[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. 625, H.R. 2831 AND H.R. 3210
=======================================================================
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
__________
Wednesday, October 15, 2003
__________
Serial No. 108-68
__________
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
89-862 WASHINGTON : 2004
_____________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 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
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 Wednesday, October 15, 2003...................... 1
Statement of Members:
Gibbons, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Nevada............................................ 4
Prepared statement on H.R. 2831.......................... 5
Napolitano, Hon. Grace F., a Representative in Congress from
the State of California.................................... 3
Osborne, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Nebraska.......................................... 1
Prepared statement on S. 625, H.R. 2831, and H.R. 3210... 3
Wu, Hon. David, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Oregon.................................................. 5
Prepared statement of.................................... 6
Statement of Witnesses:
Brian, Hon. Tom, Chairman, Clean Water Services Board of
Directors.................................................. 20
Prepared statement on S. 625............................. 22
Hill, Jim, Water Reclamation Manager, City of Medford, Oregon 35
Prepared statement on H.R. 3210.......................... 37
Limbaugh, Mark A., Deputy Commissioner, Bureau of
Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior............... 8
Prepared statement on S. 625............................. 8
Prepared statement on H.R. 2831.......................... 10
Prepared statement on H.R. 3210.......................... 11
Roder, Aileen, Program Director, Taxpayers for Common Sense.. 32
Prepared statement on H.R. 2831.......................... 33
Schank, Ernest C., President, Board of Directors, Truckee-
Carson Irrigation District................................. 23
Prepared statement on H.R. 2831.......................... 31
Letters submitted for the record......................... 26
Additional materials supplied:
Smith, Hon. Gordon, a U.S. Senator from the State of Oregon,
Statement submitted for the record......................... 43
S. 625, A BILL TO AUTHORIZE THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION TO CONDUCT
CERTAIN FEASIBILITY STUDIES IN THE TUALATIN RIVER BASIN IN OREGON, AND
FOR OTHER PURPOSES (``TUALATIN RIVER BASIN WATER SUPPLY ENHANCEMENT ACT
OF 2003''); H.R. 2831, TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO
CONVEY THE NEWLANDS PROJECT HEADQUARTERS AND MAINTENANCE YARD FACILITY
TO THE TRUCKEE-CARSON IRRIGATION DISTRICT (``NEWLANDS PROJECT
HEADQUARTERS AND MAINTENANCE YARD FACILITY TRANSFER ACT''); AND H.R.
3210, TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, ACTING THROUGH THE
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, TO CONDUCT A WATER RESOURCE FEASIBILITY STUDY
FOR THE LITTLE BUTTE/BEAR CREEK SUBBASINS IN OREGON (``LITTLE BUTTE/
BEAR CREEK SUBBASINS WATER FEASIBILITY ACT'').
----------
Wednesday, October 15, 2003
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Water and Power
Committee on Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2 p.m., in Room
1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Tom Osborne
presiding.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. TOM OSBORNE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA
Mr. Osborne. The legislative hearing on the Subcommittee on
Water and Power will come to order. The Subcommittee is meeting
today to hear testimony on Senate 625, a bill to authorize the
Bureau of Reclamation to conduct certain feasibility studies on
the Tualatin River Basin in Oregon and for other purposes; H.R.
2831, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to convey the
Newlands Project headquarters and maintenance yard facility to
the Truckee-Carson Irrigation District; and H.R. 3210, to
authorize the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the
Bureau of Reclamation, to conduct a water resource feasibility
study for the Little Butte/Bear Creek subbasins in Oregon.
Mr. Osborne. I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Gibbons,
Representative of the Second District of Nevada, and Mr. Wu,
Representative of the First District of Oregon, have permission
to sit on the dais after their testimony and participate in the
hearing. So ordered.
Our Subcommittee continues to seek balance in integrated
water management approaches that ensure water and power
available for communities in the West. Today we will focus our
attention on three bills that improve the dependability and
security of the water infrastructure for long-term use,
recognize collaborative efforts on protecting endangered
species habitat, and stress the importance of local leadership
in resolving resource management issues.
H.R. 3210, introduced by our distinguished Oregon colleague
Mr. Greg Walden, authorizes a water management study of water
supply sources and water control features of existing Federal
and local water systems near Medford, Oregon. I look forward to
hearing about how communities in the watershed are already
working together to implement water use efficiency improvements
and respond to Federal questions over cooperative study
partnerships and funding sources.
H.R. 2831, introduced by our distinguished colleague Mr.
Jim Gibbons, authorizes the transfer of federally withdrawn
land to the Truckee-Carson Irrigation District in Nevada.
Presently the district leases the land for a minimal fee from
the Bureau of Reclamation and uses the site for administrative
offices and a maintenance yard for the Newlands Project. This
legislation responds to the district's request for a full title
to this parcel of land, and the transfer and future use would
be in compliance with the memorandum of agreement between the
district and Reclamation.
Senate 625, introduced by the distinguished Senator from
Oregon, Senator Gordon Smith, authorizes the Bureau of
Reclamation to participate in a water supply feasibility study
in the Tualatin River Basin in northwestern Oregon. I am
interested in hearing about what cooperative efforts are
underway to resolve water supply problems in the watershed and
if any preliminary strategies have been thought out that
include the development of new water supplies for long-term
growth.
These bills attempt to find a common solution to water
problems and land management issues. These bills also emphasize
the need for active local participation and a strong
willingness to work together if success is to be realized.
I thank our witnesses for coming here today and look
forward to hearing from them on these important bills.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Osborne follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Tom Osborne, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Nebraska, on S. 625, H.R. 2831 and H.R. 3210
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 three
bills that improve the dependability and security of the water
infrastructure for long-term use, recognize collaborative efforts on
protecting endangered species habitat, and stress the importance of
local leadership in resolving resource management issues.
H.R. 3210, introduced by our distinguished Oregon colleague, Mr.
Greg Walden, authorizes a water management study of water supply
sources and water control features of existing federal and local water
systems near Medford, Oregon. I look forward to hearing about how
communities in the watershed are already working together to implement
water use efficiency improvements and responses to federal questions
over cooperative study partnerships and funding sources.
H.R. 2831, introduced by our distinguished colleague, Mr. Jim
Gibbons, authorizes the transfer of federally withdrawn land to the
Truckee-Carson Irrigation District in Nevada. Presently, the District
leases this land for a minimal fee from the Bureau of Reclamation and
uses the site for an administrative office and a maintenance yard for
the Newlands Project. This legislation responds to the District's
request for full title to this parcel of land and the transfer and
future use would be in compliance with a memorandum of agreement
between the District and Reclamation.
S. 625, introduced by our distinguished Senator from Oregon,
Senator Gordon Smith, authorizes the Bureau of Reclamation to
participate in a water supply feasibility study of the Tualatin River
Basin in northwestern Oregon. I am interested in hearing about what
cooperative efforts are underway to resolve water supply problems in
the watershed and if any preliminary strategies have been thought out
that include the development of new water supplies for long-term
growth.
These bills attempt to find commonsense solutions to water problems
and land management issues. These bills also emphasize the need for
active local participation and a strong willingness to work together if
success is to be realized. I thank our witnesses for coming here today,
and look forward to hearing from them on these important bills.
______
Mr. Osborne. I now recognize Mrs. Napolitano, the Ranking
Democrat Member, for any statement she may have.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will be
very brief. I look forward to hearing from both the witnesses
that are here, and I certainly welcome Congressman Wu, my
colleague, and look forward to their testimony.
With regard to Congressman Gibbons' bill, H.R. 2831, it is
going to be especially telling for me because it raises
questions that we have talked about and discussed regarding
policies on transferring Federal property to local water
districts. And while that is very laudable, because sometimes
the locals can do a better job of handling some of the issues,
I think we need to look at how we transfer the land without
reimbursement for the taxpayer. So that is one of the things
that I look forward to hearing and am very interested in
listening to the testimony.
I may have to step out because I am on the floor managing--
comanaging some of the day's business, and look forward to
hearing the witnesses, and yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Osborne. Thank you.
Mr. Osborne. At this time we will hear from Mr. Gibbons,
who will be testifying on H.R. 2831.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JIM GIBBONS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you very much, Chairman Osborne, and to
the members of the Committee. I want to thank each of you for
holding this hearing today to discuss H.R. 2831, the Newlands
Project Headquarters and Maintenance Yard Facility Transfer
Act. And as you know, this legislation requires the Secretary
of Interior to convey to the Truckee-Carson Irrigation
District, or TCID as it is commonly known, all right, title and
interest of the Newlands Project.
The Bureau of Reclamation and the TCID signed a memorandum
of agreement on June 9 of this year specifying the details of
that transfer. This transfer is of approximately 35 acres and
will allow TCID to make permanent improvements on this land for
the continued operation and maintenance of the Newlands
Reclamation Project. The transfer is necessary so that
financing can be obtained for those proposed improvements.
This is important to note that in 1986, the Bureau of
Reclamation certified that the TCID had repaid--let me say that
once again, the Bureau of Reclamation has already certified in
1996 that the Truckee-Carson Irrigation District has repaid to
the United States the original construction charges that were
designated for repayment. Included in the original construction
charges was the cost of land on which the original headquarters
and facilities were located. By 1975, the TCID had outgrown its
original facilities and moved to the current site on which we
are hoping to transfer in this legislation. And although the
TCID had clearly paid for the land of the original facilities,
they were never compensated or repaid for the transfer back to
the Bureau of Reclamation when they were moved to their new
location. And, in fact, a United States post office now sits
where the original headquarters were located that TCID had
already bought and purchased, but was never compensated for
prior to this legislation.
By asking the TCID to pay for their land, headquarters--
where their headquarters is currently located would be, in
effect, asking them to pay for it twice. Yet some critics of
this bill still maintain that it unfairly favors TCID and that
the land is a taxpayer asset and should be treated accordingly.
But as I have said, Mr. Chairman, the TCID has already paid for
the land on which a headquarters facility sits, and to say that
H.R. 2831 is a, quote, giveaway, end quote, is simply
misleading and incorrect and misrepresents my legislative
intent.
Mr. Chairman, this legislation is of utmost importance to
the Second District of Nevada. The Governor of Nevada, Kenny
Guinn, sent me a letter expressing his support for this
transfer along with the Churchill County commissioners and the
Mayor of Fallon, the State Representatives Grady and
Goicoechea, and State Senator Mike McGinness, who all represent
this portion of Nevada. And I would ask unanimous consent to be
able to submit those documents with my testimony for the
record.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you again for holding this
important hearing today, and I look forward to answering any
questions that any of the members of the Committee may have.
And at this point in time, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Osborne. Thank you, Mr. Gibbons.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gibbons follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Jim Gibbons, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Nevada
Chairman Calvert, thank you for holding this hearing today to
discuss H.R. 2831, The Newlands Project Headquarters and Maintenance
Yard Facility Transfer Act.
As you know, this legislation requires the Secretary of the
Interior to convey to the Truckee-Carson Irrigation District or TCID
all right, title and interest of the Newlands Project.
The Bureau of Reclamation and the TCID signed a Memorandum of
Agreement on June 9th of this year specifying the details of the
transfer.
This transfer of approximately 35 acres will allow the TCID to make
permanent improvements on this land for the continued operation and
maintenance of the Newlands Reclamation Project.
The transfer is necessary so that financing can be obtained for the
improvements.
It is important to note that, in 1996, the Bureau of Reclamation
certified that the TCID had repaid to the United States the original
construction charges that were designated for repayment.
Included in the original construction charges was the cost of land
on which the original headquarter facilities were located.
By 1975, the TCID had outgrown its original facilities and moved to
the current site in which we are hoping to transfer in this
legislation.
Although the TCID had clearly paid for the land of the original
facilities they were never compensated when they vacated the lots.
In fact, a post office now sits where the original headquarters
were located.
By asking the TCID to pay for the land where their headquarters is
currently located would be, in effect, asking them to pay for it twice.
Yet, some critics of this bill still maintain that this bill
``unfairly favors the TCID'' and the land is a ``taxpayer asset and
should be treated accordingly.''
But, as I said, the TCID has already paid for the land on which a
headquarters facility sits, and to say that H.R. 2831 is a ``give-
away'' is simply incorrect and misrepresents my legislative intent.
Mr. Chairman, this legislation is of utmost importance to the 2nd
District of Nevada.
The Governor of Nevada, Kenny Guinn, sent me a letter expressing
his support for this transfer along with the Churchill County
Commissioners, the Mayor of Fallon, the State Representatives Grady and
Goicoechea, and State Senator McGinness.
Thank you again for holding this important hearing today and I look
forward to hearing from our witnesses.
______
Mr. Osborne. At this time, Mr. Wu will be testifying on
Senate 625.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DAVID WU, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. Wu. Thank you, Chairman Osborne and Ranking Member
Napolitano, for holding this hearing on legislation which is
absolutely crucial to the heart of the Congressional district
which I represent. S. 625, the Tualatin River Basin Water
Supply Act of 2003, authorizes the Bureau of Reclamation to
conduct a crucial study to evaluating reliable, safe and cost-
effective water supply options to meet the long-term needs of
the Tualatin Water Basin.
Washington County, Oregon, and the Tualatin Water Basin
have a population exceeding 470,000 people. It is the fastest-
growing county in Oregon and is playing a leading role in
driving the region and State's economic growth. Since 1987, the
number of jobs in Washington County has doubled to
approximately 220,000. Demand for water in Washington County
and the Tualatin Basin is expected to double by the year 2050,
which means there is a need for an additional 50,000 acre-feet
of water per year.
The economy, environment and quality of life for the area
are dependent upon successfully meeting the growing municipal,
industrial, agricultural and environmental water demands. The
feasibility study proposed centers on identifying and acquiring
the additional 50,000 acre-feet of water. Major employers in
the First Congressional District of Oregon, like INTEL, Nike
and Techtronics, rely heavily on this water.
Additionally, there are two fish species in the Tualatin
drainage, spring chinook and steelhead, which are listed as
threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Restoration of
fish habitat will require more water as a cooling agent.
Hagg Lake, which is formed by Scoggins Dam on Scoggins
Creek, a Tualatin River tributary, was created in 1975 and is a
Bureau of Reclamation facility. Water from Hagg Lake is
currently used for municipal water supply, agricultural
irrigation and river flow restoration needs in the Tualatin
River watershed.
This feasibility study will examine several different
options for augmenting the water supply for Washington County.
Such options include expansion of Hagg Lake by raising Scoggins
Dam either 40 or 20 feet, transferring Willamette water to the
area for irrigation purposes, expanding aquifer storage
systems, increasing conservation and expanding reuse of clean
wastewater for irrigation.
S. 625 passed the Senate by unanimous consent on June 16 of
this year. It is clear that this legislation enjoys broad
bipartisan support, and I am confident that local agencies, in
conjunction with the Bureau of Reclamation, will be exceptional
stewards for this project. It is time that this House helps the
study move forward so this community can make informed
decisions about the future of its water supply.
To speak to the extensive local support and financial
contributions of the county and the region, Washington County
Chair Tom Brian will be speaking momentarily. Thank you for
making the trip, Tom, and again my thanks to the Committee for
holding this hearing, and I look forward to working with you
all to ensure the successful passage of this legislation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Osborne. Thank you, Mr. Wu.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wu follows:]
Statement by The Honorable David Wu, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Oregon, on S. 625
Mr. Chairman, I would like to start by thanking you for holding a
hearing on this important legislation.
S. 625, the Tualatin River Basin Water Supply Act of 2003
authorizes the Bureau of Reclamation to conduct a crucial study to
evaluate reliable, safe, and cost-effective water supply options to
meet the long-term water needs of the Tualatin Basin.
Washington County, Oregon, and the Tualatin Basin have a population
exceeding 470,000 people. It is the fastest-growing county in Oregon
and plays a leading role in driving the region and state's economic
growth. Since 1987, the number of jobs in the County has doubled to
approximately 220,000.
Demand for water in Washington County/Tualatin Basin is expected to
double by the year 2050, which means there is a need for an additional
50,000 acre-feet of water per year.
The economy, environment and quality of life of the area are
dependent upon successfully meeting the growing municipal, industrial,
agricultural and environmental water demands. The feasibility study
centers on identifying and acquiring this additional 50,000 acre-feet
of water. Major employers in my district like Intel, Nike and Tektronix
rely heavily on such water.
Additionally, there are two fish species on the Tualatin River,
Spring Chinook and steelhead that are listed as threatened under the
ESA. Restoration of fish habitat will require more water as a cooling
agent.
Hagg Lake, which is formed by Scoggins Dam on Scoggins Creek
(Tualatin River tributary), was created in 1975 and is a Bureau of
Reclamation facility. Water from Hagg Lake is currently used for
municipal water supply, agricultural irrigation, and river flow
restoration needs in the Tualatin River watershed.
This feasibility study will examine several different options for
augmenting the water supply for Washington County. Such options include
expansion of Hagg Lake by raising Scoggins Dam either 40 or 20 feet;
transferring Willamette River water to the area for the purpose of
irrigation; expanding aquifer storage systems; increasing conservation;
and, expanding reuse of cleaned wastewater for irrigation.
S. 625 passed the Senate by unanimous consent on June 16, 2003. It
is clear that this legislation enjoys broad support, and I am confident
that local agencies in conjunction with the Bureau of Reclamation will
be exceptional stewards of this project. It is time that the House
helps this study move forward so that our community can make informed
decisions about the future of its water supply.
To speak to the extensive local support and financial
contributions, Chairman Tom Brian of the Washington County Board of
Commissioners is here. Thank you for making the trip Tom. Again, my
thanks to the Committee for holding this hearing and I look forward to
working with you all to insure the project's success.
______
[NOTE: Letters submitted for the record by Mr. Wu have been
retained in the Committee's official files.]
Mr. Osborne. Anyone who wants to submit anything for the
record can do so for up to 10 days after this hearing.
Mr. Osborne. And at this time, Mr. Wu and Mr. Gibbons are
invited to join the dais if they would care to do so.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and before I do leave
the table here, I do want to introduce Mr. Ernie Schank,
President of the Board of Directors from the Truckee-Carson
Irrigation District, and Fallon who is here to testify, one of
my constituents, I want to welcome him here to this Committee
as well. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Osborne. Thank you for your testimony.
Mr. Wu. Mr. Chairman, I thank you also. I accept your
invitation to join the dais, but as so often happens, we will
be leaving for the Rules Committee where we have a few items
pressing before us this week and ask your forbearance and the
forbearance of the witnesses who have traveled from Nevada and
Oregon respectively.
Mr. Osborne. We know that you will construct a very tight
rule that will limit debate so we will get out of here early
this week. So thank you for being here, and we will carry on
without you. Thank you.
Mr. Osborne. At this time, I would like to recognize the
first panel of witnesses. Mr. Mark Limbaugh, Deputy
Commissioner, External and Intergovernmental Affairs, Bureau of
Reclamation. I now recognize Mr. Limbaugh to testify for 5
minutes. Timing lights on the table will indicate when your
time is concluded. All witnesses' statements will be submitted
for the hearing record.
STATEMENT OF MARK A. LIMBAUGH, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, EXTERNAL
AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
Mr. Limbaugh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I begin, I
would like to request that my written statement on these bills
be submitted for the record.
Mr. Osborne. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Limbaugh. Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee,
distinguished Members of the House, I am Mark Limbaugh, Deputy
Commissioner for the Bureau of Reclamation in Washington. I am
pleased to be here today to present the Department's views on
S. 625, Tualatin River Basin Water Supply Enhancement Act of
2003; H.R. 2831, the Newlands Project Headquarters and
Maintenance Yard Facility Transfer Act; and H.R. 3210, to
authorize the Secretary of the Interior acting for the Bureau
of Reclamation to conduct a water resource feasibility study
for the Little Butte/Bear Creek subbasins in Oregon. While my
written statements contain more detail, I would like to use
this time to summarize our remarks.
Let me begin with S. 625. S. 625 authorizes the Secretary
of Interior in cooperation with affected local entities to
complete a study feasibility of various methods to meet future
water supplies for agriculture, municipal and industrial uses.
Reclamation has been working closely with the regional
wastewater entity, Clean Water Services, several municipalities
in Washington County, Oregon, and the Tualatin Valley
Irrigation District and others to develop a plan that will
increase available storage for local use and preserve the
important environmental benefits so valued by the local
residents.
A tremendous amount of local effort has been expended to
develop useful information upon which the feasibility study for
Reclamation may be based. Study partners have also invested
considerable effort to begin the planning process at the local
level with the assistance of Reclamation.
A full range of potential approaches to meeting future
water supply needs will be considered, including market-based
and other economic incentives. As such, the merits of the
proposed feasibility study are sound and reasonable, and
therefore the administration can support S. 625. However, it is
important to note that this study is not included in the
administration's Fiscal Year 2004 budget request.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Limbaugh on S. 625 follows:]
Statement of Mark Limbaugh, Deputy Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation,
U.S. Department of the Interior, on S. 625
Mr. Chairman, I am Mark Limbaugh, Deputy Commissioner of the Bureau
of Reclamation (Reclamation). Thank you for the opportunity to testify
on S. 625, the Tualatin River Basin Water Supply Enhancement Act of
2003. The legislation authorizes the Secretary of the Interior, in
cooperation with affected local entities, to complete a study of the
feasibility of various methods to meet future water supplies for
agriculture, and for municipal and industrial uses.
Reclamation has been working closely with the regional wastewater
entity Clean Water Services, several municipalities in Washington
County, Oregon, the Tualatin Valley Irrigation District and others, to
develop a plan that will increase available storage for local use and
preserve the important environmental benefits so valued by the local
residents. A tremendous amount of local effort has been expended to
develop useful information upon which a feasibility study by
Reclamation may be based. The study partners have also invested
considerable effort to begin the planning process at the local level,
with the assistance of Reclamation. A full range of potential
approaches to meeting future water supply needs will be considered,
including market-based incentives and other economic incentives. As
such, the merits of the proposed feasibility study are sound and
reasonable and therefore the Administration can support S.625. However,
it is important to note that this study was not included in the
Administration's Fiscal Year 2004 budget request.
This concludes my statement. I will be glad to answer any
questions.
______
Mr. Limbaugh. Let me now turn my attention to H.R. 2831.
Mr. Chairman, over the past several months, Reclamation has
been working closely with the Truckee-Carson Irrigation
District to work through issues on the title transfer of their
headquarters property. And with several changes to the
legislation, the Department would support H.R. 2831.
In June 2003, Reclamation and the President of the
District's Board of Directors signed an extensive memorandum of
agreement governing the process for completing the proposed
title transfer. However, the Department does have three issues
of concern with H.R. 2831 as introduced.
First, H.R. 2831 proposes to convey the Newlands Project
Headquarters and maintenance yard facility, which includes 37
acres of land that was withdrawn from the public domain for the
development of the Newlands Project. However, Reclamation and
the district has not attempted to negotiate the cost of the
lands in the MOA. Therefore, we believe the legislation needs
to address this issue. If lands were acquired for a project
through fee title when the project was developed, in other
words acquired land, then the cost of that acquisition would
have been included in the repayment obligation of the district.
These lands, however, were withdrawn from the public domain,
and their fair value was never included in the district's
repayment obligation. Therefore, in order to protect the
financial interest of the United States and taxpayers, we
recommend that the legislation be modified to ensure that the
district be required to pay fair market value for those lands
as a condition of the transfer.
Second, H.R. 2831 directs the Secretary to convey the lands
to the district. As a matter of principle, we normally object
to mandatory transfer language that overrides the Secretary's
discretionary authority in such matters. And while we support
this transfer, we would recommend that the language in section
2(a) of the bill be changed from ``shall'' to ``may.''
Finally in the past, in title transfer bills, the Secretary
was allowed to complete various public processes as soon as
practicable and subject to all applicable laws. Virtually all
the transfers that have moved through Congress have included
this language, particularly those where compliance under the
National Environmental Policy Act has not been completed prior
to the legislation being introduced. In order for it to be
internally consistent, and since section 2(c) requires that
environmental reviews and remediation be completed, section
2(a) should be modified as suggested in my written statement.
While we have listed some concerns with the language of
H.R. 2831 as drafted, we support the transfer of this land and
believe the issues raised in my statement can be resolved. I
would like to take this opportunity to compliment the District
President Ernest Schank and the District's Board of Directors
for their diligence and commitment in working with us on the
issues surrounding this transfer. I would like to thank
Congressman Gibbons and his staff for their cooperation. I look
forward to working together to resolve these issues and to move
forward with this transfer.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Limbaugh on H.R. 2831
follows:]
Statement of Mark Limbaugh, Deputy Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation,
U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 2831
My name is Mark Limbaugh and I am the Deputy Commissioner of the
Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). I am pleased to appear before this
Subcommittee to provide the Administration's views on H.R. 2831. We
have worked closely with the District on this transfer, and, with
certain changes to the legislation as discussed more fully below, the
Department would support H.R. 2831.
H.R. 2831 directs the Secretary of Interior to convey the Newlands
Project Headquarters and maintenance yard facility to the Truckee-
Carson Irrigation District. The facilities cover about 37 acres of
Reclamation withdrawn property in Fallon, Nevada.
Mr. Chairman, over the past several months, we have been working
closely with the District to work through the issues associated with
the title transfer of the headquarters property. In June 2003,
Reclamation and the President of the District's Board of Directors
signed an extensive Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) governing the process
for completing the proposed title transfer. In general, Reclamation
supports transferring title to state and local entities when it is in
the mutual interest of affected parties. However, there are three
issues of concern to the Department with H.R. 2831 as introduced.
First, in its discussions with the District concerning the MOA,
Reclamation did not attempt to negotiate the cost of the lands in the
MOA. We believe the legislation needs to address this issue. If lands
were acquired for a project through fee title when the project was
developed, then the costs of the acquisition would have been included
in the repayment obligation of the District. These lands, however, were
withdrawn from the public domain; thus, their value was never included
in the District's repayment obligation. Generally, withdrawn lands that
are no longer needed for a Reclamation project are either transferred
back to the Bureau of Land Management to be administered as public
domain lands, or offered to the General Services Administration for
disposal. In order to protect the financial interests of the United
States and the taxpayers, we recommend that the legislation be modified
to ensure that the District, as a condition of transfer, be required to
pay the fair market value for those lands.
Second, H.R. 2831 directs the Secretary to convey the Newlands
project headquarters and maintenance yard facility. As a matter of
principle, we have historically objected to mandatory transfer language
because it overrides the Secretary's discretionary authority in such
matters. While we support the transfer in this case, we recommend that
the language in Section 2(a) be amended to state that the Secretary
``may'' convey these lands, in order to preserve her discretionary
authority in such matters.
Third, we recommend that the language in Section 2(a) be further
amended to read as follows: ``The Secretary may, as soon as practicable
after the date of enactment and in accordance with all applicable law,
convey to the Truckee Carson Irrigation District pursuant to the terms
of the memorandum of agreement...'' Virtually all of the transfers that
have moved through Congress have included this language, particularly
those where compliance under the National Environmental Policy Act has
not been completed prior to the legislation being introduced. This
amendment would strengthen the bill by making it internally consistent
with language in Section 2(c), which conditions title transfer on the
completion of environmental reviews, remediation, and cultural
clearances, and would have the added benefit of addressing any other
reviews or processes not covered by the language in Section 2(c).
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, while we have some concerns with the
language of H.R. 2831 as noted above, we support the transfer of this
land and believe the issues raised in my statement can be resolved. I
would like to take this opportunity to compliment District Board
President Ernest Schank and the District's Board of Directors for their
diligence and commitment in working with us on the issues surrounding
this transfer. I would also like to thank Congressman Gibbons and his
staff for their cooperation. I look forward to working together to
resolve these issues and to moving forward with this transfer.
That concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer any
questions.
______
Mr. Limbaugh. The final bill I am testifying on today is
H.R. 3210, which would authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to
conduct a water resource feasibility study in the Bear Creek/
Little Butte Creek subbasins of the Rogue River in southwestern
Oregon, as well as prepare the associated environmental impact
statement.
It is Reclamation's understanding that a broad range of
stakeholders have come together to achieve consensus on project
goals and gain community support. The primary goals are to
increase instream flows in Little Butte Creek and Bear Creek
for threatened coho salmon and improve irrigation efficiencies
within the three irrigation districts. The project would also
improve the long-term viability of the three irrigation
districts. The total estimated cost of this study has not yet
been determined by Reclamation.
Reclamation supports the study's goals and applauds the
local collaborative effort to proactively address water
resource issues that could become contentious in the future.
However, the administration cannot support this legislation as
drafted. Section 1(c) appears to be vague and does not appear
to authorize funding for Reclamation to accomplish the other
work contemplated under section 1(b) of the legislation.
It is our understanding that some Congressionally earmarked
funding has been obtained by the City of Medford via a grant
administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Reclamation understands that the grant is to fund a contract to
the plan and complete the environmental impact statement on
effluent reuse and other water conservation measures. We
understand that the City of Medford will apply for the grant by
March, 2004. Upon approval of the plan, grant funds will be
released to complete the technical studies.
Reclamation feasibility study authority is not needed for
this work to continue. Section 1(c) of H.R. 3210 references
report language which was included in conference report 108-10
accompanying the Omnibus Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year
2003. In reading the report, it is our understanding that this
funding is for studies on effluent reuse, which is only one of
the multiple needs identified in the bill. We would be pleased
to work with Congressman Walden and his staff and the sponsors
to help clarify Reclamation's role as well as the scope of the
legislation in light of that role.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony on these three
bills, and I would be happy to answer any questions that you
may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Limbaugh on H.R. 3210
follows:]
Statement of Mark Limbaugh, Deputy Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation,
U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 3210
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Mark Limbaugh,
Deputy Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify on H.R. 3210, a bill to authorize the Secretary
of the Interior, acting through the Bureau of Reclamation, to conduct a
water resource feasibility study for the Little Butte/Bear Creek
Subbasins in Oregon.
This legislation would authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to
conduct a water resource feasibility study in the Bear Creek/Little
Butte Creek subbasins of the Rogue River in southwestern Oregon, as
well as prepare the associated environmental impact statement. The
study would investigate opportunities to implement water conservation
measures within the three irrigation districts served by Reclamation's
Rogue River Project and to increase water supplies, including use of
reclaimed water from the City of Medford or potentially modifications
to existing storage facilities.
It is Reclamation's understanding that a broad range of
stakeholders have come together to achieve consensus on project goals
and gain community support. The primary goals are to increase instream
flows in Little Butte Creek and Bear Creek for threatened coho salmon
and to improve irrigation efficiency within the three irrigation
districts. The project would improve the long-term viability of the
three irrigation districts. The total estimated cost of the study has
not been determined by Reclamation.
The Bureau of Reclamation supports the study goals and applauds
this local collaborative effort to proactively address water resource
issues that could become contentious in the future. However, the
Administration cannot support this legislation as drafted. Section 1(c)
is vague and does not appear to authorize funding for Reclamation to
accomplish the other work contemplated in Section 1(b) of the
legislation.
It is our understanding that some Congressionally earmarked funding
has been obtained by the City of Medford via a grant administered by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Reclamation understands that
the grant is to fund a contractor to plan and complete the
environmental impact statement on effluent reuse and other water
conservation measures. We understand that the City of Medford will
apply for the grant by March 2004. Upon approval of the plan, grant
funds will be released to complete the technical studies. Reclamation
feasibility study authority is not needed for this work to continue.
H.R. 3210 would authorize Reclamation to conduct a feasibility
study and environmental impact statement analyzing a variety of water
needs and measures in the basin. However, funding for such activities
is not included in Reclamation's FY 2004 budget request. Our initial
review of the proposed scope of work associated with a feasibility
study and NEPA compliance of this size has shown that these costs could
be substantial. Given the report language, which was included in
Conference Report 108-10, accompanying the Omnibus Appropriations Act
for Fiscal Year 2003 and referenced in Section 1(c) of the bill, it is
our understanding that this funding is for studies limited to effluent
reuse, which is only one of the five needs identified in the bill. In
our opinion, H.R. 3210, as drafted, is vague as to funding
authorization in Section 1(c), and does not authorize funding for
Reclamation to accomplish the other work contemplated in Section 1(b)
of the legislation.
We would be pleased to work with the sponsors to clarify
Reclamation's role as well as the scope of the legislation in light of
that role.
This concludes my statement. I will be glad to answer any
questions.
______
Mr. Osborne. Thank you very much, Mr. Limbaugh, and remind
the Members that the Committee Rule imposes a 5-minute limit on
questions. And the Chairman will now begin with questions from
himself.
First of all, Mr. Limbaugh, what is the status of all
project title transfers between Reclamation and water
districts? How many have been completed? How many are pending?
Have all those involved a cash settlement?
Mr. Limbaugh. Mr. Chairman, I am not prepared today to
enumerate on how many have been completed or pending, but there
are many that have been completed and several that are pending
currently. We can get back to you on those exact numbers.
As far as the cash settlement goes, each transfer is
unique, each transfer has a different circumstance of the
other, and we can get back to you on how many are requiring a
cash payment at that time.
Mr. Osborne. Thank you.
Is there decision criteria that Reclamation uses to decide
when cash settlements are necessary?
Mr. Limbaugh. Mr. Chairman, the single criteria normally
would be applied when there are either streams of income to the
United States that are being derived from the lands prior to
transfer, or if the lands were withdrawn lands and never paid
for to begin with. Then we would go through the proper
procedures to identify a net present value of that income
stream so the United States is made whole, or an appraised
value of the land to come up with a fair market value for the
transfer to occur.
Mr. Osborne. And last, the agreement between the TCID and
Reclamation does not include a cash settlement for the land
transfer. Is this unusual?
Mr. Limbaugh. Mr. Chairman, no. Most of these MOAs are
simply a procedural instrument that allows for the process of
the transfer to occur without any discrepancies or
misunderstandings. These larger substantive issues are either
handled in a separate agreement or through the legislative
process.
Mr. Osborne. Thank you. And at this time, I would yield to
the gentlelady from California Mrs. Napolitano.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I am very interested in your response for the Agency's look
at two of the bills, that is the ones that are more in the area
of research or studies. And I am wondering if the Agency can
let this Subcommittee know some of the answers that were being
asked by the Chairman in terms of what is being considered,
what is--how much funding is there to cover what you have, and
how do these not qualify.
And I heard your answer in regard to Mr. Walden's 3210,
that it is vague, and I can understand your wanting to go and
get more solidification in terms of finding out who is
responsible for what. I laud what they have done in terms of
going finding money in other agencies that would make it easier
for your Agency not to bear the whole burden.
And in regard to Senate bill 625, we have considerable
problems with water throughout the United States, and I am
afraid the Agency is not looking at working to try to address
them in terms of funding. I know you want to help, but the
funding isn't there to be able to stretch the help that is
needed by all the Members' districts that need water assistance
to be able to make them viable communities.
So I am wondering how the Department then is considering
looking at this legislation plus other legislation in terms of
being able to say, we agree we need to do it, and let us fund
it, and come to this body requesting the increase in funding to
be able to meet the demands on your Agency.
Mr. Limbaugh. Well, Mr. Chairman and Mrs. Napolitano, those
are very good questions. We certainly, in the case of the
Tualatin, have partners that are coming to the table with
substantial funding. This obviously allows us to leverage non-
Federal funding in a cost share or a partnership arrangement.
And this certainly helps to meet--in a lot of areas meet the
needs of these critical water-short areas. And we certainly
look to those opportunities first in trying to get the most out
of the Federal taxpayers' dollars when we look at studying
water needs.
As far as our priorities and what we are trying to
accomplish through the Secretary's Water 2025 Initiative, we
have identified many areas around the West that we think are
going to be plagued with these types of problems very soon. And
we are certainly looking at trying to prioritize in those areas
studies and partnerships that will allow us to leverage the
limited funds that we do have in meeting the needs in those
areas.
Mrs. Napolitano. But you didn't answer the question about
the funding, coming to this body to request the funding to be
able to help meet those needs.
Mr. Limbaugh. And we certainly believe that in the Fiscal
Year 2004 budget, we have requested $11 million for the Western
Water Initiative that has made it through the House and
partially through the Senate, now is in conference, that will
begin that effort of looking at these priority areas,
especially through Water 2025, as the Fiscal Year 2004 budget
comes around to look at those things. So we are trying to
address these issues with the limited funds.
Mrs. Napolitano. But, Mr. Limbaugh, 11 million is a drop in
the bucket for the need throughout the United States.
Mr. Limbaugh. Mrs. Napolitano, in our opinion, the 11
million is just the start.
Mrs. Napolitano. Correct. It is seed money.
Mr. Limbaugh. We are trying to look at this from this
perspective, that as we begin that process, that we start
looking at funding for these efforts, realizing the limitations
that we do have on funding for all of our projects and all of
our priorities.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you.
And one of the questions that I had that might not be
answered thoroughly is you have heard the statement from Mr.
Gibbons in regard to the fact that this was already in 2831,
H.R. 2831--that this land was already paid for. Could you tell
us how it is repaid? I understand what you are saying as to the
withdrawn public lands, but can you tell us, has there been an
appraisal after 1986 that might indicate the value of the land
now? And I understand that, U.S. retains title of the projects
even after they are repaid--how that would change this.
Mr. Limbaugh. Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Napolitano, the appraisal
of the property to date is not current, and it would have to be
appraised. It is not a recent appraisal that would give us a
good value for the land, and that would have to be done.
I am sorry, what was the last part of your question?
Mrs. Napolitano. That the United States retains title of
the project even after the project completion.
Mr. Limbaugh. Well, Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Napolitano, in the
1902 Reclamation Act, it allows that once the repayment is
made, the transfer of the operation and maintenance of the
project to the project beneficiaries, but it still requires
Congress to move to transfer the actual title of the
facilities.
Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Chairman, there is no more time, so I
will wait for the next round. Thank you.
Mr. Osborne. Thank you, Mrs. Napolitano.
At this time the Chair would like to yield to the gentleman
from Nevada Mr. Gibbons.
Mr. Gibbons. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I
appreciate you yielding me time to ask questions.
Mr. Limbaugh, I think it is important for us to truly
understand what has happened here. And accordingly, let me say
over 100 years ago, that the 40-acre site, which was the site
of the current office and maintenance for the TCID, was
withdrawn for Reclamation purposes as part of the Newlands
Project, as you have stated. And all of the improvements of
this property have been paid for by TCID, and the U.S.
Government did not contribute to these improvements; is that
correct?
Mr. Limbaugh. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Gibbons, that is correct.
Mr. Gibbons. Now, in 1996, TCID had repaid the original
construction charges designated for repayment--or by 1996,
which took them 92 years to pay off. The Newlands Project is
considered to be a paid out project; is that not considered?
Mr. Limbaugh. As far as I know, yes, sir.
Mr. Gibbons. This 40 acres has actually been part of the
Newlands Project from the beginning; is that correct? Now the
original site that the property was on, the maintenance
facility and the operations site, that was taken over by the
Federal Government after they moved to this new 40-acre site,
was it not, or retained by the U.S. Government?
Mr. Limbaugh. Mr. Chairman and Mr. Gibbons, that is
correct, it was never transferred to the district.
Mr. Gibbons. And would you agree that there ought to be
consideration for a fair market accounting of the costs that
are involved? When you say, let us deal with the value of the
property, of the 40 acres, we are not talking 40 acres, we are
talking 35, because 5 of those acres are still occupied by your
Department, Bureau of Reclamation. You have buildings on there
that you have tied into this 40-acre parcel that belongs to
this Newlands Reclamation Project. So we are only talking about
35 acres; are we not?
Mr. Limbaugh. Mr. Gibbons, 37 to be exact.
Mr. Gibbons. But you still have part with your buildings on
that?
Mr. Limbaugh. Mr. Gibbons, we are planning on keeping the
park under Federal control, Federal ownership for the buildings
that we have on this site.
Mr. Gibbons. You would say it would be fair to deal with a
fair market accounting of the dollars and costs that TCID has
put into each of these properties, one of which was taken--
remained in your custody, now used by the U.S. Government as a
post office. There should be an accounting for those dollars,
because these are taxpayers that have paid into the system that
have not gotten a fair accounting of that money when they moved
over to this other 40-acre parcel which is still part of the
project, still part of the paid-out project. The Federal
Government has never accounted for that money either they lost
by moving to this other and yielding the property back to you.
Mr. Limbaugh. Mr. Chairman and Mr. Gibbons, we would
consider an accounting of the property issues that you
describe, and we believe, however, that the withdrawn land
still must have a fair value on them as well.
Mr. Gibbons. I don't have a problem with assigning fair
value, but I do want the Federal Government to account for the
losses TCID has incurred to the Federal Government through
changes with your concurrence that they have put into this
property that went to the Federal Government that they have
already paid for. So all I am asking for is a fair accounting.
So those principles take part of this whole transaction.
Now, I don't have a problem with must comply with all
applicable laws. I think that part we can adjust in there. But
I do also have in this brief time I have left a concern when
you say change the language from ``shall'' to ``may,'' or
``must'' to ``shall,'' or some change which gives you
discretion, the problem I see there is discretion oftentimes
takes so long on your part that it never comes about. As a
result, the TCID people can't get the financing because you
have delayed because whatever reason you want to come up with
the actual transfer--it is just one bureaucratic hurdle after
another that actually delays this. I am not being critical of
you, but I am being critical in general of the process and the
time it takes the Federal Government to do something.
But I want to urge that we complete this process quickly,
and that is why we put in the language that the Bureau of
Reclamation shall transfer this, and it is just to move the
project along.
So with that, I will yield for any comments, but my time is
up and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this time.
Mr. Osborne. Thank you, Mr. Gibbons.
Mr. Pearce, do you have a question at this time?
Mr. Pearce. I have no questions, but Mr. Limbaugh brought
up the 2025, but I did want to ask questions about how the
field hearings are going on that and what the feedback is and
what the status is of the actual implementation of 2025. Where
do we stand on that?
Mr. Limbaugh. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Pearce, thanks for asking.
The field hearings were held--there was eight hearings held
across the West. They were conference-like meetings, and we
literally had thousands of people attend those across the West.
We are currently evaluating the results of those meetings for a
report to the Secretary, and we look forward to trying to
encapsulate what we have heard and any changes, updates,
notifications or improvements to Water 2025 that we will
eventually decide upon.
As far as future meetings, we have a science conference
that is sponsored by the USGS and Reclamation coming up
November 4 in Denver, and we will be looking to the Science
Committee for their comments and critique of Water 2025 as they
see it.
So we are still in the process. We are moving forward
rapidly in coming up with a final plan that we will move
forward with and hopefully get back with you and Congress about
where we are going from there.
Mr. Pearce. And do you anticipate doing any hearings with
Congressional people? In other words, are you going to come in
and explain to the Congressional Representatives, because the
word that the people in New Mexico who listen to the hearings
said that really they seem to have a predetermined course of
the process, and that actually there is great concern that 2025
is actually going to result in Federal takings of State waters
and more Federal ownership or control of waters. And those tend
to fly in the face of the Constitution, and water should be a
private property right, number one. Number two, it should be a
State right. There aren't many provisions in the Constitution
where it becomes a Federal issue, and yet the great concern was
that 2025 is moving a long way toward Federal ownership of
waters, at least in the western part of the country there in
New Mexico.
So do you all envision bringing your anticipated programs
in front of the Congressional Representatives in addition to
the science communities and whichever communities you spoke
with there in the previous round of hearings?
Mr. Limbaugh. Well, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Pearce, we certainly
could offer Congressional briefings or however--whatever method
you would prefer to talk about Water 2025. And I am sorry that
that is the message that is getting out to your constituents,
because that is certainly not the intent of Water 2025. In
fact, the 1902 Act limits Reclamation to act within State water
laws and not abrogate the States' rights to appropriate their
own water. So our authorities only exist through the States'
laws. And we certainly want to use Water 2025 to uphold that
and work within that context and not outside of that realm, and
certainly not to promote more Federal ownership or
responsibility, but actually promote less or a partnership with
the local entities in trying to resolve issues at the local
level before they become huge conflicts and crises that we have
to deal with on a much grander scale.
Mr. Pearce. I suspect there is a lot of subjectivity to
that desire. I suspect, Mr. Limbaugh, that the desire to have
less Federal ownership would depend on at what level projected
Federal ownership was. And again, I have mentioned to your
Department that it was in New Mexico that you brought the first
suit to take ownership because you had provided money to a
State, to an irrigation district, even though it was the only
district that had paid off the obligation to the Federal
Government, the only one--and that where is where you brought
suit to take title and ownership and direct use of the water.
I suspect when you say the Department's objective is to
have less Federal ownership, it has to have some starting point
and base point to really evaluate the intention. But my concern
is that if the Federal Government is taking water from the
States, it is going to be inappropriate. So I have vendored
legislation with regard that the Federal Government cannot ever
take water to accomplish any of its objectives because in the
end it is not a Federal Government issue. So I suspect we will
visit more on that. And if we can get that bill through this
Committee and on to the floor, I think we can have a fairly
energetic discussion about these things.
Thank you.
Mr. Osborne. Thank you Mr. Pearce.
Mrs. Napolitano.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Limbaugh you mentioned the hot spots in the West with
regard to water issues. Do those areas that your Agency is
looking at include geographically the two bills that have study
components in them?
Mr. Limbaugh. Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Napolitano, at this time I
don't recall exactly. I think they are in the hot spots, but
they are not red or orange. There are three levels, red, orange
and yellow, and I believe they are in the yellow. Maybe the one
would be in the orange category, but I did not research that
before I came.
Mrs. Napolitano. Does the Water 2025 specifically address
water recycling and water reuse?
Mr. Limbaugh. Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Napolitano, it addresses
four tools that we believe can be used currently and soon to
help bring about a complete meeting of the needs in these areas
to prevent conflict and crisis.
Mrs. Napolitano. The answer is no.
Mr. Limbaugh. No. The four tools are conservation,
efficiencies in markets; the use of collaborative efforts,
collaboration such as in the bills that we discussed today; the
research into desalinization, improving water treatment
technologies, and bringing the cost down; and also, fourth,
removing institutional barriers and creating opportunities for
cooperation between the agencies to help streamline the Federal
efforts to help prevent conflict and crises in these areas of
the West.
Mrs. Napolitano. Which in essence does not include them.
You include them in a roundabout way, but you do not include
the direct effect this could have in the other areas of
desalination and other such measures.
Do you have any idea whether your field hearings are
bringing the issue that it should be part of the 2025 plan?
Mr. Limbaugh. We certainly have had a lot of comments about
Water 2025 in our meetings and our meetings out in the West. We
have had several comments about reuse and recycling that we are
certainly going to consider as we look at how Water 2025
continues to be improved. So, Mrs. Napolitano, they are--we are
hearing from the people out in the West in these areas that
utilize this methodology.
Mrs. Napolitano. Well, unfortunately, as you well know, in
California we are facing 2016 reduction out of the Colorado,
which means that we--not just talking about Colorado, but most
of the Western States are going to have to have help in being
more proactive in maintaining or reducing their current
allocation of the Colorado River. Without assistance from your
Agency and other Federal agencies, this is not going to happen.
This is not going to be a reality, and there are going to be
some very harsh methods that are going to have to be employed.
And I certainly would like to continue to stress the fact
that recycling and reuse for--how many people refer to it, it
should be a major portion of that thrust in allowing Western
States--not only Western States, but a lot of States are
beginning to understand--Texas, for instance--how important it
is for them to be able to recycle and reuse their water because
of the farming and droughts. I would hope that the Agency and
my colleagues urge the administration to understand that it
should be part of the inclusion, part of the tools that help in
2025 water--how would I say--vision.
And on the 2831, is there a precedent for this kind of
request for land transfer?
Mr. Limbaugh. Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Napolitano, again, I am
unsure whether other title transfers have included withdrawn
lands that were never originally in the repayment obligation. I
am aware of several that have actually left the withdrawn lands
out of the transfer, but I am unaware of any, and we can
certainly get back to you as to whether or not there have been
other transfers that have transferred withdrawn lands to
project beneficiaries.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. And I will wait for the next
round because I do have another one. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Osborne. Any further questions, Mr. Gibbons, Mr.
Pearce? Mrs. Napolitano?
Mrs. Napolitano. I would like to make mention that
apparently back in 1996, the Bureau issued guidance to managers
on how the Agency should address withdrawn lands when conveying
title of Bureau of Reclamation projects. These documents have
not been revised or rescinded. Among other things, the
framework and policy guidance say that, number one, the Federal
Treasury and thereby the taxpayers' financial interests must be
protected. And second, the Federal Government will be
compensated for any fee, title interest in withdrawn lands
which are transferred. And I thought I would add that to the
record.
There is also an area of--section of withdrawing the lands,
which refers to 13.4 acres of land in the Minidoka Irrigation
District boundaries, also had several problems that were
identified. They were withdrawn from public domain. And for all
this and all the Reclamation projects, the value was never
included in the allocation of costs to be repaid by the
beneficiaries. Consequently the irrigation district has not
made any repayment or financial contribution to the Federal
Government for these lands. Indeed, these withdrawn lands are
jointly used as gravel resource for BID and MID.
And third, these withdrawn lands provide access to the
Snake River, et cetera.
So I am wanting you to make a comment, please.
Mr. Limbaugh. Well, as far as the policy goes, I think we
are consistent with the policy in our testimony. As far as the
Burley Irrigation District, I don't think those lands were--
were they transferred by Congress?
Mrs. Napolitano. I have just been presented with this. I
really hadn't had a chance to read this. Yes. They were
transferred, and they did pay for the withdrawn lands.
Mr. Limbaugh. That seems to be consistent with the policy.
Mrs. Napolitano. This is the Senate bill 537.
Mr. Limbaugh. Your comments are correct. I have a copy of
the policy guidance, and I don't think our testimony deviates
from that.
Mrs. Napolitano. I did want to enter it into the record.
Thank you.
Mr. Osborne. I thank you, Mr. Limbaugh, for your testimony
and Members for their questions. And members of the
Subcommittee may have some additional questions for the
witness, and we will ask you to respond to these in writing.
Mr. Osborne. And at this time I would like to now recognize
the second panel of witnesses.
Mr. Limbaugh. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Osborne. I would like to thank the members of the
second panel. I would like to introduce the Honorable Tom
Brian, Chairman of the Washington County Board of Commissioners
and Chairman of the Clean Water Services Board of Directors,
testifying on Senate 625; Mr. Ernest Schank, President of the
Board of Directors, Truckee-Carson Irrigation District,
testifying on behalf H.R. 2831; Ms. Aileen Roder, Program
Director, Taxpayers for Common Sense, testifying for H.R. 2831;
and Mr. Jim Hill, Water Reclamation Manager, City of Medford,
Oregon, testifying on H.R. 3210.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE TOM BRIAN, CHAIRMAN, WASHINGTON
COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND CLEAN WATER SERVICES BOARD OF
DIRECTORS
Mr. Osborne. I now recognize Mr. Brian to testify for 5
minutes. The timing lights indicate when your time is
concluded. All witness statements will be submitted for the
hearing record.
Mr. Brian. Thank you, Chairman Osborne and members of the
Subcommittee. I appreciate this opportunity to testify on
behalf of S. 625, a bill to authorize the Bureau of Reclamation
to conduct certain feasibility studies in the Tualatin River
Basin in Washington County, Oregon.
My name is Tom Brian. I am Chairman of the Washington
County Board of Commissioners, and Chairman of the Clean Water
Services Board of Directors. This testimony is submitted on
behalf of all of the members of the Tualatin Basin Water Supply
Partnership, a list of whom is provided in my written
testimony.
I would first like to thank our Congressman, David Wu, for
his leadership in this matter; and I would also like to thank
my friend and former colleague in the State Legislature, Mr.
Walden, for his assistance on this and other matters important
to us. Together, we are attempting to prevent a serious water
shortage that could become critical in just a few years.
The Tualatin Basin has increasing demands for municipal and
industrial water, agricultural water, and water for
environmental applications. With Mr. Walden's and Mr. Wu's
efforts and your support, we can avoid the unfortunate
shortages impacting other basins in the Northwest.
Washington County, Oregon, has a population exceeding
480,000. As Mr. Wu mentioned, it is growing rapidly. We have
over 220,000 jobs. We are the home of Intel's largest research
and most advanced research center, as well as NEC, Tektronix,
Lattice, and many other businesses. Washington County is
considered by many to be the economic engine of our State, with
these high tech industries, and we worked very cooperatively to
help them get situated there; but they moved to Oregon, in
part, because of the clean and reliable and plentiful water
because that is what they need to do their business. And, of
course, along with them coming to Oregon, the population growth
has followed.
Washington County is also very proud of its agricultural
community. The Tualatin River watershed has a large
agricultural industry, over 27,000 acres of irrigated farmland;
and also a rapidly growing nursery stock and specialty crop
industry continues to expand.
Efforts must also be made to improve the environmental
health of the watershed to ensure its compliance with the Clean
Water Act. Two fish species in the Tualatin River, the spring
chinook and the winter steelhead, are listed as threatened
under the Endangered Species Act. The restoration of fish
habitat and maintenance of a healthy river will require more
water. Expanding the Westside water source is also critical to
the reliability and security of the Portland metropolitan
region water supply system.
With all of these competing needs, it is no wonder there is
not enough water to go around. As municipal, industrial,
agricultural, and environmental water demands grow, water
suppliers will be unable to meet public water supply needs. It
is estimated that the demand for water in the Tualatin Basin,
after factoring for a strong conservation effort, is in excess
of 50,000 acre-feet per year.
The water resource agencies in the cities in Washington
County and the Bureau of Reclamation have been working together
collaboratively to meet the long-term water resource needs for
all of these competing interests. In fact, the partnership has
developed an integrated water resource management strategy that
has resulted in the Tualatin Basin Water Supply Feasibility
Study. The study will examine impacts and benefits of a range
of source options for 50,000 acre-feet of needed water and
select a preferred alternative as part of the EIS process.
It is estimated the EIS and planning report for the
Tualatin Basin Water Supply Project will cost $6.87 million.
Local partners are funding the majority, $3.8 million. We are
requesting $2.9 million from the Bureau of Reclamation. The EIS
and study will allow the partners to determine a final best
course of action to meet the needs of the basin. As you have
heard, options include any combination of expanding the face of
the Scoggins Dam and therefore enlarging Hagg Lake, transfer of
river water from Willamette River for irrigation, and freeing
up current impounded water and so forth.
The EIS and study include an extensive public involvement
process involving property owners, user groups, environmental
advocate groups and others.
To keep this important project moving forward,
authorization for the Bureau of Reclamation and Federal funding
in the amount of $2.9 million in Fiscal Year 2004 is critical,
and we seek the Committee's approval of S. 625.
Mr. Chairman, we thank you for this opportunity to submit
our testimony on this matter. We have provided additional
written testimony. We have provided numerous letters of
support, both from the partners of this study as well as the
City of Portland, a number of individual businesses and a
number of business organizations. So again, we thank you for
this opportunity to submit testimony on this very important
matter to the Tualatin Basin of Oregon and the Portland region.
I am available to the Committee for questioning.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Brian follows:]
Statement of Tom Brian, Chairman, Board of Directors,
Clean Water Services
Chairman Calvert, thank you for the opportunity to provide you with
testimony in support of S. 625, a bill to authorize the Bureau of
Reclamation to conduct certain feasibility studies in the Tualatin
River Basin in Washington County, Oregon. My name is Tom Brian,
Chairman of the Washington County Board of Commissioners and Chairman
of Clean Water Services' Board of Directors. This testimony is
submitted on behalf of Washington County, Clean Water Services, the
Cities of Banks, Beaverton, Cornelius, Forest Grove, Hillsboro, North
Plains, Sherwood, Tigard and Tualatin, as well as the Tualatin Valley
Water District. All these are collectively known as the Tualatin Basin
Water Supply Partnership.
I would first like to take this opportunity to thank our
Congressman, David Wu, for his leadership in this matter and on other
matters of importance to Washington County and our citizens. I would
like to also thank my friend and former colleague in our State
Legislature, Mr. Greg Walden, a Subcommittee Member, for his assistance
with this legislation and for his continuing service to all of Oregon.
Together, we are attempting to prevent serious water shortages that
could become critical in just a few years. The Tualatin Basin has an
increasing demand for Municipal and Industrial water, Agricultural
water and water for Environmental applications. With Mr. Walden's and
Mr. Wu's efforts and your support, we can avoid the unfortunate
shortages impacting other basins in the northwest.
Washington County, Oregon, has a population exceeding 480,000
people. Since 1987, the number of jobs in the County has doubled to
over 220,000. We are the fastest-growing county in Oregon and
considered by many the economic engine that drives the rest of the
State. Washington County is home to the ``Silicon Forest,'' where
companies such as Intel, NEC, Tektronix and Lattice have a major
presence. These high-tech industries and other businesses need clean,
reliable and plentiful water; that is one of the reasons they came to
Oregon and why the population growth has followed.
Washington County and the Tualatin River Watershed also have a
large agriculture industry (approximately 27,000 acres of irrigated
farmland) and a rapidly growing nursery stock, and the specialty crop
industry continues to expand. With $214 million in gross farm sales,
Washington County recently moved from being ranked fifth to third in
the State. The nursery industry has become Oregon's number one
agricultural commodity, located in large part in Washington County.
This industry, too, is a large user of water.
Investments in advanced wastewater treatment during the past three
decades have resulted in the Tualatin River being healthier than it has
been in generations. However, it still remains identified as ``water
quality limited'' according to the Clean Water Act. Efforts must be
made now to improve the environmental health of the watershed to ensure
its compliance with Clean Water Act standards and its future economic
vitality. Two fish species on the Tualatin River, Spring Chinook and
winter steelhead are listed as threatened under the Endangered Species
Act. Restoration of fish habitat will require more water. Expanding the
Westside water source will provide critical stream flow augmentation
and significantly, it is also critical to the reliability and security
of the Portland Metropolitan Region water supply system.
The Tualatin River, fed by a network of creeks that drain over 700
square miles, is Washington County's only river. Nearly 80 miles in
length, the Tualatin River begins in the Coast Range and meanders
through forest, farm and city to its confluence with the Willamette
River at the City of West Linn, Oregon. The watershed does not have a
snow pack to sustain summer river flows.
With all these competing needs for water, it is no wonder that
there is not enough to go around. As municipal, industrial,
agricultural and environmental water demands grow, water suppliers will
be unable to meet public water supply needs unless additional sources
are available by 2012. A solution must be found. The Tualatin Basin
Water Supply Partnership has developed an Integrated Water Resources
Management strategy as a framework to address water resources
management within the watershed. It is estimated that the demand for
water in the Tualatin Basin, after factoring for a strong conservation
effort, will double by the year 2050. This means there is the need for
an additional 50,000 acre feet of water per year.
Scoggins Dam is located on Scoggins Creek, a Tualatin River
tributary. It was created in 1975 by the Bureau of Reclamation and the
dam creates Hagg Lake, an impoundment. Washington County, in
partnership with the Bureau of Reclamation, operates a County park at
the lake. Water from Hagg Lake is currently used for river flow
augmentation, municipal/industrial water supply, and agricultural
irrigation needs in the Tualatin River watershed.
The water resource agencies in Washington County and the Bureau of
Reclamation have been working collaboratively to meet the long-term
water resource needs for all the competing interests. In fact, the
partnership has developed an integrated water resource management
strategy that has resulted in the Tualatin Basin Water Supply
Feasibility Study (WSFS) and the partners and the Bureau of Reclamation
signed a Memorandum of Agreement on March 12, 2002, defining the roles
and commitments of the parties in conducting the study. The WSFS will
study the impacts and benefits of a range of source options for 50,000
acre feet of needed water and select a preferred alternative as part of
an Environmental Impact Study (EIS).
It is estimated that the EIS/Planning Report for the Tualatin Basin
Water Supply Project will cost $6.87 million. Local partners are
funding the majority, $3.8 million. We are requesting $2.9 million from
the Bureau of Reclamation. The Bureau has sought small amounts of
federal funds for the past number of years, but we are at the stage
that requires more substantial investment. The EIS and Study will allow
the partners to determine a final best course of action to meet the
needs of the Basin. Options include, for example, any combination of:
expansion of Hagg Lake by raising Scoggins Dam 20 to 40 feet; transfer
of Willamette River water for irrigation freeing up current impounded
water; expanded aquifer storage systems; increased conservation; and,
expanded reuse of cleaned wastewater for irrigation. The EIS and Study
includes an extensive public involvement process involving property
owners, user groups, environmental advocate groups and others.
It is important to the region to continue the timetable and work
schedule set forth by the project partners. This includes completion of
the Study by December 2004. Based on the Study's findings, we
anticipate beginning the permitting requirements in January 2005, with
final design in January 2006 and construction in January 2007. We hope
to complete construction of the selected alternative in June 2010.
While this is an ambitious schedule, it is achievable and is necessary
to meet the projected water needs of this diverse and rapidly growing
community.
Authorization for the Bureau of Reclamation and federal funding in
the amount of $2.9 million in Fiscal Year 2004 is critical, and we seek
your Committee's approval of S. 625.
The Tualatin Basin Water Supply Feasibility Study enjoys strong
support from a wide range of municipal, industrial, business and
agricultural stakeholders who understand the important role that
meeting the long-term water needs of Washington County plays in
maintaining the continued health of our environment and economy in the
region. Key supporters of this project include:
Clean Water Services;
City of Beaverton;
City of Hillsboro;
City of Tigard;
City of Tualatin;
City of Forest Grove;
City of North Plains;
Tualatin Valley Water District;
Tualatin Valley Irrigation District;
Intel Corporation;
Westside Economic Alliance;
Portland Business Alliance;
City of Portland; and
Greater Hillsboro Chamber of Commerce.
Thank you again for this opportunity to submit testimony on this
important matter that is so important to the Tualatin Basin of Oregon.
We have enjoyed a great working relationship with our partners at
Scoggins Dam, the Bureau of Reclamation, and we expect this
relationship to continue as we move forward. We at Clean Water Services
are available at anytime if you, your staff or Committee members would
like further information.
______
Mr. Osborne. Mr. Schank.
STATEMENT OF ERNEST C. SCHANK, PRESIDENT, BOARD OF DIRECTORS,
TRUCKEE-CARSON IRRIGATION DISTRICT
Mr. Schank. Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, I am
Ernest Schank, President of the Board of Directors of the
Truckee-Carson Irrigation District, located in Fallon, Nevada.
My day job is the owner and operator of the Newlands Project
Farm, which has been in the family for four generations. I am
here to testify in support of H.R. 2831.
I would like to express my appreciation to Congressman Jim
Gibbons of the Second Congressional District of Nevada in
helping draft and introduce this proposed legislation and also
for his testimony today, urging the support of this
Subcommittee--his help is greatly appreciated--and also
Commissioner Keys and his staff from the Bureau of Reclamation,
who have been extremely cooperative and helpful in developing
and implementing the memorandum of agreement between the
Department of Interior and the district for the conveyance of
the Newlands Project Headquarters and Maintenance Yards land.
I have submitted written testimony to the Committee and ask
it be included in the record. I will cover some specific points
for the Committee in justifying the transfer of this land to
the Truckee-Carson Irrigation District.
This title transfer proposal is narrowly tailored to
include 35.6 acres of a 40-acre parcel, which currently houses
the office and maintenance yard of the TCID, and should not be
viewed as a project title transfer. In 1902, after the
Reclamation Act was passed and before the Newlands Project was
authorized in 1903, this 40-acre parcel was withdrawn from the
public domain for reclamation purposes in the Newlands Project.
That was well over 100 years ago.
Homesteaders to the project to those days would choose a
parcel of withdrawn land, purchase a water right by contract
from the U.S. Government, build improvements and develop the
land, and then were issued a patent by the U.S. lands office.
In 1918, TCID was organized as a not-for-profit, as a local
governmental agency organized under the laws of the State of
Nevada. Its purpose was to bond and build a drainage system
which the reclamation system declined to construct.
In 1926, the TCID entered into a repayment contract with
the U.S. Government to take over operation and maintenance of
the Newlands Project. At that time, the TCID moved into an
office and maintenance yard on property acquired by the
reclamation service for that purpose. Those properties are now
within the city limits of Fallon. The cost of these properties
was included as a project cost that has since been repaid by
the TCID. Currently, the Fallon freight yard and the Fallon
post office occupy these two properties.
By 1972, the TCID had outgrown these original facilities,
and in 1975 moved to the 40-acre parcel that is the subject of
this title transfer proposal. The land was available because it
was not suitable for growing crops and was, therefore, never
homesteaded and patented, as were the acres that were
irrigable.
All of the improvements to this property have been made by
TCID. The U.S. Government did not contribute to these
improvements.
In the early 1990s, the Bureau installed the field office
tying into our improvements. It occupies 4.4 of the 40 acres
and would remain with the U.S. Government for continued Bureau
field office operations.
By 1996, the TCID had repaid the original construction
charges designated for repayment. Thus, the Newlands Project is
considered to be a paid-out project under reclamation law.
In 1996, the TCID entered into an operation and maintenance
contract with Interior. Because of new mandates regarding water
measurements and water control, TCID needs to expand our
facilities. For every 20 measuring devices, we have to add the
equivalent of one employee to take care of the added operation
and maintenance involved. This transfer is necessary so that
TCID can obtain financing for the necessary improvements, the
first of which will be a new office building.
There has been much discussion about the fair market value.
As Mr. Limbaugh mentioned, each transfer is unique; ours is
unique, given the history. As Mr. Gibbons has stated, we do not
believe we should have to pay for this property twice. We
believe the 35.6 acres should be transferred without further
cost to the district.
Over the course of history of the project, a number of land
transactions have resulted in losses to TCID, including, in the
1980s, a 64-acre tract of property, acquired by the U.S. to
construct a dam at Lake Tahoe and to control the level of the
lake, which was repaid by TCID, was taken and transferred to
the Forest Service.
The original office and maintenance yard also acquired
property which were fully paid for by TCID. One property has
been transferred to the United States Postal Service, the other
is in the process of being transferred to the City of Fallon.
The 1990 Settlement Act, Public Law 101-618, took 28,000
acres of grazing land known as the Carson Lake Community
Pasture from TCID's control and management and authorized
transfer to the State of Nevada. That transfer is currently in
the process of being implemented without compensation to the
United States.
In 1999, AB-380, a Nevada law implementing a water
settlement among Federal, State and local agencies, was enacted
to retire Newlands water rights for the benefit of Pyramid
Lake. TCID was supposed to receive compensation for operation
and maintenance to make TCID whole. TCID has suffered losses as
a result of the retirement of these water rights, and has not
yet received the benefits that they were promised.
Since 1926, TCID has provided a service for the public by
maintaining and operating the Newlands Project and delivering
water in accordance with existing contracts at a minimal cost
to the U.S. Government. It is important to emphasize that this
land, this withdrawn land, will continue to be used for a
particular public purpose, that is, the operation and
maintenance of a Federal water project.
In conclusion, the Governor of the State of Nevada has
written a letter and, as Congressman Gibbons indicated, we have
some other letters from some important elected officials that
we would like to be included in the record.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Schank. I thank you for allowing me to testify and to
appear before your Committee today.
Mr. Chairman, TCID will commit to address any issues that
might be raised in the legislative process, and I would be
pleased to answer any questions that the panel may have of me.
Mr. Osborne. Thank you, Mr. Schank.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Schank follows:]
Testimony of Ernest C. Schank, President of the Board of Directors,
Truckee-Carson Irrigation District, on H.R. 2831
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, I am Ernest C. Schank,
President of the Board of Directors of the Truckee-Carson Irrigation
District (TCID) in Nevada. I am here to testify in support of H.R.
2831.
This legislation would require the Secretary of the Interior to
convey the Newlands Project Headquarters and Maintenance Yard Facility
to the TCID. This title transfer is narrowly tailored to only transfer
ownership of federal land currently being used by the TCID for an
office and maintenance yard facility.
We would like to thank Congressman Gibbons for introducing this
legislation to make this title transfer possible. We also would like to
thank Commissioner Keys and the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) for working
cooperatively with us on this proposal.
The Newlands Project, one of the first five Reclamation projects,
was authorized on March 14, 1903, and provides for irrigation and other
purposes in the lower Carson River Basin near Fallon, in western
Nevada. Construction began in 1903 on the first project works, the
Derby Diversion Dam and the Truckee Canal. The TCID was created under
the laws of the State of Nevada in 1918 as a non-profit governmental
agency to undertake the building of a drainage system and begin
operating and maintaining the project works beginning in 1926 under
contract with the United States.
In 1926, the TCID entered into a repayment contract with the United
States Government. The TCID moved into the office and maintenance yard
previously occupied by the BOR. These properties were held in fee
title, and the cost of those assets was repaid by the water rights
owners of the TCID although a title was never transferred from the U.S.
By 1975, the TCID had outgrown those original facilities, so we
moved to a 40-acre parcel of land withdrawn for the TCID purposes in
1903. The TCID built the office and maintenance shop facility on this
land. The land was not irrigable because of the high clay and alkaline
content of the soil. It was, however, suitable for an office and
maintenance yard at one location whereas the previous facilities were
at two separate locations. The lot where the office had been was
eventually transferred by the Department of the Interior (DOI) to the
United States Postal Service.
This parcel and all of the improvements make up the hub of
operation and maintenance of the Newlands Reclamation Project. The TCID
has rented the 40 acres for a nominal fee from the BOR. The value of
the land was increased significantly by the improvements made by the
TCID.
In 1996, the TCID entered into an operation and maintenance
contract with the DOI. A part of that contract requires an aggressive
water measurement program. This modernization in water measurement at
each turnout and the increased automation of water control in the many
canals and laterals require more employees, more computer and
electronics space, and more storage space for records.
In 1996, the BOR certified that the TCID had repaid the U.S.
Government the original construction charges designated for repayment.
At this time, the Newlands Project is considered to be a ``paid out
project'' under Reclamation law. Although the original construction
charges and other costs to the U.S. have been repaid, no title to any
of the Newlands Project facilities have been transferred to the TCID.
Although the U.S. Government has leased the land to the TCID for a
nominal value, the lease will eventually expire and the TCID would like
to own the land to make permanent improvements to existing facilities
that have become outdated. The transfer of approximately 35 acres of a
40-acre parcel of federal land is to allow the TCID to make permanent
improvements on the land for continued operation and maintenance of the
Newlands Project. The remaining approximately five acres will be
reserved for a local Bureau of Reclamation field office. The transfer
is necessary so that financing can be obtained for the improvements--
the first of which will be a new office building. The TCID has made all
previous improvements to this land. In order to secure the necessary
financing to make the improvements we need to own the ground upon which
the improvements will stand. The TCID has outgrown its office and shop
and needs to expand.
The legislation would direct the transfer pursuant to a memorandum
of agreement we have entered into with the Bureau. The conveyance would
not occur until the National Environmental Policy Act has been fully
complied with. Moreover, any necessary environmental site assessments,
remediation or removal would have to be completed.
The Governor of Nevada supports this title transfer. I would like
to ask that the Subcommittee include the attached letter from Governor
Guinn, dated July 11, 2002, in the record of this hearing.
In closing, I want to emphasize that the TCID provides a service to
the public by maintaining and operating the Newlands Reclamation
Project and delivering water in accordance with contracts previously
entered into between the United States and the water rights owners of
the Project. We provide jobs and those employed thus provide assistance
to the Counties, the State of Nevada and the U.S. Government as
taxpayers.
I am not aware of any opposition from any interested entity within
the State of Nevada to this title transfer. Nevertheless, we will
commit to addressing any issues that are raised as this legislation
moves forward.
This concludes my remarks. Thank you for allowing me to appear
before your Subcommittee today. I would be pleased to answer any
questions you might have.
______
Mr. Osborne. Ms. Roder.
STATEMENT OF AILEEN RODER, PROGRAM DIRECTOR,
TAXPAYERS FOR COMMON SENSE
Ms. Roder. Good afternoon, Chairman Osborne and other
distinguished members of the Subcommittee.
I am Aileen Roder, Program Director at Taxpayers for Common
Sense (TCS), a national, nonpartisan budget watchdog group.
Thank you for inviting me to testify today regarding H.R. 2831,
which would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to transfer
the Newlands Project headquarters and maintenance yard facility
to the Truckee-Carson Irrigation District.
Taxpayers for Common Sense strongly opposes H.R. 2831 as
written. This bill would transfer title to approximately 35.6
acres of withdrawn public land with no compensation to Federal
taxpayers. These lands were withdrawn from the public domain
for use in the Newlands Project. As such, their value was never
included in the allocation of cost to be repaid by project
beneficiaries.
Under fair terms and conditions, both U.S. taxpayers and
local interests can benefit from privatizing certain Federal
assets. However, TCS opposes giving away Federal assets to
narrow local interests at the expense of the American people.
In its 1997 testimony regarding similar legislation which
conveyed certain facilities in the Minidoka Project to the
Burley Irrigation District, then-Bureau of Reclamation
Commissioner Martinez stated that in land transfer
negotiations, the Federal Treasury and, thereby, the taxpayers'
financial interests must be protected. As part of that bill,
13.4 acres of withdrawn lands were to be given to the Burley
Irrigation District without compensation. As a result,
Commissioner Martinez urged, ``Reclamation opposes these
provisions. These assets should be accounted for in the
valuation process in order to appropriately protect the
financial interests of the Treasury.''
Taxpayers for Common Sense has been concerned with these
types of land transfers for years. In 1998, we testified on the
Minidoka Project transfer. Then, as now, TCS urged that
taxpayers deserve a fair return on the public's investment.
Regrettably, the Federal land and transfer exchange system
is rife with problems and controversy. In June 2000, the
General Accounting Office documented numerous cases in which
the Federal Government did not ensure that the land being
exchanged was appropriately valued or that exchanges served the
public interest or met other exchange requirements. H.R. 2831
expands the problems associated with the Federal land exchange
and transfer system by failing to require any payment
whatsoever for the public lands being transferred to the
Truckee-Carson Irrigation District.
When selling public assets, the Federal Government should
follow two guiding principles:
One, make sure it is in the taxpayers' best interests to
sell the projects. There may be cases where the best Federal
action is to hold on to assets; for example, it may be
appropriate for the Federal Government to maintain assets that
are important for or play a role in relationships between
States or treaties with other nations.
And, two, get the best value for the asset. If the Federal
Government does decide to transfer water projects to non-
Federal ownership, taxpayers deserve a fair price for those
projects.
In conclusion, H.R. 2831 is important not just for the
assets it would transfer, but also for the example it would set
for the hundreds of other Federal water projects that might be
transferred to non-Federal ownership in the future. When
considering this and other asset transfers, we urge Congress to
be cognizant of its fiduciary responsibility to American
taxpayers. Upon the sale of public assets, the United States
should be in no worse a financial position than if the project
continues to be under the control of the U.S.
Some may regard this land transfer as too small to be
worthy of debate. However, as the Federal Government faces a
deficit of nearly $500 billion in Fiscal Year 2004, everything
counts. If Truckee-Carson Irrigation District wants to complete
a land transfer, it should pay the fair market value of this
land as determined by an independent appraisal.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. I
will be happy to answer any questions you might have.
Mr. Osborne. Thank you, Ms. Roder.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Roder follows:]
Statement of Aileen Roder, Program Director,
Taxpayers for Common Sense, on H.R. 2831
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,
nonpartisan budget watchdog group. I would like to thank you for
inviting me to testify at this hearing regarding H.R. 2831, which would
authorize the Secretary of the Interior to transfer the Newlands
Project headquarters and maintenance yard facility to the Truckee-
Carson Irrigation District.
Taxpayers for Common Sense strongly opposes H.R. 2831 as written.
This bill, introduced in July by Congressman Jim Gibbons (R-NV), would
transfer title to approximately 35.6 acres of withdrawn public land in
the Newlands Project, a federal water project, to the Truckee-Carson
Irrigation District with no compensation to federal taxpayers.
According to the United States Code:
The term ''withdrawal'' means withholding an area of Federal
land from settlement, sale, location, or entry, under some or
all of the general land laws, for the purpose of limiting
activities under those laws in order to maintain other public
values in the area or reserving the area for a particular
public purpose or program; or transferring jurisdiction over an
area of Federal land, other than ''property'' governed by the
Federal Property and Administrative Services Act, as amended
(40 U.S.C. 472) from one department, bureau or agency to
another department, bureau or agency. 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 43 U.S.C. 1702(j).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The lands that H.R. 2831 would transfer to Truckee-Carson
Irrigation District were withdrawn from the public domain for use in
the Newlands Project and, as such, the value of these lands was never
included in the allocation of costs to be repaid by project
beneficiaries.
Instead, H.R. 2831 unfairly favors the Truckee-Carson Irrigation
District, which seeks to obtain title to lands in the Bureau of
Reclamation's Newlands Project free-of-charge. TCS believes that the
water project in question is a taxpayer asset and should be treated
accordingly.
Taxpayers for Common Sense favors privatizing or devolving certain
federal assets to state or local government in appropriate
circumstances. Under fair terms and conditions, both U.S. taxpayers and
local interests can benefit from such transfers. However, TCS opposes
giving away federal assets to narrow local interests at the expense of
the people of the United States. Furthermore, there are some
circumstances where transfer of an asset does not make sense.
Transfers Should Provide a Fair Return to the Taxpayers' Investment
Since the release of its 1995 Framework for the Transfer of Title
Bureau of Reclamation Projects, the Bureau of Reclamation has
undertaken ``a program to transfer title of facilities that could be
efficiently and effectively managed by non-Federal entities and that
are not identified as having national importance.'' 2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Framework for the Transfer of Title Bureau of Reclamation
Projects, Bureau of Reclamation, August 7, 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In his 1997 testimony regarding S. 538, legislation to convey
certain facilities of the Minidoka Project to the Burley Irrigation
District, former Bureau of Reclamation Commissioner Eluid Martinez
stated that in land transfer negotiations, ``The Federal Treasury and
thereby the taxpayers'' financial interest, must be protected ... ``
3 As part of S. 538, 13.4 acres of withdrawn lands were to
be given to the Burley Irrigation District without compensation. As a
result, Commissioner Martinez urged, ``Reclamation opposes these
provisions. These assets should be accounted for in the valuation
process in order to appropriately protect the financial interests of
the Treasury.'' 4 I have attached Commissioner Martinez's
testimony for the record. 5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Testimony of Eluid Martinez, Commissioner, U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation, regarding S. 538, May 15, 1997.
\4\ Ibid.
\5\ Commissioner Martinez's testimony is attached as part of the
Energy and Natural Resources Committee Report 105-131, November 3,
1997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In fact, Ralph DeGennaro testified on behalf of Taxpayers for
Common Sense before this Subcommittee in 1998 regarding H.R. 1282, the
House version of S. 538. In his testimony, Mr. DeGennaro urged this
Subcommittee that taxpayers deserve a fair return on the public's
investment and should receive a fair price for projects.
Regrettably, the federal land exchange and transfer system is rife
with problems and controversy. The General Accounting Office (GAO) has
documented numerous cases in which the federal government ``did not
ensure that the land being exchanged was appropriately valued or that
exchanges served the public interest or met other exchange
requirements.'' 6 This GAO report has been attached to my
testimony.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Land Exchanges Need to Reflect Appropriate Value and Serve the
Public Interest (GAO/RCED-00-73).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 2831 takes the problems associated with the federal land
exchange and transfer system a step further by failing to require any
payment whatsoever for the public lands being transferred to the
Truckee-Carson Irrigation District. This bill is yet another example of
a land transfer that is fundamentally unfair to taxpayers. As in S.
538, the Truckee-Carson Irrigation District would pay nothing for title
to public lands that rightfully belong to federal taxpayers.
Underlying these kind of asset-transfer bills is the faulty logic
that irrigation districts are entitled to own federal assets if they
pay out their repayment obligations. However, paid out does not mean
paid for. Only where explicitly spelled out in the authorizing law do
water users have a claim to the title of these federal projects.
Throughout the West, irrigators have been paying for the costs of
supplying the water, not for ownership of the project. In many
instances, they have not even been paying for the full cost of the
water.
According to the U.S. General Accounting Office 7, since
1902 irrigators have managed to pay off less than one-third of the $3.4
billion they owe for Reclamation projects. Billions more in costs have
been shifted to taxpayers and other users. Even where irrigation
districts have paid out the heavily subsidized payment obligations they
were assessed, they still have not paid for all the other costs
associated with the project. Irrigators have not even paid the full
costs of capital of their portion of the projects, benefitting from
huge interest subsidies. The lands to be transferred under H.R. 2831
were withdrawn from the public domain without payment and therefore the
value of the lands was never included in the allocation of costs to be
repaid by project beneficiaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ In 1996, the GAO released a report (Information on allocation
and Repayment of Costs of Constructing Water Projects GAO/RCED-96-109)
that gave these figures for the Reclamation program as a whole from
1902 to 1994:
$21.8 billion has been invested in Reclamation
$16.9 of that total is reimbursable by irrigation, power
and municipal and industrial users;
$7.1 billion of that total was allocated to irrigation.
Of this:
47% ($3.4 billion ) was shifted to electric power users under
Irrigation Assistance;
5% was written off by Congress;
47% ($3.4 billion) was to be paid by irrigators at no interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unless otherwise stated in the law, irrigation districts have not
paid for these federal assets. They can purchase them, but they are not
entitled to a new taxpayer handout.
TCS wants the federal government to follow these principles when
selling public assets:
1. Make sure it is in the taxpayers' best interest to sell the
project. This means that there may be cases where the best government
action is to hold on to its assets. For example, it may be appropriate
for the federal government to maintain assets that are important for or
have a role in relationships between states or in treaties with other
nations.
2. Get the best value for the asset. If the federal government
does decide to transfer water projects to non-federal ownership,
taxpayers deserve a fair return on their investment and should receive
a fair price for those projects. We strongly urge the use of the market
to determine a fair price where other obligations allow it.
Conclusion
H.R. 2831 is important not just for the assets it would transfer,
but also for the example it would set for the hundreds of other federal
water projects that might be transferred to non-federal ownership in
the future. When considering these and other asset transfers, we urge
Congress to be cognizant of its fiduciary responsibility to American
taxpayers. Upon the sale of public assets, the United States should be
in no worse of a financial position than if the project continued to be
held by the United States.
Taxpayer lands should not be transferred to non-federal entities
without taxpayers receiving a return on the investment. This
legislation would give the land away to the Truckee-Carson Irrigation
District free-of-charge. If Truckee-Carson Irrigation District wants to
complete a land transfer, then it should pay the fair market value of
this land as determined by an independent appraisal.
Thank you again for opportunity to testify today and I would be
happy to answer any questions you might have.
______
Mr. Osborne. Mr. Hill.
STATEMENT OF JIM HILL, WATER RECLAMATION MANAGER,
CITY OF MEDFORD, OREGON
Mr. Hill. Mr. Chairman, my name is Jim Hill, and I am the
Water Reclamation Division Administrator for the Medford
Regional Water Reclamation Facility, which provides wastewater
treatment for over 120,000 customers in the Bear Creek Valley
in southern Oregon. I am also the Chair of the Water for
Streams, Irrigation, and Economy, (WISE) Project Advisory
Committee.
I want to thank you for the opportunity to come before this
Subcommittee and testify on behalf of H.R. 3210, which would
authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to be the lead agency on a
water resource management feasibility study for the Little
Butte and Bear Creek subbasins, also known as the WISE project.
I also thank Congressman Walden, who took time out of his
busy schedule last December to visit our reclamation facility
and become better acquainted with the WISE project. His
sponsorship of this legislation is greatly appreciated.
Water is the lifeblood of the Rogue River Basin, which
extends 135 miles from the pristine beauty of Crater Lake
westward to the Pacific Ocean. It is essential for fisheries,
outdoor recreation, and agriculture in the Bear Creek Valley,
all of which are key components of the economy of southern
Oregon. In light of the Federal listing of the coho salmon as
endangered and increasingly stringent water quality
requirements affecting both municipalities and agriculture, a
coalition of agricultural, municipal and environmental
interests, working in conjunction with the Bureau of
Reclamation, formed the WISE project. The goals of the WISE
project, which also embody the study goals of the Bureau's
February 2001 Bear Creek/Little Butte Creek Water Management
Study Appraisal Report are to:
One, improve the effectiveness and efficiencies of the
three irrigation districts in the Bear Creek Valley by
improving existing canal systems, and increasing irrigation
water supplies by reusing reclaimed effluent for irrigation;
and
Two, increase stream flows and improve the habitat for
salmonids in Bear Creek and Little Butte Creek, which are both
coho-producing tributaries to the Rogue River.
The WISE project is a collaboration of virtually all
parties in the Bear Creek and Little Butte Creek Subbasin with
an interest in water resource management. Over 25 agencies and
groups signed on in support of the WISE project. These groups
include the Farm Bureau, cities through the valley, the
irrigation districts, Oregon Water Trust, Headwaters, and the
Sierra Club, to name a few. Irrigators, environmentalists, and
municipalities all stand to benefit from the WISE project, and
are active participants.
The participants also signed a memorandum of understanding
and formed the WISE Project Advisory Committee. Even with this
local support, there is need for Bureau authorization to
oversee the project.
In another show of collaboration, a group of 25 growers,
marketers, agency representatives and regulators from the Bear
Creek Valley and also from the State of Oregon toured the
Salinas Valley of California to look at their agricultural
reuse project, which uses reclaimed effluent to grow the
majority of the lettuce and artichokes consumed in the United
States. These people are now firm supporters of the use of
reclaimed effluent for agricultural irrigation and will be
working with the WISE PAC.
The WISE Project Advisory Committee, working with the
Bureau, has identified several possible project alternatives
for further consideration. At this time we need to begin the
NEPA process. Due to the complexity of the project and the
history of Bureau involvement in the Rogue Basin Project, the
Bureau needs to be designated as the lead agency.
Before the NEPA process can start, there needs to be filed
a notice of intent by the lead agency. Therefore, it is
necessary to authorize the Bureau at this time to work on the
project. Local and state funding will be used to hire a
contractor to clearly define the project scope and provide a
detailed estimate of the cost to complete the feasibility
study.
The City of Medford has secured a Congressionally earmarked
grant, administered by EPA, to hire a contractor to work on the
feasibility study. Additional funds, if needed to complete the
feasibility study, will come from a combination of additional
grant funds and local support.
On behalf of the City of Medford and the WISE PAC, I want
to again thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of
this legislation.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hill follows:]
Statement of Jim Hill, Water Reclamation Division Administrator,
City of Medford, Oregon
INTRODUCTION
Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Jim Hill, and I am the Water
Reclamation Division (WRD) Administrator for the Medford Regional Water
Reclamation Facility (RWRF), which provides wastewater treatment and
disposal for a majority of the Bear Creek Valley in southern Oregon. I
am also Chair of the Water for Streams, Irrigation and the Economy
(WISE) Project Advisory Committee.
I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak before the
Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee on Resources in
support of H.R. 3210 (Walden), which would authorize the Secretary of
the Interior, acting through the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), to
conduct a water resource feasibility study for the Little Butte/Bear
Creek Subbasin in Oregon. This project has become known as the Water
for Streams, Irrigation and the Economy (WISE) project. My testimony
today will address the need for BOR authorization as lead agency to
provide project review and oversight, a background of the WISE project
to date, how local communities are collaborating to resolve water
management issues, the impact of reuse on downstream water users, and
the proposed funding mechanisms for the Feasibility Study and
Environmental Impact Statement (FS/EIS).
NEED FOR BOR AUTHORIZATION
The BOR was the architect for the Talent Project, which provides
irrigation water for the growers in the Bear Creek Valley utilizing
flows from Bear Creek and Little Butte Creek, the reservoir system
connected to the two streams, as well as over 200 miles of canals. To
address impending water supply and regulatory issues, the WISE project
proposes to modify and supplement the Talent Project system to improve
stream flows and water quality, improve irrigation system efficiencies,
and utilize reclaimed effluent as an additional irrigation water
source. Due to the complexity of the project and history of BOR
involvement in the Talent Project, the BOR needs to be authorized to
act as lead agency at the very beginning of the WISE project. Their
role will be to provide technical review of the FS/EIS process, and
assure that NEPA compliance is achieved. Medford, in conjunction with
the WISE project partners, will hire a consultant to prepare the FS/EIS
in accordance with BOR oversight.
BACKGROUND
In September of 2000 the Medford Water Commission (MWC) prepared a
scoping report for what was then called the Irrigation Point of
Diversion (IPOD) project. The MWC withdraws water from the Rogue River
just downstream from the confluence of Little Butte Creek. Little Butte
Creek is prime coho salmon spawning habitat, but warms up during the
summer because of withdrawals. The MWC is the regional provide of
domestic water for the Bear Creek Valley. The intent of the IPOD
project was to move the irrigation points of diversion from Little
Butte Creek to the Rogue River downstream of the MWC treatment plant,
thereby improving the water quality and quantity in Little Butte Creek
for the salmon, while at the same time improving the water quality at
the MWC treatment plant intake. The issue at hand was the cost of
pumping the water back up into the irrigation system from the new point
of diversion.
At the same time the IPOD project scoping report was being
prepared, the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) was completing the Bear
Creek/Little Butte Creek Water Management Study Appraisal Report, which
came out in February of 2001. The purpose of the study was to analyze
water conservation measures that would reduce losses in the irrigation
delivery systems in the Bear Creek subbasin. The saved water would then
be redistributed to (1) improve irrigation deliveries, and (2) enhance
streams flows and improve water quality and fish habitat in Bear Creek
and Little Butte Creek. One of the recommended options involved piping
the Hopkins Canal, which serves the Rogue River Valley Irrigation
District (RRVID), and putting in a pumping station to pump both stream
water and reclaimed effluent from the Medford Regional Water
Reclamation Facility (RWRF) into the pipeline. The RWRF reclaimed
effluent was seen as an additional valuable source of irrigation water.
The IPOD Steering Committee (Committee) that had been formed
earlier was then expanded to include the RWRF, irrigation districts,
environmental groups, and any other concerned interests. At this time
the Committee recognized that additional outside funding assistance
would be required for the project to go ahead, and asked BOR if funding
assistance would be possible. The BOR pointed out that a Feasibility
Study and Environmental Impact Statement (FS/EIS) would be required for
the entire BOR Talent Project before the BOR could provide funding
assistance.
At this time it was noted that the IPOD scoping document and the
BOR appraisal had very similar objectives. It was then decided to join
forces, and letters of support for BOR participation in the IPOD
project, signed by over thirty municipal, agricultural, and
environmental interests, were sent to our Congressional delegation. The
Committee then began identifying possible project alternatives to serve
the entire BOR Talent Project area. Several preliminary alternatives
were developed, all of which included the use of reclaimed effluent as
a source of irrigation water. It was at this time that the IPOD project
was first renamed the Little Butte/Bear Creek Water Management Project
(LB/BC WMP), and then renamed again as the WISE project.
In the fall of 2001 the Medford City Council set as one of its
goals support of agricultural reuse as a beneficial use of summer
effluent from the RWRF. Due to impending temperature standards on the
Rogue River, the RWRF will be faced with expensive effluent cooling or
discontinued river discharge during the summer months. With the letter
of support for the IPOD project, Medford was fortunate enough to obtain
a VA/HUD Congressional earmark of $894,000 for the project. The
earmarked money will be administered as a grant by the EPA.
LOCAL COLLABORATION
The WISE project is a collaboration of virtually all parties in the
Bear Creek and Little Butte subbasins with an interest in water
resources management. As a follow up to the IPOD Congressional letter
of support, a Memorandum of Support was circulated for signature. Over
40 agencies and groups signed on in support of the WISE project. These
groups include the Farm Bureau, cities throughout the valley, the
irrigation districts, Oregon Water Trust, Headwaters, the Cattleman's
Association, and the Sierra Club, to name a few. Irrigators,
environmentalists and municipalities all stand to benefit from the WISE
project, and are active participants. The IPOD Steering Committee
members also signed a Memorandum of Understanding and formed the WISE
Project Advisory Committee (PAC). Even with this local support, though,
there is a need for BOR authorization to oversee the project.
In another show of collaboration, a group of 24 key growers,
marketers, agency representatives and regulators toured the Salinas
Valley agricultural reuse project, which uses reclaimed effluent to
grow a majority of the lettuce and artichokes consumed in the United
States. They are now firm supporters of the use of reclaimed effluent
for agricultural irrigation, and will be working with the WISE PAC.
REUSE IMPACT ON DOWNSTREAM USERS
The discharge from the RWRF constitutes approximately 1.5% of the
total flow in the Rogue River. Withdrawal of the RWRF flow from the
Rogue River with no replacement, therefore, will have a negligible
impact on downstream users. It's also very important to note that the
WISE project will use the reclaimed effluent to replace waters
currently taken from Bear Creek and Little Butte Creek for agricultural
irrigation. By improving system efficiencies and using reclaimed
effluent for irrigation, the flows and water quality in both streams
should be improved significantly. Since both streams are tributaries to
the Rogue River, there will be a net benefit to the Rogue River.
FUNDING MECHANISMS
The first phase of the WISE FS/EIS will be funded with a grant from
the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB). The first phase will
clearly define the project scope and provide a detailed estimate of the
funding and time that will be required to complete the FS/EIS. The
second phase of the FS/EIS will be funded with the EPA grant,
supplemented by matching funds from Medford and other WISE partners. It
is anticipated that additional funds will be required to complete the
FS/EIS. Once the first phase defines those needs, Medford and the WISE
partners will seek additional grant funding. It is the intent of
Medford to work with the WISE partners to provide matching funds, if
needed, to complete the FS/EIS.
______
Mr. Osborne. Thank you, Mr. Hill.
I would like to remind members of the Committee rule, 3(C),
that imposes a 5-minute limit on questions. The Chair will now
recognize members for any questions they may wish to ask the
witnesses.
I would like to begin the questioning by asking Mr. Brian
this question. It seems that the efforts of all of the study
partners to get the study to where it is today is very
commendable. You have a lot of diverse interests. And when you
try to get metropolitan users' and agricultural users' and
fisheries' interests together, it is a daunting task.
My question is, what did your efforts consist of to get
everybody on board with the need for a study and a need to
participate?
Mr. Brian. Mr. Chairman, I guess I would call it
enlightened self-interest. Everyone has a stake in the health
of that basin and additional supply, whether they happen to be
environmental advocates, fishery folks, Oregon trout, or our
largest industrial user, such as Intel.
The City of Portland has something at stake because our
basin buys about 50 percent of its water from the Portland
watershed. It is a different watershed. Theirs is snow-pack
driven and ours is rain driven. There are years when just over
the hill--and part of Portland is in Washington County, but
just over the hill they may have a drought condition, and we
are OK. Or the opposite has been true. Both conditions have
occurred in the last 5 years. We are able to ship water back
and forth.
As we develop this new additional Westside resource, we
will not have to buy water from them, which leaves them with
more of their own water and solves their problem. So we have
been able to bring together the Portland business alliance in
the City of Portland, as well as all the Westside businesses.
The irrigators are at the table with us.
I guess we all share the understanding that this is an
important project. It is a big project, and it requires all of
us working together to accomplish it.
Mr. Osborne. Thank you very much.
Ms. Roder, is it possible that the cost of infrastructure
improvements be considered and offset to the settlement costs
of transferring the project to a non-Federal entity?
Ms. Roder. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would say that there needs to be a negotiation process in
which we can see what the fair market value is after an
independent appraisal of the properties to be transferred; and
then we can have the Bureau of Reclamation sit down with
Truckee-Carson and discuss what lands have been transferred and
paid for.
But as the legislation is currently drafted, we are not
seeing that. Instead, we are just supposed to assume that the
Federal taxpayer and the Federal Government are going to be
made whole. I think we should not rush the process, but really
look at what the value of these lands are and ensure that the
Federal taxpayer is getting a fair return on their investment.
Mr. Osborne. Who would you have do this fair market
appraisal?
Ms. Roder. Mr. Chairman, I know there are independent
appraisals outside of the Bureau of Reclamation. I know there
is an appraisal system within the Federal Government. We
believe that one needs to be done so we can really assess what
the Federal assets that are being transferred here with these
withdrawn lands are.
Mr. Osborne. You are advocating just one agency or several
agencies do the appraisal, and if so, how would you decide on
which appraisal you would accept?
Ms. Roder. I think that probably the best process would be
to go outside the agencies. I know there are independent
appraisals on the market and that we could go forward with
that. But certainly the Bureau of Reclamation needs to be
involved in the process, since it is Bureau lands which are
going to be transferred.
Mr. Osborne. Thank you.
I yield to the gentleman from California, Mr. Baca.
Mr. Baca. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My first question is to Mr. Schank. I am quite familiar
with Truckee and Carson because, as a State legislator, I used
to go down there and participate in the Highway Patrol Truckee
Tournament, which is a golf tournament for charity in that
area. Every September I would spend time in that area raising
money for charity.
My question is, how much does the irrigation district
presently pay to lease the land from the Bureau of Reclamation?
Mr. Schank. I believe it is $10 annually.
Mr. Baca. What is it, $100 every 10 years?
Mr. Schank. Something like that. That is what sticks in my
mind. I would have to get back on the exact number.
Mr. Baca. Ms. Roder's question in terms of Federal assets:
If there is a transfer and you are not paying, then what are
the actual assets that you would be gaining, because you are
spending very little right now, as it is, on the lease
agreement? Would the revenues then increase tremendously if it
was transferred to you and you, in turn, sold those reclamation
or water rights?
Mr. Schank. There are no water rights on this particular
property. That is one of the reasons that we situated the
office there in the early 1970s. It was not suitable for
irrigation; therefore, it was not homesteaded, as were most of
the irrigable grounds in the area.
The answer to your question is, we are actually crazy to
ask for the transfer when we are paying only $10 a year, but we
need to build a new office and in order to get the financing
available, you cannot get it when you have leased property.
Mr. Baca. But we do not know what the fair market value is
at this point, do we, for the transfer of the land?
Mr. Schank. I am not sure what your question is.
Mr. Baca. The Federal assets in terms of, if we did
transfer it, what would be the Federal assets, we do not know
what the fair market value would be, because I believe the last
one was done about 6 years ago.
Mr. Schank. The land is being used, as I stated, for the
office and maintenance facility to operate a Federal
reclamation project, and that is what it will continue to be
used as.
Mr. Baca. It seems like we still have a lot of questions to
answer. Of the surrounding entities, what impact would it have?
If we do transfer it, what other entities could be impacted
that are close by?
Mr. Schank. There are no other entities that I am aware of.
Mr. Baca. Mr. Hill, there is no dollar amount authorized
for reclamation to conduct the feasibility studies, and since
2003, the omnibus appropriation bill provided $900,000 for this
study through the VA-HUD and EPA grants.
What is a ballpark estimate for completion of this study?
Mr. Hill. Mr. Chairman and Mr. Baca, what we are doing
right now, we are retaining a consultant to look at the
projects and more clearly define what we see as the estimated
cost to complete the feasibility study. We do not know for
sure, and I would only be able to offer a ballpark estimate,
but we anticipate it will be greater than the $900,000.
I could give you something. A very preliminary estimate
would be in the range of $2 million to $2.1 million.
Mr. Baca. Is there anyone else interested in this
particular land? You are asking for a land exchange; is there
anyone else interested other than wanting to build a facility
there?
Mr. Schank. There is no one else that I am aware of. We
have local government support.
Ms. Roder. Not that I am aware of, Mr. Baca.
Mr. Baca. Thank you. No further questions.
Mr. Osborne. Thank you, Mr. Baca.
I yield to Mr. Pearce.
Mr. Pearce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Schank, if you had some rough value of the 64 acres
used at Lake Tahoe for the dam and for the 28,000 acres of
grazing rights you referred to and for the water that was
retired, do you have any rough estimate of how much has been
taken?
Mr. Schank. The 64 acres at Lake Tahoe, I believe at the
time it was transferred, it was conservatively valued at $8
million. It is lakefront property.
As far as the grazing area, all I can do on this area is
tell you that prior to the settlement act that Truckee-Carson
Irrigation District used, that withdrawn ground which was part
of our original contract, we were allowed to use it for grazing
purposes to offset district expenses, operation and maintenance
expenses. We grazed 6,000 head of cattle.
We continue in a limited way to graze under the State of
Nevada--in a cooperative agreement with the State of Nevada and
the Bureau of Reclamation, we currently graze less than 2,500
head of cattle, and when that ground is transferred to the
State, which is in the process of happening at the present
time, it may be that we will not graze at all.
Mr. Pearce. Ms. Roder, you said negotiations are not
complete. As a watchdog group, would you all support the
allocation of certain values to these properties that were
previously taken? In other words, fairness exists from both
directions. Would you all approve, if we added in the language
of this bill, that the irrigation district would get the values
of the previous properties that were taken from them without
compensation?
Ms. Roder. I think, Congressman, we need to look at what
values have been assigned in terms of what has actually been
paid by the irrigation district.
I would also say I would love to have a 92-year loan from
the Federal Government as well. I believe that they have
received a lot of value from Federal taxpayers. I think that
for most of us, living and paying high rents in D.C., we would
like to have a $10-a-year rent as well.
Some of the lands--and I do not know the situation with all
of these lands associated with Lake Tahoe; I believe that may
serve the needs of Truckee-Carson Irrigation District as well.
I think we need to not rush to judgment in this instance and to
look at withdrawn lands and see how much that needs to be
repaid to the Federal taxpayer, as opposed to setting a
precedent in which hundreds of other transfers throughout the
West can occur.
Mr. Pearce. I appreciate that, and I think it does not deal
with the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of
transactions daily that benefit people with no investment of
their own, either private individuals or nonprivate. I think if
you look at the FEMA rebuilding of areas that are flooded and
areas hit by tornadoes, you see very low-interest loans for a
variety of reasons. Very few of those have any public benefit;
and it seems like your answer--I did not quite hear it, but I
think your answer is that fairness does not exist both ways.
If the Federal Government wants to take property, it can do
just that, and it does not have to be accountable; but you, as
a watchdog group, would hold them accountable if they do not
exact from certain people some value.
It is curious that we are going to hold an irrigation
district, that is trying to actually operate a Federal facility
to a standard that we are not holding people to. Almost all of
the lakes that the Bureau of Reclamation owns, they lease
property to individuals around that lake for very small sums,
probably exactly $10 a year, maybe less, and they built
personal residences to no benefit of an area, the economy of an
area.
So if we are going to apply your standards, we should apply
them much more broadly than what you seem to be willing to do.
Ms. Roder. I agree with you completely, Congressman.
Certainly, when we are rebuilding with flood insurance, which
is one thing you brought up, we agree completely that we should
not keep rebuilding, year after year, flooded-out folks. I
think we would agree with you and would be willing to talk
about some of the valuations of other lands that we are
leasing; and certainly throughout the West we have similar
issues.
Today the topic that I have been called upon to testify on
is this particular land transfer, but we are more than eager to
work with you on other things of this nature.
Mr. Pearce. Thank you.
My final comment is that when watchdog groups watch
directions, both the heavy-handed Federal Government and the
lack of getting value, it tends to have a little more zip to
it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Osborne. Thank you, Mr. Pearce.
Mr. Hill, when you say you want reclamation assistance to
get through the beginning parts of this study, what do you
mean?
Mr. Hill. Mr. Chairman, what we are looking for is a couple
of things.
We use the Bureau to assist us in developing the scope for
the feasibility study, and we also need to have them start us
off preparing the notice of intent so they can be involved in
the project from the very beginning. We have been working with
them on a short, sort of a limited basis, and we need to
continue doing so; but they need to be authorized before we can
proceed ahead with the NEPA process. It is a formality that we
have to have.
Mr. Osborne. Do you have any specific dollar amount that
you are looking for?
Mr. Hill. I do not have a dollar amount that I am looking
for. I was not really looking for a significant amount of
funding. I have spoken with the local Bureau people who have
been working on the project, and for this very first initial
part of it, we would be talking probably in the range of tens
of thousands of dollars, a limited amount of money. But I don't
have a specific request.
Mr. Osborne. Thank you, Mr. Hill. I imagine the more
specificity we have the better, but we appreciate your
testimony.
Mr. Pearce, did you have any further questions?
Mr. Pearce. No, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Osborne. I thank the witnesses for their valuable
testimony and members for their questions. Members of the
Subcommittee may have some additional questions for the
witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to those in writing.
The hearing record will be held open for 10 days for these
responses.
If there is no further business before the Subcommittee, I
again thank the members of the Subcommittee and the witnesses,
and the Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:40 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[A statement submitted for the record by U.S. Senator
Gordon Smith follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Gordon Smith, a U.S. Senator
from the State of Oregon
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your convening this legislative hearing
today to receive testimony on S. 625, a bill to authorize the Bureau of
Reclamation to conduct certain feasibility studies in the Tualatin
River Basin in Oregon. As you know, this bill--which I sponsored and is
cosponsored by my colleague Senator Wyden--passed the Senate on June
16, 2003.
There is an existing federal Reclamation project in the Tualatin
River Basin, which is a rapidly growing area west of Portland.
Developed in 1975, Hagg Lake--the impoundment behind Scoggins Dam--
provides water for river flow restoration, municipal water supplies,
and agricultural irrigation throughout the Tualatin River watershed.
The lake also provides recreational opportunities, with park and
recreational facilities operated by Washington County.
The Tualatin River watershed contains the urbanized portion of
Washington County, which includes the cities of Beaverton, Banks,
Cornelius, Forest Grove, Hillsboro, North Plains, Sherwood, Tigard and
Tualatin. This area, home to approximately 450,000 people, almost
doubled its population in the last 20 years, and this trend is expected
to continue.
To better manage the existing resources of the Tualatin River Basin
and to meet future water needs, several cities and districts partnered
in 1997 to develop an Integrated Water Resources Management Strategy.
This work identified the following areas of challenge in meeting future
water supply needs: municipal and industrial demands that are expected
to exceed supplies by 2011; maintaining existing irrigated agriculture;
providing water for Spring Chinook salmon and steelhead populations
recently listed under the Endangered Species Act; and providing
additional flows to restore river flow and improve water quality, since
the Tualatin River and its tributaries are considered water quality-
limited under the Clean Water Act.
This bill is an important first step in helping these communities
meet these future water supply challenges. It would authorize the
Bureau of Reclamation to conduct feasibility studies in the Basin, in
cooperation with the local communities which are already contributing
significant financial resources to addressing these needs.
It is imperative that these studies move forward expeditiously,
since water supplies in the basin will be strained within 10 years. The
Bureau of Reclamation actually sought funding for this study in its
Fiscal Year 2002 and 2003 budget requests. Since that time, it has
determined that it lacks sufficient authority to conduct these studies,
which is why this bill is needed at this time.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your willingness to conduct this
legislative hearing on this issue of importance to so many of my
constituents, and to the businesses that employ them.
-