focus our attention on two bills that improve the dependability
and security of the water infrastructure for long-term use and
recognize collaborative efforts on protecting endangered
species habitat.
H.R. 1794, introduced by our distinguished colleague, John
Doolittle, authorizes design and construction of a water supply
pipeline and the rehabilitation of an existing Federal water
pipeline at Folsom Dam. I look forward to hearing from the
affected communities on how they are already working on these
pipelines, and their response to Federal questions over cost
share and how the project's costs will be allocated.
H.R. 2040, introduced by our distinguished Nebraska
colleague, Mr. Osborne, extends specific water contracts
between the Bureau of Reclamation and water contractors in
Nebraska and Wyoming. This legislation responds to continuing
work on a multiparty agreement aimed at restoring habitat for
endangered species on the Platte River. While these good faith
efforts take place, the irrigators have asked for repayment
certainty until a clear regulatory water-use roadmap is in
place.
These bills attempt to find common-sense solutions to water
problems facing two regions of our country. 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. 1794 and H.R. 2040
Our Subcommittee continues to seek balanced and integrated water
management approaches that ensure water and power are available for
communities in the west. Today, we will focus our attention on two
bills that improve the dependability and security of the water
infrastructure for long-term use, and recognize collaborative efforts
on protecting endangered species habitat.
H.R. 1794, introduced by our distinguished colleague, John
Doolittle, authorizes the design and construction of a water supply
pipeline and the rehabilitation of an existing federal water pipeline
at Folsom Dam, California. I look forward to hearing from the affected
communities on how they're already working on these pipelines and their
response to federal questions over cost share and how the project's
costs will be allocated.
H.R. 2040, introduced by our distinguished Nebraska colleague, Mr.
Osborne, extends specific water contracts between the Bureau of
Reclamation and water contractors in Nebraska and Wyoming. This
legislation responds to continuing work on a multi-party agreement
aimed at restoring habitat for endangered species on the Platte River.
While these good faith efforts take place, the irrigators have asked
for repayment certainty until a clear regulatory, water-use roadmap is
put in place.
These bills attempt to find common sense solutions to water
problems facing two regions of our country. 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,
so in the interim, Mr. Osborne, if you would like to make an
opening statement, you are recognized.
Mr. Osborne. I do not have an opening statement. I will
just reserve my comments when it is time to discuss H.R. 2040.
Mr. Calvert. Certainly. What I will do now is I will start
recognizing the panel, and when Mrs. Napolitano arrives, we
will certainly give her time for her opening statement.
I would now like to recognize our first panel, William
Rinne, Deputy Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation. With him is
the Honorable Rocky Rockholm, the Mayor of the City of
Roseville; and Mr. Jim English, the General Manager, San Juan
Water District, California.
With that, Mr. Rinne, you are recognized, and we are under
the 5-minute rule loosely. Try to keep it within the 5 minutes.
We would appreciate that.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM RINNE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF
RECLAMATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Rinne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I begin, I would
like to request that my written statements be submitted for the
record.
Mr. Calvert. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Rinne. My name is Bill Rinne, and I am Deputy
Commissioner for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased
to provide the Administration's views on H.R. 1794 and H.R.
2040.
Let me begin with H.R. 1794, a bill to authorize the
Secretary of the Interior to design and construct a parallel
water supply line connecting the pumping plant at the base of
Folsom Dam in California to the Hinkle Wye serving the City of
Roseville and the San Juan District, California.
This bill would also authorize the Secretary to
rehabilitate the approximately three-quarter mile long, 84-inch
diameter above-ground water supply line connecting Folsom Dam
Pumping Facility to the Hinkle Wye where the delivery system
splits into separate pipelines to serve the San Juan and the
City of Roseville.
While the Administration understands the communities'
interest in these projects, we do not believe it is in the
Federal Government's responsibility to fund a secondary
pipeline, and therefore, cannot support H.R. 1794.
The United States owns and Reclamation operates the 84-inch
steel North Fork Pipeline, which is the sole conveyance of
Folsom Reservoir water to both the District and the City. The
United States is responsible for maintaining the existing
pipeline. However, the Bureau of Reclamation can only meet this
responsibility with permission from the City and District to
interrupt pipeline flow long enough to perform maintenance.
The City and the District have grown substantially since
the pipeline and Folsom Dam were constructed 50 years ago. In
working with the City and the District since 2001, they have
informed us that the community growth leaves them without an
adequate year-round backup resource to sustain a water pipeline
interruption for more than approximately 24 hours. This
constraint directly interferes with the Bureau's ability to
perform maintenance on the pipeline.
We agree that the lack of reserve capacity interferes with
maintenance and creates a continuity of supply issue that needs
to be addressed. Again, the responsibility for pipeline
maintenance belongs to the Bureau of Reclamation, while the
responsibility for providing reserve capacity to allow for
maintenance belongs to the City and the District.
Following a preliminary inspection in 2001, Reclamation met
with the District and the City to discuss a parallel pipeline
as a possible solution in providing water supply during
rehabilitation work. At that time, officials from the District
and the City indicated they intended to jointly fund
installation of the parallel pipeline. Reclamation supported
that approach and indicated it would cooperate in the process,
a position we continue to support.
The Administration understands that a solution to this
issue must be developed, but if the District and the City
determine that they need a parallel pipeline or some other
method of reserve capacity, they should be responsible for its
construction. Reclamation understands that it is responsible
for reasonable maintenance of the existing pipeline and stands
behind that commitment.
We look forward to continuing cooperation with City,
District and legislative sponsors in developing alternatives
that may prove a more efficient means of meeting the
community's water needs.
I would now like to turn my attention to H.R. 2040, which
would amend the Irrigation Project Extension Act of 1998, to
require the Secretary of Interior to extend each of the water
service repayment contracts for the Glendo Unit of the Missouri
River Basin Project for a period of 2 years until December
31st, 2005 or for the term of the cooperative agreement entered
into by the States of Wyoming, Nebraska, Colorado and the
Secretary of Interior.
Mr. Chairman, the Department supports to H.R. 2040 language
as written. On July 1st, 1997 the States of Wyoming, Nebraska
and Colorado and the United States Department of Interior
entered into a cooperative agreement for Platte River research
and other efforts relating to endangered species habitats along
the Central Platte River in Nebraska. The purpose of the
cooperative agreement is to jointly undertake a basin-wide
effort to improve the habitat of four threatened and endangered
species along the Platte River. The cooperative study is
designed to help develop a basin-wide program to be the
reasonable and prudent alternative to minimize the effects of
existing and new water-related activities in the Platte Basin.
Glendo Dam and Reservoir system is one of several Bureau of
Reclamation dam and reservoir systems on the North Platte River
that operate as an integrated system. The Bureau of Reclamation
has been consulting under the Endangered Species Act on the
operations of the entire reservoir system.
To successfully renew long-term contracts for Glendo
Reservoir water will require the completion of Endangered
Species Act consultation on the Bureau of Reclamation's North
Platte River system operation. This consultation will continue
until the cooperative agreement and study have been completed.
The final programmatic environmental impact statement is
scheduled to be completed by November 2004, with a record of
decision to follow in December 2004. H.R. 2040 will allow
Reclamation to renew the Glendo contracts once the record of
decision is issued.
Mr. Chairman, this completes my remarks, and I would be
happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rinne on H.R. 1794 follows:]
Statement of William Rinne, Deputy Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation,
U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 1794
My name is Bill Rinne, and I am Deputy Commissioner for the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased to provide the Administration's
views on H.R. 1794, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior
to design and construct a parallel water supply line connecting the
pumping plant at the base of Folsom Dam in California to the Hinkle Wye
serving the City of Roseville, California, and the San Juan Water
District, California.
This bill would also authorize the Secretary to rehabilitate the
approximately three-quarter mile long, 84-inch diameter, above ground
water supply line connecting the Folsom Dam pumping facility to the
Hinkle Wye, where the delivery system splits into separate pipelines to
serve the San Juan Water District (District) and the City of Roseville
(City). While the Administration understands the communities' interest
in these projects, we do not believe it is the Federal Government's
role to fund a secondary pipeline and therefore cannot support H.R.
1794.
The United States owns, and Reclamation operates, the 84-inch steel
North Fork Pipeline, which is the sole conveyance of Folsom Reservoir
water to both the District and the City. It is our understanding that
the United States is responsible for maintaining the existing pipeline.
However, the Bureau of Reclamation can only meet this responsibility
with permission from the City and District to interrupt pipeline flow
long enough to perform maintenance.
The City and District have grown substantially since the pipeline
and Folsom Dam were constructed 50 years ago. In working with the City
and the District over the past few years, they informed us that the
community growth leaves them without an adequate year-round backup
resource to sustain a water pipeline interruption for more than
approximately 24 hours. This constraint directly interferes with
Reclamation's ability to perform maintenance on the pipeline.
We agree that the lack of reserve capacity interferes with
maintenance and creates a continuity of supply issue that needs to be
addressed. However, it is our understanding that, while the
responsibility for pipeline maintenance belongs to the Bureau of
Reclamation, responsibility for providing reserve capacity to allow for
maintenance belongs to the City and District.
Following a preliminary inspection in 2001, Reclamation met with
the District and City to discuss a parallel pipeline as a possible
solution to providing water supply during rehabilitation work. At that
time, officials from the District and the City indicated they intended
to jointly fund and install the parallel pipeline. Reclamation
supported that approach and indicated it would cooperate in the
process, a position we continue to support.
In summary, the Administration understands that a solution to this
issue must be developed, but if the District and the City determine
that they need a parallel pipeline or some other method of reserve
capacity, they should be responsible for its construction. Reclamation
understands that it is responsible for reasonable maintenance of the
existing pipeline and stands behind that commitment. We look forward to
continuing cooperation with City, District and legislative sponsors in
developing alternatives that may prove a more efficient means of
meeting the community's water needs.
That concludes my prepared remarks. I would be pleased to answer
any questions.
______
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rinne on H.R. 2040 follows:]
Statement of William Rinne, Deputy Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation,
U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 2040
Thank you for the opportunity to appear today to provide the
Administration's views on H.R. 2040.
H.R. 2040 would amend the Irrigation Project Contract Extension Act
of 1998 to require the Secretary of the Interior to extend each of the
water service or repayment contracts for the Glendo Unit of the
Missouri River Basin Project for a period of 2 years until December 31,
2005, or for the term of the cooperative agreement entered into by the
states of Wyoming, Nebraska, Colorado and the Secretary of the
Interior.
Mr. Chairman, the Department supports the H.R. 2040 language as
written.
On July 1, 1997, the States of Wyoming, Nebraska, and Colorado
entered into a cooperative agreement for Platte River research and
other efforts relating to endangered species habitats along the Central
Platte River in Nebraska with the United States Department of the
Interior. The purpose of the cooperative agreement is to jointly
undertake a basin-wide effort to improve the habitat of four threatened
and endangered species that use the Platte River. Successful completion
of the cooperative study will lead to development of a basin-wide
program that will serve as the reasonable and prudent alternative to
offset the effects of existing and new water related activities in the
Platte River Basin.
Glendo Dam and Reservoir is one of several Bureau of Reclamation
dams and reservoirs on the North Platte River that operate as an
integrated system. The Bureau of Reclamation has been proceeding with a
process to consult under the Endangered Species Act on the entire
reservoir system operations.
To successfully renew long-term contracts for Glendo Reservoir
water will require the completion of Endangered Species Act
consultation on the Bureau of Reclamation's North Platte River system
operations. Such consultation will not be completed until after the
final programmatic environmental impact statement and study have been
completed. The final programmatic environmental impact statement is
scheduled to be completed by November 2004, with the record of decision
to follow in December 2004. H.R. 2040 will allow Reclamation to proceed
with completing the renewal of the Glendo contracts following the
record of decision.
Mr. Chairman, in summary, the Department supports the legislation
for extension of the Glendo contracts provided by H.R. 2040. I would be
happy to answer any questions.
______
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
Testifying on H.R. 1794 are the Hon. Rocky Rockholm, Mayor
of the City of Roseville, and Mr. Jim English, General Manager
of San Juan Water District. First we will recognize Mayor
Rockholm.
STATEMENT OF ROCKY ROCKHOLM, MAYOR, CITY OF ROSEVILLE,
CALIFORNIA, ACCOMPANIED BY DEREK WHITEHEAD, DIRECTOR OF
ENVIRONMENTAL UTILITIES, CITY OF ROSEVILLE
Mr. Rockholm. Mr. Chairman and honorable members of this
Committee, my name is Rocky Rockholm. I am the Mayor of
Roseville, California.
I appreciate the opportunity to appear here before you
before this Committee today concerning H.R. 1794, the
authorization for construction of a parallel water supply line
and rehabilitation of an existing Federal supply line.
Thank you for holding this hearing today. The citizens of
Roseville and our region need your help in providing a safe and
reliable water supply for our region. I want to thank
Congressman John Doolittle for his leadership and for
introducing H.R. 1794. Roseville is proud to have Congressman
Doolittle represent our region for over a decade, and we
appreciate his commitment to our City, our region, the State of
California and the United States of America.
Roseville is located 20 miles east of Sacramento, and
Interstate 80 divides the City. The current population is
approximately 86,000 residents, which is expected to grow to
110,000 residents by the year 2010, which is our build-out
according to general and specific plans.
Our community has experienced unprecedented growth during
the past decade. The City has efficiently and effectively kept
pace with providing a high level of service in spite of
significant pressures of rapid growth, safeguarded local and
regional history through planning and delivering critical
projects that benefited the long economic health of the region.
An example would be the Union Pacific rail yard, which is the
largest rail yard west of the Mississippi River, and the Maidu
Interpretive Center, which shows a history of the Maidu Indians
in our area.
The City's drinking water system relies heavily on a single
84-inch pipe owned and operated by the Bureau of Reclamation.
The pipeline can deliver up to 216 million gallons of water per
day, 96 million gallons for Roseville and 120 million gallons
for San Juan. The pipeline provides service to over 250,000
people each day. It is the only raw water supply line for the
City in San Juan Water District. Without it we would not be
able to provide water to the citizens of our region.
Jim English, the General Manager of San Juan Water
District, will describe the specific findings of the pipeline
inspection conducted in the year 2000. An important point to
remember: if this pipeline fails, it would have a catastrophic
effect on our region's viability.
There are two reasons for the parallel pipeline.
Rehabilitation of the existing pipeline would require it to be
taken out of service for several weeks or even months, leaving
both agencies without water. The parallel pipeline is the only
way service can be maintained during rehabilitation.
The parallel pipeline would provide a redundant water
supply for 250,000 customers. This would improve the
reliability and security of the water supply significantly. It
is essential that we update our water systems by building in
redundancies.
As a California mayor I am sensitive to water usage and
believe it is important to note that no additional water will
be drawn from the American river system as a result of this
project. The two supply lines will be used to supply the
approved level of water to the City of Roseville and the San
Juan Water District.
The total cost of the project is estimated to be $12.1
million. The City and San Juan Water District will complete a
predesign study. The United States Bureau of Reclamation staff
will start the design of the parallel line, utilizing staff
located in Denver, and paid for through the $500,000
appropriation in the 2003 Omnibus Bill.
In addition we are asking for an additional $1.6 million
energy and water appropriation in Fiscal Year 2004 to complete
the design. The construction phase of the parallel pipeline
will be approximately $8 million. Rehabilitation of the
existing line is estimated at $1.9 million. The estimated time
for completing this project is 4 years.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for your time. Again, we would like
to thank Congressman Doolittle for his work on this
legislation, and the City encourages the Subcommittee on Water
and Power to report favorably on H.R. 1794.
I guess at this point--this is my first time--I would ask
for my written comments to be entered into the record and I
would be happy to answer any questions.
Mr. Calvert. Without objection, so ordered.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rockholm follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Rocky Rockholm, Mayor,
City of Roseville, California, on H.R. 1794
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, my name is
Rocky Rockholm and I am the Mayor of the City of Roseville, California.
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this Committee today
regarding H.R. 1794, a bill providing authorization for construction of
a parallel water supply line and rehabilitation of existing federal
facilities at Folsom Dam.
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 Roseville need your assistance in helping us
meet the water supply and water security needs of our region. We
appreciate this Committee's commitment to ensuring a safe and reliable
water system in the United States.
On behalf of the City of Roseville, I also wish to thank
Congressman John Doolittle for his leadership and for introducing H.R.
1794. Congressman Doolittle has served his constituents and the nation
well since first being elected over a decade ago. Roseville is proud to
have Congressman Doolittle represent us in the United States Congress,
and we appreciate his commitment to our City, our region, the State of
California, and the United States of America.
The City of Roseville is located 20 miles east of Sacramento and
has a population of approximately 86,000 residents. Roseville is
expected to be home to approximately 110,000 residents by 2010 when all
of the currently-entitled residential property is developed. Our
community has experienced unprecedented growth during the past decade,
and I believe the City has efficiently and effectively discharged its
duties to our new and long-standing residents in spite of the
significant pressures of rapid growth.
In addition to carrying out the primary functions of local
government, I believe we have successfully safeguarded our local and
regional history while responsibly planning and delivering critical
projects for our long term economic health. For example, the City has
worked with the local Maidu tribe to preserve the Native American
history of the area in cultural centers and museums and with Union
Pacific to develop the largest rail yard of its kind west of the Omaha
and the most modern rail yard in the United States.
Of course, a primary local government function is to reliably
deliver clean drinking water. The City has worked closely with the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation and the San Juan Water District to properly
discharge this function. We are now faced with a major challenge
related to our water supply, and we need this Committee's assistance to
ensure our water service remains safe and reliable.
The City's current drinking water system relies on a single 84-
inch, 3,500 foot pipeline owned and operated by the United States
Bureau of Reclamation (USBR). The pipeline delivers up to 216 million
gallons of raw water each day from Folsom Reservoir to the City of
Roseville and the San Juan Water District--120 million gallons to the
San Juan Water District and 96 million gallons to the City of
Roseville. After treatment, the respective agencies serve water to over
250,000 customers per day in Sacramento and Placer Counties. The
pipeline is the only raw water supply line to the City and the San Juan
Water District. Without it, we would be unable to provide the citizens
of our region with a safe and reliable drinking water supply.
My friend, Jim English of the San Juan Water District, will
describe the specific findings of the 2000 pipeline inspection. The
important point to remember is this: the region's only drinking water
supply is in jeopardy and could soon fail unless the existing
infrastructure is rehabilitated.
There are two main reasons why the parallel pipeline is necessary.
First, rehabilitation will require the sole existing pipeline to be
taken out of service for several weeks or even months. A parallel
pipeline must be constructed to provide the agencies raw water while
the existing pipeline is out of service. The parallel pipeline is the
only means by which we will be able to deliver water to our citizens
without interruptions.
Second, the parallel pipeline will provide a redundant water supply
to 250,000 daily customers, significantly improving the security and
reliability of the facility. In light of recent events that have
demonstrated real threats to the security of our nation's
infrastructure, it is essential that we update our systems by building
in redundancies. H.R. 1794 provides the City of Roseville with this
added security. While this benefit is ancillary, it is very important.
As a California mayor, I am sensitive to water usage issues and I
believe it is important to note that no additional water will be drawn
from the American River system as a result of this project. The two
water supply lines will be used to supply the approved level of water
to the City of Roseville and the San Juan Water District.
We anticipate that the total cost of the project will be $12.1
million. The City and the San Juan Water District will complete a
$100,000 pre-design study. The USBR Denver office will start the design
of the parallel pipeline using $500,000 earmarked in the Fiscal Year
2003 Omnibus Appropriations Bill. An addition, we have requested an
earmark of $1.6 million in the Fiscal Year 2004 Energy and Water
Appropriations Bill that will be used to complete the design of the
project. The construction phase of the parallel pipeline will require
$8 million and the rehabilitation of the existing pipeline will cost
$1.9 million. We expect the project to be complete in four years,
including design, construction, and rehabilitation.
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 your commitment to ensuring the safety and
security of Americans. We also again wish to thank Congressman
Doolittle for all his work on this legislation and on behalf of the
City of Roseville.
The City of Roseville urges the Subcommittee on Water and Power to
report favorably on H.R. 1794 as soon as possible. I would be happy to
answer any questions you or your colleagues on the Subcommittee may
have. Once again, thank you.
______
[The diagram follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7903.001
Mr. Calvert. Next, Mr. Jim English, the General Manager of
San Juan Water District. Mr. English.
STATEMENT OF JIM ENGLISH, GENERAL MANAGER,
SAN JUAN WATER DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA
Mr. English. Mr. Chairman, this is exciting stuff for me. I
am a water guy, and as I look around the table and notice we
all have glasses and pitchers, this is a pretty big deal for
me. I want to thank the Committee also for allowing me to come
back here and talk on H.R. 1794. It is a big issue for us, and
it is nice to see Government doing its job with regard to safe
water, reliable water supply. A very important issue to me.
I also want to thank Congressman Doolittle, who has worked
so hard in our region to provide a safe and reliable water
supply. He has just done that over and over again. It has been
his agenda for many years. We are very proud to have him back
here representing us.
I have written testimony. Hopefully that has been
submitted. If not, I would ask that it be submitted.
Mr. Calvert. Your testimony has been submitted and it will
be entered into the record without objection.
Mr. English. Thank you.
We are a community services district formed in 1954, and we
purchased the North Fork Company which goes back to 1853, so we
have a long history of even pre-Folsom Dam. We completely
understand the construction, what went on back then, and where
we are today.
I would like to talk on a couple of points that Mr. Rinne
spoke about, in particular, going back to when the meetings
were held with the Bureau of Reclamation. These were important
meetings. And I would also like to acknowledge that we have a
good working relationship with the Bureau and we understand
there are budget constraints there. In those meetings with the
Bureau, held following their inspection of the pipeline where
serious problems were found, it was the Bureau that contacted
us and asked that we consider doing something that we had done
in the past, and that was to prefund facilities for the Bureau,
come back to Congress and seek some sort of reimbursement. This
is a much bigger issue. This is an issue that is--$12 million,
very difficult for a district whose annual budget is $10
million, to sell that to the board. We did promise however to
come back and see if we could do something to increase their
budget so that it was no impact to the Bureau. That was the
promise that was made.
I would like to talk about some previous issues with the
Bureau, where they did not have knowledge of a difficult
situation. One was Gate No. 3, it happened some years back,
when it failed. Not just tens of thousands, but hundreds of
thousands of acre-foot of water supply free fell from Folsom
Dam into the American River and out into the delta. That was a
condition they did not know about, but it was a failed
condition. There was not 2 years following that when the Bureau
had isolated and shut down the 84-inch valve to this pipeline,
and it was stuck closed, no water coming into the district. The
Bureau had no knowledge that that would happen, but
nevertheless a failed situation where no water supply was
coming in. Those two projects to go back and fix Gate No. 3 and
the failed valve cost three to five times what it would do
under normal planning conditions.
I think the Bureau recognizes and we recognize, we now know
that we have a pipeline, a single pipeline coming in that
serves more than a quarter of a million people that will fail.
It has a 5- to 10-year window, identified during their
inspections. We have used up 3 of those years already. It is
not a question of if, it is a question of when. Our greatest
concern is that it will fail before there is a parallel
pipeline in place.
I would submit to you that back in 1954, '53, someone had
to find a way to deliver water on a continuous basis while they
constructed Folsom Dam, the pumping facility and a pipeline
that went along with this today. All we are talking about is
the parallel pipeline to which we are not looking for increased
capacity, reserve capacity. We are recognizing that the only
way that they are going to be able to go in and do the
maintenance required is to build a secondary pipeline.
So I urge you to move quickly on H.R. 1794. Thank you once
again for the opportunity to speak with you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. English follows:]
Statement of Jim English, General Manager,
San Juan Water District, on H.R. 1794
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, my name is
Jim English and I am the general manager of the San Juan Water District
located in the greater Sacramento metropolitan area. I appreciate the
opportunity to testify today regarding H.R. 1794, a bill authorizing
construction of a parallel water supply line and rehabilitation of
existing federal facilities at Folsom Dam.
I would like to thank you and the members of the Subcommittee on
Water and Power for holding this hearing this afternoon. This hearing
is an important milestone in the progress of H.R. 1794 and demonstrates
your dedication to a safe and secure water system in our region and
throughout the United States. Ensuring a safe and reliable drinking
water system is a fundamental responsibility of government, and we
appreciate your efforts to effectively and efficiently carry out that
responsibility.
On behalf of the San Juan Water District, I also wish to thank
Congressman John Doolittle for his dedication to guaranteeing that a
safe and reliable water system is provided to his constituents and our
region. The San Juan Water District appreciates all of Congressman
Doolittle's efforts on our behalf and we are honored to have him
represent us in the United States Congress.
The San Juan Water District is a community services district
created by a vote of the citizens in 1954. The district is committed to
ensuring the delivery of a reliable water supply of the highest quality
at reasonable and equitable costs to all of its customers. The district
wholesales water to Citrus Heights and Fair Oaks water districts,
Orangevale Water Company, the City of Folsom, and periodically to
Sacramento Suburban Water District. Additionally, water retail services
are provided to customers in Granite Bay and the northeast portion of
Sacramento County.
San Juan Water District is located 30 miles east of Sacramento and
serves a population of approximately 160,000 residents within an area
of 28,800 acres.
The United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) delivers 216 million
gallons of raw water per day to the City of Roseville and the San Juan
Water District. The San Juan Water District receives 120 million
gallons of this water each day to serve our customers. The raw water is
delivered through a single pipeline that is owned and operated by the
USBR. Once the City and the SJWD treat the raw water, it is delivered
to over 250,000 customers each day in Sacramento County and Placer
County.
The existing 84-inch, 3,500 foot long pipeline was inspected in
2000. The inspectors found cracked lining and rust when the lining was
removed. The above ground exterior surfaces of the pipe are now showing
indications of coating failure and rust. The interior cement caulked
joints have softened and failed. There is also extensive rusting of the
steel beneath the joints and significant corrosion throughout the
pipeline. The coal tar lining failures are expected to accelerate over
time. USBR estimates that the pipeline will most likely fail within
five to ten years of the inspection without extensive rehabilitation.
H.R. 1794 would authorize the construction of a parallel pipeline
and the rehabilitation of the existing pipeline. The parallel pipeline
is essential as it will allow the City of Roseville and the San Juan
Water District to continue delivering water to our users while the
existing pipeline is out of service during rehabilitation. Without the
new pipeline, our customers would experience service outages from
several weeks to months while the existing pipeline is being
rehabilitated. This is unacceptable.
Once operational, the parallel pipeline will also serve as a
redundant water supply line, thus significantly enhancing the security
and reliability of the entire facility. Access to two water delivery
systems will help us protect our water supply and infrastructure. This
increased security measure is particularly important in light of
current and future threats to our infrastructure.
Water supply is of great interest in our region, and new water
infrastructure projects sometimes can be of concern. In this case,
however, I can report that the new pipeline will have no impact on the
amount of water being drawn from the American River. The two raw water
supply lines will be used to deliver the approved level of water to our
customers.
The project will cost a total of $12.1 million. The City and the
San Juan Water District will complete a $100,000 pre-design study with
local money. The design of the project will cost $2.1 million. An
earmark of $500,000 received in the Fiscal Year 2003 Omnibus
Appropriations Bill will be used by the USBR Denver office to start the
design of the parallel pipeline. We have requested an earmark of $1.6
million in the Fiscal Year 2004 Energy and Water Appropriations Bill to
complete the design of the project. The construction phase of the
parallel pipeline will require $8 million and the rehabilitation of the
existing pipeline will cost $1.9 million. We anticipate that the
project will take four years to complete.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and your colleagues once
again for holding this hearing today on H.R. 1794. We understand that
your Committee is extremely busy and we truly appreciate your
commitment to ensuring the safety and security of America's water
supply. The San Juan Water District again wishes to thank Congressman
Doolittle for all his work on this legislation.
The San Juan Water District strongly urges the Subcommittee on
Water and Power to report H.R. 1794 favorably. I thank you for your
assistance and I am happy to answer any questions you or Committee
members may have.
______
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman for his testimony, and
all the witnesses for their testimony.
At this time I recognize Mrs. Napolitano for her opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, A REPRESENTATIVE
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I apologize for my
late arrival. I had some pressing business, but I am looking
forward to hearing the rest of the testimony. I have read some
of the information. I concur these bills are very important,
dealing with reclamation law.
For Mr. Doolittle's bill, the question of the
reimbursability of the project construction cost is really the
major sticking point, if you will. With regard to Mr. Osborne's
bill, we just need to understand whether the cooperative
agreement among Wyoming, Nebraska and Colorado with the
Department of Interior will also be extended, and if the
agreement is not, then why do we need a bill.
I look forward to the testimony. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Calvert. Thank the gentlelady.
Now on to some questions. Mayor Rockholm, Mr. English, as
you mentioned in your testimony, your area has grown
tremendously. And you also mentioned, for the record, how long
will the pipeline serve your drinking water needs as they
presently exist?
Mr. English. As far as we are concerned, the pipeline is
large enough to take care of future growth, not only what we
have today but ultimate build-out.
Mr. Calvert. Again for the record, so the additional
pipeline, the primary purpose for that pipeline is maintenance
and to make sure you have a redundancy in the system in case an
emergency arises?
Mr. English. Correct. If they can find another way of
getting water supply to us while they do the rehabilitation,
that is OK with us.
Mr. Rockholm. I would like to add that the current water
supply that we are asking for, 96 million gallons a day would
take care of our build-out per our general plan and specific
plans. I think what it would afford us though is the
opportunity to work closely with the Bureau of Reclamation to
keep that system rehabilitated because we would have the
ability to turn off one line, work on the other line, or
whatever needed to be, with the Bureau. I think it would
provide the opportunity to be proactive versus reactive. In
other words, find a problem, fix it before it actually becomes
a catastrophic event.
Mr. Calvert. At the present time, what is the City of
Roseville's budget for water delivery infrastructure?
Mr. Rockholm. May I defer that answer to Derek Whitehead,
our Environmental Utilities Director?
Mr. Calvert. Certainly. For the record, please state your
name and position.
Mr. Whitehead. My name is Derek Whitehead. I am the
Director of Environmental Utilities for the City of Roseville.
We have two different budgets that we work from. We have an
operations budget that is about $9 million a year. And then we
also have a capital budget which we use to construct new
infrastructure, expanding to meet the needs for new growth that
we have, and that is money that is collected from those folks
when they tie into our system. So during that timeframe we have
the ability to build new infrastructure in our system, but have
not anticipated building infrastructure for the Bureau of
Reclamation.
Mr. Calvert. Mr. Rinne, does the Bureau presently own and
operate any reserve pipelines.
Mr. Rinne. Mr. Chairman, you mean reserve pipelines other
places?
Mr. Calvert. Yes.
Mr. Rinne. I am just thinking. We had one in Las Vegas. We
turned that over in a title transfer. I am not sure just off
the top of my head if there might be other areas where we have.
Mr. Calvert. For the record, could you look into that and
inform the Committee. We will hold the hearing record open, and
you can submit that for our information.
Mr. Rinne. I will do that, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. As far as you know, has there been a
longstanding Bureau policy on not fronting reserve capacity
pipelines?
Mr. Rinne. I do not think it is so much the policy here,
but in this particular case, Mr. Chairman, it is not whether
there should be a reserve one, but just the idea that the
authority we have, and we figure it is our responsibility in
the maintenance on the initial one, but not to have a reserve
one. So it is more what the practice would be. There is no
policy I am aware of that says we would not do reserve ones.
Mr. Calvert. The pipeline itself, what is the normal life
span of a pipeline such as this?
Mr. Rinne. This is a steel one. I think it has an epoxy-tar
coating on the inside. It is above ground. And what I do know
is, as kind of a minimal maintenance check, we thought probably
need replacement in the next 5 to 10 years. So if you figure
that was put in in the '50's, so you can see that you are over
50 years in the pipe.
Mr. Calvert. Just asking this question again for the
record. If there was a failure tomorrow on that pipeline, whose
responsibility is that to fix and repair?
Mr. Rinne. From the maintenance standpoint the Bureau of
Reclamation would have to do that.
Mr. Calvert. If there is a total failure of the line, whose
responsibility would it be to replace?
Mr. Rinne. It would be my understanding that we would have
to take on the maintenance responsibility to deal with an
emergency situation.
Mr. Calvert. So if in fact that did occur, would you be
forced into building a parallel line in order to build a new
line?
Mr. Rinne. Mr. Chairman, I do not know. I mean, obviously
we would try to deal with it. I do not know if we would take
that step or not.
Mr. Calvert. Would the City of Roseville have a secondary
water supply of water to--and this is for any of the witnesses
if they know the answer to this--if in fact there was a total
failure of water on that line, is there a secondary source of
water to supply the City?
Mr. Rockholm. It is my understanding we have enough well
capacity for a very short period of time, but it would not be--
we would not be able to sustain ourselves over a long period of
time.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
Mrs. Napolitano.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
A question to either one of the gentleman from Roseville.
Do any of your customers currently have water meters? Are they
being charged for water?
Mr. Rockholm. I would be glad to answer that question. Yes,
they are. New construction, most of the homes in Roseville that
are newer, from 1998 or above, all have the water meters, and
we are currently going through a water meter retrofit program
right now, and our plan is for the next 5 to 10 years, to have
everybody in the City converted to water meters.
Mrs. Napolitano. So in other words, only the newer, since
1998 are on water meters and being charged for water usage, or
is it a flat rate?
Mr. Rockholm. It is still a flat rate, but most of the
customers will be getting bills. But we have also started
converting some of the older areas. Some of the older areas now
have water meters. Then we are going to do 1 year of flat rate,
monitoring their usage, and then give them that bill history
and then start charging them.
Mrs. Napolitano. I explained to you that one of my
relatives lives in the Roseville area, and they have been
getting fake bills. They have not been charged for water, and
they have been there over 10 years. And it is a question about
reimbursement, is what I am concerned about.
To Mr. Rinne, is there any precedent to this type of
legislation requesting the Bureau to build an alternate
delivering service?
Mr. Rinne. Not that I am aware of, Congresswoman, but I
would prefer to check into that.
Mrs. Napolitano. But just off the top of your head, you do
not know of any. My concern is the bill is silent on the
reimbursability, which is, I am assuming, a fundamental
reclamation law.
Mr. Rinne. We would think that it would have to be either
integrated into the CVP repayment, you know, as reimbursable
cost, or it would have to be identified as a separate repayment
responsibility for the Roseville and the San Juan District.
Mrs. Napolitano. So in other words, even if this were
approved, you would still require a refund from the community
itself.
Mr. Rinne. Let me go slower and clearer. This is my first
time too and I am probably tripping over some of my thoughts
here.
Mrs. Napolitano. That is OK, so am I.
Mr. Rinne. I will just take my time with it, but with the--
my thought would be that if in fact it would decide to be--we
see reimbursement on our projects. The answer to that is yes.
If it were in fact to be reimbursable, we would expect that
that would be integrated fully with CVP repayment, which means
it would be spread over other repayment contractors in the CVP
area, or alternatively I guess it could be clearly separated
and then have the repayment cost be specifically for San Juan
and for Roseville.
Mrs. Napolitano. There are other questions that I think I
will like to ask the City of Roseville. If they have considered
alternatives of actually San Juan District, alternatives to
take care of the pipeline rehabilitation without having to
construct a parallel pipeline? No alternatives?
Mr. Whitehead. The dilemma is, is that that is a single
source of supply, and to be able to work around from the pump
station to where we have redundancy in our system. There is
really no way to work around it unless you put a parallel
pipeline with it. So we have talked with the Bureau about
having different alternatives, but that was the primary one,
and for us to construct like, for example, groundwater wells or
things of that nature, it would take about the same amount of
money for us to do the same thing that they are asking for, for
the parallel pipeline.
Mrs. Napolitano. And the distance of the pipeline would be
how long?
Mr. Whitehead. It is about 3,500 feet, about three-quarters
of a mile.
Mrs. Napolitano. Three-quarters of a mile. Is there
identification of the areas that are becoming problematic or
has the whole pipeline been found to be not useful?
Mr. English. I have seen, I have actually watched the
entire painful video of the Bureau's inspection. And we have
also had our own engineers take a look at it. The spalling of
the concrete joints happened all along the pipeline. Generally
once a pipeline begins to fail, it begins to completely fail.
There are two problems. One is the joints themselves, the
spalling of the concrete. The second is that--actually, three.
The coal tar enamel is dissociating itself from the pipeline,
which then causes a third problem called electrolysis, where
the pipeline pits itself, becomes very thin, and then at that
point can fail.
Mrs. Napolitano. And you start having leaks?
Mr. English. Yes.
Mrs. Napolitano. I will pass, but Mr. Chair, I will come in
on the next round.
Mr. Calvert. All right.
Mr. Osborne?
Mr. Osborne. Are these questions restricted to H.R. 1794? I
will pass at this point.
Mr. Calvert. OK. We will come back to H.R. 2040 in a
moment.
Mr. Osborne. I will pass on H.R. 1794.
Mr. Calvert. I just have a couple of other questions on
this legislation, and then we will move ahead.
The pipeline itself, again, Mr. Rinne, I just want to carry
on our line of questioning before. If in fact there was a total
failure of that line, you are not disputing the fact that the
Federal Government would be responsible for probably the
replacement of that line. And in order to replace that line you
are in effect going to have to build a whole new line which in
an emergency situation, would that cost more? What is the
normal scenario in something like this? If you had a failure
tomorrow and you had a total disconnect with the City of
Roseville, and we are in emergency mode here, would things cost
more than it normally would?
Mr. Rinne. I suppose they could. I think that what the
approach, Mr. Chairman, would be that it depends on what the
failure was. In other words, could there be a repair and then
move from that to a longer term fix. Certainly in an emergency
case we would do whatever we had to do to reestablish that. I
would only be speculating to say what that would be, or the
cost.
Mr. Calvert. Now, again on this legislation, there are
different interpretations on how this bill will be paid for.
What is your interpretation?
Mr. Rinne. Well, I noticed that the legislation was silent,
at least the version that I read, on whether it was
reimbursable or not.
Mr. Calvert. Mayor Rockholm, Mr. English, you met with the
Bureau early on in this process. Do you agree with the Bureau's
assessment that would be local funding only for this project?
Mr. English. I was in those meetings. I do not.
Mr. Calvert. Mr. Rockholm, were you--
Mr. Rockholm. I was not in those meetings. I just know what
I have been briefed by Mr. Whitehead and Mr. English.
Mr. Whitehead. I was also in the meeting and did not hear
anything of the local partners' cost sharing. It was more of a
concern that we would go after some type of reimbursement in
Washington or some other source.
Mr. Calvert. This is for all the witnesses, and my last
question on this issue. Are you opposed to a cost share or a
strict beneficiary pays provision title transfer? Any of those
issues, have they been brought to the table or talked about?
Mr. Rockholm. Speaking for the City of Roseville, I have
not heard any talks of any particular way of going, but from
the City of Roseville's standpoint, we just lost over 9.6
million in a utility user's tax, and like everybody else, I
mean, I am not here to cry poor mouth, but we are kind of in
between a rock and hard place. But we would not be opposed to a
title change after it was constructed that we would take over--
in other words, it would be like buying a car. You want the car
in the best shape we can, and we will drive it from there and
we will take care of it.
Mr. Calvert. So if in fact there was a parallel line built,
you are saying that you would take that transfer, and from that
point forward maintain the entire system?
Mr. Rockholm. Yes, that is exactly what I am saying.
Mr. English. Mr. Chair, I have to think. With the two
failures that have already occurred, the Gate No. 3 which was a
substantial cost, and with the valve failure, that in all
likelihood those costs were spread out over the Central Valley
Project. I also want to make clear that in our rates that we
pay the Bureau of Reclamation, we pay on a Central Valley
Project wide basis. So much of what we pay for is in other
areas for projects that we are not aware of. So under that
condition, that is a pretty good cost-sharing arrangement. It
is one that we are used to.
Mr. Calvert. Thank the gentlemen.
Mrs. Napolitano, any other questions?
Mrs. Napolitano. I would argue also that most cities in my
district also have to pay their cost share, and it is for
districts statewide. And Southern California has the greatest
number of taxpayers and rate payers, so we paid for a lot of
the water bonds and get very little of the benefit. So you can
say that there is the other side of it.
I have several questions that are concerning the water
itself in regards to an article that appeared that the water
purchase agreement that the council approved in the San Juan
Water District, which allows the 3,200 acre feet of raw water
supplied someone by the Placer County Water Agency. This is
supposedly, according to the article, being done to speed up
the annexation west of the City. Is that going to affect your
water delivery, your purchase of water, your ability to be able
to continue using that same system?
Mr. English. No. The amount of that water supply is
factored into our district's contract with Placer County Water
Agency. So it does not change our ultimate growth, our ultimate
build-out. It is simply a transfer from one agency to another,
and does not impact any further deliveries through that
pipeline.
Mrs. Napolitano. What is the current population of
Roseville?
Mr. Rockholm. We are at 86,000 plus.
Mrs. Napolitano. It has grown quite a bit.
Mr. Rockholm. Build-out should occur around 2010. It will
be about 110,000 plus.
Mrs. Napolitano. And you think this will be adequate to
provide services for that growth?
Mr. Rockholm. All these numbers are based on our ultimate
build-out, and we are even looking at groundwater recharge of
storing water instead of letting it run downstream and flood,
is trying to capture that, or even put new water into the
ground and save it for the rainy day, so to speak.
Mrs. Napolitano. Excellent. That is a lot of what we have
done in Southern California, storage, and recycling. I do not
know if you have looked into that because that is also another
alternative that is being utilized where we have very little
water to rely upon.
Mr. Chair, that is it for me. Thank you.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
Now, Mr. Osborne, you may ask your questions relating to
H.R. 2040.
Mr. Osborne. Thank you. I think Ms. Napolitano had a
question maybe as to the necessity for this bill, and I thought
I might just give you a little background. H.R. 2040 is being
crafted in response to a cooperative agreement between
Colorado, Wyoming and Nebraska that was entered into in 1997.
This cooperative agreement was necessitated by a ruling, Fish
and Wildlife, declaring 50 miles of Platte River, Central
Platte River in Nebraska as being critical habitat for the
whooping crane, even though it may be only 1 percent of the
whooping crane population visits that 50-mile stretch, for the
piping plover and the least tern, and there is no evidence of
any natural reproduction of these species in that 50-mile
stretch, and for the pallid sturgeon, which resides in the
Missouri River, 200 miles away.
So some of us are not real thrilled with this whole
project, but what has happened is these three states are
required now to come up with 150,000 acre feet of water to be
run through that 50-mile stretch in the Platte River in
accordance with what Fish and Wildlife says would approximate
flows maybe 100 years ago. So there are pulse flows. Some are
high in the spring, low in the summer and so on. So to get that
150,000 acre feet of water set aside, this cooperative
agreement has occurred. Nebraska furnishes 100,000 acre feet,
Wyoming roughly 40,000 acre feet, Colorado about 10,000 acre
feet. So originally this cooperative agreement was started in
1997. It was assumed that it would be completed in 2000. It was
not, so it was extended from 2000 to 2003, and now we find it
is still not done. So we are now going to go from 2003 to 2005
or whatever, and the problem is that we have eight irrigation
districts that take water out of Glendo Dam, which is upstream,
which has to furnish some of this water. So we have eight
irrigation districts that need renewal of their water rights
and until this cooperative agreement is finished, there is
really not a whole lot they can do.
What we are doing is we are simply asking that these water
rights for these eight irrigation districts be renewed until we
do complete the cooperative agreement in 2005. So it is mainly
because of the Endangered Species Act, Fish and Wildlife and
this cooperative agreement that we are having to do this. And
it is my understanding that the Department of Interior supports
this. Maybe one of the first times that this has happened in
the last couple of years, so we are delighted that you support
this, and we certainly urge its adoption.
Mr. Calvert. As you recognize, Mr. Osborne, the Department
of Interior lately has not been supporting a lot of things we
bring up over in the Committee, so this is refreshing news. We
are happy to have the support of this excellent legislation,
look forward to marking this bill up shortly and passing it and
moving forward and get this extension placed in law.
With that, are there any other questions for this panel?
Mr. Renzi, you have any questions?
Mr. Renzi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I wanted to go back if I could, just one quick question on
H.R. 2040. When the pipeline begins to deteriorate like it is,
the way it is described here in the narrative, I was thinking
back to a case in Arizona where we had the old copper pipes. I
know this is steel. But have you seen any higher levels of
carcinogenics in the water, or there is a threat at all to the
public, particularly the lining on the inside?
Mr. English. I can speak, being in the water business for a
number of years, when we see this kind of an action occurring
in a pipeline, it is generally caused by electrolysis and that
is simply the movement of water through a pipeline, a conduit.
It creates a situation more like a battery where opposites
attract. Metal begins to leave, and that is how the pitting
occurs. So it is not caused by carcinogenics. It is not caused
by any chemicals in the water. It is simply an actual reaction.
Mr. Renzi. So the water that people are drinking in that
area is not contaminated in any manner or threatened to be?
Mr. English. We are very blessed with some of the finest
water supplies in the United States.
Mr. Renzi. You just need a new pipe?
Mr. English. Yes.
Mr. Calvert. Thank the gentleman.
One other issue brought up, so I think I will ask the
question, because I think when we are up north, this may be
something we will be discussing. On the issue of reusability,
is the CVP water used for environmental needs nonreimbursable
or is it paid for by the CVP water and power contractors?
[Pause.]
Mr. Rinne. Thank you for waiting for me there, Mr.
Chairman. If it is for environmental purposes it is generally
nonreimbursable. If that is not the case, and it would go for
CVP-wide purposes, it would be reimbursable.
Mr. Calvert. Why is it nonreimbursable for environmental
purposes?
Mr. Rinne. We are not sure. I would only be speculating.
Whether that came out of the CVP Act, if it was just passed
that way. That is what I would, I would think, but I better--
Mr. Calvert. Mr. Rinne, again, this is open for the record.
If you could get back to us on that in writing and get back to
us if in fact there is legislative purpose behind that or if it
is administrative.
Mr. Rinne. OK.
Mr. Calvert. Certainly, I think there are people talking
about making those costs nonreimbursable.
Any other questions?
[No response.]
Mr. Calvert. Hearing none, we are adjourned. Thank you,
panel, for coming out today, and we appreciate it. We are
hereby adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:51 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[A letter submitted for the record on H.R. 2040 by The
Honorable Mike Johanns, Governor, State of Nebraska, follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7903.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7903.003