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

                        H.R. 3334, H.R. 3391 and S. 212

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

                              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

                                   __________

                           Thursday, October 30, 2003

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 108-74

                                   __________

               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

                                     ______

    90-157              U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
                                WASHINGTON : 2003
    ____________________________________________________________________________
    For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
    Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
    Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001

                             COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

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

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

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

                        SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER

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

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

                                     ------
                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Hearing held on Thursday, October 30, 2003.......................     1

    Statement of Members:
        Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, a U.S. Senator from the State of New
          Mexico.....................................................    10
            Prepared statement of....................................    11
        Calvert, Hon. Ken, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of California........................................     1
            Prepared statement of....................................     3
        Cannon, Hon. Chris, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Utah, Prepared statement of.......................    55
        Moran, Hon. Jerry, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Kansas............................................     6
            Prepared statement of....................................     7
        Napolitano, Hon. Grace F., a Representative in Congress from
          the State of California....................................     5
            Prepared statement of....................................     5
        Neugebauer, Hon. Randy, a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Texas.............................................    18
            Prepared statement of....................................    19
        Stenholm, Hon. Charles W., a Representative in Congress from
          the State of Texas, Prepared statement of..................    34
        Udall, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the State
          of New Mexico..............................................    16
            Prepared statement of....................................    17

    Statement of Witnesses:
        Allison, Dr. Lee, Director and State Geologist, Kansas
          Geological Survey..........................................    70
            Prepared statement on S. 212.............................    71
        Arthur, Lloyd, American Farm Bureau Federation and the Texas
          Farm Bureau, Ralls, Texas..................................    67
            Prepared statement on S. 212.............................    68
        Carman, John, General Manager, Metropolitan Water District of
          Salt Lake and Sandy........................................    49
            Prepared statement on H.R. 3391..........................    51
        Christiansen, Don, General Manager, Central Utah Water
          Conservancy District.......................................    52
            Prepared statement on H.R. 3391..........................    54
        Conkwright, Jim, Manager, High Plains Underground Water
          District No. 1. Lubbock, Texas.............................    87
            Prepared statement on S. 212.............................    89
        Cunnison, Elizabeth L., Director Representing Division 2,
          Western Municipal Water District...........................    44
            Prepared statement on H.R. 3334..........................    46
        Favila, Irene, City Councilwoman and Workforce Development
          Coordinator, Plainview, Texas..............................    60
            Prepared statement on S. 212.............................    62
        Hirsch, Robert, Assistant Director of Water Resources, U.S.
          Geological Survey..........................................    31
            Prepared statement on S. 212.............................    33
        Keys, John, III, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S.
          Department of the Interior.................................    26
            Prepared statement on H.R. 3334..........................    27
            Prepared statement on H.R. 3391..........................    28
        Tillman, Leland D., Executive Director, Eastern Plains
          Council of Governments.....................................    64
            Prepared statement on S. 212.............................    65
        Wall, Scott, National Corn Growers Association, Yuma,
          Colorado...................................................    84
            Prepared statement on S. 212.............................    86
        Wicke, Ben, Director, Elsinore Valley Municipal Water
          District...................................................    47
            Prepared statement on H.R. 3334..........................    47

    Additional materials supplied:
        CRS report on the High Plains Aquifer submitted for the
          record by The Honorable Randy Neugebauer...................    21
        Map of Riverside/Corona Feeder submitted for the record by
          The Honorable Ken Calvert..................................     4
        Neugebauer, Hon. Randy, et al., Letter to Chairman Richard
          Pombo and Chairman Ken Calvert submitted for the record....    98

      LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 3334, TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF THE
         INTERIOR TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE
    RIVERSIDE-CORONA FEEDER IN COOPERATION WITH THE WESTERN MUNICIPAL WATER
     DISTRICT OF RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA; H.R. 3391, THE PROVO RIVER PROJECT
    TRANSFER ACT; AND S. 212, TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO
         COOPERATE WITH THE HIGH PLAINS AQUIFER STATES IN CONDUCTING A
     HYDROGEOLOGIC CHARACTERIZATION, MAPPING, AND MODELING PROGRAM FOR THE
                  HIGH PLAINS AQUIFER, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

                                  ----------

                           Thursday, October 30, 2003

                         U.S. House of Representatives

                        Subcommittee on Water and Power

                             Committee on Resources

                                Washington, D.C.

                                  ----------

        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in
    Room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Ken Calvert
    [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Calvert, Napolitano, Tancredo,
    Inslee, Grijalva, Osborne, Renzi and Nunes.
        Also Present: Representatives Cannon, Tom Udall, Neugebauer
    and Moran

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

        Mr. Calvert. First, let me apologize to the witnesses and
    our guests today. We will have a vote in a few minutes. So when
    that occurs, we will recess and come back and reconvene the
    hearing.
        The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on H.R.
    3334, a bill that I authored to authorize the Secretary of
    Interior to participate in the design and construction of the
    Riverside-Corona Feeder in cooperation with the Western
    Municipal Water District of Riverside, California; H.R. 3391,
    the Provo River Project Transfer Act, authored by our
    colleague, Chris Cannon; and Senate Bill 212, Senator Jeff
    Bingaman's bill, to authorize the Secretary of Interior to
    cooperate with the High Plains Aquifer States in conducting a
    Hydrogeologic Characterization, Mapping, and Modeling Program
    for the High Plains Aquifer and other purposes.
        Mr. Calvert. Before we get underway with the opening
    statements, I ask unanimous consent for Representatives Randy
    Neugebauer and Tom Udall, members of the Resources Committee,
    to sit on the dais when they come to the Committee.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        This Subcommittee continues to look at ways to improve
    water delivery to our communities, eliminate unnecessary
    bureaucracy and improve the coordination of all levels of
    Government. Today, we will hear three bills aimed at achieving
    these goals.
        The bill that I introduced, the Riverside-Corona Feeder
    Authorization Act, will capture and store water in wet years to
    increase the firm water supplies and improve water quality
    through the construction of wells and a new pipeline. This is a
    win-win scenario that will reduce Southern California's
    reliance on imported Colorado River and improve water
    reliability.
        The Subcommittee is privileged to have one of my Riverside
    constituents, Elizabeth Cunnison, of the Western Municipal
    Water District, here before us today to testify on this bill.
    In addition, I am also pleased to have Ben Wicke, of the
    Elsinore Valley Water District, with us also today.
        My colleague Chris Cannon's bill will also improve water
    reliability by eliminating unnecessary bureaucracy and costs
    through a title transfer of the Provo River Project to local
    users. I continue to support the concept of title transfers and
    hope that the Bureau of Reclamation will improve the general
    framework of title transfers. I understand the Administration
    will not testify on this bill today since the bill was just
    very recently introduced. The Subcommittee would appreciate
    written testimony, however, from the Bureau within 10 working
    days.
        Finally, we will hear testimony on Senator Bingaman's bill
    on the High Plains Aquifer. Senator Bingaman has a worthy goal
    in seeking to coordinate Federal, State and local Government
    efforts on the High Plains Aquifer, but some have questioned
    whether legislation is needed to accomplish the bill's
    objectives.
        Many have also raised concerns that the bill reinvents the
    wheel by duplicating current programs and the bill would be a
    camel's nose under the tent for Federal groundwater regulation.
    All of these concerns are embodied in a letter from six of our
    colleagues, sent to Chairman Pombo and myself last week.
        We will hear from both sides of the bill today, but this
    fact remains clear to me: No one has a good accounting of how
    much and what to do and to what extent funds are being spent on
    the High Plains Aquifer or defining whether current programs
    are meeting their intended objectives. In fact, the recent
    congressional research report identifies a number of Federal
    and State programs that are being implemented and coordinated
    to benefit the High Plains Aquifer.
        Yes, this bill seeks to further coordinate such activities,
    but I believe it is a good idea to look at the big picture
    first in determining whether this bill is necessary when the
    authorities and coordination may already exist. If we march
    forward with the concept of this bill, we must find clear
    answers first before we create a new $90-million program that
    will compete with other priorities. The American taxpayer
    deserves nothing less.
        For this reason, I will ask the Administration and other
    parties to engage in an extensive cross-cut budget exercise.
    Similar to the CALFED cross-cut budget, this budget will detail
    ongoing programs, expenditures, successes and the level of
    coordination. Everyone agrees the goal of better
    intergovernment, but we shouldn't pass costly legislation until
    we have a better idea of what is out there right now. I believe
    this cross-cut budget is the first logical step in that
    direction.
        With that, I want to thank my colleagues and witnesses for
    being here today and look forward to today's testimony.
        I would now like to recognize my good friend, Mrs.
    Napolitano, the Ranking Democrat member, for any opening
    statements she may have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Calvert follows:]

     Statement of The Honorable Ken Calvert, a Representative in Congress
        from the State of California, on S. 212, H.R. 3334 and H.R. 3391

        This Subcommittee continues to look at ways to improve water
    delivery to our communities, eliminate unnecessary bureaucracy, and
    improve the coordination of all levels of government.
        Today, we will hear three bills aimed at achieving these goals. My
    bill, the Riverside-Corona Feeder Authorization Act, will capture and
    store water in wet years to increase firm water supplies and improve
    water quality through construction of wells and a new pipeline. This is
    a win-win scenario that will reduce southern California's reliance on
    imported Colorado River water and improve water reliability. The
    Subcommittee is privileged to have one of my Riverside constituents,
    Elizabeth Cunnison of the Western Municipal Water District, here before
    us today to testify on this bill.
        My colleague Chris Cannon's bill would also improve water
    reliability by eliminating unnecessary bureaucracy and costs through a
    title transfer of the Provo River Project to the local users. I
    continue to support the concept of title transfers and hope that the
    Bureau of Reclamation will improve the general framework of title
    transfers. I understand the Administration will not testify on this
    bill today since it was just introduced. The Subcommittee would
    appreciate written testimony, however, from the Bureau within the next
    10 days on this important bill.
        Finally, we will hear testimony on Senator Bingaman's bill to map,
    model and monitor the High Plains Aquifer. Senator Bingaman has a
    worthy goal of seeking to coordinate federal, state and local
    governmental efforts on the High Plains Aquifer, but some have
    questioned whether legislation is needed to accomplish the bill's
    objectives. Many have also raised concerns that the bill reinvents the
    wheel by duplicating current programs and that the bill could be the
    camel's nose under the tent for federal groundwater regulation. All of
    these concerns are embodied in a letter from six of our colleagues sent
    to Chairman Pombo and myself last week.
        We will hear from both sides of the bill today, but this fact
    remains clear to me: No one has a good accounting of how much, and to
    what extent, funds are being spent on the High Plains Aquifer or
    defining whether programs are meeting their intended objectives. In
    fact, a recent Congressional Research Service report identifies a
    number of federal and state programs that are being implemented and
    coordinated to benefit the High Plains Aquifer. Yes, this bill seeks to
    further coordinate such activities, but I believe it's a good idea to
    look at the big picture in determining whether this bill is necessary
    when the authorities and coordination may already exist. If we march
    forward with the concept of this bill, we must find clear answers first
    before we create a new 90 million dollar program that will compete with
    other priorities. The American taxpayer deserves nothing less.
        For this reason, I will ask the Administration and other parties to
    engage in an extensive cross-cut budget exercise. Similar to the CALFED
    cross-cut budget, this budget will detail ongoing programs,
    expenditures, successes and the level of coordination. Everyone agrees
    with the goal of better intergovernmental cooperation, but we shouldn't
    pass costly legislation until we have a better idea of what's out there
    now. I believe this cross-cut budget is the first logical step in that
    direction.
        With that, I want to thank my colleagues and the witnesses for
    being here today and look forward to today's testimony.
                                     ______

        [A map of the Riverside/Corona Feeder submitted for the
    record by The Honorable Ken Calvert follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0157.005

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

        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For brevity's
    sake, since I think we are going to have a vote momentarily, I
    thank you for the hearing on these very important bills and
    thanks to the witnesses who traveled to be here to be part of
    this hearing.
        You talk about the Cannon bill being recently introduced
    yesterday, and I am with you in that, since the Administration
    was not able to opine on it, I still have reason to think that
    maybe we should sit on it for another day or two and put it up
    next week, but you have already introduced it. So I guess we
    will listen to it today while the witnesses are here.
        I do have questions on that particular piece of
    legislation, and I think it is important that we have the views
    of the Administration on this particular bill and also we want
    to ensure that transferring ownership of the Bureau of
    Reclamation facilities does not interfere with our efforts to
    recover the endangered June sucker.
        I also look forward to the Administration's testimony on
    your bill, H.R. 3334, and I am very curious to learn what role,
    if any, the Bureau of Reclamation wants to play in encouraging
    Western communities to develop projects that will be essential
    during periods of drought.
        Finally, Mr. Chair, we will learn more today about one of
    our country's largest underground water suppliers, the High
    Plains Aquifer, and my understanding is this underground water
    supply directly benefits eight States, from Wyoming to Texas.
    Being a former Texan, I have a great interest in that, also. I
    look forward to hearing more about this particular water supply
    and how we can work to protect it.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to the
    testimony.
        [The prepared statement of Mrs. Napolitano follows:]

       Statement of The Honorable Grace Napolitano, a Representative in
     Congress from the State of California on H.R. 3391, H.R. 3334 and S.
                                      212

        Mr. Chairman, thank you for scheduling today's hearings. I also
    want to thank our witnesses for traveling to Washington to testify.
        I am aware that the Administration is not able to provide testimony
    on the Cannon bill, which was just introduced yesterday. I do have
    questions about this legislation. It is important that we have the
    views of the Administration before we give our approval to this bill.
    We will want to make sure that transferring ownership of the Bureau of
    Reclamation facilities does not interfere with our efforts to recover
    the endangered June Sucker.
        I also look forward to the Administration's testimony on the
    Chairman's bill, H.R. 3334. I am especially curious to learn what role,
    if any, the Bureau of Reclamation wants to play in encouraging western
    communities to develop projects that could be useful during droughts.
        Finally, Mr. Chairman, we will learn more today about one of the
    country's largest underground water supplies, the High Plains Aquifer.
    This underground water supply directly benefits eight states, from
    Wyoming to Texas. I look forward to hearing more about this water
    supply and how we can work to protect it.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
                                     ______

        Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentlelady.
        If we haven't asked for unanimous consent for Mr. Moran to
    join us today, I would ask so now.
        Is there any objection?
        [No response.]
        Mr. Calvert. Hearing none, so ordered.
        All of you folks from Nebraska and everybody, calm down.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Calvert. With that, are there any additional opening
    statements?
        [No response.]
        Mr. Calvert. Is Senator Bingaman here yet to testify? He
    will be here shortly.
        So I will recognize Congressman Jerry Moran.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. JERRY MORAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                        FROM THE STATE OF KANSAS

        Mr. Moran. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and thank the Ranking
    Member and the Committee for allowing me the opportunity to
    join you today and for the courtesy you have extended me to
    join you here at the dais.
        I was pleased to hear both your opening statements. I am
    here on one of the bills that you are considering related to
    the High Plains Aquifer, which Kansas is one of those eight
    States that the Ogallala Aquifer has a huge consequence to us.
    A significant part of our agricultural economy is related to
    irrigation, and the Ogallala Aquifer is the significant
    supplier of that irrigation, but it is more than just
    agriculture. Many of my communities' water supplies are served
    by the Ogallala Aquifer. Our economic growth in Kansas has
    generally followed the lines of where that Ogallala Aquifer
    provides water. And, clearly, with 4 years of drought in our
    State in the last 4 years, the Ogallala Aquifer has become even
    more significant in the role it plays in the lives of many
    Kansans.
        The Ogallala Aquifer provides 99 percent of the water
    supply for communities, businesses and homes, as well as
    agriculture production. As you indicated, it covers eight
    States. It is 174,000 square miles of land. In Kansas, it is
    33,500 square miles. It is generally that part of Kansas along
    the Colorado line up to Nebraska, about a third of the way
    across our State from west to east, in 46 counties, all of them
    in the 1st District of Kansas that I have the honor of
    representing.
        It is the lifeblood of the High Plains for us. Groundwater
    has allowed Kansas and our neighbors to function as the
    breadbasket really of the world. Irrigated crop production in
    Southwest Kansas alone generates the second-largest component
    of our State's economy, right behind aviation and the aviation
    industry generally in the Wichita area.
        Our livestock industry, there is more cattle on feed in
    Southwest Kansas in the 1st Congressional District of the
    country than any place in the country, any congressional
    district, and it is dependent upon the feed that is grown as a
    result of irrigation.
        But, unfortunately, our water supply is not endless, and
    Kansans are recognizing that fact. In fact, I think our State
    has taken serious steps, has been a leader in an effort to
    understand the Ogallala Aquifer, understand its depletion,
    understand its recharge and began to recognize, in recent
    years, the importance of taking steps to prolong the life of
    the Ogallala Aquifer. Much of our ability to do that is
    dependent upon coordination and activities with other States.
    Kansas alone cannot fully understand and appreciate the
    Ogallala Aquifer through scientific analysis, research,
    hydrology, without cooperation with the other seven States that
    have the High Plains Aquifer, and we also can't take the steps
    necessary to conserve water and increase recharge on our own.
    So Kansas is one of those States that believes that we have a
    lot to gain by coordination and involvement of our surrounding
    States, the other seven States, with the High Plains Aquifer.
        I have introduced legislation in the past on this topic,
    including a bill similar to the one that you are considering
    today. I have not introduced it in this congressional session.
    I have also introduced a larger bill that dealt with
    conservation issues as well. A number of those components were
    successfully added to the 2002 farm bill. For the first time
    EQIP funding is now available for conservation practices under
    the farm bill, under the conservation title of the farm bill,
    for purposes of encouraging less depletion of the Ogallala
    Aquifer.
        So we are taking some legislative steps. The issue before
    us today is the ability to coordinate research and mapping
    activities, analysis of the Ogallala with other States. And I
    am here to tell you that, from my perspective in representing
    Kansans, that it is an awfully important issue for us, and I
    look forward to working with this Committee, as well as State
    authorities, to make certain that legislation that we may pass
    in this area is one that is compatible with a desire that
    Kansans have, which is that we would like to regulate and
    manage our own resources, but we recognize that not all of the
    water is under our State, and what happens in those other seven
    States has a significant effect upon the supply of water to
    citizens of the State of Kansas.
        So I welcome your help. I heard your opening comments and
    concerns about property rights and intrusion by the Federal
    Government. You will find me to be an ally on those issues, but
    I think there is clearly an opportunity, in fact, a need for us
    to coordinate activities as we begin a more concerted effort to
    understand the relationship of the Ogallala Aquifer to its use,
    its recharge and again reiterate this is just a hugely
    significant issue to the folks whose livelihoods and
    communities depend upon this vital and important resource.
        And I thank the Chairman for allowing me the opportunity to
    speak today, and I will submit my written testimony for the
    record.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Moran follows:]

     Statement of The Honorable Jerry Moran, a Representative in Congress
                      from the State of Kansas, on S. 212

        Chairman Calvert, Ranking Member Napolitano, and other members of
    the Subcommittee, thank you for allowing me the opportunity today to
    testify in support of geologic research for the High Plains Aquifer. As
    members of the Water and Power Subcommittee, I know that you understand
    the importance of one of our most critical natural resources: water.
    Water quality and quantity are among the most serious environmental
    issues we face. A reliable source of water is essential to maintain our
    quality of life and to preserve that quality of life for future
    generations.
        Like the Kansans I represent, I know that you also appreciate the
    need for conservation of this resource, especially in scarce areas such
    as western Kansas and the other regions that rely on the limited
    groundwater supply of the Ogallala Aquifer. I want to discuss with you
    today how this particular water source exemplifies the need for sound
    scientific information as a basis to preserve and extend the life of
    the water supply for years to come.
    The High Plains Aquifer and Kansas
        In the High Plains region of the United States, one groundwater
    source, the Ogallala Aquifer, provides 99% of the water supply for
    communities, businesses, homes, and agricultural production. Eight
    states are served by the aquifer: Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota,
    Wyoming, Colorado, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Texas. The aquifer
    underlies 174,000 square miles of land--that's an area more than 5
    times greater than the world's largest freshwater lake and over 150%
    larger than the surface area of all 5 Great Lakes combined.
        In Kansas, the Ogallala underlies 33,500 square miles of 46
    counties, all in the First Congressional District. Ogallala groundwater
    is the source of over 99% of reported water use in southwest Kansas.
    History of High Plains Water Use
        Because of its significance to economic development, water is the
    lifeblood of the High Plains. The primary user of water is agriculture,
    which is the backbone of the western Kansas economy and many other
    rural economies.
        Groundwater has allowed Kansas and our neighbors to function as the
    breadbasket of the U.S. The irrigated crop production in southwest
    Kansas alone generates the second strongest segment of our state's
    economy, second only to aviation. Across the 8-state High Plains
    regions, approximately 170,000 wells pump aquifer groundwater to
    irrigate nearly 14 million acres of cropland. Twenty percent of all
    irrigated land in the U.S. is in the High Plains. Fifteen million acre
    feet of groundwater, about 30% of the total used for irrigation
    nationwide, is pumped annually from the High Plains Aquifer.
        In addition to supporting crop production, the aquifer is the water
    source for the largest concentration of beef production in North
    America. Not only crops, but also America's livestock industry depends
    on the High Plains Aquifer.
        Many years ago, this underground sea of water seemed endless. More
    recently, however, we have learned that this is not the case. The water
    supply is finite, and, because of the heavy reliance upon this primary
    source and the rate of usage, the end of the supply is a concern for
    many High Plains residents. Today, the estimated life of the aquifer
    for irrigation, at current usage rate, is less than 25 years.
    The Need for Coordinated Efforts to Preserve the Aquifer
        Kansas has long been a leader in research to determine the supply,
    usage and rate of recharge of water in the High Plains Aquifer. The
    Kansas Department of Agriculture's Division of Water Resources, along
    with the Kansas Water Office, the Kansas Geologic Survey, the Kansas
    Association of Groundwater Management Districts, and numerous appointed
    and volunteer task forces made up of producers, community leaders,
    hydrologists, and geologists, have recognized the problems of water
    decline and have taken proactive steps to slow the rate of usage and
    extend the life of the aquifer.
        However, despite efforts undertaken by the State of Kansas to
    manage our portion of the High Plains Aquifer, a tremendous need for
    hard scientific data about the aquifer remains. Since the aquifer
    crosses the borders of 8 states, it is crucial to have information
    about its hydrologic and geologic interdependence.
    Past and Potential Legislative Action
        Because rural communities, and in a broader sense, American
    agriculture, depend on the High Plains Aquifer, we need to invest in
    its future. A coordinated research effort involving all 8 states would
    be a useful first step in assessing the overall condition of the
    aquifer.
        The bill that is the subject of today's hearing is similar to
    legislation, H.R. 5486, that I introduced almost one year ago. That
    legislation was supported by the entire Kansas delegation, but no
    action was taken prior to the end of the 107th Congress.
        The content of H.R. 5486 was a provision in a more comprehensive
    water conservation bill, H.R. 3121, that I introduced in 2001. In the
    2002 Farm Bill, the conservation incentives for agriculture producers
    that were a major focus of H.R. 3121 were incorporated into the Ground
    and Surface Water Conservation portion of the Environmental Quality
    Incentives Program administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
    However, the research component of H.R. 3121 was not included in the
    Farm Bill because it was not under the Agriculture Committee's
    jurisdiction, so it was introduced as a separate free standing bill.
        There is a continued need for legislation which would allow the
    High Plains states to work together to conduct comprehensive interstate
    research on the health of the entire aquifer. I would welcome the help
    of my High Plains colleagues in developing legislation that benefits
    each of our districts while at the same time preserving the water
    supply that serves us all.
        I understand that there may be concerns about the involvement of
    the Federal government in water issues that are so critical to our
    states, and I share those concerns. However, I believe that it is
    possible to craft legislation that accomplishes the intent of enhanced
    research without unnecessarily intruding on private landowners' rights
    or issues over which states have primary authority. It is the intent of
    all Kansans to manage our own state's water supplies in a responsible
    manner, but, in this instance, where water flow does not stop at the
    state lines, some regional coordination is required.
        Mr. Chairman, for the hearing record, I would like to submit on
    behalf of my constituents their letters of support for High Plains
    Aquifer research. Included are statements from the Ogallala Aquifer
    Institute, located in Garden City, Kansas; and a letter from the Board
    of Directors of Southwest Kansas Groundwater Management District #3,
    which is the second largest such district in the nation.
        In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would again like to thank you and
    other members of the Committee for allowing me to testify, especially
    to those members who also represent districts in the High Plains
    Aquifer. Those of us from the High Plains live in a constant struggle
    to access enough water for the survival of our farms, businesses, and
    communities. Only by working together can we attempt to address the
    problems of a scarce water supply.
        I look forward to working with members of the Committee on this
    concept of enhanced geologic research for the High Plains Aquifer.
    Thank you again.
                                     ______

        Mr. Calvert. Without objection. Thank you.
        What we scheduled to do is to have Senator Bingaman's
    testimony and then your testimony, Mr. Moran, and then we were
    going to have questions from the panel. So we may have a
    question or two, and hopefully I understand Senator Bingaman is
    on his way over here right now.
        I would add just one question. There are a number of
    Federal programs, as you are very well aware, involved with the
    High Plains Aquifer. In fact, I guess I would ask this
    question. Is there any impediment today that you know of that
    would keep or preclude the States and the Federal agencies from
    cooperating right now on this data?
        Mr. Moran. I see this type of legislation as an
    encouragement to States to cooperate, and of course the
    impediment I think is not legal. I think, generally, there is
    no question, but that the eight States involved in the High
    Plains Aquifer can cooperate, can move forward in additional
    activities together, but the resources, the boundaries, the
    different economic interests and I would guess, in large part,
    a lack of resources and coordination, in fact, steps have been
    taken, the Kansas Geological Survey, and you have a witness on
    your panel, Dr. Lee Allison, from the Kansas Geological Survey,
    who can testify to these issues, but steps have been taken by
    these eight States already, with their geological surveys and
    their water authorities, to begin the process of coordination
    of the scientific research.
        So I am not certain that there are legal impediments. I
    think it is a matter of coordination, developing the structure,
    and having mutual interests, as well as the dollars necessary,
    to complete those activities.
        Mr. Calvert. I see that Senator Bingaman has arrived. I
    know that the Senator is busy, so we will be more than happy to
    recognize the Senator for his opening statement.

     STATEMENT OF JEFF BINGAMAN, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE
                          STATE OF NEW MEXICO

        Senator Bingaman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
    giving me just a few minutes, and I appreciate you having a
    hearing on this important issue in this bill, S. 212. I think
    this is bipartisan legislation. Senator Brownback and Senator
    Domenici are cosponsoring the bill with me in the Senate. I
    believe it is an important issue for us to try to address. It
    would establish this cooperative science program related to the
    High Plains Aquifer, which is comprised, in large part, by the
    Ogallala Aquifer.
        Now, we have a chart here that shows the various States. I
    think each of you may have seen this before this was prepared
    by the Geological Survey and shows the various States that
    overlay the Ogallala Aquifer and depend upon it. It is
    important in my State, Eastern New Mexico, in particular,
    because we have communities there that depend entirely on the
    Ogallala Aquifer for their livelihood, and we have a lot of
    farming that takes place there, dependent very much on that.
        There have been, in recent years, some alarming declines in
    water levels in the Ogallala Aquifer. For example, there are
    some portions in New Mexico, and Texas, and Kansas that have
    seen the water level decline by more than 60 feet over the last
    two decades. The aquifer is the source of water, as I
    indicated, for the communities, for the farmers, for the
    ranchers, agriculture, which is the main industry, at least in
    the part of the State, part of my State that depends upon the
    aquifer is totally dependent upon it, and clearly the depletion
    of it could bring about a traumatic change in the way of life
    in that whole part of our country.
        So, for these reasons, we have put this bill forward. It
    was passed through the Senate last Congress. It was passed
    through the Senate, of course, this year as well. I am pleased
    that the farm bill that we passed in the last Congress has in
    it a new voluntary, incentive-based program to improve water
    conservation practices in the High Plains Aquifer States, and I
    am hoping that this legislation could pass in this Congress.
        Let me just mention a couple of things that the legislation
    does and then a couple of things it does not do.
        First, the legislation tries to ensure a sound and
    objective science and information base about hydrology and
    geology of the aquifer.
        Second, the bill provides new funding to State and local
    entities to ensure that this important work can be done at the
    State and local levels to the extent possible or State and
    local agencies and academic institutions already are working in
    these areas, this would be a new source of funding to
    complement their work and assist with their work. And where
    some of these agencies and universities have not been active,
    they would be able to be active because of these funds.
        This does not compel any State to participate. Each State
    would make that judgment. Each Governor would decide whether
    his or her State should be involved in this. The legislation
    clearly provides that States may elect to not participate, as
    well as to participate.
        A third thing the bill does is it makes mapping,
    characterizing and modeling of this High Plains Aquifer a very
    high priority. We have not had a comprehensive overall
    assessment of the aquifer for over two decades, and there has
    been a lot of change in that time.
        The bill does emphasize a cooperative approach, as I think
    you, yourself, have indicated in your comments.
        Let me underscore a few things the bill does not do. It
    does not have any regulatory component to it. It does not tell
    anybody to do anything in particular. It is not a first step
    toward Federal regulation of groundwater, as some have
    suggested. It does not, nor can it, properly or fairly be
    interpreted to impact on the role of States or local
    Governments with respect to the administration of water
    resources. Any suggestion to the contrary just is not supported
    in the language of the bill.
        Funding for the program provided for by the bill would not
    affect the availability of dollars under other farm programs or
    for rural assistance or for safe drinking water. The
    legislation would ensure that we have the relevant science
    information available to make good judgments about how we
    proceed, and that is the sole purpose of the bill.
        I do have a letter of support, a strong letter of support,
    from the New Mexico State Engineer that I would ask be included
    in your record and made available to the Committee.
        Mr. Calvert. Without objection, so ordered.
        [NOTE: Letters submitted for the record have been retained
    in the Committee's official files.]
        Senator Bingaman. I am glad to answer any questions anyone
    would have about this.
        [The prepared statement of Senator Bingaman follows:]

    Statement of The Honorable Jeff Bingaman, a U.S. Senator from the State
                            of New Mexico, on S. 212

        I am pleased to have an opportunity to offer a statement on S. 212,
    the ``High Plains Aquifer Hydrogeologic Characterization, Mapping and
    Modeling Act.'' I appreciate the Subcommittee considering this
    important legislation today.
        Senators Brownback and Domenici have joined me in cosponsoring S.
    212, a bill that has significance for much of the Great Plains region
    of our Nation. The legislation will establish a new, cooperative
    science program relating to the High Plains Aquifer, comprised in large
    part by the Ogallala Aquifer, which extends from Wyoming to New Mexico
    and Texas. This bipartisan legislation passed the Senate by unanimous
    consent last April. Similar legislation also unanimously passed the
    Senate last Congress.
        The High Plains Aquifer extends under eight states: Colorado,
    Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and
    Wyoming. It is experiencing alarming declines in water levels. For
    example, some portions of the Aquifer in New Mexico, Texas, and Kansas
    saw a water level decline of more than sixty feet over the last two
    decades. This aquifer is the source of water for farmers, ranchers and
    communities throughout the Great Plains region. There are several
    communities in eastern New Mexico that depend exclusively on the
    Aquifer for drinking water supplies. Agriculture, a very important
    industry in this part of my state, also relies on the water resources
    of the Aquifer. Simply stated, depletion of this aquifer is a threat to
    our way of life in the Great Plains and eastern New Mexico.
        For this reason, I am committed to legislative efforts to address
    this important resource. I am pleased that the Farm Bill passed last
    Congress includes a new voluntary, incentive-based program for improved
    water conservation practices in the High Plains Aquifer States. I am
    hopeful that during this Congress, we will enact this legislation to
    provide better science and information regarding the Aquifer.
        I would like to be clear about several things this bill would do
    and several things that it would not do. First, the legislation would
    ensure that sound and objective science and information is available
    with respect to the hydrology and geology of the High Plains Aquifer.
    Having knowledge is key to our ability to plan for the future.
        Secondly, this bill would provide new funding to State and local
    entities to ensure that this important work can be done at the State
    and local levels. Fifty percent of the funds available under the
    Program would be used to fund the participation of State and local
    agencies and institutions of higher education in the High Plains
    Aquifer States. Where States and local agencies and academic
    institutions already have work underway with respect to the Aquifer,
    this new funding is intended to enhance and complement their work. In
    fact, the Program can serve as an additional source of funding for
    them. Where State and local agencies and universities have not had
    resources to undertake this important work, S. 212 would provide new
    opportunities.
        I want to emphasize that under the bill, no State is compelled to
    participate in this Program. The legislation clearly provides that
    States may elect to participate or not. If a State chooses not to
    participate, its share of the funding would be distributed for projects
    undertaken by State and local agencies and universities in the other
    participating High Plains Aquifer States.
        Third, the bill makes mapping, characterizing, and modeling the
    High Plains Aquifer a top priority. While some local, State and Federal
    dollars are already being dedicated to this purpose, the legislation
    sends a clear signal that gaining an understanding of the High Plains
    Aquifer is a high priority. There has not been a comprehensive, overall
    assessment of the Aquifer for over two decades. Too often issues of
    importance to the heartland of our Nation are overlooked, and resources
    are not directed by Washington to our part of the country. This bill
    would correct the situation and make certain that dollars are available
    at local, State, and Federal levels to assess the Aquifer.
        Finally, the bill emphasizes a cooperative approach. It is
    patterned after the highly successful National Cooperative Geologic
    Mapping Program undertaken cooperatively by the States and the U.S.
    Geological Survey. The Program will be guided by a Review Panel, the
    majority of which will be representatives of the High Plains Aquifer
    States. The modeling and mapping tools developed pursuant to this
    legislation will be invaluable to local water resource managers who are
    responsible for stewardship of our non-renewable water supplies.
        Mr. Chairman, I also want to underscore that there are several
    things this bill does not do. The bill does not have any regulatory
    component. It is in no way the first step toward the Federal regulation
    of groundwater, as some have suggested. It does not, nor can it be
    fairly interpreted to, have any impact on the role of the States or
    local governments with respect to the administration of water
    resources. Any suggestion to the contrary is simply incorrect.
    Moreover, funding for the Program provided for by the bill would not
    affect the availability of dollars under the Farm Programs, for other
    rural assistance, or for safe drinking water.
        A reliable source of groundwater is essential to the well-being and
    livelihoods of people in the Great Plains region. This legislation
    would ensure that the relevant science and information is available so
    that we will have a better understanding of the High Plains Aquifer. We
    cannot afford to have less than the best possible science and
    information regarding this resource--a resource that is crucial to the
    heartland of our Nation.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you again for conducting this hearing on S.
    212. I hope that you will assist us in enacting this important
    bipartisan legislation.
                                     ______

        Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Senator, and thank you for your
    testimony and coming over here today.
        I just have two questions, and I am sure some others on the
    panel would like to ask some questions, also.
        In my testimony, I mentioned the need for a cross-cut
    budget to determine what is being spent today and what programs
    exist today on the High Plains Aquifer. Do you support that
    concept?
        Senator Bingaman. Well, I certainly would. As far as this
    kind of research that this bill would try to support, I think
    the geological survey is the main agency that is doing any of
    this research, and it would not be difficult at all to
    ascertain the extent of their work, and I think it is not very
    great right now because of funding limitations.
        Mr. Calvert. And the other question, in your testimony, you
    mentioned that the intent of this legislation is not to have
    any Federal groundwater regulation. Would you support
    provisions that would state that the data cannot be used for
    the creation of Federal or interstate groundwater regulations?
        Senator Bingaman. Well, I think that would be fine. I mean,
    that is not the purpose of the legislation. The purpose is to
    collect the data and then use it for whatever future policies
    the Congress decides on or Federal agencies decide on.
        Mr. Calvert. Any additional questions from the panel?
        The gentleman from Nebraska?
        Mr. Osborne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I am going to exercise one of my pet peeves, which is you
    have an expert come in, and instead of asking him a question, I
    am going to make a statement and then maybe a question.
        But if you look at the map, you realize that 90 percent of
    the State of Nebraska has the Ogallala Aquifer under it and
    almost all of my district, which is about 85 percent of the
    State, and Nebraska is sitting on the equivalent of Lake
    Michigan. The average depth of water is about 33 feet, in some
    places 4- or 500 feet deep, and that aquifer, as it extends on
    down into Texas and New Mexico is probably maybe the greatest
    in the world, and I would submit that it may be more valuable,
    long-term, long haul, than if it were oil. And if that was oil,
    we would certainly make sure we knew exactly what was there and
    what the demographics of it was.
        The other thing to remember is that this is not static. The
    aquifer comes off the mountains, so it moves, in my State, at
    least, from West to East, and sometimes that water is 30 or 40
    years old before we pump it.
        And it also has a correlation with surface water. So we are
    all concerned about rivers. Well, Mr. Moran is concerned about
    rivers coming out of Nebraska and going on down into Kansas,
    but there is an interrelationship. And so if we pump water out
    of the aquifer, it lowers the rivers, and nobody knows exactly
    what that correlation is.
        So I think part of it is it is in the national interest to
    know exactly how this water interacts; in other words, the
    water in Nebraska how does that relate to the water in Kansas,
    and the water in Oklahoma, in Texas, in New Mexico? So I think
    that, for my knowledge, there are some studies, but I don't
    think there is a comprehensive overall study, so I would
    certainly be supportive of what the Senator is trying to do
    here.
        And one last just a question now after all of that
    diatribe, it is my understanding that much of the aquifer down
    in Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico is pretty much on a shale basin,
    is that correct? Where when you pump it, it may not regenerate
    very quickly?
        Senator Bingaman. I think that is right, but I don't claim
    any expertise. So there may be more expert people here who can
    tell us that we are wrong.
        Mr. Osborne. Well, the red areas on the map I believe is
    where the aquifer is declining; is that correct?
        Senator Bingaman. Right. That is correct. Yes, I think the
    darkest red show that that is more than 60 feet of decline
    between 1980 and 1999.
        Mr. Osborne. I think it is really important that we get a
    handle on that as to what we can do to make sure that we do not
    take so much out that it does not regenerate. How do you handle
    that? And is there any flow coming down from Kansas? Is there
    any flow from Nebraska? Those are the things that I think you
    need to get after them, and so I appreciate your efforts and am
    very supportive of what you are trying to do.
        I yield back.
        Senator Bingaman. Thank you.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank the gentleman.
        The gentlelady from California?
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Senator, welcome again. It is good to see you.
        Senator Bingaman. Thank you.
        Mrs. Napolitano. I am very pleased that the States are
    getting together and really getting behind a full study of the
    aquifer that serves everybody so well. One of the questions I
    would have for you, are any of the States doing any recharge;
    that is, capturing of water to pump back or settle back into
    the aquifer, that you know of?
        Senator Bingaman. Again, I claim no expertise. My
    impression though is that there is not a significant amount of
    recharge going on. There is some natural recharge, but it is
    much less than the pumping that is occurring, and I think it is
    not clear where the source of the water would come from for
    that recharge, at least that is certainly true in my State.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Because in California we try to utilize,
    and capture, and recycle, and do everything we can with one
    drop of water. Would your bill include a possible look at that
    issue, plus the issue of contamination coming from any State
    into the aquifer?
        Senator Bingaman. Well, again, I think what the main focus
    of the bill has been is to quantify the water and map and
    characterize the aquifer and not to get into questions of water
    quality, except to the extent that that impacts on usability of
    the water. Obviously, I think that would probably be dealt
    with. But to the extent the water is usable for municipal
    purposes, for agricultural purposes and other things, I think
    that would be the determination.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Well, to me, that is kind of part and
    parcel because you start contaminating, then the whole thing is
    at risk. And even though that is kind of farfetched, we have
    had it happen to some of our aquifers, and that has taken 50
    years ago, it has taken us many years to identify and be able
    to deal with it to find out how best to get everybody on the
    same page--the polluters, plus the Federal agencies.
        How about the quality, Senator? You say availability, but
    does it actually deal with ensuring that that quality is
    available for all States? The water, in other words.
        Senator Bingaman. The quality of the water?
        Mrs. Napolitano. Yes, sir.
        Senator Bingaman. Again, I think that, as I have
    contemplated this, they would be looking at the aquifer and
    part of what I assume they would determine is whether or not
    the, you know, how much potable water there is in the aquifer,
    how much usable water. To the extent that the aquifer is
    reduced to saline, brackish water, which was not usable for
    farming or whatever, then obviously I think that would be an
    appropriate thing to determine as part of the study also.
        Mrs. Napolitano. It is very interesting. You say most of
    that water is used for agricultural purposes.
        Senator Bingaman. I believe that is right.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Would the farmers have considerable use of
    fertilizers and pesticides, I am assuming?
        Senator Bingaman. Well, I think some do and some probably
    don't.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Where I am leading with this, Senator, is
    that we have found, in our great State, that that has caused a
    lot of contamination in our aquifers and made a lot of our
    water pools--of course, this is a great big area that can meld
    easily, but it has also been a big problem in our area, and I
    am just wondering whether that has been identified as a
    possibility to look at.
        Senator Bingaman. Well, again, I do not think these--the
    geological survey and the agencies that we are talking about
    here at the State and local level--would be focused primarily
    on the hydrology and not on water quality issues that the EPA
    or someone else would be looking at. That would be a very
    different study.
        Mrs. Napolitano. OK. Well, I would hope that maybe they
    might consider adding some of that into this, so that when they
    go back and have to do a water quality study they have some
    information to go by, and that is my point is that in order to
    be able to be prepared. Because pumping out water, not knowing
    what the quality is can be a detriment to the communities,
    whether it is the ad community or the residential community.
        There are a couple of other questions that I have. How deep
    is the aquifer?
        Senator Bingaman. I have no information, other than what I
    just heard--about several hundred feet of depth at various
    places.
        Mrs. Napolitano. And you have lost about 30-60 feet?
        Mr. Moran. That is one reason the mapping would be so
    useful is the consequences and changes are dramatically
    different from one place in the aquifer to another, but----
        Mrs. Napolitano. Does that mean an increase in cost to be
    able to pump it?
        Mr. Moran. Yes, it does. It takes more effort and more
    energy, in particular. Plus, then, the water is simply, at a
    certain level, is no longer available. Just the depth is too
    narrow, too shallow.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Are you coming down to areas that might be
    possibly contaminated?
        Mr. Moran. There is always concern about contamination of
    underground water supply, including in the High Plains Aquifer,
    particularly related to agricultural use of that land.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentlelady.
        We are going to ask the gentleman from Texas to ask a
    couple of quick questions because we have to recess in order to
    vote, and I know you need to get back over to the Senate. So we
    can do that right away.
        The gentleman from Texas is recognized.
        Mr. Neugebauer. I thank the Senator for being here and for
    my friends in Kansas and Nebraska. A lot of the red area that
    you see on that map occurs in my district in Texas, in the 19th
    District.
        I think one of the concerns I have, Senator, is that there
    is extensive amount of research going on right now on the
    aquifer and a lot of monitoring and mapping being done by the
    underground water districts that were established. One of the
    things that, and I do not know how much interstate dialog is
    going on between the States talking about the aquifer, but it
    just really appears to me a couple of observations about your
    bill. I appreciate your concern about it, but I think it is
    somewhat duplicating some things that are already in place. I
    think it also kind of introduces some federalism into an issue
    really which I think really needs to remain at the State level,
    and that is the monitoring and the policy for underground water
    in those individual States.
        I think if we are going to spend $80- or $90 million, I
    think it would be a best bet to give that to the States
    directly and to those underground water districts and to some
    conservation programs and some research that these entities are
    already in place and are already doing that kind of research.
    And so I think this kind of creates another layer of federalism
    and bureaucracy at a time really when we are trying to kind of
    streamline Government and make Government more efficient.
        Senator Bingaman. Well, I would just respond and say that
    the bill does provide that 50 percent of the funding does go to
    State and local agencies that are engaged in this kind of work
    or are interested in pursuing it so that the idea is that a
    significant part of what we are doing here is provide more
    resources. I do think that better coordination between States
    about the information that they are collecting would be very
    useful, and this would accomplish that, as I see it.
        The other point is, of course, no State is required to
    participate. So, if Texas decided that they were doing enough
    of monitoring of their water situation and did not want to be
    part of this, then that would be, that would be an appropriate
    course as well.
        Now, the $80- to $90 million you referred to, the bill
    provides whatever sums are appropriated. So it would be up to
    the Congress each year to determine what the right level of
    funding for this would be. I would hope that it would be as
    high as you are talking about, but I have no reason to believe
    it would.
        Mr. Calvert. Senator, thank you for your testimony. I
    apologize, but we have to go vote. Thank you for coming over
    here today.
        Senator Bingaman. Thank you very much for giving me the
    time.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you very much.
        We will recess for approximately 20 minutes and reconvene.
        [Recess from 10:39 a.m. to 11:11 a.m.]
        Mr. Calvert. The hearing is reconvened.
        Now, I would like to recognize Mr. Udall to introduce a
    friend and constituent from his home State.

     STATEMENT OF THE HON. TOM UDALL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
                      FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

        Mr. Tom Udall. Chairman Calvert, thank you very much.
        I have got a constituent and a friend who is going to be
    testifying on this issue that you just had Senator Bingaman and
    I believe another representative.
        The gentleman I want to introduce, he is out here in the
    audience, he is not going to testify right now, but he will be
    on this panel, is Leland, Leland, otherwise known as Lee
    Tillman, who has served as the Executive Director of the
    Eastern Plains Council of Governments, which serves a seven
    county area in Northeastern New Mexico, since 1975.
        The Eastern Plains Council, known as EPCOG, is
    headquartered in Clovis, but serves an 18,000-square mile
    region, including Union, Harding, Quay, Guadalupe, De Baca,
    Roosevelt and Curry Counties. EPCOG supports the planning and
    implementation of programs and projects which support local and
    regional goals in the area.
        Mr. Tillman has focused particular attention on the need
    for strong local leadership in rural areas and has been
    actively involved in the community and rural development issues
    for many years. Major program responsibilities include rural
    economic development, street and strategic planning, and in
    this case, very important to this bill, water planning, a
    diversified housing program and implementation of the Workforce
    Investment Act.
        Mr. Tillman has been actively involved in water-related
    organizations and currently serves on the Board of Directors of
    the New Mexico Water Dialogue, Inc., a nonprofit organization
    which sponsors periodic statewide forums to facilitate citizen
    involvement in water resource issues. He has served on the
    State Water Quality Advisory Committee and the Conference
    Planning Committee for the Water Resources Research Institute.
        And Mr. Tillman, Mr. Calvert, when he gets a chance to
    testify, he is very experienced in water issues, and I think
    will enlighten this Subcommittee on the issues relating to
    Senator Bingaman's bill on the High Plains Aquifer.
        With that, I am going to yield back, and I will try to get
    here for the testimony with the schedule we have going on.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Udall follows:]

    Statement of The Honorable Tom Udall, a Representative in Congress from
                            the State of New Mexico

        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding a hearing today on S. 212, the
    High Plains Aquifer Hydrogeologic Characterization, Mapping, and
    Modeling Act of 2003. I am glad to have the opportunity today to
    introduce a fellow New Mexican, Mr. Lee Tillman, Executive Director of
    the Eastern Plains Council of Governments, and to participate in this
    Water and Power Subcommittee hearing.
        S. 212 authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to work in
    cooperation with the eight Ogallala Aquifer states to conduct a
    hydrogeologic program that would be administered by the U.S. Geological
    Survey. The data collected from the components in this bill will
    provide us with accurate information relating to groundwater depletion
    and resource assessment of the Aquifer.
        In New Mexico, the aquifer serves Curry, Roosevelt, Lea, Quay,
    Union and Harding counties. The Ogallala also serves portions of Texas,
    Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, Nebraska, Wyoming, and South Dakota.
    Groundwater from the aquifer is used chiefly for agriculture
    irrigation, accounting for 94% of the groundwater consumption. The
    aquifer also supplies 82% of the high plains' drinking water needs, and
    supplies water for livestock, mining, and industry. In many areas,
    withdrawals from the aquifer are greatly exceeding recharge, resulting
    in large water level decreases.
        The lack of water has become a growing concern in New Mexico,
    particularly in the eastern portion of the state where the Ogallala
    Aquifer serves many agriculture communities. Consequently, I believe
    that we must do whatever possible to conserve the precious few water
    resources available. And, while we have already taken steps that will
    help reduce the amount of water drained from the aquifer, this
    legislation will facilitate the acquisition and utilization of the best
    available science so that we can better address depletion issues and
    extend the life of the aquifer for future generations.
        S. 212 will facilitate the accumulation of detailed information
    designed to aid in the long-term planning of this valuable resource.
    This information could be useful to irrigators who depend on the
    Aquifer as a water source and communities who derive their drinking
    water supplies from the Aquifer. This legislation is not an attempt to
    federalize groundwater.
        I was an original cosponsor of this bill in the 107th Congress. The
    current version is supported New Mexico State Engineer, John D'Antonio,
    and by the Western States Water Council, an organization comprised of
    the heads of several state water agencies, included those listed above.
    I believe that we must heed the advice of these agencies and do
    whatever possible to conserve the precious few water resources
    available. And, while we have already taken steps that will help reduce
    the amount of water drained from the aquifer, this legislation will
    facilitate the acquisition and utilization of the best available
    science so that we can better address depletion issues and extend the
    life of the aquifer for future generations.
                                     ______

        Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman. I appreciate his
    introduction.
        Mr. Tom Udall. Appreciate your courtesies. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Mr. Calvert. Sure.
        The gentleman from Texas would like to do an opening
    statement, Mr. Neugebauer?

      STATEMENT OF THE HON. RANDY NEUGEBAUER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                    CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

        Mr. Neugebauer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Calvert,
    thank you for allowing me to join the Water and Power
    Subcommittee today as you consider legislation that many of my
    constituents in West Texas are concerned about. I appreciate
    the opportunity to participate in this hearing with your
    Subcommittee.
        I also appreciate your hearing testimony from three West
    Texans. I want to recognize Jim Conkwright, the General Manager
    of the High Plains Water District in Water Conservation
    District No. 1 in Lubbock, and also Lloyd Arthur, a farmer from
    Ralls, Texas, and Vice President of the Texas Farm Bureau, and
    Ms. Irene Favila, Workforce Development Coordinator in
    Plainview, Texas.
        I am sorry if I mispronounced that, but with a name like
    Neugebauer, I have had people mispronounce my name, also.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Neugebauer. Thank you for making the trip to Washington
    and sharing your expertise with the Subcommittee.
        I ask that my full statement on S. 212 be included in the
    record, and I would like to also submit for the record a
    statement that the Texas Corn Producers Association sent to me
    expressing their concerns about this legislation.
        [NOTE: Letters submitted for the record have been retained
    in the Committee's official files.]
        Mr. Neugebauer. Communities and farmers in the Texas High
    Plains depend on the Ogallala Aquifer for drinking water, for
    irrigation water to supplement the 18 to 20 inches of annual
    rainfall in order for the region to maintain its agricultural
    productivity. Residents of the region fully recognize the
    aquifer is invaluable and a limited resource that must be
    protected.
        Technical advances in irrigation, crop varieties and crop
    rotation have significantly increased the water conservation.
    Local water conservation districts, with the authority given to
    them by the Texas Legislature, have led the way in mapping and
    monitoring the aquifer and in advancing conservation efforts.
        S. 212 does not fully recognize existing local and State
    research and authority over its local resource. I would like to
    submit a memo for the record prepared by the Congressional
    Research Service that lists existing Federal and State programs
    involved with studying, and mapping and modeling the High
    Plains Aquifer.
        Mr. Neugebauer. I believe that 212 duplicates these efforts
    already underway and coordination of existing programs could
    accomplish the stated goals of S. 212.
        Groundwater resources are a local resource and should be
    managed on a local level. Locally coordinated efforts, not
    federally managed ones, are the best means to extend the life
    of the Ogallala Aquifer, and those efforts are already having
    positive effects on the water conservation.
        Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Neugebauer follows:]

       Statement of The Honorable Randy Neugebauer, a Representative in
                  Congress from the State of Texas, on S. 212

        Communities and farmers in the Texas High Plains depend on the
    Ogallala Aquifer for drinking water and for irrigation, and residents
    of the region fully realize the aquifer is an invaluable and limited
    resource that must be protected.
        The Ogallala Aquifer is the principle source of agriculture
    irrigation water to supplement the annual 18 to 20 inches of rainfall
    we receive per year, and 90 percent of aquifer withdrawals are used for
    irrigation. The High Plains Aquifer region produces about a quarter of
    the nation's winter wheat and rain sorghum, four percent of the
    nation's corn and 42 percent of the country's fed beef. The Texas High
    Plains region produces a quarter of the cotton grown in the nation. The
    economies of rural communities depend on agriculture, and agriculture
    productivity depends on a plentiful, accessible and affordable supply
    of water.
        Supporters of S. 212 state this legislation would help coordinate
    federal, state and local water research and conservation efforts and
    provide new funding and data collection. However, in my view and in the
    view of many of my constituents, the bill ignores state and local water
    research and conservation efforts, duplicates existing programs and
    could open the door to federal regulation of groundwater use,
    especially as relates to agriculture.
        In Texas, local water conservation districts, with the authority
    given them by the State Legislature in the 1950's, have lead the way in
    mapping and monitoring the aquifer and advancing conservation efforts.
    The High Plains Underground Water Conservation District around Lubbock
    is the oldest such district the state.
        The High Plains District, like other districts, is staffed by
    geologists, hydrologists and other technical experts. The district
    takes annual water measurements from its 1,200 wells to determine
    average change in water levels, and promotes new conservation
    technologies. In addition, the district publishes complete hydrologic
    atlases for all counties in its jurisdiction every five years that
    illustrate the volume of water across the area. The Texas Water
    Development Board also works with local districts on ground water
    modeling and water use strategies.
        Farmers have also taken the responsibility to conserve water
    seriously. Over the past decade, they have made significant investments
    in new irrigation systems that increase water use efficiencies
    dramatically. Low Energy Precision Systems (LEPA) and new subsurface
    drip systems reduce nearly all water losses from runoff or evaporation.
        Due to these efforts, annual water level declines are decreasing in
    the High Plains District. Annual rates used to be two to three feet,
    but now are about one foot. Recharge rates average an inch or two per
    year.
        Local and state protection of groundwater resources underpins the
    success of conservation of the Ogallala in the Texas High Plains
    region. S. 212 creates yet another federal program and duplicates
    ongoing federal and state efforts.
        The Congressional Research Service has reported that the federal
    government already has seven programs involved with the High Plains
    Aquifer. Several of the federal programs involve the U.S. Geological
    Service, including one to match funds to state and local agencies to
    help support their data collection and research. In the 2002 Farm Bill,
    a subprogram was added to EQUIP to provide cost-share assistance and
    loans for producers to carry out water conservation improvements. This
    program was created with the High Plains Aquifer region in mind.
        In addition, members of Congress from the region secured $750,000
    in Agriculture Research Service funding for cooperative research at
    Texas Tech, Texas A&M, West Texas A&M, the ARS Plant Stress Lab, and
    Kansas State to address Ogallala Aquifer research needs. Another $1.7
    million is included in the House-passed agriculture appropriations for
    the 2004 fiscal year. This joint research is focusing on new irrigation
    technology, new crop rotation and other management strategies, more
    water-efficient plant species a regional GIS water database, hydrologic
    models and producer education.
        I understand there are differences of opinion among states that use
    the aquifer about the best means to coordinate data on the aquifer and
    monitor water use because states manage water differently. However, all
    states in the area have their own efforts and have taken part in
    regional initiatives for aquifer research. In the Senate hearing on the
    legislation, the U.S. Geological Survey testified that the goals of S.
    212, ``can be achieved without legislation through better coordination
    of existing Federal and state programs.''
        A new federally-coordinated effort, as created by S. 212, is not
    the best way to extend the life of the aquifer. Once the federal
    government takes on a new coordinating role, the door is opened for a
    regulatory role and for federal involvement in water use decisions.
    Such a reach by the federal government is unacceptable.
        Local control is the best means to ensure a longer life for the
    Ogallala Aquifer, and local communities know how much their economies
    depend on the aquifer's water supply. I hope this Subcommittee, after
    hearing from witnesses today, will agree and will take no further
    action on S. 212. There are opportunities for states and localities to
    better coordinate their knowledge of the aquifer, and federal support
    has been available to assist in these efforts. One more federal program
    with an uncertain budget will not do the job our farmers, local water
    boards and states are already doing.
                                     ______

        [The Congressional Research Service report follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0157.006

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0157.007

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0157.008

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0157.009

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0157.010

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0157.011

        Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
        I now recognize our next panel of witnesses, Mr. John Keys,
    III, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation. He will be testifying
    on H.R. 3334, a great piece of legislation, Mr. Commissioner.
        And testifying on S. 212 is Mr. Robert Hirsch, Assistant
    Director of the Water Resources U.S. Geological Survey.
        And with that, Mr. Keys, you are recognized.

              STATEMENT OF JOHN KEYS, III, COMMISSIONER,
                         BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

        Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, good morning. It is certainly my
    pleasure to be here. I would ask that our written testimony be
    made part of the official record for the hearing, please.
        Mr. Calvert. Without objection, so ordered.
        Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 3334 would authorize the
    Secretary of Interior to work with the Western Municipal Water
    District in the design and construction of a water supply
    project known as the Riverside-Corona Feeder. The project would
    take up to 40,000 acre-feet of water from San Bernardino Valley
    groundwater aquifers, Seven Oaks Reservoir and the California
    State Water project and delivered to communities in Western
    Riverside County.
        It would consist of about 20 wells, 28 miles of pipeline.
    The project would help protect the county from drought and
    reduce its dependence on imported water.
        H.R. 3334 would provide Federal funding for the project.
    Thirty-five percent of the total project cost or $50 million,
    whichever is greater.
        Mr. Chairman, the Department supports this type of
    resourceful utilization of local water supplies that this bill
    calls for. However, we cannot support H.R. 3334 in its present
    form.
        First, the language establishing the Federal share of the
    project cost needs to be clarified to clearly set a maximum
    Federal cost share. As it is written, it sets a minimum.
        Second, we understand that feasibility level studies have
    not yet been completed for this project. Without a proper
    analysis of the project that meets appropriate Federal
    guidelines for project authorization, we cannot support
    Reclamation's participation in design and construction
    activities.
        Mr. Chairman, with that being said, we look forward to
    working with you, we need the Committee, and the sponsors of
    the project to bring about the necessary changes to H.R. 3334
    required for the Department's support.
        That concludes my testimony, and I would certainly be happy
    to answer any questions that you might have.
        [The prepared statements of Mr. Keys on H.R. 3334 and H.R.
    3391 follow:]

       Statement of John Keys, III, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation,
                 U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 3334

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am John Keys,
    Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased to be here
    today to give the Department's views on H.R. 3334, the Riverside-Corona
    Feeder Authorization Act.
        H.R. 3334 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
    participate with the Western Municipal Water District in the design and
    construction of a water supply project known as the Riverside-Corona
    Feeder. It provides for Federal funding for this project of 35 percent
    of the total project cost or $50 million, whichever is greater.
        This project would withdraw water from San Bernardino Valley
    groundwater aquifers that are replenished during wet years from local
    runoff, regulated releases from Seven Oaks Reservoir, and water from
    the State Water Project. It would consist of a number of wells and
    connecting pipelines, which would deliver up to 40,000 acre-feet of
    water annually to communities in western Riverside County. Project
    benefits include local drought protection, better groundwater
    management, and reduced dependence on imported water.
        Mr. Chairman, the Department supports the type of resourceful
    utilization of local water supplies this bill calls for and the
    potential for reducing the use of imported supplies from the Colorado
    River and Bay-Delta. However, we cannot support H.R. 3334 in its
    present form. First, the language establishing the federal share of the
    project costs needs to be clarified to clearly set a maximum federal
    cost share. Second, we understand that feasibility level studies have
    not yet been completed for this project. Without a proper analysis that
    adheres to the ``Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines
    for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies,'' and
    which otherwise meets appropriate federal guidelines for consideration
    of project authorization, we cannot support Reclamation's participation
    in design and construction activities.
        While I have noted our concerns with this legislation, we look
    forward to working with you to bring about the necessary changes
    required for the Department's support.
        Mr. Chairman this concludes my testimony. I would be happy to
    answer any questions at this time.
                                     ______

       Statement of John Keys, III, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation,
                 U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 3391

        My name is John Keys and I am the Commissioner of the Bureau of
    Reclamation (Reclamation). I am pleased to present the views of the
    Department regarding H.R. 3391, legislation to authorize the Secretary
    of the Interior to convey certain lands and facilities of the Provo
    River Project in Utah.
        The Department of the Interior (Department) has an active title
    transfer program and supports transferring ownership of certain
    Reclamation project facilities to non-Federal entities, particularly in
    cases where transfers could create opportunities, not just for those
    who receive title, but for other stakeholders and the public as well.
    While we believe that this transfer has the potential to create such
    opportunities, the Department has several concerns with H.R. 3391, as
    presently drafted.
    Background:
        The Provo River Project stores and delivers water from the Provo
    River for irrigation and municipal and industrial uses along the
    Wasatch front, a highly urbanized area, located within Utah and Salt
    Lake Counties. The three features of the project under consideration
    for transfer are the 22-mile-long Provo Reservoir Canal; a 3.79-acre
    office building site, which would be transferred to the Provo River
    Water Users Association (Association); and the 42-mile-long Salt Lake
    Aqueduct, which would be transferred to the Metropolitan Water District
    of Salt Lake and Sandy (District).
        Reclamation began discussing this transfer with the Association and
    the District in November 2002. Since that time a great deal of work and
    progress has been made.
        In August 2003, Reclamation, the Association and the District
    signed a memorandum of agreement (Contract No. 03-WC-40-8800), which
    articulated the respective roles, responsibilities, and cost
    obligations for carrying out the title transfer process. Since that
    time, several other water user entities, including the Central Utah
    Water Conservancy District (Central) and the Jordan Valley Water
    Conservancy District (Jordan Valley) have also become involved. A title
    transfer work group made up of these entities and Reclamation has been
    formed to discuss the issues of importance to the entities involved. To
    date, the workgroup has been meeting on a monthly basis.
        In order to initiate the public review process required under the
    National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the title transfer work group
    assembled a list of over 2,000 individuals, agencies, and other
    entities having a potential interest in this transfer. This list
    includes a large number of owners of private property located adjacent
    to the transfer facilities. It also includes several state and federal
    agencies and environmental and recreational interest groups. On
    September 29, 2003, an initial scoping letter describing the proposal
    was mailed to all on this list. Public scoping meetings were held on
    October 27, 28th and 30th in Sandy, Lehi and Provo respectively. Many
    interesting concerns and issues were raised both at these meetings and
    in subsequent calls, letters and e-mails by interested stakeholders. To
    enable anyone else with interests and concerns to have an opportunity
    to voice them, the official public comment period was held open until
    November 26, 2003.
    H.R. 3391
        H.R. 3391 requires the Secretary to convey to the Provo River Water
    Users Association, pursuant to a transfer agreement yet to be developed
    and signed, all right, title, and interest of the United States in the
    lands, rights-of-way, and facilities that are part of the Provo River
    Project in Utah. The bill does not impair any existing contracts that
    allow for or create a right to convey water through the Provo Reservoir
    Canal.
        Section 6 of H.R. 3391 requires that the Association and the
    Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake & Sandy pay or contribute to
    administrative costs, real estate transfer costs, the costs of
    compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA),
    the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), the National Historic
    Preservation Act, and other Federal cultural resource laws, as laid out
    in the transfer agreement. In addition, section 6 requires the
    Association and the District to pay the net present value of the
    property being transferred.
        H.R. 3391 clearly states in section 7 that before any property is
    conveyed the Secretary must complete all actions required under NEPA,
    the ESA, and all other applicable laws. Finally the bill makes it clear
    that, upon conveyance of the land and facilities, the United States
    will not be liable for future occurrences on those lands and
    facilities, and the Association and District will not be entitled to
    receive any future reclamation benefits with respect to the transferred
    properties, except those benefits available to other nonreclamation
    facilities.
    Issues of Concern
        Despite the Administration's support for the transfer of these
    lands and facilities, we see this legislation as somewhat premature and
    have a number of concerns about H.R. 3391 as drafted.
        Operating Agreements: During the course of its deliberations, the
    members of the work group identified several written agreements among
    the parties that are needed in order to ensure that the transfer
    achieves its intended purposes without adversely impacting the other
    affected parties. At present, none of the agreements identified by the
    work group have been completed or signed. We also believe that other
    agreements, not yet identified, may be required prior to title transfer
    as the action is scoped and developed. Section 3(a) of the bill
    partially addresses this issue by requiring that the Association
    provide the Secretary with certification, prior to transfer. We are
    concerned that this does not fully address our situation or the issue.
        We would prefer that the key agreements be completed prior to
    transfer of title. We believe that completing the agreements prior to
    passage of the legislation will expedite implementation of the transfer
    and potentially lower the cost of the environmental compliance required
    under Section 7 of H.R. 3991. Our experience has shown that transfers
    move more expeditiously when involved parties complete preliminary
    work, including written agreements, before proceeding with legislation.
    In many cases where agreements were not completed before legislation
    was passed, significant delays occurred while issues were identified,
    negotiated, and satisfactorily addressed in agreements.
        Further, Section 2(h) of the bill defines a transfer agreement
    among the United States, the District and the Association. Even though
    H.R. 3391 requires the transfer to be completed in accordance with the
    terms of that transfer agreement, the transfer agreement itself has not
    been completed or signed. This transfer agreement should include a
    complete property description of land interests to be transferred,
    including rights-of-ways. Also, at a minimum, the agreement defined in
    Section 2(H) should include terms which: (1) provide for orderly and
    efficient transfer and protect public interests; (2) preserve access
    for operation and maintenance of nearby facilities which continue to be
    federally owned; (3) provide for coordinated operation of transferred
    and retained portions of the Provo River Project; (4) ensure the
    Department can continue to fulfill its obligations.
        Certification of Agreements: Section 3(a) directs the Secretary to
    convey the lands and facilities of the Project when the Association has
    certified that the agreements entered into are satisfactory to the
    Association, District, Central, and Jordan Valley. Since many of the
    features and facilities of the Project will not be conveyed and because
    of the close relationship between this project and the Central Utah
    Project, which will not be transferred, the Secretary will be a party
    to many of these agreements. As such, we believe that the Secretary
    should have a greater role in this certification process than is
    provided in H.R. 3391 as drafted.
        Operational Access: The canal and the aqueduct to be transferred in
    H.R. 3391 are in close proximity and operationally related to the
    Central Utah Project which will remain in Federal ownership. For a
    sizeable portion of its alignment, the canal lies so near key Central
    Utah Project facilities that lack of access to the canal right-of-way
    would make operation and maintenance of those Central Utah Project
    facilities difficult. Conversely, operation and maintenance of the
    canal would be problematic without access to Central Utah Project
    lands. Accordingly, it is important that provisions for reciprocal
    access are included in the agreement defined in Section 2(h) of the
    bill.
        Forest Service Lands: In several locations, the Salt Lake Aqueduct
    crosses lands lying within the boundaries of the Uinta and Wasatch-
    Cache National Forests under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Forest
    Service. Prior to constructing the aqueduct, Reclamation withdrew
    significant blocks of land in locations where the aqueduct alignment
    crosses through these National Forests. At present, operation and
    maintenance of the aqueduct by the District within Forest boundaries is
    possible solely because the aqueduct is federally owned and located
    upon Reclamation withdrawals. Any revocation of Reclamation's
    withdrawals will return primary jurisdiction of these areas to the U.S.
    Forest Service. H.R.3391 needs to address this issue or it will
    significantly delay conveyance of the lands and rights-of-way and will
    negatively impact the District's ability to operate and maintain the
    facilities once transferred. We also recommend the transfer agreement
    defined in Section 2(h) include a suitable provision covering
    replacement of withdrawals with a linear right-of-way.
        Valuation of Withdrawn Lands: As stated above, some lands were
    withdrawn from the U.S. Forest Service for development of the Project.
    If lands were purchased out of private ownership for a project when the
    project was developed, then the costs of the acquisition would have
    been included in the repayment obligation of the District. However, if
    lands were withdrawn from the public domain, they were simply made
    available to the project at no cost, and so their value was never
    included in the repayment obligation of the entity taking title.
    Generally, withdrawn lands that are no longer needed for a Reclamation
    project are either transferred back to the BLM or the Forest Service
    (as appropriate) to be administered as public domain lands, or offered
    to the General Services Administration for disposal through competitive
    bidding. After title transfer, the District will need some type of
    legal interest in the lands underlying the Salt Lake Aqueduct. Where
    acquired lands are involved, Reclamation will transfer whatever
    interest is currently held by the United States (either fee title or
    permanent easement). Reclamation believes that in the case of the
    withdrawn lands, a permanent easement would be sufficient. If, however,
    the District desires fee title ownership of any withdrawn lands, they
    should be required to pay fair market value.
        Impact on the Ongoing Utah Lake Basin Water Delivery System EIS: We
    understand that the Central Utah Conservancy District and the
    Department are planning to make a draft environmental impact statement
    (EIS) for the Utah Lake Basin Water Delivery System (ULS) available to
    the public early in 2004. We further understand that this draft EIS
    will indicate that about 24,000 acre-feet of CUP M&I water would be
    conveyed through the Provo Reservoir Canal for use in Salt Lake County,
    which is proposed for transfer under H.R. 3391. As part of this
    legislation or the transfer process for these facilities, it is
    important to ensure that this transfer does not impact the NEPA
    compliance process for the ULS or, more importantly, prevent the
    utilization of the canal to convey CUP M&I water.

    Technical Issues
        In addition to the policy and procedural issues identified above,
    we have identified several minor technical corrections to H.R. 3391
    that are needed in order to facilitate completion of the transfer.
        Include Both Reservoirs at the Salt Lake Aqueduct: In the
    definition for the Salt Lake Aqueduct, H.R. 3391 refers to the
    ``Terminal Reservoir located at 3300 South and I-215.'' There are in
    fact two reservoirs located at the terminus of the Salt Lake Aqueduct.
    We believe any transfer should include both. Therefore, Section 2(g) of
    the bill should be amended to change ``Terminal Reservoir'' to
    ``Terminal Reservoirs''.
        Make Consistent with Existing Contributed Funds Act Agreement: On
    August 21, 2003 Reclamation, the Association, and the District signed
    an agreement entitled ``Contributed Funds Act Agreement and Memorandum
    of Agreement (Contract No. 03-WC-40-8800) (Contributed Funds Act
    Agreement) to formalize, among other things, the cost-sharing
    obligations of the various parties for transfer-related expenses. To
    ensure that the legislation is consistent with the already signed
    Contributed Funds Act Agreement, Section 6(a) of the bill should be
    amended to read: ``The Secretary shall require, as a condition of the
    conveyance under section 3, that the Association and the District pay
    all administrative costs and real estate transfer costs, and half of
    costs associated with compliance with the National Environmental Policy
    Act of 1969, the Endangered Species Act, the National Historic
    Preservation Act, and other federal cultural resource laws, all as
    described in the Agreement.'' This would make it consistent with the
    terms of the existing agreement.
        Modify Payment Requirement: Section 6(b)(1) requires the
    Association to pay ``the net present value of the Provo Reservoir Canal
    and the Pleasant Grove Property''. Similarly, Section 6(b)(2) requires
    the District to pay ``the net present value of the Salt Lake
    Aqueduct.'' We believe the intent of these sections is to require the
    transfer recipients to pay, not the net present value of a facility
    (potentially, a very large sum), but rather the present value of the
    remaining obligations for that facility. Therefore, we recommend these
    portions of Section 6(b) be amended to read:
        (1) ``In addition to subsection (a) the Secretary shall also
    require, as a condition of the conveyances under Sections 3(a) and
    3(b), that the Association pay to the United States the net present
    value of the remaining debt obligation, including future miscellaneous
    revenue streams, attributable to the Provo Reservoir Canal and the
    Pleasant Grove Property, as described in the Agreement; Provided,
    however, that the Association may deduct from the net present value
    such sums as are required to accomplish the reimbursement described in
    the Contributed Funds Act Agreement.'' ``
        (2) ``In addition to subsection (a) the Secretary shall also
    require, as a condition of the conveyance under Section 3(c), that the
    District pay to the United States the net present value of the
    remaining debt obligation, including future miscellaneous revenue
    streams, attributable to the Salt Lake Aqueduct, as described in the
    Agreement; Provided, however, that the Association may deduct from the
    net present value such sums as are required to accomplish the
    reimbursement described in the Contributed Funds Act Agreement.''
        National Environmental Policy Act Citation: Section 7 should be
    modified to correct an error in the citation for the National
    Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.).
    Conclusion:
        In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the Department recognizes significant
    benefits that may be achieved by the proposed title transfer and has
    worked closely and cooperatively with the interested parties to
    facilitate this process. If the above-mentioned issues and technical
    corrections can be addressed, I believe the Department could support
    passage of this legislation.
        We look forward to working with Congressman Cannon, Committee
    staff, as well as the Association, the District, the Title Transfer
    Working Group and anyone else to craft provisions necessary to resolve
    these issues. That concludes my testimony.
                                     ______

        Mr. Calvert. And I will have some questions, but first I
    will recognize Mr. Hirsch for his 5-minute statement, and then
    we will have questions.
        Thank you.

        STATEMENT OF ROBERT HIRSCH, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF WATER
                   RESOURCES, U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

        Mr. Hirsch. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am
    Robert Hirsch, Associate Director for Water of the U.S.
    Geological Survey. Thank you for the opportunity to provide the
    views of the Administration on S. 212, the High Plains Aquifer
    Hydrogeologic Characterization, Mapping and Modeling Act.
        The Administration agrees with the bill's sponsors about
    the goals of the bill. However, the Administration has three
    concerns with the bill:
        First, the goals of this bill can be achieved without
    legislation. The primary issue is the funding levels, which the
    bill fails to specify. The goals of the bill can be met through
    the combined activities of four specific existing programs of
    the U.S. Geological Survey. These programs are the Cooperative
    Water Program, the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping
    Program, the Water Resources Research Institutes Program, and
    the Groundwater Resources Program.
        The first three programs I mentioned involve significant
    consultation and cost sharing with the States.
        Second, the bill, as amended, does not address the need for
    monitoring, although it mentions characterization, mapping and
    modeling. Monitoring is a crucial scientific component aimed at
    better understanding this aquifer. We note that S. 212, as
    introduced originally in the Senate, contained provisions that
    addressed monitoring. Exclusion of monitoring means that the
    modeling in this program would be rather hypothetical rather
    than keeping it rooted in the actual conditions of the aquifer
    as they develop over time.
        Third, USGS scientific activities should be done in
    collaboration with the States, when appropriate. We are
    concerned that S. 212 does not contain specific language about
    State cost sharing. In testimony given before the Senate,
    Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power on
    S. 212, we recommended the inclusion of language calling for
    Federal-State cost sharing. As drafted, this bill would be
    difficult to administer and would come into conflict with
    existing USGS programs because it lacks specificity about
    funding mechanisms.
        I would like to make a few background comments about the
    importance of the High Plains Aquifer.
        Irrigation water pumped from the High Plains Aquifer has
    made this one of the Nation's most important agricultural
    areas. The intense use of groundwater has caused major declines
    in groundwater levels in some areas, raising concern about the
    long-term sustainability of irrigated agriculture in these
    areas. The changes are particularly evident in the Central and
    Southern Parts of the High Plains where some areas have
    experienced dewatering of more than 50 percent.
        The role identified for the Department of Interior in S.
    212 is consistent with the leadership role that USGS has long
    held in interpretation, research and assessment of the earth
    and biological resources of the Nation. As the Nation's largest
    water, earth and biological science and civilian mapping
    agency, USGS conducts the most extensive geologic mapping and
    groundwater investigations in the Nation in conjunction with
    our State and local partners.
        The USGS has offices in each of the eight States underlain
    by the High Plains Aquifer. These offices have a long history
    of groundwater monitoring and assessment activities within the
    aquifer in conjunction with State and many local agencies.
        The USGS carried out the first comprehensive quantitative
    study of the High Plains Aquifer in the late 1970s through the
    Regional Aquifer Systems Analysis Program. With our partners in
    the Cooperative Water Program, we continue to provide
    groundwater models to evaluate the present and future state of
    the aquifer in some parts of the High Plains, although an
    overall assessment of the aquifer is now over two decades old.
        In response to the water level declines, a groundwater
    monitoring program was begun across the High Plains in 1988 in
    response to a congressional directive to the USGS. The goal of
    this existing program is to assess water level changes in the
    aquifer. This has been accomplished through a collaboration
    among numerous Federal, State and local water resource
    agencies. What we have learned is that water levels continue to
    decline in some areas of the aquifer. However, the monitoring
    has indicated that the overall rate of decline in the water
    table has slowed during the past two decades. This change is
    caused by improved irrigation and cultivation practices,
    decreases in irrigated acreage and above-normal precipitation
    during the period.
        More in-depth studies are required to determine the
    relative importance of these different factors and to improve
    estimates of recharge rates which is crucial to projecting
    future water levels and their response to changing agricultural
    practices.
        A reliable source of groundwater is an essential element of
    the economy of the communities of the High Plains. The goals of
    S. 212 are commendable. It contains provisions that are well
    within the scope and expertise of the USGS, and it focuses on a
    significant economic concern of the Nation. However, as noted
    above, the Administration has concerns about the bill,
    including the availability of resources needed over and above
    the current levels of funding of existing USGS programs related
    to the aquifer.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present this
    testimony. I would be pleased to answer any questions that you
    or other members of the Committee might have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Hirsch follows:]

         Statement of Robert M. Hirsch, Associate Director for Water,
         U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the Interior, on S. 212

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am Robert Hirsch,
    Associate Director for Water at the U.S. Geological Survey. Thank you
    for the opportunity to provide the views of the Administration on S.
    212, the ``High Plains Aquifer Hydrogeologic Characterization, Mapping
    and Modeling Act,'' as amended and passed by the Senate. The
    Administration agrees with the bill's sponsors about the goals of the
    bill. Specifically, the importance of characterizing, mapping and
    modeling the High Plains Aquifer and the importance of coordinating
    efforts among Federal, State, and local entities. The Administration
    has three concerns with this bill as discussed more fully below.
    Analysis of S. 212
        First, the goals of this bill can be achieved without legislation,
    through better coordination of existing Federal and State programs. We
    are concerned that the total costs of the program proposed in S. 212
    are uncertain. Funding is not included in the President's FY 2004
    budget and would be subject to available resources. In future years,
    funding would need to be established in light of the full range of
    competing priorities of the Administration. The goals of the bill can
    be met through a combination of activities in four specific existing
    programs of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). These programs are the
    Cooperative Water Program, the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping
    Program, the Water Resources Research Institutes Program, and the
    Ground Water Resources Program. The first three programs involve
    significant consultation and cost sharing with the States. The last
    program, the Ground Water Resources Program, provides research and
    summarization of the status and trends of the water resources of the
    entire High Plains Aquifer system.
        Second, the bill, as amended, does not address the need for
    monitoring, although it mentions characterization, mapping, and
    modeling. Monitoring is a crucial scientific component aimed at better
    understanding this aquifer. We note that S. 212, as introduced,
    contained provisions that addressed monitoring.
        Third, USGS scientific activities should be done in collaboration
    with State scientific activities, when appropriate. Accordingly, we are
    concerned that S. 212 as amended does not contain specific language
    limiting the Federal cost share to no more than 50 percent. In
    testimony given before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources
    Subcommittee on Water and Power on S. 212, we recommended the inclusion
    of language similar to that currently contained in the National
    Cooperative Mapping Act (43 U.S.C. Chapter 2, Section 31 c.). As
    currently drafted, the S. 212 is unclear about funding mechanisms and
    formulas.

    Background
        Irrigation water pumped from the High Plains Aquifer has made the
    High Plains one of the Nation's most important agricultural areas. The
    intense use of ground water has caused major declines in ground-water
    levels raising concerns about the long-term sustainability of irrigated
    agriculture in many areas of the High Plains. The changes are
    particularly evident in the central and southern parts of the High
    Plains, where more than 50 percent of the aquifer has been dewatered in
    some areas.
        S. 212 directs the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the
    USGS, and in cooperation with the High Plains Aquifer States, to
    establish and carry out a program of characterization, mapping,
    modeling, and monitoring of the High Plains Aquifer. This would be
    accomplished through mapping of the configuration of the High Plains
    Aquifer, and analyses of the rates at which ground water is being
    withdrawn and recharged, changes in water storage in the aquifer, and
    the factors controlling the rate of flow of water within the aquifer.
    Effective coordination of the data collection and monitoring efforts
    requires that any data collected under the program be consistent with
    Federal Geographic Data Committee data standards and that metadata be
    published on the National Spatial Data Infrastructure Clearinghouse.
        The role identified for DOI in S. 212 is consistent with USGS's
    leadership role in interpretation, research, and assessment of the
    earth and biological resources of the Nation. As the Nation's largest
    water, earth, and biological science, and civilian mapping agency, USGS
    conducts the most extensive geologic mapping and ground-water
    investigations in the Nation in conjunction with our State and local
    partners. Furthermore, the USGS has been active in a number of programs
    and investigations that involve the High Plains Aquifer, specifically.
        The USGS has offices in each of the eight States underlain by the
    High Plains Aquifer (Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota,
    Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico). These offices have a long history
    of ground-water monitoring and assessment activities within the
    aquifer.
        The USGS carried out the first comprehensive quantitative study of
    the High Plains Aquifer in the late 1970's through the Regional
    Aquifer-System Analysis (RASA) Program. With our partners in the
    Cooperative Water Program, we continue to provide ground-water models
    to evaluate the present and future state of the aquifer in some parts
    of the High Plains, although an overall assessment of the aquifer is
    now over two decades old.
        In response to the water-level declines, a ground-water monitoring
    program was begun across the High Plains in 1988 to assess annual
    water-level changes in the aquifer, an effort requiring collaboration
    among numerous Federal, State, and local water-resource agencies. Water
    levels continue to decrease in many areas of the aquifer, but the
    monitoring has indicated that the overall rate of decline of the water
    table has slowed during the past two decades. This change is attributed
    to improved irrigation and cultivation practices, decreases in
    irrigated acreage, and above-normal precipitation during this period.
    More in-depth studies are required to determine the relative importance
    of these different factors and to improve estimates of recharge rates,
    which is crucial to projecting future water levels and their response
    to changing agricultural practices.

    Conclusion
        A reliable source of ground water is an essential element of the
    economy of the communities on the High Plains. The goals of S. 212 are
    commendable; it contains provisions that are well within the scope and
    expertise of the USGS, and it emphasizes a high level of coordination
    between the Department of Interior and the States in addressing an
    issue of significant economic concern to the Nation. However, as noted
    above, the Administration has concerns about the bill. Moreover, any
    new funding resulting from its enactment would remain subject to
    available resources.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present this
    testimony. I will be pleased to answer any questions that you and other
    members of the Committee might have.
                                     ______

        Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
        First, before we get into questions, I have a statement
    from Mr. Stenholm. Without objection, we will enter this
    statement into the record.
        So ordered.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Stenholm follows:]

        Statement submitted for the record by The Honorable Charles W.
     Stenholm, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, on S.
                                      212

        Thank you for the opportunity to present my thoughts regarding S.
    212, the High Plains Aquifer Hydrogeologic Characterization, Mapping,
    and Modeling Act. I have serious concerns about this particular
    legislation for a number of reasons.
        Specifically, I am concerned about S. 212 for the following
    reasons: I believe it will duplicate existing monitoring and modeling
    efforts; it may divert limited resources from ongoing on-the-ground
    conservation programs; it will needlessly involve another federal
    agency in an area historically managed by state and local entities; and
    finally, it might unintentionally undermine some of the significant
    successes we are presently seeing in the condition of the Ogallala
    Aquifer.
        The reason I feel so strongly about this is simple: groundwater
    from the Ogallala formation is the life-blood of the High Plains, both
    in Texas and in many other states. In Texas alone, this amazing natural
    resource underlies approximately 36,080 square miles of land, servicing
    hundreds of thousands of residences, small businesses, and farm and
    ranch enterprises.
        While I am supportive of research in general, not every research
    proposal is a wise and efficient use of limited federal dollars. One
    should note that in the 2002 Farm Bill we have already authorized a
    multi-million dollar Ground and Surface Water Conservation Program that
    would focus on providing technical expertise and cost-share assistance
    to enhance water stewardship for farmers and ranchers in the High Plain
    Aquifer states.
        In fact, along with the former Chairman of the House Committee on
    Agriculture, Larry Combest, I included language in the report on the
    2002 Farm Bill that specifically recognized the critical importance of
    the Ogallala. During the first round of funding that went out under the
    Ground Water and Surface Water Conservation Program, the USDA made the
    Ogallala its priority. However, this new effort merely supplements the
    decades of monitoring, modeling and conservation work that has been
    done and is still being carried out by the following entities: USDA's
    Natural Resources Conservation Service; USDA's Agricultural Research
    Service; various Land Grant universities, along with Texas Tech
    University; local underground water districts; state and local
    agencies; and private land owners.
        I understand there are some who think an issue has not been
    addressed until the federal government becomes involved. I trust that
    most of us here recognize that this is not necessarily always the case.
    The truth is that the work of the organizations I just mentioned has
    already produced most of the information and much of the improvements
    that S. 212 purports to encourage.
        Underground water districts in Texas have already mapped, and
    regularly monitor, most all of the High Plains Aquifer in the state.
    The Natural Resources Conservation Service is already providing
    coordination, technical assistance, and cost-share assistance for
    implementation of irrigation conservation practices. Universities and
    federal research facilities are already working together to provide the
    increased information that will help us to improve our stewardship of
    precious groundwater resources. The bottom line is this: these and many
    other efforts are already producing real, measurable results. Water use
    efficiency in the Ogallala has improved dramatically, with some new
    irrigation systems reaching almost 100 percent efficiency. This is a
    huge improvement from the 50 percent efficiency rates we saw back in
    the 1950s and 1960s.
        While I trust the good intentions by the authors of this
    legislation, the law of unintended consequences is still in effect.
    With that in mind, I do not believe we need to encourage another layer
    of federal involvement in the stewardship of this already well-
    monitored resource. In point of fact, the folks working in the Ogallala
    need the freedom and the financial assistance to implement those
    actions they know will work with regard to conservation. I firmly
    believe that the folks whose livelihoods and futures depend on this
    water resource are the best ones to actually do the work that the
    authors of S. 212 seem to want to encourage.
        Mr. Chairman, let me thank you once again for allowing me to
    present these views this morning. I look forward to working with my
    colleagues on the Resources Committee to preserve and enhance the
    usefulness of the Ogallala for years and years to come.
                                     ______

        Mr. Calvert. Mr. Keys, what is the criteria, as you
    understand it, that the Administration uses with respect to
    which proposed projects require cost-share agreements?
        Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure I understand your
    question. If you are talking about the Title 16 programs that
    we work with, they require agreements with the project sponsors
    for which they will pay 75 percent of the cost, and the
    Government pays 25 percent of the cost of those projects.
        Mr. Calvert. Has that been consistent on various types of
    projects throughout the Reclamation Department over time?
        Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, under Title 16, the 25 percent is
    certainly there. On other projects that have their own specific
    authorizations, it has been different than that.
        Mr. Calvert. From the sessions which Reclamation held in
    its Water 2025 initiative, what were some of the topics brought
    to table with respect to municipal water supplies and
    Reclamation's role in providing those water needs?
        Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, we had nine different sessions
    across the Western United States to talk with folks about Water
    2025. There were numerous municipalities that have talked with
    us about problems that they have, have talked to us about
    different ways to accommodate different water needs now and in
    the future, now dealing with the drought that we are facing in
    the future to deal with exploding populations and growing
    areas.
        The range of those discussions is from small amounts of
    storage or wastewater treatment facilities all the way up to
    needing large storage facilities in the future.
        Mr. Calvert. So you would agree, then, that the project
    that is being outlined in H.R. 3334 meets the criteria that you
    intend to put forth in 2025, Water 2025?
        Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, Water 2025, what we have proposed
    there in most cases has been a 50-50 cost share. Our objection
    on this bill is not with the 35 percent, although we would
    rather have it 25 percent like some of the others. Our
    objection is that there is no cap on it. The way the bill is
    written now, if the project, just for example, if it went to a
    billion dollars, the Federal Government would have to pay $350
    million of it. We would like to see a cap put on that.
        Mr. Calvert. I think I can guarantee you right now it won't
    cost a billion dollars.
        Mr. Keys. And I understand that, for sure. I understand
    that it is like $150 million, but still we think there should
    be a cap put on there so that we know how much we are having to
    deal with in the future.
        Mr. Calvert. So, based upon your testimony, when the
    feasibility studies are completed, what you are saying is that
    we can come to a more accurate number, and then the
    Administration is prepared to enter into an agreement that
    would accept a certain cap and move forward on this project?
        Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, that is my understanding.
        Mr. Calvert. We certainly look forward to working with you,
    and certainly with Western Water and other agencies to make
    sure that we move this forward.
        Mr. Hirsch, how has been the cooperation between USGS, the
    States, and the localities on the High Plains Aquifer programs;
    have they been good?
        Mr. Hirsch. Yes, I think the relationships are excellent.
    We have a number of cooperative kinds of programs, such as our
    Cooperative Water Program. I can't tell you how many agencies
    in this area are, but we have 1,400 State and local agencies
    nationwide with whom we cooperate on water programs. So that
    there is a close collaboration.
        The map that you see over here, in fact, is produced
    through collaboration between the USGS and many, many State and
    county and regional agencies, all of whom are engaged in the
    monitoring of water levels and under congressional mandate
    through the Appropriations Committee.
        We produce maps of this kind about once every 2 years
    describing the continued changing state. This involves a great
    deal of information that is collected by others, and then we
    assemble it across the entire High Plains region.
        Mr. Calvert. As you have indicated, the bill probably is
    not necessary, since better coordination of current programs
    can do the job, and you apparently believe that. What would be
    the immediate way that you could do this without Federal
    legislation to improve coordination?
        Mr. Hirsch. I think holding some regional meetings. I note
    that, for example, the Western States Water Council about a
    month from now is going to be having a first meeting, not just
    relating to the High Plains, but relating to the groundwater
    issues. Working with organizations like Western States Water
    Council, I think we could bring together the parties to look at
    the variety of activities and try to get that multi-State
    collaboration, multi-State and Federal collaboration even
    better than it is today.
        Mr. Calvert. I appreciate that.
        As Mr. Keys knows, and I think our experience with water
    is, it is difficult to compel people to do anything with water.
    So it is best if we can work together to come to some kind of
    an arrangement.
        With that, Mrs. Napolitano?
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Commissioner, it is good to see you again.
        I am referring to 3391 because you have not been able to
    see it nor opine on it. I would be asking if you can give us
    your commitment that the Administration will provide us with
    the Bureau of Reclamation's and the Fish and Wildlife Service's
    view on it, to this Committee.
        Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman and Mrs. Napolitano, we have not
    seen the bill, and certainly title transfer is a valuable part
    of our commitment to working with irrigation districts and
    other water users that we work on a daily basis with, and
    certainly we are working with and will continue to work with
    the sponsors of the bill, the people on the ground, and the
    Committee to make that happen.
        I will certainly promise to give you the viewpoint of the
    Administration, and that certainly includes----
        Mrs. Napolitano. Would you make sure that this Committee
    gets it, Mr. Keys?
        Mr. Keys. Ma'am?
        Mrs. Napolitano. Make sure that this Committee gets a copy
    of those views, please, from both agencies--the Fish and
    Wildlife and Bureau of Reclamation.
        Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman and Mrs. Napolitano, I understand
    that the Committee would like our testimony to be added into
    the record----
        Mrs. Napolitano. Correct.
        Mr. Keys. And certainly that was how I would propose to do
    that.
        Mrs. Napolitano. That is fine.
        Mr. Calvert. That is correct.
        Mrs. Napolitano. We just need to be sure we get it so we
    can go over it.
        Mr. Hirsch, this is on 212. You know that the level of the
    aquifer is declining in some areas, and we talked about it. Are
    they increasing in other areas?
        Mr. Hirsch. Yes. That is an interesting question. Overall,
    the entire aquifer, we estimate that about 6 percent of the
    original storage, say, half a century ago, has been diminished.
    In other words, we are at about 94 percent of the amount of
    water that was in there 50 years ago, and those declines are
    particularly focused in the State of Texas with about a 27-
    percent decline and Kansas with about a 16-percent decline.
        On the other hand, the State of Nebraska has actually seen
    small increases in the amount of water and storage in the High
    Plains Aquifer, owing to the fact that there is a good deal of
    surface water irrigation in the State of Nebraska overlying the
    Ogallala, and there has actually been water level rises in some
    of those areas. So it is quite a different picture in different
    parts.
        It is illustrated on this USGS map over here. The blue
    areas indicate areas of water level rise; the grey indicates
    very, very little change; whereas, the reds and oranges
    indicate the areas of considerable decline, which you see are
    particularly focused in Kansas and Texas.
        Mrs. Napolitano. I am glad you have good eyesight because I
    don't.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Hirsch. I am familiar with the map.
        Mrs. Napolitano. You are saying that the aquifer performs
    differently in the different areas.
        Mr. Hirsch. Indeed.
        Mrs. Napolitano. How would this affect the delivery of
    quality water?
        Mr. Hirsch. It is a comment on quality because the primary
    use of water throughout the High Plains Aquifer is for
    irrigated agriculture. Much of that irrigated agriculture
    includes the addition of chemicals, primarily fertilizers and
    pesticides. We know that, to some extent, there is recharge of
    that irrigation water through the unsaturated zone to the
    Ogallala Aquifer, which does carry some of the nitrate and some
    of the pesticides down to the water table. This is an active
    area of research for the USGS at the present time through our
    National Water Quality Assessment Program.
        So there is I think in a long-run view, there are reasons
    to be concerned about the quality of water in the High Plains
    Aquifer, particularly for the individual farmers and the small
    and large communities that derive their drinking water from the
    High Plains Aquifer.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Is, then, there an issue with the
    possibility of those areas not having potable water or having
    problems, having to clean it before they reuse it or before
    they recharge the aquifer?
        Mr. Hirsch. Looking at other agricultural areas in the
    country, we can anticipate the possibility, particularly with
    respect to nitrate, which is of a health concern particularly
    for babies, that those concentrations could increase to the
    point where it would be problematic for those communities and
    that there would be need either for point-of-use treatments in
    homes or for community water supplies to treat the water to
    treat for the nitrate contamination that might occur.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Hirsch.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
        The gentleman from Nebraska?
        Mr. Osborne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I gather from your comments that you don't really believe
    this study is warranted or necessary; is that correct?
        Mr. Hirsch. We believe that this is an extremely valuable
    resource, the High Plains Aquifer, and that we, in fact,
    conduct and conduct in conjunction with many, many State and
    local agencies, research and monitoring which I think are
    extremely important to the viability of this really breadbasket
    area of the country. The question really is whether an
    additional authorization is needed to supplement those kinds of
    things that are already going on. So we conduct and highly
    value the research that we and many of our partners and others
    in the area do. We think it is extremely important to the area,
    but we don't think that additional legislation is needed to
    deal with the issues.
        Mr. Osborne. Is there currently a comprehensive study? I
    know there are some maps, but is there a comprehensive
    understanding of the dynamics? Because I realize we want to
    keep the water rights at the State level. I don't think anybody
    wants to see that violated, but I think, from my own
    experience, each State tends to look at their own problems.
        As I mentioned earlier, I believe this is somewhat of a
    dynamic system. Some of the Southwest States, I think the
    aquifer is primarily from rainwater that seeps down into a
    basin, but there is still a lot of flow in Nebraska, some in
    Kansas, where it is interchangeable. And so is there a
    comprehensive study right now that indicates the dynamics? I
    look at this as somewhat of a living system.
        Mr. Hirsch. Mr. Osborne, indeed, I think ``living system''
    is an excellent way to term it. It is dynamic. There is no
    ongoing comprehensive study of the High Plains Aquifer. The
    USGS, in its regional aquifer system analysis, did a
    comprehensive look at the aquifer system. That was done in the
    late 1970s, and there has not been a relook at that study, a
    remodeling based on better geologic information and changing
    agricultural practices and new information on water level.
        There are many excellent more State, local or regional
    scale models. For example, the USGS was involved in one
    involving Nebraska and Kansas and the Republican River and its
    interactions with this system. So there are a number of
    modeling studies in particular areas.
        The only other thing that is going on I would say in a
    comprehensive manner is this mapping of water level changes
    that we conduct every two, about every 2 years. In fact, a
    report on those water level changes is coming out within the
    next few months that we did in cooperation with the States.
        That is not a study of the dynamics of the system and how
    it behaves, but rather it is more like a census; that is to
    say, quantifying the amounts of change that have occurred over
    recent decades.
        Mr. Osborne. One thing you mentioned, that in places in
    Nebraska the aquifer has increased, and essentially that is
    because of some dams that have been built because we have
    stored surface water, and that surface water then has
    regenerated, you know, through underground flow, some of the
    aquifer and has raised it up. And that is why I am mentioning
    it is dynamic.
        Also, we notice that some of the aquifer from the Platte
    Valley spills over into the Republican Valley, and I am sure
    there is some seepage or there is some interaction with Kansas.
    So the only thing I can say to you is that, in view of the fact
    that there are ongoing studies, but it doesn't seem to me that
    there is anything that has been real comprehensive and has
    looked at the whole system and one study is something would be
    appropriate along those lines.
        Mr. Hirsch. Yes, and----
        Mr. Osborne. And maybe it can be done by amalgamating all
    of the ongoing studies, but I really believe this is such a
    valuable resource, we need to have a very accurate picture of
    what is happening there.
        Mr. Hirsch. If I could just comment on the kind of concept
    of amalgamating. I think one of the approaches that the
    hydrologic sciences community, USGS and others, use is to
    develop groundwater models which are mathematical
    representations of the behavior of the whole system, the
    precipitation, the recharge, the percolation, the movement of
    the water to the water table, and the pumping, et cetera, and
    the lateral flow.
        There are existing programs that could carry out such a
    comprehensive study, but they are not currently funded at
    levels that would enable them to do such a study.
        Mr. Osborne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank the gentleman.
        The gentleman from Texas?
        Mr. Neugebauer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Hirsch, is the USGS currently mapping the High Plains
    Aquifer?
        Mr. Hirsch. In some areas, we are engaged in additional
    mapping, particularly through our National Cooperative Geologic
    Mapping Program. This is a program that is carried out in very
    close conjunction with the State geological surveys, where the
    USGS does some mapping, the State surveys do mapping. Dr. Lee
    Allison, the State geologist of Kansas will be testifying in
    front of you in a few minutes. He is actually better qualified
    to talk about that mapping aspect than I am because he works on
    the geologic side of things. Whereas, I tend to work more on
    the hydrologic side.
        So there are areas within the High Plains Aquifer where our
    programs are engaged in some additional mapping.
        Mr. Neugebauer. And in your testimony you mentioned that
    this bill does not provide for monitoring, but there is, in
    fact, monitoring going on throughout the High Plains Aquifer;
    is that not correct?
        Mr. Hirsch. Absolutely, there is monitoring. My point was
    that we see, in the carrying out of hydrogeologic studies, the
    need to very closely coordinate monitoring efforts and modeling
    efforts. It is a little bit like a doctor looking at a patient,
    figuring out what tests to do in order to understand how the
    patient is doing and behaving, and you want to make sure your
    monitoring is at the right places and at the right frequency to
    really better define the dynamics of the system.
        And so to have this Committee come together to plan studies
    and not to discuss monitoring seems to us to be an unbalanced
    approach to improving the overall understanding of the system.
        Mr. Neugebauer. The gentleman from Nebraska brought up some
    points about a more comprehensive study possibly, but there is
    really nothing currently that is prohibiting you from doing a
    more comprehensive analysis with the partners that you are
    already partnering with, is there?
        Mr. Hirsch. No, it is a question of resources. We have
    something in the USGS called the Groundwater Resources Program,
    where we have taken on looking at large aquifer systems. Fairly
    recently we completed work on the Middle Rio Grande Aquifer
    system. Now, admittedly, that is only one State, but it is
    quite a large system, and our Groundwater Resources Program
    could, if funds were appropriated for it, the Groundwater
    Resources Program could certainly conduct such a study and
    would do so in close collaboration with many State and local
    agencies.
        Mr. Neugebauer. So, really, what you are saying, if I hear
    your testimony correctly, it is really not an authorization
    issue that is before us on this aquifer. It is more of an
    appropriations issue that possibly other members of this panel,
    those of us that have a great deal of interest in this aquifer
    maybe should be pointing our efforts toward that.
        What kinds of coordination efforts are currently going on
    between the underground--I think you mentioned a Western States
    group. Can you kind of elaborate what kinds of ways you
    interact with those different agencies, and is it at the State
    level or is it individual conservation or water district level?
        Mr. Hirsch. We have, within the U.S. Geological Survey, a
    program called the Cooperative Water Program. It has been in
    existence for 105 years, in which we enter into agreements with
    State or local and underground storage districts, et cetera,
    the conservation districts, et cetera, would be some of the
    participants, in which we negotiate agreements about studies
    and monitoring, et cetera, to be carried out.
        So we interact with, nationwide, 1,400 different State and
    local agencies on hydrologic studies. And we often gather
    together many of those agencies in statewide meetings to talk
    about the conduct of these programs to look for the synergies
    between and across these many agencies involved.
        We have less degree of this kind of collaboration, perhaps,
    across State lines, but rather a lot of collaboration, say,
    within the State boundaries.
        Mr. Neugebauer. But if you were to be authorized or
    appropriated the appropriate amount of money to do a more in-
    depth study, a part of that appropriation could be worked out
    in a collaborative effort between those other States, could it
    not?
        Mr. Hirsch. Absolutely. An interesting, the appropriations
    bill that just came through the Conference Committee a couple
    of days ago, in fact, has an example of that. The Spokane
    Valley-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer that straddles Washington and
    Idaho calls for us to conduct, beginning at least to conduct a
    comprehensive study of that aquifer system in close
    coordination and conjunction with those two States. And similar
    things could be done here.
        Mr. Neugebauer. Thank you, Mr. Hirsch.
        I yield back my time.
        Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
        The gentleman from Utah?
        Mr. Cannon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        First, let me thank the panel for being here today. We
    seriously appreciate that.
        I just had one question relating to my bill. Mr. Keys, I
    understand that this was just recently introduced, and that the
    Department would not have a position on it yet, but could you
    comment, generally. If you know something about the bill or
    have a view of the bill, I would appreciate that, but more
    generally on the idea of title transfers and where you would
    like to see your agency go with those.
        Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Cannon, I have not seen the
    bill and certainly can't testify on it today.
        What I would tell you is that Reclamation and the
    Administration supports title transfer. We have an active
    program underway to transfer title to those districts, to those
    entities that feel like they would like to have their own
    title.
        In some cases, it is very judicious to do that; in other
    places, it may not be quite as attractive. In this case, we
    have worked closely with all of the sponsors there, the local
    people. We will certainly continue to do that. We think that it
    makes sense to transfer the title to this one, and it is up to
    the parties and us to work together to work out the details.
        Mr. Cannon. Thank you very much. We appreciate that and
    look forward to your input as we go through this process.
        I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
        Mr. Calvert. Thank you very much.
        We are talking about California. There is not much of it
    left.
        Mrs. Napolitano?
        Mrs. Napolitano. Yes, Mr. Hirsch, again back to 212.
        Do you have any idea how much funding, how much money has
    been spent on studying aquifer?
        Mr. Hirsch. I don't think I could give you a figure at this
    time.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Ballpark?
        Mr. Hirsch. Do you mean on an annual basis or historically
    over----
        Mrs. Napolitano. Total.
        Mr. Hirsch. Combining our efforts and those of State and
    local entities, some tens of millions of dollars perhaps over
    time.
        Mrs. Napolitano. But not in a coordinated effort.
        Mr. Hirsch. Coordinated and perhaps on a State-by-State
    basis, and some of our efforts have been coordinated across the
    aquifer, such as those that produced this map or the study I
    referred to in the 1970s, the Regional Aquifer System Analysis
    study that was done in the late 1970s, which was coordinated
    across the region.
        Mrs. Napolitano. I agree with you on the idea that the
    States possibly could work together and come to a joint effort
    to do a coordinated study with support and funding from the
    Federal Government. The less Federal Government involvement in
    terms of legislation to me is much better. But do you see any
    problems with the States wanting to work together? As it is, we
    are saying in the bill that it is not mandatory for any State
    to become part of this.
        Mr. Hirsch. One of the issues that we encounter working in
    our cooperative aspects of our programs in the USGS is the
    differing interests of the States in terms of working on
    studies that cover hydrologic systems that are, of course,
    which do not respect State boundaries, and it is certainly
    difficult to carry out a study of a system like this that may
    stop and start at State boundary lines because the water simply
    can, the knowledge needs to be looked at across the State lines
    and, in fact, the water, to some extent, does flow across State
    lines.
        So to do a comprehensive study either would have to have
    sufficient Federal funding so that it could straddle all States
    regardless of their degree of interest or would have to, in
    some manner, mandate State participation because a
    comprehensive study would have to look, of course, at all
    States involved in it.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Which do you believe might be more
    favorably looked at by the States? After all, this is their
    water.
        Mr. Hirsch. Right. Obviously, they would not be interested
    in a mandatory effort.
        Mrs. Napolitano. But they would want the money.
        Mr. Hirsch. I suspect they would.
        [Laughter.]
        Mrs. Napolitano. Does, well, the United States really have
    plans to regulate water withdrawals from the High Plains
    Aquifer or from any aquifer for that matter?
        Mr. Hirsch. The U.S. Geological Survey, where I work, does
    not involve itself in issues of regulation, but I think I can
    state pretty clearly that there is no intent within this
    Administration to regulate the use of groundwater.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Has there ever been any regulation of
    groundwater withdrawals?
        Mr. Hirsch. That is a pretty----
        Mrs. Napolitano. Pretty deep.
        Mr. Hirsch [continuing]. A pretty sort of global kind of
    question. I suspect there are instances where particular local
    water quality concerns or ecological concerns have resulted in
    controls established on the pumping of groundwater.
        Mrs. Napolitano. But would those not be really on an as-
    needed basis; in other words, a very dire need?
        Mr. Hirsch. I guess I don't know exactly how to
    characterize the level of need that might require them, but
    certainly I could think of cases where there are contamination
    problems, where continued pumping would exacerbate that problem
    and perhaps, under Superfund or other regulation, other laws
    that certain people had to stop pumping, for example.
        Mrs. Napolitano. I guess maybe I am more concerned about,
    in 212, in the thinking that there might be a heavy-handed
    approach by the Government over the actual withdrawal of water
    by the States.
        Mr. Hirsch. I guess I would say that you need to ask the
    sponsors of the legislation that question, rather than me.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you.
        Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentlelady, and I thank this
    panel. I appreciate your coming today. You are excused.
        Our next panel of witnesses are from the prestigious 44th
    Congressional District of California, Riverside, California.
        Elizabeth Cunnison and Ben Wicke are from the 44th, but I
    also see my good friend and former Mayor of my hometown,
    Corona, Al Lopez, in the audience with us today, with the
    Western Water Board. Welcome, Al. Good to see you.
        Please take your seats.
        My friend Don Harrier couldn't be here today. I understand
    he is not feeling well, so certainly let him know that we are
    thinking about him. My good friend for many years, as everyone
    on the Western Board have been. So it is good to see you again.
        Ms. Cunnison. Good to see you.
        Mr. Calvert. We have a 5-minute rule here to try to keep
    things moving, so I would ask you to keep your comments within
    the 5 minutes. Any additional comments certainly will be
    entered into the record.
        With that, Ms. Cunnison, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

      STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH L. CUNNISON, DIRECTOR, REPRESENTING
              DIVISION 2, WESTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT

        Ms. Cunnison. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I am
    Elizabeth Cunnison. It is a pleasure to be here before you
    today to discuss a project near and dear to the hearts of the
    people of your district, the Riverside-Corona Feeder. With me
    are S.R. ``Al'' Lopez, representing the City of Corona, who has
    with him a letter of support from the City; Terry Milne,
    Director of Metropolitan Water District, who has a letter of
    support from metropolitan, and I work like to enter those.
        Mr. Calvert. Without objection, so ordered.
        [NOTE: Letters submitted for the record have been retained
    in the Committee's official files.]
        Ms. Cunnison. Also in attendance is W.R. Ben Wicke,
    Director for Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District; William
    Dendy, project consultant; and Melodie Johnson, our public
    information officer.
        This is a very important day for our region because it
    represents years of cooperative effort to structure a plan that
    is agreeable to the region, viable technically and
    economically, and beneficial to the larger issues of the State,
    reducing the demands for water from the Colorado and Northern
    California in dry years. We commend you for your leadership in
    introducing this bill, H.R. 3334, and in holding this hearing.
        While I will give the primary testimony and Ben Wicke will
    provide brief, supplemental comments, the others came to
    demonstrate the wide appeal and importance this project has to
    Western's area, from San Bernardino to Riverside to Corona to
    the Elsinore Valley.
        First, a brief history about why this project is now
    possible. Recently, an agreement has been signed, coupled with
    historic court water rights judgments, that creates an
    opportunity for Western Municipal Water District to meet
    drought-year water supply needs in its 510-square-mile service
    region with additional local and wet-year supplies. In order to
    deliver this water during dry-year conditions, a conveyance
    system is needed.
        Now let me briefly describe the project itself. Its purpose
    is to capture and store new water in wet years in order to
    increase firm water supplies, reduce water costs, and improve
    water quality. This new water will come, in wet years, from
    local runoff, including regulated releases from Seven Oaks
    Reservoir on the Santa Ana River, and from the State Water
    Project through Metropolitan. It will be stored in San
    Bernardino Valley groundwater basins.
        In order to deliver this stored water to consumers, the
    project will provide new groundwater pumping capacity and new
    delivery pipeline capacity throughout our system. This new
    pumping and delivery capacity will enable the new water to be
    stored safely by providing important new means to control water
    tables which currently fluctuate. When pumped, the water will
    be delivered to communities in western Riverside County through
    28 miles of pipeline capable of moving 40,000-acre-feet of
    water per year. A map is attached to my testimony which shows
    the configuration of the system.
        The direct project beneficiaries are water consumers
    currently served by the following entities: the City of Corona,
    Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, Jurupa Community
    Services District, Rubidoux Community Services District,
    Western Municipal Water District--the project sponsor--City of
    Norco, City of Riverside, Lee Lake Water District, and Home
    Gardens County Water District.
        As I mentioned previously, we have a representative from
    Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District who has joined us
    today to speak briefly on the importance of this project to his
    community.
        In addition, because the project will store wet-year water,
    it will benefit others in dry years, including Colorado River
    water users, other Metropolitan Water District water users, and
    even water-dependent environments in Northern California.
        Let me briefly enumerate the project benefits which will
    accrue when H.R. 3334 is enacted and the project is completed.
        The first is local drought protection. In western Riverside
    County, dependence on imported water in dry years will be
    reduced, water costs will be reduced, and water reliability
    will be improved.
        Second, we will have better groundwater management. In San
    Bernardino Valley, groundwater levels will be better managed to
    help reduce the threat of liquefaction in some areas while
    maintaining levels that support water supply wells in other
    areas.
        We will have regional benefits. Water users elsewhere in
    Metropolitan Water District who are unable to practice
    conjunctive use will benefit from increased availability of
    imported water in dry years due to Western's ability to reduce
    demand on imported water.
        The Colorado River will benefit. Other water users that are
    dependent on the Colorado River may enjoy improved dry-year
    water supplies as the local region reduces imported water
    demand.
        And, fifth, Northern California. To the extent Metropolitan
    is able to reduce its overall dry-year demand on imported water
    supplies from the State Water Project due to Western Municipal
    Water District's reduced dry-year demand, the State Water
    Project will be able to dedicate more environmental water to
    the Delta and other areas.
        Mr. Chairman, we have estimated our project cost at $151
    million, and your legislation authorized the Bureau of
    Reclamation to contribute 35 percent of that cost.
    Environmental work is currently underway, funded by Western. We
    are confident that this important project and this bill will
    significantly improve the lives of the people in the Riverside
    County region.
        At this point, I will turn to Mr. Wicke for his statement,
    and then my colleagues and I will be happy to answer any
    questions that you may have.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Cunnison follows:]

                 Statement of Elizabeth L. Cunnison, Director,
        Western Municipal Water District on the Riverside-Corona Feeder

        Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to be here before you today to
    discuss a project near and dear the hearts of the people of your
    district--the Riverside-Corona Feeder. With me are S.R. ``Al'' Lopez, a
    fellow Director, representing the city of Corona on our Board; W.R.
    ``Ben'' Wicke, Director for Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District;
    Randall Van Gelder, Assistant General Manager, San Bernardino Valley
    Municipal Water District; William Dendy, Project Consultant; and
    Melodie D. Johnson, our Public Information Officer.
        This is a very important day for our region because it represents
    years of cooperative effort to structure a plan that is agreeable to
    the region, viable technically and economically, and beneficial to the
    larger issues of the State--reducing the demands for water from the
    Colorado and Northern California in dry years. We commend you for your
    leadership; in introducing the bill--H.R. 3434--and in holding this
    hearing.
        While I will give the primary testimony and Ben Wicke will provide
    brief, supplemental comments, the others came to demonstrate the wide
    appeal and importance this project has to Western's area, from San
    Bernardino to Riverside to Corona to the Elsinore Valley.
        First, a brief history about why this project is now possible.
    Recently, an agreement has been signed, coupled with historic court
    water right judgments, that creates an opportunity for Western
    Municipal Water District to meet drought-year water supply needs in its
    510 square mile service region with additional local and wet year
    supplies. In order to deliver this water during dry year conditions, a
    conveyance system is needed.
        Now let me briefly describe the project itself. Its purpose is to
    capture and store new water in wet years in order to increase firm
    water supplies, reduce water costs and improve water quality. This new
    water will come, in wet years, from local runoff, including regulated
    releases from Seven Oaks Reservoir on the Santa Ana River, and from the
    State Water Project. It will be stored in San Bernardino Valley
    groundwater basins.
        In order to deliver this stored water to consumers, the project
    will provide new groundwater pumping capacity and new delivery pipeline
    capacity throughout the system. This new pumping and delivery capacity
    will enable the new water to be stored safely by providing important
    new means to control water tables which currently fluctuate. When
    pumped, the water will be delivered to communities in western Riverside
    County through 28 miles of pipeline capable of moving 40,000 acre feet
    per year of groundwater. A map is attached to my testimony which shows
    the configuration of the system.
        The direct project beneficiaries are water consumers currently
    served by the following entities: City of Corona, Elsinore Valley
    Municipal Water District, Jurupa Community Services District, Rubidoux
    Community Services District, Western Municipal Water District (the
    project sponsor), City of Norco, City of Riverside, Lee Lake Water
    District, and Home Gardens County Water District.
        As I mentioned, previously, we have a representative from Elsinore
    Valley Municipal Water District who has joined us today to speak
    briefly on the importance of this project in his community.
        In addition, because the project will store wet year water, it will
    benefit others in dry years including Colorado River water users, other
    Metropolitan Water District water users and even water-dependent
    environments in Northern California.
        Let me briefly then enumerate the project benefits which will
    accrue when H.R. 3334 is enacted and the project is completed:
        Local Drought Protection: In western Riverside County, dependence
    on imported water in dry years will be reduced, water costs will be
    reduced, and water reliability will be improved.;
        Better Groundwater Management: In San Bernardino Valley,
    groundwater levels will be better-managed to help reduce the threat of
    liquefaction in some areas while maintaining levels that support water
    supply wells in other areas;
        Regional Benefits: Water users elsewhere in Metropolitan Water
    District, who are unable to practice conjunctive use, will benefit from
    increased availability of imported water in dry years due to Western's
    ability to reduce demand on imported water during dry years;
        Colorado River: Other water users that are dependent on the
    Colorado River may enjoy improved dry year water supplies as the local
    region reduces imported water demand; and
        Northern California: To the extent Metropolitan is able to reduce
    its overall dry year demand on imported water supplies from the State
    Water Project due to Western Municipal Water District's reduced dry
    year demand, the State Water Project will be able to dedicate more
    environmental water to the Delta and other areas.
        Mr. Chairman, we have estimated our project cost at $151 million
    and your legislation authorized the Bureau of Reclamation to contribute
    35% of that cost up to a ceiling of $50 million Environmental work is
    currently underway, funded by Western. We are confident that this
    important project and this bill will significantly improve the lives of
    the people in the Riverside County region. At this point, I will turn
    to Mr. Wicke for his statement, and then my colleagues and I will be
    happy to answer any questions you may have.
                                     ______

              STATEMENT OF W.R. ``BEN'' WICKE, DIRECTOR,
                ELSINORE VALLEY MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT

        Mr. Wicke. Mr. Chairman and Committee members, as Mrs.
    Cunnison explained, the people I represent would be among the
    many beneficiaries of this important project. I appear before
    you today to state my agency's strong support for the
    Riverside-Corona Feeder.
        Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District is a 53-year-old,
    full-service agency serving the water, sewer, agricultural, and
    reclaimed water needs of our 100,000-member community in
    southwest Riverside County. We are developing every possible
    water source to maintain the needs of our customers. Elsinore
    Valley Municipal Water District currently uses local
    groundwater, local surface runoff of the San Jacinto River
    Watershed, Metropolitan Water District imported water, and our
    own recycled wastewater to meet the needs of our community. The
    district is developing a groundwater conjunctive use storage
    program also. We are also expanding our recycled water
    distribution network. We are working to add additional raw
    water connections.
        However, in spite of our efforts, we must purchase imported
    water supplies, including Colorado River water, from Western
    Municipal. We believe the Riverside-Corona Feeder project would
    assist Elsinore Valley, plus other water agencies in the
    region, to further reduce deliveries of Colorado River water
    and decrease dependence on imported supplies during drought.
        I again would like to reiterate our strong support for this
    project, not only as representative of a direct beneficiary
    agency, but in the realization that the Riverside-Corona Feeder
    has far-reaching benefits well beyond those to our community.
        Thank you to the Committee for your time today, and thank
    you, Mr. Chairman, for your introduction H.R. 3334.
        We will be happy to answer any questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Wicke follows:]

                  Statement of W. R. ``Ben'' Wicke, Director,
                    Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District

        Mr. Chairman and Committee members: As Mrs. Cunnison explained, the
    people I represent would be among the many beneficiaries of this
    important project. I appear before you today to state my agency's
    strong support for the Riverside-Corona Feeder.
        Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District is a 53-year-old, full-
    service agency serving the water, sewer, agricultural and reclaimed
    water needs of our 100,000 member community in Southwest Riverside
    County. We are developing every possible water source to maintain the
    needs of our customers. EVMWD currently uses local groundwater, local
    surface runoff of the San Jacinto River Watershed, Metropolitan Water
    District imported water, and our own recycled waste water to meet the
    needs of our community. The District is developing a ground water
    conjunctive use storage program. We are also expanding our recycled
    water distribution network. We are working to add additional raw water
    connections.
        However, in spite of our efforts, we must purchase imported water
    supplies, including Colorado River water, from Western. We believe the
    Riverside-Corona Feeder project would assist Elsinore Valley, plus
    other water agencies in the region, to further our efforts to reduce
    direct delivery of imported supplies and decrease dependence on these
    imported supplies during drought.
        I again would like to reiterate our strong support for this
    project, not only as representative of a direct beneficiary agency, but
    in the realization that the Riverside-Corona Feeder has far-reaching
    benefits well beyond those to our community. Thank you to the Committee
    for your time today and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your introduction
    of H.R. 3434.
                                     ______

        Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman, and I apologize that we
    have a vote on. I am going to have to leave, all of us will
    have to leave and vote. I have to go to a meeting after that on
    the wildfires in California that I need to be at shortly after.
    But let me assure you, my friends from Riverside County,
    California, that I am obviously very supportive of this bill. I
    think you hear from the Commissioner that I think we need to
    firm up a number. The feasibility reports hopefully will help
    do that. And we can work the Department of Reclamation to
    negotiate that, hopefully in short order. And where we can be
    able to make sure we get a bill that is supported by the
    Administration, it makes things a lot simpler, and we can move
    this legislation as quickly as possible. So I want to thank you
    for your attendance.
        We are going to recess. We have a number of 15-minute
    votes. I think we will be back in approximately half an hour.
    The gentleman from Texas will chair the meeting upon return.
    The witnesses from Utah, certainly we will look forward to your
    testimony, and the people from Riverside, unless there are any
    questions for you, I think you are probably excused, unless
    Mrs. Napolitano would ask any questions upon your return. Would
    you like----
        Mrs. Napolitano. I will ask a few.
        Mr. Calvert. OK. Then hang around.
        Thank you very much. We are recessed for about half an
    hour.
        [Recess.]
        Mr. Cannon. [Presiding.] We are now going to move to
    testimony on H.R. 3391, which is my bill, and we would like to
    welcome Mr. John Carman here, who is the General Manager of the
    Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake and Sandy, and Mr. Don
    Christiansen, the General Manager of the Central Utah Water
    Conservancy District. I am just looking here to see what they
    say nice about you guys, and then I will introduce you.
        Well, they do not say a lot, so let me just point out that
    we are very pleased to have you here from the great State of
    Utah on a project of great importance to me and my district,
    the people in my district, and the people also in the other
    side of Salt Lake County.
        At this point, Mr. Carman, we would like to turn the time
    over to you to testify.

             STATEMENT OF JOHN R. CARMAN, GENERAL MANAGER,
           METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SALT LAKE AND SANDY

        Mr. Carman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
    Committee. I appreciate this opportunity. My name is John
    Carman. I am General Manager of the Metropolitan Water District
    of Salt Lake and Sandy.
        The Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake and Sandy
    provides wholesale water to Salt Lake City and Sandy City and
    large portions of unincorporated Salt Lake County. In most
    years, our district also provides water to the Jordan Valley
    Water Conservancy District, the other large wholesaler located
    in Salt Lake County.
        The Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake and Sandy is
    the major shareholder in the Provo River Water Users
    Association. I am currently serving as President of the Board
    of Directors for the Provo River Water Users Association, and
    we have with us here today Keith Denos, General Manager for the
    Association.
        The district and the association I represent are the
    entities responsible to repay to the United States all the
    construction costs of the Provo River Project. There are really
    two components of that project. The Salt Lake Aqueduct
    component is the responsibility of the Metropolitan Water
    District, and the rest of the Provo River Project is the
    responsibility of the association.
        The district and the association are interested in pursuing
    title transfer of certain features of the Provo River Project.
    These would include the Salt Lake Aqueduct, the Provo Reservoir
    Canal, and a small parcel of ground in Pleasant Grove, Utah,
    that is currently used for the Office and Shop Complex.
        Construction of the Salt Lake Aqueduct was begun in 1939,
    and due to a delay with World War II, was completed in 1951. It
    begins at the base of Deer Creek Dam, at the top of Provo
    Canyon, which is in Wasatch County, Utah, and makes its way
    down through Utah County, eventually terminating in Salt Lake
    County. The pipeline is approximately 41 miles long and
    terminates at a reservoir in Salt Lake County.
        The Provo Reservoir Canal is approximately 23 miles long,
    beginning with the diversion off of the Provo River and
    meandering through eight cities in Utah County. It is primarily
    an unlined earthen structure and sits above and below a rapidly
    urbanizing area in Utah County.
        The Provo Reservoir Canal was privately constructed in the
    early 1900s, and then to improve it, the legal title to the
    canal was transferred to the Bureau of Reclamation under the
    Reclamation Act of 1902 to facilitate financing of improvements
    at that time. Ironically, because the United States holds legal
    title to the Provo Reservoir Canal, the local government
    entities which own, we estimate, 90 percent of the capacity in
    the canal cannot use their tax-exempt financing to finance the
    improvements that are critically needed.
        Then, finally, there is a small parcel of ground in
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, on which we have built our Office and
    Shop Complex for the association. The Association was given a
    perpetual right to use this land in 1956, but the actual title
    for that property remains in the name of the United States.
        We believe the proposed title transfer will be the first
    step in accomplishing the following goals:
        First, non-Federal financing of necessary facility
    improvements. While the Salt Lake Aqueduct is generally in good
    shape, there are several features of it that are now 60 years
    old and in need of upgrade. As Metro, we are a political
    subdivision of the State of Utah and cannot use our tax-exempt
    financing status to finance those improvements.
        The Provo Reservoir Canal must be enclosed. We anticipate
    this enclosure project in partnership with Central Utah.
        The fact that the title is held in the name of the United
    States prevents us from using our ability to gain low-cost,
    tax-exempt financing from non-Federal sources.
        There are several other benefits we believe will come from
    that. Water conservation, we estimate that approximately 8
    percent of the water that is transmitted through the canal on
    an annual basis is lost due to seepage or evaporation. Some of
    that water we anticipate using for stream habitat to provide
    for the endangered June sucker which has critical habitat in
    the lower Provo River.
        We believe it will be an improvement to public safety. In
    the last 20 years, we estimate that 14 people have died in the
    canal due to drownings.
        It will improve public drinking water protection and
    security. Increasingly, the water transmitted through this
    canal is treated for public drinking water uses, and right now
    it is vulnerable to access in many places.
        We also believe that there will be a more efficient and
    coordinated use of the water treatment and conveyance
    facilities to benefit all of the water users in Utah and Salt
    Lake Counties.
        Transfer of title for the Salt Lake Aqueduct and the Provo
    Reservoir Canal and the enclosure of the canal will allow a
    more comprehensive and coordinated use of these facilities.
        We also believe that enclosure of the canal will allow for
    recreational benefits which are not currently available. We
    currently prevent people from accessing the maintenance road
    because of safety, security, and other concerns.
        We also believe, finally, that the title transfer will
    reduce demands on limited reclamation resources. Currently, the
    Bureau helps the association and the district with right-of-way
    issues, those sorts of things, and we understand that the
    district and the association would have to completely take on
    these tasks and that Reclamation resources would be freed up
    for other Federal needs.
        Completion of the title transfer to the Salt Lake Aqueduct
    and the Pleasant Grove Property will require a title transfer
    agreement with the Secretary. Completion of title transfer to
    the Provo Reservoir Canal will require certain agreements among
    the impacted local entities and the United States. Completion
    of title transfer will require NEPA compliance and other
    compliance work. The first step is congressional authorization
    of this process, and we ask for your support in this critical
    first step.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Carman follows:]

               Statement of John Robert Carman, General Manager,
                Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake & Sandy

        My name is John Carman. I am the General Manager of the
    Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake & Sandy.
        The Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake & Sandy provides
    wholesale supplemental drinking water to Salt Lake City and Sandy City.
    In most years our District also provides water to a sister agency,
    Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District, the other large public
    wholesaler located in Salt Lake County.
        The Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake & Sandy is the major
    shareholder in the Provo River Water Users Association. I serve as the
    President of the Board of Directors of the Provo River Water Users
    Association.
        The District and the Association I represent are the entities
    responsible to repay to the United States all of the costs of
    construction of the Provo River Project. Repayment for, and the
    operation and maintenance of, the Aqueduct Division of the Provo River
    Project is the responsibility of the District. Repayment for, and the
    operation and maintenance of, the Deer Creek Division of the Provo
    River Project is the responsibility of the Association.
        The District and the Association are interested in pursuing a title
    transfer of certain features of the Provo River Project in Utah. The
    Association and the District are seeking title to the Salt Lake
    Aqueduct, the Provo Reservoir Canal, and a 3.79 acre parcel of land in
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, that is being used for the Association's Office
    and Shop Complex.
        Construction of the Salt Lake Aqueduct was initiated in 1939. The
    Salt Lake Aqueduct consists of a new intake structure, recently
    constructed without federal funds, located at the base of Deer Creek
    Dam, at the top of Provo Canyon in Wasatch County, Utah. From the
    intake structure, water is conveyed through approximately 41 miles of
    pipe with an inside diameter of 69'', as well as several tunnels. The
    Salt Lake Aqueduct reaches from the intake to the District's Little
    Cottonwood Water Treatment Plant in Salt Lake County. From the plant,
    water is conveyed to two 20 million gallon finished water reservoirs
    located at approximately I-215 and 3300 South in Salt Lake City.
        The Provo Reservoir Canal is approximately 23 miles long and
    reaches from the mouth of the Provo Canyon, through eight Utah County
    cities to the south end of Salt Lake County. For most of its length the
    canal is an open, unlined, earthen structure, perched on foothills
    above and below a rapidly urbanizing area. The Provo Reservoir Canal
    includes four large siphons to move water under streams and roads.
        The Provo Reservoir Canal was privately constructed in the early
    1900s. Legal title to the Provo Reservoir Canal was conveyed to the
    Bureau of Reclamation in 1939 to facilitate financing of canal
    improvements through the Reclamation Act of 1902. Ironically, because
    the United States holds legal title to the Provo Reservoir Canal, the
    local governmental entities are inhibited from obtaining locally
    financed improvements that are critically needed.
        The 3.79 acre parcel of project land in Pleasant Grove, Utah, is
    the location of a new $2 million Office and Shop Complex recently
    completed by the Association using no federal dollars. Though the
    Association was given a perpetual right to use this land in 1956, title
    to the land remains in the name of the United States.
        The proposed title transfer will be the first step to accomplishing
    the following goals:
        1. Non-federal financing of necessary facility improvements.
        While the Salt Lake Aqueduct is generally in very good condition,
    we anticipate accelerating repairs in the coming decades to improve
    security, seismic safety and longevity of the facility.
        The Provo Reservoir Canal must be enclosed. We anticipate an
    enclosure project in partnership with the Central Utah Project.
        The fact that title is held by the United States prevents certain
    low-cost, non-federal financing sources.
        2. Water conservation. It is estimated that the unlined Provo
    Reservoir Canal loses approximately 8% of the water moved through that
    facility. The proposed enclosure would make that water available for
    use.
        3. Use of some of the conserved water for stream habitat. It is
    anticipated that some of the saved water will be used by the Department
    of the Interior for in-stream purposes in the lower Provo River by
    agreement. The lower five miles of the Provo River have been designated
    critical habitat for the June Sucker.
        4. An increase in the Central Utah Project (CUP) water supply. It
    is anticipated that several petitioners for CUP water will be able to
    turn back some CUP water because of the availability of the water saved
    through enclosure of the Provo Reservoir Canal.
        5. Improved public safety. The land surrounding the canal is
    quickly developing, and interactions with the canal are increasing.
    Approximately 14 people have drowned in the Provo Reservoir Canal in
    the last 20 years. Enclosure would virtually eliminate this risk.
        6. Improved public drinking water protection and security. Today,
    the majority of the water moved through the Provo Reservoir Canal is
    treated and used for drinking water. The open canal exposes the water
    to a number of contaminants.
        7. More efficient and coordinated use of water treatment and
    conveyance facilities for the benefit of a number of local governmental
    entities. The Provo Reservoir Canal, the Salt Lake Aqueduct and the
    Jordan Aqueduct all serve water to north Utah County and Salt Lake
    County. Several water treatment plants are, or will be, tied together
    with this facility, and additional facilities currently being
    constructed by this District. Transfer of title to the Salt Lake
    Aqueduct and the Provo Reservoir Canal, and enclosure of the canal,
    will allow a more comprehensive and coordinated use of these
    facilities, to the benefit of all of the communities involved. It is
    anticipated that the coordinated use of these facilities will assist
    the Central Utah Project in meeting some minimum in-stream flow
    commitments.
        8. New public recreational opportunities. Water quality and safety
    concerns prevent the lawful use of the Provo Reservoir Canal
    maintenance road as a public trail. When the canal is enclosed the
    surface could be used safely for a public trail.
        9. The elimination of demands on limited Reclamation resources. The
    Bureau of Reclamation provides dedicated and competent staff support
    and resources to assist with the maintenance of the aqueduct and canal
    rights of way. Those responsibilities will have to be assumed
    completely by the District and the Association, and Reclamation
    resources will be freed up for other federal needs.
        Completion of title transfer to the Salt Lake Aqueduct and the
    Pleasant Grove Property will require a title transfer agreement with
    the Secretary. Completion of title transfer to the Provo Reservoir
    Canal will require certain agreements among the impacted local entities
    and the United States. Completion of title transfer will require NEPA
    compliance and other compliance work. The first step is Congressional
    authorization of this process. We ask for your support of this critical
    first step.
                                     ______

        Mr. Cannon. Thank you, Mr. Carman. We appreciate that
    testimony.
        Mr. Christiansen, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

            STATEMENT OF DON CHRISTIANSEN, GENERAL MANAGER,
                CENTRAL UTAH WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT

        Mr. Christiansen. Mr. Chairman and members of the
    Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to
    testify in support of the Provo River Project Transfer Act to
    authorize the transfer of the title of certain features of this
    project. You might wonder why the Central Utah District has an
    interest in this bill. The Central Utah Project and the Provo
    River Project have been intertwined and co-dependent for
    decades. Both projects have dams for water storage on the Provo
    River. Both projects capture this high-quality water and divert
    it through conveyance structures to water users in Northern
    Utah and Salt Lake Counties, and both projects share a duty to
    the recovery of the June sucker in the lower Provo River and
    Utah Lake.
        This bill is important to us at several levels. First, the
    district is finalizing planning and NEPA review for
    construction of facilities required to distribute the remaining
    water supply being developed by the Bonneville Unit of the
    Central Utah Project for use along the Wasatch Front. While we
    have not selected a proposed action, several of the
    alternatives being studied contemplate the delivery of new
    supplies of water to Salt Lake County. Salt Lake presently
    receives its Provo River supplies through one of three systems:
    the Provo Reservoir Canal, the Salt Lake Aqueduct, and the
    Jordan Aqueduct. Our new Bonneville Unit water must be
    delivered through one or more of these existing conveyance
    systems. We believe that coordinated operation of these three
    conveyance systems will maximize the efficient delivery of
    water and at the lowest possible cost. Hence, before title is
    transferred out of Federal ownership to two of these three
    systems, we believe it is important to advance this dialog
    among the various water districts.
        Of particular importance to the Central Utah Water
    Conservancy District are provisions of the bill authorizing the
    title transfer for the Provo Reservoir Canal. When the canal
    was first planned, there were only a few communities along its
    right-of-way, and one of these is the beautiful community of
    Alpine, where I lived for over 25 years. Nearly two decades ago
    while I was serving as Mayor of Alpine, I started a campaign to
    convince the Bureau of Reclamation to replace that open canal
    with a buried pipeline. I failed, but my journey led me from
    being Mayor to the Chairman of the Board of Trustees to the
    General Manager's position of the Central Utah Water
    Conservancy District.
        My concern then as Mayor was one of safety for the
    community. This concern remains. Just last month, two young men
    were drowned in a tragic accident in the Provo Reservoir Canal.
    In addition to the safety issues of the open canal, which now
    runs through numerous residential neighborhoods, we estimate
    that over 8,000-acre-feet of water is lost through evaporation
    and leakage. The Central Utah Water Conservancy District has
    offered to pay half of the estimated $115 million cost to
    enclose the canal in return for which we would receive the
    conserved water. This water would then be made available to the
    Secretary of Interior under provisions of the Central Utah
    Project Completion Act, which would enable the water to be
    applied to in-stream flows in the lower Provo River to help
    recover the endangered June sucker through the recovery
    program. I want to point out that the obligation of the June
    Sucker Recovery Program is one that is shared by all of the
    water users who divert water from the Provo River, including
    the water districts that operate the storage facilities on the
    Provo River.
        It is our plan to create a joint public agency among the
    Central Utah District, the Jordan Valley Water Conservancy
    District, and the Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake and
    Sandy to take title to a portion of the capacity in this
    facility. This is a vital step in order for us to be able to
    finance the project with tax-advantaged bonds which are only
    available to local public water districts.
        Although we have not heard from the Department of Interior
    today, we know that they have some concerns, and we have heard
    other concerns that have been expressed. But we believe that
    the bill should proceed while the agreements that are
    necessitated are being negotiated. And we think that the
    process should go forward simultaneously with the negotiation
    of the several agreements that have to accompany the title
    transfer. If we were to wait another 6 or 8 months, the time it
    will take to conclude our discussions, it would be too late in
    the legislative process to advance the bill from introduction
    to enactment.
        To address the Department of Interior's concerns, we have
    built a mechanism into the bill draft that restricts the
    Secretary's authority to transfer the title to the Provo
    Reservoir Canal until the Provo River Water Users Association
    certifies that the necessary future ownership, financing,
    operation, and transfer agreements have been completed.
        I want to thank John Carman and the Metropolitan Water
    District of Salt Lake and Sandy and Representative Cannon for
    working with us on this provision. With its inclusion, we are
    here to urge you to move forward with this bill as soon as your
    calendar permits.
        I thank you for the opportunity of testifying today.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Christiansen follows:]

                Statement of Don Christiansen, General Manager,
                    Central Utah Water Conservancy District

        Chairman Calvert, Congressman Cannon and members of the Committee,
    I appreciate the opportunity to testify today in support of the Provo
    River Project Transfer Act to authorize the transfer of title to
    certain features of the Provo River Project. You might wonder why the
    Central Utah District cares about this bill. The Central Utah Project
    and the Provo River Project have been intertwined and co-dependent for
    decades. Both projects have dams for water storage on the Provo River;
    both projects capture this high quality water and divert it through
    conveyance structures to water users in Northern Utah and Salt Lake
    Counties; and both Projects share a duty to the recovery of the June
    sucker in the lower Provo River and Utah Lake.
        This bill is important to us at several levels. First, the District
    is finalizing planning and NEPA review for the construction of the
    facilities required to distribute the remaining water supply being
    developed by the Bonneville Unit for use along the Wasatch Front. While
    we have not selected a proposed action, several of the alternatives
    being studied contemplate the delivery of new supplies of water to Salt
    Lake County. Salt Lake presently ``drinks'' its Provo River supplies
    through one of three ``straws'': the Provo Reservoir Canal, the Salt
    Lake Aqueduct and the Jordan Aqueduct. Our new Bonneville Unit water
    must be delivered through one or more of these existing conveyance
    straws. We believe that the coordinated operation of these three
    conveyance ``straws'' will maximize the efficient delivery of water at
    the least cost. Hence, before title is transferred out of federal
    ownership to two of these three straws, we believe it is important to
    advance this dialogue among the various water districts.
        Of particular importance to the Central Utah Water Conservancy
    District are the provisions of the bill authorizing the title transfer
    for the Provo Reservoir Canal. When the Canal was first planned, there
    were only a few communities along its right of way, one of which is a
    beautiful community of Alpine, where I lived for twenty five years.
    Nearly two decades ago, while serving as the Mayor of Alpine, I started
    a campaign to convince the Bureau of Reclamation to replace the open
    canal with a buried pipeline. I failed then--but my journey led me from
    Mayor to Chairman of the Board of Trustees and then to General Manager
    of the Central Utah Water Conservancy District.
        My concern then as Mayor was one of safety for the community. This
    concern remains. Just last month two young men drowned in a tragic
    accident in the Provo Reservoir Canal. In addition to the safety issues
    of an open canal, which now runs through numerous residential
    neighborhoods, we estimate that over 8,000 acre feet of water are
    wasted through evaporation and leakage. The Central Utah Water
    Conservancy District has offered to pay half of the estimated $115
    million cost to enclose the canal in return for which we would receive
    the conserved water. This water would then be made available to the
    Secretary under provisions of the Central Utah Project Completion Act,
    which enables the water to be applied to in-stream flows in the lower
    Provo River to help recover the endangered June sucker through the
    recovery program. I want to point out that the obligation to the June
    Sucker Recovery Program is one that is shared by all of the water users
    who divert water from the Provo River, including the water districts
    that operate the storage facilities on the Provo River.
        It is our plan to create a Joint Public Agency among the Central
    Utah District, the Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District, and the
    Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake & Sandy to take title to a
    portion of the capacity in this facility. This is a vital step in order
    for us to be able to finance the project with tax-advantaged bonds
    which are available only to local public water districts.
        Although we have not heard from the Interior Department today, we
    understand that the Department supports the concept of this title
    transfer bill, but does not believe that the bill should proceed until
    after all the details have been negotiated to the several agreements
    that will govern the operation of the facilities. While we agree that
    these agreements are vital, it is our view that the legislation should
    proceed simultaneously with the negotiations on the several agreements
    associated with the title transfer. If we were to wait another six to
    eight months, the time it will take to conclude our discussions, it
    will be too late in the legislative process to advance the bill from
    introduction to enactment. To address the Department of the Interior's
    concerns, we have built a mechanism into the bill draft that restricts
    the Secretary's authority to transfer the title to the Provo Reservoir
    Canal until the Provo River Waters Users Association certifies that the
    necessary future ownership, financing, operation and transfer
    agreements have been completed. I want to thank John Carmen and the
    Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake & Sandy and Representative
    Cannon for working with us on this provision. With its inclusion, we
    urge you to move forward with this bill as soon as your calendar
    permits. Thank you.
                                     ______

        Mr. Cannon. Thank you. I want to thank both of you for your
    testimony. At this point I would like to ask unanimous consent
    to submit a statement for the record, and without objection, so
    ordered.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Cannon follows:]

     Statement of The Honorable Chris Cannon, a Representative in Congress
                      from the State of Utah, on H.R. 3391

        Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the Subcommittee allowing me to join you
    on the dais today, and I thank you for holding a hearing on H.R. 3391.
    This legislation would authorize the title transfer of certain features
    of the Provo River Project, which would include the canal itself, the
    Salt Lake Aqueduct and land in Pleasant Grove from the Bureau of
    Reclamation to non-federal ownership.
        For the past 60 years the Provo River Water Users Association has
    operated this canal. As long as the title is still in the name of the
    federal government, the water users association and our local
    governments that use the water will not be able to obtain the tax-
    exempt financing necessary to cover this canal. It could cost
    approximately $115 million to complete this critical project of
    enclosing the canal.
        Perhaps the most important reason to enclose the canal is safety.
    On October 1st of this year two young men drowned in the canal when
    they attempted to go scuba diving. This latest tragedy raised the total
    number of drownings in the canal to 14 people.
        Security is another extremely important element of concern
    regarding this canal. The canal transports drinking water to a
    significant part of the Salt Lake City metropolitan area. The twenty-
    three miles of open canal that currently exist are very difficult to
    protect, therefore transferring the title would be extremely beneficial
    to the safety of the water supply.
        Water efficiencies will also result from title transfer.
    Approximately 8 percent of the water is lost to evaporation and seepage
    since the canal is not enclosed. There are environmental benefits as
    well--for instance, some of the saved water will be made available to
    meet the needs of the endangered June-sucker. Covering the canal will
    also allow for the development of recreational trails that can be used
    for hiking and cycling.
        Mr. Chairman, I thank you again for holding this hearing on an
    extremely important piece of legislation that works to alleviate the
    ever present water problem facing the west. While I am proud to say
    that this transfer has received almost universal support, as we move
    forward Mr. Chairman, I will work with all parties to resolve any
    legitimate concerns that arise.
                                     ______

        Mr. Cannon. Now, as Chair, I recognize myself for 5
    minutes. I would like to start off by just making a couple of
    comments.
        The Metropolitan Water District is one of the most
    incredibly well-managed organizations of its type, and we
    appreciate the fact that you are here, Mr. Carman, and that you
    have been so thoughtful in the process of moving this issue,
    which is very, very important. Also, Mr. Christiansen's old and
    great--well, he is not old. Our relationship is old and very
    dear to me, and he has managed a project for a long period of
    time now that has consistently outperformed expectations, and
    we appreciate your being here and bringing so vital a part to
    this project that is important.
        I thought I would just start by pointing out that I have
    actually lived very near this canal and have watched that area
    grow all the way along the canal area. And although we have had
    14 deaths, including these two recent and very unfortunate
    deaths, the fact is it is a much more dangerous canal now
    because we have many more families and many more small
    children. And although there are some protections, it is a
    danger. Is that not--do you both agree with that?
        Mr. Christiansen. Absolutely.
        Mr. Carman. Absolutely.
        Mr. Cannon. Thank you. This is one of the major reasons why
    I pursued the bill.
        I would like to ask several technical questions just so we
    can be sure that we are clear for the record. Am I correct in
    saying that this legislation requires a transfer agreement and
    that that agreement would lay out the financial obligations of
    the district, Mr. Carman?
        Mr. Carman. That is correct. The title transfer agreement
    is between the Bureau of Reclamation, Department of Interior,
    and the contracting agencies who are responsible for repaying
    the costs of the project. So in the Salt Lake Aqueduct case,
    that would be Metro and the canal situation. That would be the
    association.
        Mr. Cannon. And what are the levels of the payments that
    you anticipate making to the United States?
        Mr. Carman. There is a formal process under Bureau
    guidelines for determining that cost, and they have suggested
    to us what the remaining payout is on both facilities.
        Now, that gets updated using their procedures inside the
    Bureau at the time when the transfer takes place, but the
    estimate, as we understood it, was $747,800, approximately, on
    the Salt Lake Aqueduct remains to be paid, and $753,400,
    approximately, on the Provo Reservoir Canal. These were
    estimates provided a month or so ago.
        Mr. Cannon. So very close to $1.5 million for both
    projects.
        Mr. Carman. That is correct.
        Mr. Cannon. Is there any different mechanism to accomplish
    the goals of this legislation besides the transfer of title?
        Mr. Carman. We have suggested that if the Department of
    Interior could reinstate their RMB loan and loan us $400
    million over the next 40 years, that we would be very happy to
    pursue that, or we could talk about changes in IRS Code. But
    this seems to us to be the most logical way for the local
    entities to take on the responsibility for this infrastructure
    and move it forward on their own.
        Mr. Cannon. Is that in part because of the low interest
    rate you have through your municipal financing of the project?
        Mr. Carman. That is correct. As Don suggested, estimated
    cost is $115 to $120 million, and the difference between
    taxable and tax-exempt financing at a 1.5 percent approximate
    difference is $1.5 million a year, maybe $2 million a year,
    just in interest costs alone.
        Mr. Cannon. And so the total capital cost of that project
    is how much?
        Mr. Carman. To enclose the canal, the range is $90 to $120
    million, and we have been using 115 for negotiating purposes.
        Mr. Cannon. And you expect the bulk of that to be done with
    municipal bonds at a lower interest rate?
        Mr. Carman. That is correct.
        Mr. Cannon. Thank you.
        Will operation and management of the Salt Lake Aqueduct
    change after title transfer?
        Mr. Carman. Currently, that is the responsibility of the
    Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake and Sandy. The one
    thing we would expect to see is that currently, for example,
    when somebody wants to build a road across the aqueduct or to
    put a sewage pipe crossing past the aqueduct, they have to get
    approval from both ourselves and the Bureau. And after a title
    transfer, the Bureau's staff would no longer be available to
    work on those, and we would have to take on that responsibility
    ourselves.
        Mr. Cannon. And that would raise the cost a little bit, but
    you are willing to do that?
        Mr. Carman. Yes.
        Mr. Cannon. What role will the local municipalities and
    water districts play in the Provo Reservoir Canal enclosure
    project?
        Mr. Carman. We feel that their support is essential.
    Obviously, they benefit from the safety improvements. But, in
    fact, most of the local municipalities are beneficiaries of the
    water side of the project as well. Either directly or
    indirectly, I believe, all of those cities have an interest in
    the Provo Reservoir Canal on the water side. Once it is in a
    pipe, then it does have the potential to become a great
    recreational asset for the communities as well as improving the
    situation with the safety hazard.
        Mr. Cannon. Thank you, Mr. Carman.
        Mr. Christiansen, what types of agreements do you believe
    are necessary to complete the title transfers contemplated by
    this legislation? And how long will it take to conclude
    negotiations on them?
        Mr. Christiansen. I think I can remember most of them. The
    title transfer agreement that John has just talked about, there
    needs to be an operating agreement, talking about the operation
    of them. There needs to be an agreement as to how the ownership
    will be assumed on a local basis and how we would finance
    paying for the improvements to the canal. Embodied in those
    agreements I believe can be all of the concerns that anyone
    might have as to the transfer of this facility from the Federal
    ownership to the local ownership.
        Mr. Cannon. Thank you. I ask unanimous consent to extend my
    time by 2 minutes. Without objection. I just have another
    couple of questions. We won't keep you long.
        Mr. Christiansen, how will the Central Utah Water
    Conservancy District contribute to the cost of rehabilitating
    the Provo Reservoir Canal?
        Mr. Christiansen. As I indicated, we have committed to
    provide half of the funding, 50 percent of whatever that turns
    out to be. We assume that we can get a fair amount of that
    under Section 207 of the Central Utah Completion Act, which
    would be Federal funding for water conservation. And so we
    assume that a fair amount of that 50 percent can come from that
    source; 40 to 60 percent may be there. That is why the 8,000-
    acre-feet of saved water is so important to us because we would
    want to do that under the Section 207 water conservation.
        Mr. Cannon. Thank you. Has it been determined how much of
    the saved water will be provided to the Secretary for in-stream
    flows in the lower Provo River?
        Mr. Christiansen. The exact amount has not been determined,
    but it is our assumption that there will be in excess of 8,000-
    acre-feet of saved water, and it is our intent to furnish 100
    percent of all of the saved water for the use of the Department
    in minimum flows in the Provo River for the benefit of the June
    sucker.
        Mr. Cannon. So there is a huge benefit to the Department,
    and you expect the Department to work with you on the cost
    sharing on the other side?
        Mr. Christiansen. Absolutely.
        Mr. Cannon. Thank you. I have no further questions, and so
    I yield back time.
        Mrs. Napolitano? The gentlelady is recognized for 5
    minutes, or so much time as she may decided she would like in
    addition. Thank you.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a good
    thing we are friends.
        I just was wondering about the agreement that has not been
    signed. Isn't that like an open check until that agreement is
    really hammered and signed?
        Mr. Christiansen. Do you want me to respond?
        Mrs. Napolitano. Either one of you.
        Mr. Christiansen. There are a number of issues that have
    not yet been negotiated and resolved on the various agreements
    that I listed previously. We think that the provision in the
    legislation that says that title transfer cannot be effected by
    the Secretary of Interior until various agreements are in place
    is the safeguard that we need to move forward on that. There
    are a number of issues, as anyone may anticipate, that will be
    a little testy among the various organizations, but we think
    that we can get there. Without those agreements, the way the
    legislation is written, the title would not be transferred.
        Mrs. Napolitano. I am kind of hesitant to say that this
    bill meets all the criteria. All of the other bills that have
    come before this Committee that require transfer agreements
    prepared, signed, and delivered have been so done. And it just
    is not good thinking to say that you are going to get all your
    agreements done. It could be hanging in fire, and here we are
    passing through what could be the bill that might change
    because of the agreement.
        Mr. Christiansen. Do you want to respond to that?
        Mr. Carman. Well, I appreciate your thoughts on that. There
    are some aspects of this that are going to be very difficult to
    achieve. You know, for example, the way that we hold the
    interest for the public entities and the joint public action
    agency which would ultimately receive the public component of
    the canal could take years to unravel. So the agreement will
    really in our minds define how that is going to happen, but it
    may be many years before all of the pieces are in place. But
    those are really local issues that have to be worked out
    amongst the parties.
        The one thing that happens if we can't get those agreements
    in place is that nothing changes from the way it is today. The
    canal remains unlined. It continues to leak. It continues to be
    a safety issue.
        So from the local perspective, should those agreements take
    longer, that is really a problem for us more so than the
    Federal Government.
        Mrs. Napolitano. It may be a problem for the locals, but it
    is also a problem for us to be able to pass through something
    that does not have an agreement signed.
        Mr. Cannon. If the gentlelady would yield?
        Mrs. Napolitano. Certainly.
        Mr. Cannon. I can give her assurances that before we bring
    this to markup, we will have the basic agreement in place and
    satisfactory.
        Mrs. Napolitano. I will hold you to it, sir.
        Mr. Cannon. Thank you.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Then the other thing I would want to find
    out is the Bureau of Reclamation is holding hearings this week,
    is my understanding, about the environmental concerns the
    public may have on the transfer of the canal, and that the
    scoping sessions will not address transfer of headworks because
    the Bureau wants to retain ownership of the facility. Is that
    part of the issue with the transfer?
        Mr. Carman. That is not the understanding we have. There
    was some suggestion that they not be addressed specifically in
    the NEPA scoping document, but it was our intent to be up front
    that we wanted to transfer the headworks.
        Now, it is clear that the water rights themselves remain in
    the name of the Federal Government, so there is no attempt here
    to transfer those water rights into the name of the local
    entities. In our view, that gives the Federal Government all
    the protection they need to look out for the needs of the June
    sucker.
        Mrs. Napolitano. So you are amenable to the bill stating
    that only the canal will be transferred, but not the components
    Bureau of Reclamation opposes, such as the Murdock Diversion
    and the Salt Lake Aqueduct?
        Mr. Carman. Say that one more time?
        Mrs. Napolitano. Well, there is a question as to whether
    the bill--if the bill is going through and is amended or will
    be amended to clarify that only the canal will be transferred
    but not the components the Bureau of Reclamation opposes, and I
    have information that states that it is such as the Murdock
    Diversion Dam and the Salt Lake Aqueduct?
        Mr. Carman. It is my understanding that that is not the
    official position of the Department of Interior, so----
        Mrs. Napolitano. That is the reason we needed the report
    from the Fish and Wildlife and the Bureau of Reclamation,
    because this would not be an issue then.
        Mr. Carman. Right, which they, as I understand it, will
    provide. But it is our intent to transfer title on intake
    structures because if you have a pipe but not an intake
    structure, what is it that you have?
        Mrs. Napolitano. OK. Mr. Christiansen, if we authorize the
    Salt Lake Inlet and the Murdock Diversion Dam to be transferred
    to non-Federal entities, there may be implications for the
    recovery plan of the endangered June sucker, and I look forward
    to the testimony that might clarify that. What is your reaction
    to the concern?
        Mr. Christiansen. We are in this June Sucker Recovery
    Program together. I would tell you that we have been the
    leading cause, the Central Utah District, in getting the
    recovery program in place and operating it. But I believe all
    of us who divert water along the Provo River are in with the
    same responsibilities under the ESA to that June sucker. And I
    am confident that we can negotiate before the title transfer
    actually takes place, the official title transfer, the
    safeguards that we will need in order to operate to benefit the
    recovery of the June sucker. I am confident of that. We are not
    there, but we will get there.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Is there any question about the Endangered
    Species Act having an effect on this?
        Mr. Christiansen. Certainly the Endangered Species Act
    should have an effect on it, yes.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Cannon. The gentlelady yields back.
        Mr. Neugebauer?
        Mr. Neugebauer. No questions.
        Mr. Cannon. Thank you. We appreciate you for being here and
    for your thoughtful comments. And with that, you are dismissed,
    and I am going to turn this over to Mr. Neugebauer, and he will
    recognize the next panel.
        Mr. Neugebauer. [Presiding.] Good afternoon. I would now
    like to recognize the final panel of witnesses to testify on S.
    212: Ms. Irene Favila, Workforce Development Coordinator in
    Plainview, Texas; Mr. Leland Tillman, Executive Director of
    Eastern Plains Council of Governments; Mr. Lloyd Arthur,
    American Farm Bureau Federation, from Ralls, Texas; Mr. Lee
    Allison, Director and State Geologist, Kansas Geological
    Survey; Mr. Scott Wall, National Corn Growers Association,
    Yuma, Colorado; and Mr. Jim Conkwright, Manager of High Plains
    Underground Water District No. 1, Lubbock, Texas.
        I would now recognize Ms. Favila to testify for 5 minutes.

      STATEMENT OF IRENE FAVILA, CITY COUNCILWOMAN AND WORKFORCE
               DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR, PLAINVIEW, TEXAS

        Ms. Favila. Thank you. Good afternoon.
        First, I would like to thank the distinguished members of
    the Subcommittee for allowing me the opportunity to provide you
    with information and offer another perspective on the potential
    implications of S. 212.
        My name is Irene Favila, and I am from Plainview, Texas.
    Plainview is a small city situated in the Texas Panhandle--a
    region that depends heavily on water available through the
    Ogallala formation within the High Plains Aquifer. Crop
    production in the region, which is dominated by cotton and
    grain commodities, requires significant irrigation to meet
    watering demand. It is estimated that 95 percent of all crop
    land in the Panhandle is irrigated with water obtained through
    the aquifer.
        I am a workforce development coordinator for Motivation
    Education and Train, Inc., or MET, which is a community-based
    organization that helps displaced farm workers find jobs
    outside of agriculture, as well as assisting in the
    stabilization of agricultural employment for underemployed
    workers and their families. During my 28 years with MET, I have
    witnessed some rather profound changes in both the agricultural
    economy and the social environment in our local area, and I
    have come to better understand the delicate balance between the
    prevailing forces that fuel agricultural production and the
    varied interests that have a stake in this diverse and
    important industry. For the past 11-and-a-half years, I have
    been honored to serve on the Plainview City Council, and I
    consider it both a privilege and obligation to help improve the
    quality of life in my hometown and the surrounding area.
        It would be difficult to live in the High Plains and not
    appreciate the importance of agriculture, but it is fairly easy
    to look at the broader landscape and not see some of the finer
    details. The migrant and seasonal farm workers whom I serve are
    among the poorest working families in the Nation, and their
    struggle to survive economically is a contest that would be
    unimaginable for most Americans. With average household incomes
    around $7,600 per year, and an average household size of 3.8,
    Texas farm workers are often faced with unfair tradeoffs and
    extremely hard choices.
        During 2001, our clients were only able to find farm
    employment for an average of 83 days. The need for income is so
    desperate that the mere promise of a job is sufficient to force
    whole families to migrate hundreds and sometimes thousands of
    miles. Natural forces and increasingly global economic
    realities impact the ability of farm workers to find employment
    throughout the migrant stream, and workers and their families
    have endured a steady erosion of jobs and income over the last
    several decades. In Plainview alone, where once around 30
    packing sheds supported a vibrant produce industry, none exist
    today.
        The relationship between agricultural producers and the
    workers on whose behalf I am here today is often portrayed as
    an uneasy coexistence between ``us'' and ``them.'' However, the
    reality of the situation is that the economic destinies of both
    parties are intertwined, bound by a common interest in the
    viability of crop and animal production, and vulnerable to many
    of the same natural and economic variables. While growers get
    the lion's share of attention during lean production periods,
    for every farmer that faces a crop failure or other disaster,
    there are untold numbers of farm workers whose losses are every
    bit as compelling and likely more economically devastating.
        I believe that my experience working with the agricultural
    labor force, my knowledge of the employment situation in the
    region, and the familiarity with the agricultural industry in
    general enable me to speak knowledgeably about the potential
    impact of the legislation before the Subcommittee.
    Additionally, my public policy work as an elected official, as
    well as that accomplished through volunteer efforts, has
    provided me a greater understanding of how governmental
    initiatives impact the local and regional environments.
        My chief concern with S. 212 is the proposed Federal
    monitoring of the High Plains Aquifer and its potential for
    increased regulation and restrictions that could adversely
    impact the already bleak employment prospects for migrant and
    seasonal farm workers. Although the bill does not explicitly
    mention regulations, one must question the purpose of a new
    Federal monitoring program when there are already State and
    local laws on the books for mapping the aquifer. One must also
    question the need and nature of a federally led monitoring
    program and what Federal strings may eventually be attached to
    aquifer use. Should this legislation be enacted, cutbacks in
    production and crop losses due to insufficient water
    availability are legitimate concerns for growers and workers
    alike. We understand the necessity of better utilization, but
    we also believe that collective local engagement is the best
    means of addressing this crucial component of natural resource
    management. Texas is already leading the conservation movement
    to secure sufficient resources for future generations.
        Secondary concerns with respect to this legislation are
    that it will further constrain the targeting of scarce Federal
    resources for other potentially more advantageous initiatives,
    as well as the possibility that implementation of this program
    will discourage precisely the type of local planning and
    coordination that is truly necessary for meaningful and
    sustainable community-driven action. S. 212 appears to
    duplicate existing programs, and the objectives of the
    legislation could be better met through improved coordination.
    I must also question the need for creating a new $90 million
    program that will compete with ongoing domestic needs in our
    communities.
        The most important part of my job is helping workers who
    have been displaced from agriculture prepare for and secure
    jobs in other industries. Pardon?
        Mr. Neugebauer. I would ask you to wrap up your statement,
    please.
        Ms. Favila. OK. I would respectfully offer my hope that in
    trying to promote the public interest that we do not impose
    unintended consequences on those with little ability to
    effectively pay the resultant economic and social costs.
        May God bless you all, and thank you again for your
    consideration.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Favila follows:]

         Statement of Irene Favila, Workforce Development Coordinator,
             Motivation Education & Training, Inc. (MET), on S. 212

        First, I would like to thank the distinguished members of this
    Subcommittee for allowing me the opportunity to provide you with
    information, and offer another perspective on the potential
    implications of S. 212.
        My name is Irene Favila, and I am from Plainview, Texas. Plainview
    is a small city situated in the Texas Panhandle--a region that depends
    heavily on water available through the Ogallala formation within the
    High Plains Aquifer. Crop production in the region, which is dominated
    by cotton and grain commodities, requires significant irrigation to
    meet watering demand. It is estimated that 95 percent of all cropland
    in the Panhandle is irrigated with water obtained through the Aquifer.
        I am a workforce development coordinator for Motivation Education &
    Training Inc. or ``MET''--which is a community-based organization that
    helps displaced farm workers find jobs outside of agriculture, as well
    as assisting in the stabilization of agricultural employment for
    underemployed workers and their families. During my 28-years with MET,
    I have witnessed some rather profound changes in both the agricultural
    economy and the social environment in our local area, and I have come
    to better understand the delicate balance between the prevailing forces
    that fuel agricultural production, and the varied interests that have a
    stake in this diverse and important industry. For the past eleven-and-
    a-half years, I have been honored to serve on the Plainview City
    Council, and I consider it both a privilege and obligation to help
    improve the quality of life in my hometown and the surrounding area.
        It would be difficult to live in the High Plains and not appreciate
    the importance of agriculture, but it is fairly easy to look at the
    broader landscape and not see some of the finer details. The migrant
    and seasonal farm workers whom I serve are among the poorest working
    families in the nation, and their struggle to survive economically is a
    contest that would be unimaginable for most Americans. With average
    household incomes around $7,600 per year, and an average household size
    of 3.8, Texas farm workers are often faced with unfair tradeoffs and
    extremely hard choices. During 2001, our clients were only able to find
    farm employment for an average of 83 days. The need for income is so
    desperate that the mere promise of a job is sufficient to force whole
    families to migrate hundreds and sometimes thousands of miles. Natural
    forces, and increasingly global economic realities, impact the ability
    of farm workers to find employment throughout the migrant stream, and
    workers and their families have endured a steady erosion of jobs and
    income over the last several decades. In Plainview alone, where once
    around 30 packing sheds supported a vibrant produce industry, none
    exist today.
        The relationship between agricultural producers and the workers, on
    whose behalf I am here today, is often portrayed as an uneasy
    coexistence between ``us'' and ``them.'' However, the reality of the
    situation is that the economic destinies of both parties are
    intertwined, bound by a common interest in the viability of crop and
    animal production, and vulnerable to many of the same natural and
    economic variables. While growers get the lion's share of attention
    during lean production periods, for every farmer that faces a crop
    failure or other disaster, there are untold numbers of farm workers
    whose losses are every bit as compelling and likely more economically
    devastating.
        I believe that my experience working with the agricultural labor
    force, my knowledge of the employment situation in the region, and my
    familiarity with the agricultural industry in general, enable me to
    speak knowledgeably about the potential impact of the legislation
    before the Subcommittee. Additionally, my public policy work as an
    elected official, as well as that accomplished through volunteer
    efforts, has provided me a greater understanding of how governmental
    initiatives impact the local and regional environments.
        My chief concern with S. 212 is the proposed federal monitoring of
    the High Plains Aquifer, and its potential for increased regulation and
    restrictions that could adversely impact the already bleak employment
    prospects for migrant and seasonal farm workers. Although the bill does
    not explicitly mention regulations, one must question the purpose of a
    new federal monitoring program when there are already state and local
    laws on the books for mapping the Aquifer. One must also question the
    need and nature of a federally-led monitoring program and what federal
    strings may eventually be attached to Aquifer use. Should this
    legislation be enacted, cutbacks in production and crop losses due to
    insufficient water availability are legitimate concerns for growers and
    workers alike. We understand the necessity of better utilization, but
    we also believe that collective local engagement is the best means of
    addressing this crucial component of natural resource management. Texas
    is already leading the conservation movement to secure sufficient
    resources for future generations.
        Secondary concerns with respect to this legislation, are that it
    will further constrain the targeting of scarce federal resources for
    other potentially more advantageous initiatives, as well as the
    possibility that implementation of this program will discourage
    precisely the type of local planning and coordination that is truly
    necessary for meaningful and sustainable community-driven action. S.
    212 appears to duplicate existing programs, and the objectives of the
    legislation could be better met through improved coordination. I must
    also question the need for creating a new $90 million program that will
    compete with ongoing domestic needs in our communities.
        The most important part of my job is helping workers who have been
    displaced from agriculture prepare for, and secure, jobs in other
    industries. The difficulty in rural areas, such as Plainview, is that
    the entire economy is influenced by the performance of the farm and
    ranch sectors. While there may be considerable disagreement about the
    most effective means of managing natural resources, it would seem to
    make sense in this case that we should avoid at all cost hurting the
    very people who depend on the water held in the High Plains Aquifer. I
    believe, especially in light of current economic realities, that we
    should at least strive to do no harm with respect to current jobs held
    by American workers, particularly those individuals who struggle at the
    bottom of the economic ladder, such as migrant and seasonal farm
    workers. I would respectfully offer my hope that, in trying to promote
    the public interest, that we do not impose unintended consequences on
    those with little ability to effectively pay the resultant economic and
    social costs. May God Bless You All.
        Thank you again for your consideration.
                                     ______

        Mr. Neugebauer. Thank you.
        The Chair now recognizes Mr. Tillman.

          STATEMENT OF LELAND D. TILLMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
                 EASTERN PLAINS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS

        Mr. Tillman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
    Committee. I thank you for the opportunity to testify today on
    Senate bill 212. My name is Leland Tillman. I am from Clovis,
    New Mexico. I am the Director of the Eastern Plains Council of
    Governments, which is a voluntary association of local
    governments which serves 22 incorporated communities in seven
    counties in northeastern New Mexico.
        Every community in our area is dependent exclusively on
    groundwater for their municipal and industrial water needs.
    About three-fourths of the population depends exclusively on
    the Ogallala Aquifer, the High Plains Aquifer, for their
    drinking water supply.
        Even though New Mexico has only about 1.5 percent of both
    the land area and the volumes remaining in the aquifer, our
    water problems are particularly important because we see our
    problems as a precursor of other problems that will occur in
    other areas. This issue has become our primary resource
    management issue and our top economic development issue as we
    continue to improve conservation efforts and move toward a less
    water-intensive economy.
        Agriculture is an important economic engine in the counties
    of Curry, Roosevelt, Quay, and Union in eastern New Mexico that
    accounts for a $683 million input into our economy in 2001.
        Under New Mexico law, communities are required to plan for
    an adequate water supply to meet their estimated demand during
    a 40-year planning horizon. In light of the fact that some of
    our communities in New Mexico have had continuous occupation
    and existence for more than 400 years, 40 years is considered a
    relatively near-term time frame for a community.
        As State and regional water planning becomes increasingly
    important in New Mexico and other Western States, State and
    local policy officials are clamoring for better hydrologic data
    and better projections and estimates on the remaining supply.
    Several of our communities which are dependent upon the aquifer
    are working together to develop dependable surface supplies to
    augment the remaining groundwater. The Eastern New Mexico Rural
    Water Supply Project is a clear recognition that our
    groundwater resources are finite in our area. In the nearer
    term, several communities are purchasing additional groundwater
    resources to extend their supply.
        Even though some areas clearly have adequate groundwater
    reserves to address current and future needs, others face the
    harsh prospect of running out of water in the next 40 to 50
    years. That is why conservation, improved agricultural
    technologies, and more reclamation and reuse becomes incredibly
    important.
        Good data is essential to our understanding of the
    characteristics of the aquifer. This information becomes even
    more useful when it can be used to enhance recharge and further
    extend aquifer life.
        While some have been critical of irrigated agriculture in
    our area for being the primary user of groundwater, I am very
    quick to point out the outstanding conservation efforts made by
    agriculture, which has improved the efficiency for irrigation
    from roughly 35 percent efficiency for row irrigation up to 90-
    plus percent efficiency for today's cutting-edge low energy
    precision application systems, which use drop lines, drag
    lines, water socks, and other conservation techniques.
        But for municipalities, declining water tables mean a
    continued diminishment of well yields, necessitating more wells
    pumping more of the time.
        We appreciate the excellent contribution that the USGS has
    made over the past 10 or 15 years in understanding the scope
    and limitations of the High Plains Aquifer. But now annual
    measurements of local wells would be considerably more helpful
    to State and local policy officials than the current program in
    New Mexico which measures large numbers of wells only every 5
    years.
        Despite continued friction between States in some localized
    areas over groundwater issues, there is a growing awareness
    among water users in New Mexico that it will take the very best
    efforts of our governments, our institutions, and the people
    themselves to work together to make the very most of our the
    limited groundwater remaining for the future.
        I hope the Committee recognizes the importance of these
    Western water problems, compounded by wildfires and the
    drought, make water issues a national concern, and we
    appreciate your willingness to support the State geological
    surveys and the valuable contributions that they have made to
    help us better understand this important problem.
        Recognizing my time is limited, I would like to make sure
    the support letters from our local mayors and county
    commissioners are submitted for the record and our State
    engineer's office letter mentioned by Senator Bingaman earlier.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Tillman follows:]

              Statement of Leland D. Tillman, Executive Director,
                Eastern Plains Council of Governments, on S. 212

        Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for the
    opportunity to testify on S. 212. My name is Leland D. Tillman. I'm
    from Clovis, New Mexico. I am the Executive Director of the Eastern
    Plains Council of Governments, which is a voluntary association of
    local governments which serves 22 incorporated communities in seven
    counties of northeastern New Mexico.
        Every community in our area depends exclusively on groundwater for
    their municipal and industrial water supply. About three- fourths of
    the population have the High Plains Aquifer as their primary source of
    drinking water.
        Even though New Mexico has only a minor percentage (about 1/2
    percent) of both land area and volumes of water remaining in the
    aquifer, our water problems should be of particular importance since
    our area will be a precursor to what will likely occur in other areas.
    This issue has become our primary resource management issue and a top
    economic development issue as we continue to improve our conservation
    efforts and move towards a less water intensive economy.
        Agriculture in Curry, Roosevelt, Quay and Union Counties was a $683
    million enterprise in 2001, with $578,865,000 in commodity sales and an
    additional $104,566,000 attributable to livestock receipts.
        As state and regional water planning becomes increasingly important
    in New Mexico and other western states, State and local policy
    officials clamor for better hydrologic data and better projections and
    estimates on the remaining supply.
        Under water laws in New Mexico, communities are required to plan
    for adequate water supplies to meet estimated demand during a 40 year
    planning horizon. In the life of communities, 40 years is considered
    near term since we have communities in New Mexico that have had more
    than 400 years of continuous existence.
        Several of our communities, which are dependent on this aquifer,
    are working together to develop a dependable surface supply to augment
    the remaining groundwater supply. The Eastern New Mexico Rural Water
    Supply Project is a clear recognition that our groundwater resource is
    finite in our area. In the nearer term, several communities are
    purchasing additional groundwater resources to extend their supply.
        Even though some areas clearly have adequate groundwater reserves
    to address current and future needs, others face the harsh prospect of
    running out of water over the next 40-50 years. That's why
    conservation, improved agricultural technologies, and more reclamation
    and reuse becomes incredibly important.
        Good data is essential to our understanding of the characteristics
    of the aquifer. This information becomes even more useful when it can
    be used to enhance recharge and further extend aquifer life.
        While some have been critical of irrigated agriculture for being
    the primary user of groundwater in our area, I'm very quick to point
    out the outstanding conservation efforts in agriculture which has
    improved the irrigation efficiency from the 35% for row irrigation on
    up to 90-plus percent efficient with today's cutting edge LEPA (low
    energy precision application) systems with drop lines, drag lines, and
    water socks.
        For municipalities, declining water tables mean a continued
    diminishment of well yields necessitating more wells pumping more of
    the time.
        We appreciate the excellent contribution the USGS has made over the
    past 10-15 years in understanding the scope and limitations of the High
    Plains Aquifer. But now, annual measurements of local wells would be
    considerably more helpful to State and local policy officials than the
    current program which measures large numbers of wells every five years.
        Despite continued friction between states in some localized areas
    over groundwater issues, there is a growing awareness among water users
    in New Mexico that it will take the very best efforts of our
    governments, our institutions and agencies, and of the people
    themselves, to work together to make the very most of the limited
    groundwater available to us for the future.
        I hope you will recognize that Western water problems, compounded
    by wildfires and droughts, make water issues a national concern, and we
    appreciate your willingness to support our state geological surveys and
    the valuable contribution the USGS can make to help us better
    understand our problem, and, more importantly, to better understand our
    opportunities to work together for mutual benefit and improve aquifer
    health throughout this important geographic region.
        Our Constitution provides a fairly straightforward framework for
    surface and groundwater administration by deferring to states on
    groundwater issues, but requiring interstate compacts among states for
    surface water.
        State compacts were negotiated, approved by the individual
    legislatures, signed by each governor and then approved by Congress and
    signed by the President. No such mechanism exists for cooperative
    efforts among, and between, states on groundwater issues. Having had
    the opportunity to work with stat-level geologists and hydrologists in
    Oklahoma and Texas and the local people in our soil and water
    conservation districts and the underground water districts in Texas, I
    believe local farmers, business people and local governments
    (especially in border areas) understand that a cooperative effort is
    needed among local communities and among and between our states.
        This legislation is a very practical demonstration on how the
    federal government can assist the states with their individual efforts
    utilizing the best science and technology available through the USGS in
    the Department of Interior. Work resulting from the legislation will
    contribute to a better understanding of this vast and complicated
    aquifer which is so important to our entire country.
        I know my time is limited and I would like to make sure these
    letters from some of our area Mayors and County Commissioners are
    included in the record. I will also be happy to respond to any
    questions at the appropriate time.
                                     ______

        Mr. Neugebauer. Thank you.
        The Chair now recognizes Mr. Arthur.

    STATEMENT OF LLOYD ARTHUR, AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION AND
                  THE TEXAS FARM BUREAU, RALLS, TEXAS

        Mr. Arthur. Mr. Chairman and members of the Water and Power
    Subcommittee, my name is Lloyd Arthur. I am a cotton farmer
    from Ralls, Texas, and operate 3,781 acres of farmland in that
    area. I irrigate my cotton and grain sorghum from the High
    Plains Aquifer, and the aquifer is essential to my livelihood.
    I also currently serve as the Vice President of the Texas Farm
    Bureau. I testify before you on behalf of the American Farm
    Bureau Federation (AFBF) and the Texas Farm Bureau in
    opposition to Senate bill 212.
        The High Plains Aquifer is an open aquifer system
    containing some 3.3 billion acre-feet of water. The average
    water table thickness is 300 feet. The overlying land is some
    of the most fertile and productive agricultural land in the
    United States. Farmers and ranchers like myself have utilized
    water resources through irrigation to produce an abundance of
    crops and products that beneficially add to the local and State
    economies and help feed America and the world. While
    agriculture is often pointed to as the reason for declining
    water tables in the High Plains Aquifer, the fact is that
    developing irrigation technology continues to make American
    agriculture the most efficient groundwater user in the world.
        Residents of the Texas Panhandle are aware of the
    importance of the High Plains Aquifer on our local economy and
    on the economy of the State of Texas. Thirty-five percent of
    Texas' agribusiness is generated in the 41 counties that
    overlay the aquifer from Lubbock to Amarillo. The High Plains
    area produces 50 percent of the State's cotton crop.
    Approximately 30 percent of the income from the Panhandle is
    dependent on its regional agricultural industry. The same can
    be said for all of the States that overlay the High Plains
    Aquifer.
        Overall, the citizens of Texas, and particularly farmers
    and ranchers, have done a tremendous job of finding and using
    ways to conserve the water of the High Plains Aquifer. Ten
    years ago, my farming operation was 100 percent conventional
    furrow irrigation, which is about 60 percent water efficient.
    Over time, I have modified my operation to the use of nine
    center pivot irrigation systems. These pivot systems, using the
    low energy precision application technologies, are estimated to
    be about 95 percent efficient. Currently, I am considering a
    conversion to the new subsurface drip irrigation system that is
    97 percent efficient. Because of these conservation methods, I
    have reduced the amount of acres I have irrigated from the
    aquifer by 18 percent over the last 10 years. In reducing the
    acres irrigated, I have reduced the usage of water to those
    acres and have not had any negative effect or loss of crop
    production.
        Many of these advances in water conservation were made
    possible because of State research and local control over
    groundwater issues. When this work is done at the local level,
    it has the support and cooperation of constituents and
    maintains the trust and confidence of the local citizenry. This
    level of local cooperation could be lost if the Federal
    Government were to assume the much greater role in groundwater
    resources management that S. 212 suggests.
        S. 212 contains numerous provisions that move the
    management of groundwater toward Federal jurisdiction. The
    legislation would require the Secretary of Interior through the
    U.S. Geological Survey to oversee work to characterize, map,
    model, and monitor the High Plains Aquifer. AFBF and the Texas
    Farm Bureau oppose the Federal component and specifically the
    establishment of a Federal Review Panel and any requirement of
    the Secretary of Interior to report to Congress on the High
    Plains Aquifer.
        Each of the eight States that overlie the High Plains
    Aquifer has for decades actively mapped, monitored, and managed
    those portions of the aquifer that occur within their
    respective borders. The collected data continues to be used by
    agencies to manage the aquifer on a watershed or other sub-
    regional basis. The data indicates that water levels of the
    High Plains Aquifer can vary significantly within a single
    watershed. If management strategies must be made to address
    localized water levels, those strategies can better be
    developed and implemented by State agencies or local governing
    bodies. This is a clear example as to why the Federal
    Government should not have jurisdiction over groundwater
    management, including oversight of mapping, modeling, or
    monitoring of the High Plains Aquifer or any other aquifer.
        Within the eight-State region of the High Plains Aquifer,
    4,800 wells are used annually for observing water levels. One
    ongoing comprehensive study by various State institutions,
    including Texas A&M University, is being conducted on the
    aquifer to further assist State agencies in their management of
    the aquifer. While this study effort uses Federal funding, it
    is not a top-down, federally driven groundwater management
    program. S. 212 would duplicate this research and ongoing State
    programs and would also give the Federal Government some
    authority over an area that has historically been under the
    jurisdiction of States.
        I thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today
    on behalf of the AFBF and the Texas Farm Bureau regarding our
    opposition to S. 212. I would be happy to answer any questions
    that you may have now, Mr. Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Arthur follows:]

         Statement of Lloyd Arthur, Vice President, Texas Farm Bureau,
         Representative, The American Farm Bureau Federation, on S. 212

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Water and Power Subcommittee, my
    name is Lloyd Arthur. I am a cotton farmer from Ralls, Texas, and
    operate 3,781 acres of farmland in that area. I irrigate my cotton and
    grain sorghum from the High Plains Aquifer, and the aquifer is
    essential to my livelihood. I also currently serve as the Vice
    President of the Texas Farm Bureau. I testify before you on behalf of
    the American Farm Bureau Federation and the Texas Farm Bureau in
    opposition to S. 212 and the direct and indirect impacts of such
    legislation.
        The High Plains Aquifer is an open aquifer system containing some
    3.3 billion acre-feet of water. The average water table thickness is
    300 feet. The overlying land is some of the most fertile and productive
    agricultural land in the United States. Farmers and ranchers, like
    myself, have utilized water resources through irrigation to produce an
    abundance of crops and products that beneficially add to local and
    state economies and help feed America and the world. While agriculture
    is often pointed to as the reason for water table declines in some
    areas of the High Plains Aquifer, the fact is that developing
    irrigation technology continues to make American agriculture the most
    efficient groundwater user in the world.
        All of us in the Texas panhandle are aware of the importance of the
    High Plains Aquifer on our local economy and on the economy of the
    State of Texas. Thirty-five percent of Texas' agribusiness is generated
    in the forty-one counties that overlay the aquifer from Lubbock to
    Amarillo. The panhandle area produces 50 percent of the state's cotton
    crop. This area's agricultural economic impact is critical to the State
    of Texas. The same can be said for agriculture's economic impact in all
    of the states that overlie the High Plains Aquifer.
        Overall, the citizens of Texas have done a tremendous job of
    finding and using ways to conserve the water of the High Plains
    Aquifer. Ten years ago my farming operation was one hundred percent
    conventional furrow irrigation, which is about 60 percent water
    efficient. Over time, I have modified my operation from no Center Pivot
    Irrigation systems to nine. These pivot systems, using the Low Energy
    Precision Application (LEPA) technology, are estimated to be about
    ninety five percent efficient. Due to these conservation methods, I
    have reduced the amount of acres I irrigate from the aquifer by
    eighteen percent over the past ten years. In reducing the acres
    irrigated, I have reduced the usage of water to those acres and have
    not had loss of crop production.
        Many of these advances in water conservation were made possible
    because of state research and local control over groundwater issues.
    When this work is done at the local level, it has the support and
    cooperation of constituents and maintains the trust and confidence of
    the local citizenry. This level of local cooperation could be lost if
    the federal government were to assume the much greater role in
    groundwater resources management that S. 212 suggests.
        S. 212 contains numerous provisions that move the management of
    groundwater toward federal jurisdiction. This legislation would require
    the Secretary of Interior through the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to
    oversee work to characterize, map, model and monitor the High Plains
    Aquifer. AFBF and the Texas Farm Bureau oppose the federal component
    and, specifically, the establishment of a Federal Review Panel and any
    requirement of the Secretary of Interior to report to Congress on the
    High Plains Aquifer.
        Each of the eight states that overlie the High Plains Aquifer has
    for decades, actively mapped, monitored and managed those portions of
    the aquifer that occur within their respective borders. The collected
    data continues to be used by state agencies to manage the aquifer on a
    watershed or other subregional basis. The data indicates that water
    levels of the High Plains Aquifer can vary significantly even within a
    single watershed. If management strategies must be made to address
    localized water levels, those strategies can better be developed and
    implemented by state agencies or local governing bodies. This is a
    clear example as to why the federal government should not have
    jurisdiction over groundwater management, including oversight of
    mapping, modeling or monitoring of the High Plains aquifer.
        Within the eight-state region of the High Plains Aquifer 4,800
    wells are used annually for observing water levels. One ongoing
    comprehensive study by various state institutions, including Texas A&M
    University, is being conducted on the aquifer to further assist state
    agencies in their management of the aquifer. While this study effort
    uses federal funding, it is not a top down, federally driven
    groundwater management program. S. 212 has been estimated by the
    Congressional Budget Office to cost as much as $90 million; additional
    money that will need to be appropriated in order for the Federal
    government to duplicate the work of ongoing state research regarding
    the High Plains Aquifer. That money could be much better spent directly
    by states to further ongoing water conservation programs.
        I thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today on
    behalf of AFBF and the Texas Farm Bureau regarding our opposition to S.
    212. I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have.
                                     ______

        Mr. Neugebauer. Thank you.
        The Chair now recognizes Dr. Allison.

        STATEMENT OF M. LEE ALLISON, PH.D., DIRECTOR AND STATE
                  GEOLOGIST, KANSAS GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

        Dr. Allison. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of the
    Subcommittee, my name is Lee Allison, and I am the State
    Geologist of Kansas and Director of the Kansas Geological
    Survey and the organizer of the High Plains Aquifer Coalition.
    Thanks for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the High
    Plains Aquifer Coalition in support of Senate bill 212. The
    High Plains Aquifer Coalition is a joint effort between the
    geological surveys of the eight High Plains Aquifer States and
    the U.S. Geological Survey. The coalition objective is to
    extend the life of the High Plains Aquifer through improved
    geological characterization and understanding at the State and
    local level. We appreciate the Committee holding a hearing on
    this important issue.
        The High Plains Aquifer is the most intensely pumped
    aquifer in the United States, yielding about 30 percent of the
    Nation's groundwater used for irrigation. The region accounts
    for about 19 percent of total U.S. production of wheat and of
    cotton, 15 percent of our corn, and 3 percent of our sorghum.
    In addition, the region produces nearly 18 percent of U.S.
    beef. These numbers alone should elevate concern about the
    usable life of the aquifer from a regional to a national level.
        When it comes to water, people in the High Plains have
    trouble agreeing on almost anything, yet the detailed survey of
    the needs of more than 40 State agencies and 130 local water
    agencies of the eight High Plains States showed remarkable
    agreement in terms of the need for detailed knowledge of the
    aquifer's makeup, research on groundwater recharge, improved
    knowledge of the interaction of groundwater and surface water,
    better understanding of the impact of climate change, more
    information on how the geology of the aquifer affects water
    quality, the ability to effectively and efficiently exchange
    information, and the development of new techniques for
    understanding the aquifer.
        Mr. Chairman, earlier today, we were asked if these could
    be done in an inventory--if these could be an inventory of
    research currently underway. I am pleased to report that the
    High Plains Aquifer Coalition has compiled such a survey of
    State and local agency prospects and projects and those being
    done by the USGS, and that is attached with my written
    testimony submitted to the Committee.
        The coalition has identified a preliminary list of other
    data that would be needed to enhance local decisionmaking
    abilities about the aquifer. These include definition of
    aquifer subunits, determination of recharge, estimates of total
    saturated thickness and how it varies across the aquifer,
    estimates of depth ranges to the base of the aquifer,
    assessment of uncertainties in the yield of the aquifer,
    including saturated thickness, water level measurements, and
    depth to bedrock in different areas, and delineation of
    critical recharge areas.
        S. 212 is a grassroots effort by scientists at the State
    level to provide the data and information needed by farmers,
    bankers, cities and towns, businesses, water districts, and
    State legislators, among others, to make informed decisions
    about the future of this threatened resource. This bill grew
    out of 2 years of discussion, collaboration, and consensus
    building among all segments of the water community. We in the
    States who are struggling to extend and preserve the life of
    the High Plains Aquifer know that ignorance is dangerous. State
    and local water users and managers are increasingly demanding
    the types and quality of data needed to develop useful and
    reasonable water management programs. Current resources for
    water agencies are insufficient to meet these increasing needs.
        This bill empowers the States in their efforts to protect a
    declining resource and extend the life of the High Plains
    Aquifer. Scientific analyses and data collection would be
    improved. This bill provides a mechanism for States to develop
    or enhance their own capabilities in hydrogeology. Without this
    assistance, States are less able to control their destinies.
    They are less able to evaluate data analyses and
    interpretations produced by others. This bill puts the States
    on a more equal footing with the Federal Government.
        Nothing in this bill changes the way the aquifer is
    managed. Nothing in this bill duplicates current efforts. The
    role of the USGS would be one of support in response to State
    requests and as a source of highly specialized technical
    expertise that individual State and local jurisdictions cannot
    afford.
        Can this work be done without legislation? Yes. But it has
    not been done. This bill sets support for State efforts as a
    higher priority for the USGS. It authorizes resources requested
    by State and local water agencies to help achieve their goals.
        In conclusion, the High Plains Aquifer Hydrogeologic
    Characterization, Mapping, Modeling, and Monitoring Act is an
    important step in a comprehensive program to extend the life of
    the aquifer. We are adamant about the primacy of the States in
    the managing and controlling of our water.
        In times of reduced State funding, this bill will help
    States and local stakeholders develop their own data and
    interpretations without having to rely on Federal agencies. We
    urge this Committee to support Senate bill 212.
        This concludes my testimony, Mr. Chairman, and I would be
    pleased to answer any questions that you or the other Committee
    members have.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Allison follows:]

       Statement of M. Lee Allison, Ph.D., State Geologist and Director,
           Kansas Geological Survey, University of Kansas, on S. 212

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the
    opportunity to speak to you today. I am submitting this testimony on
    behalf of the High Plains Aquifer Coalition in support of Senate Bill
    212--The High Plains Aquifer Hydrogeologic Characterization, Mapping,
    Modeling and Monitoring Act. The Coalition is a joint effort between
    the geological surveys of the eight High Plains Aquifer states and the
    U.S. Geological Survey. The Coalition objective is to improve the
    geological characterization and understanding of the High Plains
    aquifer at the state and local level. We appreciate the Committee
    holding a hearing on this important issue.
        Introduction: A reliable source of water is essential to the well-
    being and livelihoods of people in the High Plains region where ground
    water is used for drinking water, ranching, farming, and other
    purposes. Many areas of the High Plains aquifer have experienced a
    dramatic depletion of this resource. Large-volume pumping from this
    aquifer has led to steadily declining water levels in the region, and
    the area faces critical water-related issues. No other major source of
    water is available for the region.
        Let me begin with some facts about the aquifer. The High Plains
    aquifer is the most widespread blanket sand and gravel aquifer in the
    nation. It encompasses one of the major agricultural regions in the
    world and underlies 174,000 square miles, including parts of eight
    states--New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, Nebraska,
    Wyoming, and South Dakota (Figure 1).
        Approximately 2.3 million people live within the High Plains, and
    the aquifer supplies drinking water for 82 percent of them.
    Agriculture, however, represents both the dominant land and water use
    in the region (94 percent of ground water withdrawals from the aquifer
    are for irrigation). The High Plains aquifer is the most intensely
    pumped aquifer in the United States, yielding about 30 percent of the
    nation's groundwater used for irrigation. During 1995, total water use
    in the High Plains was estimated to be 19.9 billion gallons per day
    and, with the exception of the Platte River valley of Nebraska, 92
    percent of that need was met by aquifer water. It is estimated that 5
    trillion gallons of water are pumped from the aquifer each year, which,
    for comparison, is 10 times the average annual water use for New York
    City.
        Although High Plains dry-land farming is possible, availability of
    ``water on demand'' from the aquifer has made abundant, reliable crop
    yields a reality. As a result, the region accounts for about 19 percent
    of total U.S. production of wheat and of cotton, 15 percent of our
    corn, and 3 percent of our sorghum. In addition, the region produces
    nearly 18 percent of U.S. beef and is rapidly becoming a center for hog
    and dairy industries. Those numbers alone should elevate concern about
    the sustainability of the aquifer from a regional to a national level.
        Aquifer characterization: Aquifers are underground deposits
    containing porous rock or sediments (silts, sands, and gravels) from
    which water can be pumped in usable quantities. Although the High
    Plains aquifer often is discussed as a single entity, it is a regional
    system composed of eight smaller units that are geologically similar
    and hydrologically connected--that is, water can move from one aquifer
    to the other. The aquifer consists of a highly variable mixture of
    loose clays, silts, sands, and gravels that formed over millions of
    years by ancient river systems. These ancient rivers meandered across
    the landscape, so that, over time, the stacks of sediments that were
    deposited differ greatly from one area to the next, often over the
    distance of a few miles or less. The Ogallala Formation is the
    principal geologic unit, but the aquifer, as a whole, also includes
    deposits that are older and younger than the Ogallala.
        Aquifer characteristics are determined in large part by geology.
    The aquifer varies greatly from place to place: thick in some places,
    thin in others; permeable (able to transmit water easily) in some
    places, less so in others. Where the deposits are thick and permeable,
    water is easily removed and the aquifer can support large volumes of
    pumping for long periods. In most areas, this water is of good quality.
        Beneath the High Plains aquifer is much older, consolidated
    bedrock, usually limestone, sandstone, or shale. In some places this
    bedrock holds enough water to be called an aquifer, and it may be
    connected to the overlying aquifer. Some layers of the underlying
    bedrock contain saline water; where these are directly connected to the
    High Plains aquifer, they pose a threat to water quality.
        Water Resources in the High Plains Aquifer: Usable water in the
    High Plains aquifer is in the pore spaces between particles of sand and
    gravel. This water (called groundwater) accumulated slowly--in some of
    the deeper parts of the aquifer, over tens of thousands of years. In
    the subsurface, water in the aquifer generally moves laterally slowly
    from west to east, usually at the rate of tens of feet per year. One
    measure of ground water is saturated thickness. The saturated thickness
    of the High Plains aquifer is the vertical distance between the water
    table and the base of the aquifer. Saturated thickness is commonly
    measured in feet, but ``feet of saturated thickness'' is not the same
    as feet of actual water. Only about 10 to 25 percent of the aquifer
    volume is pore space that can yield extractable water. Therefore, in an
    aquifer with 17 percent pore space, removing 1 acre-foot of water
    causes the water table to drop by about 6 feet. The saturated thickness
    of the aquifer can exceed 1,000 feet, but averages about 200 feet. Much
    greater saturated thicknesses were common before the onset of large-
    scale irrigation.
        Groundwater also can be measured in terms of its availability: How
    much water can be removed by a well over short periods. Large volumes
    of water can be pumped rapidly (1,000 gallons or more per minute) from
    the High Plains aquifer in many locations. This contrasts with many
    areas in the region, where wells generally produce smaller amounts
    (less than 100 gallons per minute). By way of comparison, a good
    household well produces 5 to 10 gallons per minute, although many
    household wells produce less.
        Recharge is the natural movement of water into an aquifer, usually
    from precipitation. Areas of increased recharge to the aquifer can be
    the result of one or more of the following factors: greater than normal
    precipitation; decreased withdrawals; or downward leakage of surface-
    water irrigation and water from unlined canals and reservoirs. The
    relatively low rainfall of the region limits aquifer-recharge rates and
    thus provides a long-term limit on sustainable water use. The estimated
    average annual potential recharge from rainfall is as little as 1/4 of
    an inch per year in the southwestern portion of the aquifer area. Where
    the aquifer is closer to the earth's surface, where soils are sandier,
    and precipitation amounts greater, recharge can be significant, as much
    as 4 to 6 inches per year.
        Water in the High Plains aquifer generally flows eastward and
    discharges naturally to streams and springs. Water also may be lost
    from the aquifer by evapotranspiration or through leakage into
    underlying rock units. However, pumping from the numerous irrigation
    wells is the primary cause of ground water withdrawal. Decreases in
    saturated thickness of 10 percent or more result in a decrease in well
    yields and an increase in pumping costs because the pumps must lift the
    water from greater depths (Figures 3 and 4).
        Water-level Declines in the Aquifer: Large-scale irrigation began
    in the High Plains in the late 1800's, with the use of ditches to
    divert water from rivers. As technology improved, ground water became
    the major irrigation source because surface water (lakes, rivers, and
    streams) is relatively scarce in the region. With the advent of large-
    capacity pumps that were capable of drawing several hundred gallons of
    water per minute, people began to exploit that groundwater. In the
    1950's and 1960's, technological developments led to a dramatic
    increase in large-scale pumping. In particular, center-pivot irrigation
    systems--large sprinklers that roll across the land on wheels--allowed
    people to irrigate uneven terrain, thus opening up large new areas for
    irrigation. These irrigation methods led to the cultivation of crops,
    such as corn, that could not previously be grown reliably in the area.
        For many years, people believed that the High Plains aquifer
    contained an inexhaustible amount of water. However, large-volume
    pumping (mostly for irrigation) eventually led to substantial declines
    in the water table, and people realized that the amount of water in the
    aquifer was finite and could be exhausted. Much of the Ogallala portion
    of the High Plains aquifer has declined since predevelopment, with some
    areas having declines of more than 60 percent.
        Withdrawals greatly exceeded recharge in many areas since intensive
    irrigation began in the 1940's. This has resulted in widespread water-
    level declines, especially in southern areas--more than 100 feet in
    parts of Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas. In some places,
    irrigation has become impossible or cost prohibitive because of such
    declines. From 1980 to 1997, the average water level in the aquifer
    fell 2.7 feet (Figure 2). Depth to water table ranges from 0 to 500
    feet, with an average of about 100 feet.
        When Will the Aquifer Run Dry? Perhaps the most common and
    important question about the High Plains aquifer is: How much longer
    can it support large-scale pumping? It's a simple question with a
    complicated answer. First, the aquifer will probably be able to support
    small, domestic wells far into the future. With proper planning, most
    cities and towns should be able to provide for their water needs.
    Second, the future of agricultural use of the aquifer depends on a
    variety of factors, including the price of irrigated crops, the price
    and availability of energy (the deeper the water table, the more energy
    it takes to pump water), climate, and how the water is managed. Third,
    it is important to note that the aquifer is not one consistent,
    homogeneous unit. Rather, it varies considerably from place to place.
    In places, the aquifer consists of less than 50 feet of saturated
    thickness and receives little recharge. In other places, the aquifer is
    far thicker or receives considerably more recharge. The geology of the
    aquifers is highly variable and poorly characterized. I mentioned that
    the aquifer sediments in some areas are gravels and coarse sands
    deposited within ancient river channels. However, outside of these
    channels the aquifer sediments can be composed of muddy and silty
    overbank deposits, with significantly less capacity to store and
    transport water.
        Over the past few decades, petroleum companies have spent billions
    of dollars to characterize the geology of oil and gas fields. New
    technologies have been developed and new concepts of reservoir
    characterization have evolved. As a result, the life of our oil and gas
    fields is being dramatically increased. In ground-water geology we are
    applying similar approaches and analyses, but we have not had the
    resources to make full use of technology advances, especially at the
    state and local levels.
        With those qualifications in mind, researchers have made
    projections about the aquifer, based on past trends in water-level
    declines. Obviously, the actual future use of water will be affected by
    commodity prices, energy prices, climate, and management policies. In
    addition, relatively little data are available for some parts of the
    aquifer, and projections are not practical in those areas. Assuming a
    saturated thickness of 30 feet as the minimum amount necessary to
    support large-scale pumping, researchers concluded that parts of the
    aquifer are effectively already exhausted. Other parts of the aquifer
    are predicted to have a lifespan /of less than 25 years, based on past
    decline trends. However, the biggest share of the aquifer would not be
    depleted for 50 to 200 years or longer. It is important to remember
    that these projections are based on past trends, and future changes
    could alter the actual depletion rate.
        A saturated thickness of 30 feet has been accepted as the minimum
    needed to sustain high-yield pumping. However, in recent years, we have
    recognized rapid drawdowns of 70 feet or more in some areas. These
    areas may run out of sufficient water for irrigation much sooner than
    expected. We need to geologically characterize these areas to determine
    what factors are causing these dramatic drawdowns, their extent, and
    possible solutions to the problem.
        Where Do We Go From Here? Individuals, governmental agencies, and
    private organizations are all attempting to address issues related to
    the High Plains aquifer. In addition, several new institutions have
    recently been proposed to deal with issues concerning the aquifer on a
    regional basis. Irrigators have implemented a number of techniques that
    have improved the efficiency with which they use water--using low-
    pressure application methods on center-pivot systems, for example,
    instead of spraying water high into the air.
        Local water districts are making critical decisions about the
    future of the aquifer using limited data often gathered at considerable
    distances that may not be applicable to their situations. More detailed
    knowledge of the geological framework of the aquifer will allow local
    water agencies to make decisions using the data and analyses that are
    most relevant and applicable to their situations.
        High Plains Aquifer Coalition: Each state manages its water
    resources differently. The number of state and local water agencies and
    their duties vary dramatically among the eight High Plains states. None
    of the eight state geological surveys deals directly with ground-water
    management. State geological surveys provide scientific advice to their
    respective state and local management agencies. Some state surveys
    focus strictly on the geologic framework in which ground water exists;
    others investigate both the geology and the hydrology of groundwater.
        Because the structure for conducting hydrogeologic research on the
    aquifer differs dramatically among states, both the existing knowledge
    base and ongoing aquifer research efforts vary substantially from state
    to state. Much of past research was limited by state expertise, budget
    allocations, and cooperation among state agencies. To share the results
    among state research efforts and to efficiently utilize existing
    research data, in June 2000, the geological surveys of the eight states
    that contain the High Plains aquifer formed the High Plains Aquifer
    Coalition, in alliance with the U.S. Geological Survey. Coalition
    members are Kansas Geological Survey, New Mexico Bureau of Geology and
    Mineral Resources, Nebraska Conservation and Survey Division, Texas
    Bureau of Economic Geology, Colorado Geological Survey, Oklahoma
    Geological Survey, South Dakota Geological Survey, Wyoming State
    Geological Survey, and U.S. Geological Survey.
        The purpose of the Coalition is to cooperate in joint
    investigations and scientific exchanges concerning the earth sciences
    (including hydrology, geology, geochemistry, geochronology, geophysics,
    geotechnical and geological engineering, and related investigations) on
    topics of mutual interest. This agreement was specifically undertaken
    to advance the understanding of the three-dimensional distribution,
    character, and nature of the sedimentary deposits that make up the High
    Plains aquifer in the eight-state, Mid-continent region. It recognizes
    that the distribution, withdrawal, and recharge of groundwater, and the
    interaction with surface waters, are profoundly affected by the geology
    and the natural environment of the High Plains aquifer in all eight
    states--New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, South
    Dakota, and Wyoming--thereby establishing a commonality of interests
    among the Surveys and citizens of these states.
        The geological surveys agreed that reaching a fuller understanding
    of the three-dimensional framework and hydrogeology of the High Plains
    aquifer is necessary to provide local and state policymakers with the
    earth-science information required to make wise decisions regarding
    urban and agricultural land use, the protection of aquifers and surface
    waters, and the environmental well-being of the citizens of this
    geologically unique region.
    Research Needs:
        When it comes to water, people on the High Plains have trouble
    agreeing on almost anything. Each state manages its water in different
    ways, and each state collects information about the High Plains aquifer
    in different ways. The Ogallala Aquifer Institute (OAI) surveyed dozens
    of state and local water agencies in all eight High Plains states about
    their research and data needs. The agency offices contacted represented
    more than 130 local water districts and an uncounted number of water
    systems. A copy of the OAI findings is attached with our written
    statement to the Committee. Yet the detailed survey of the needs of
    water agencies of the eight High Plains states showed remarkable
    agreement in terms of the need for:
          detailed knowledge of the aquifer's make-up;
          research on recharge, or the movement of water back into
    the aquifer;
          improved knowledge of interaction of ground water and
    surface water;
          better understanding of the impact of climate change;
          more information about the aquifer's water quality;
          the ability to efficiently exchange information; and
          the development of new techniques for understanding the
    aquifer.
        Through past research, we have learned that the aquifer consists of
    many sub-regions or smaller units. Past research also helped identify
    the need to focus future efforts on geological and hydrological
    characterization, mapping, modeling, and monitoring of aquifer
    subunits. The eight state geological surveys and the U.S. Geological
    Survey, in consultation with state and local water agencies and groups,
    have agreed on the need for comprehensive understanding of the
    subsurface configuration and hydrogeology of the High Plains aquifer.
    Improved knowledge in these areas will refine our understanding of the
    aquifer and provide better tools and strategies for long-term aquifer
    management.
        In addition to a possible increase in the density of data, the
    Coalition has identified a preliminary list of other data that would be
    needed to enhance local decisionmaking abilities about the aquifer.
    These include:
          Determination of the approach to define aquifer subunits,
    such as hydrologic boundaries, ground-water divides, hydrological
    characteristics, aquifer extent, major differences in recharge, or
    saturated thickness, in conjunction with administrative boundaries;
          Determination of recharge, stream outflow, and ground-
    water inflow and outflow to give estimates of net sustainable
    quantities of water to be pumped from areas of different saturated
    thickness in the High Plains aquifer;
          Estimates of total saturated thickness and how it varies
    across the aquifer that will be needed for continued pumping;
          Estimates of depth ranges from ground surface to the base
    of the aquifer;
          Assessment of uncertainties for estimating sustainable
    yield of the aquifer, including practical saturated thickness, water-
    level measures, and depth to bedrock in different areas;
          Determination of methods to reduce the largest
    uncertainties in calculating the aquifer volume; and
          Delineation of critical recharge areas.
        Why the Bill is Important to the Region and the Nation: Extending
    the life of the High Plains aquifer is essential to the economic
    viability of the region. No realistic alternative water sources exist
    to supply this region of the country. Accurate data about aquifer
    variability and subunit characteristics will allow us to properly
    determine current water levels, where and at what rates aquifer water
    moves, and the variables that impact water recharge rates in aquifer
    subunits. Knowledge of these factors will allow us to better predict
    water levels and ultimately will lead to development of improved
    approaches for enhancing and extending the life of the aquifer and
    other factors useful for economic and management purposes.
        The High Plains Aquifer Hydrogeologic Characterization, Mapping,
    Modeling and Monitoring Act is a grassroots effort by scientists at the
    state level to provide the data and research needed by state and local
    agencies and by water users to make informed decisions about the future
    of this threatened resource. This bill grew out of two years of
    discussion, collaboration, and consensus building among all segments of
    the water community.
        Federal funds under this bill will expand existing capabilities and
    enhance the effects of ongoing state and local funding. Complementary
    activities will allow us to build critical data bases and understanding
    of the aquifer. The bill enlists expertise from the U.S. Geological
    Survey not available at the state level and fosters better coordination
    with other groups within states and across state boundaries. State and
    local water users, managers, and regulators are increasingly demanding
    the types and quality of data needed to develop useful and reasonable
    water-management programs. For example, in Kansas, local Groundwater
    Management Districts are requesting subunit characterization of the
    aquifer that requires a more sophisticated and regional understanding
    of the nature of the aquifer. Current resources for state and federal
    water agencies are insufficient to meet these increasing needs.
        This bill empowers the states in their efforts to protect a
    declining resource and extend the life of the High Plains aquifer.
    Scientific analyses and data collection would be improved. This bill
    provides a mechanism for states to develop or enhance their own
    capabilities in hydrogeology. Without this assistance, states are less
    able to control their destinies; they are less able to evaluate data,
    analyses, and interpretations produced by others. This bill puts the
    states on a more equal footing with the federal government.
        New studies would either build on important, but often small and
    intermittent, efforts underway in the states, or would fill gaps and
    needs that are not being addressed at all. Nothing in this bill changes
    the ways the aquifer is managed. Nothing in this bill duplicates
    current efforts. This bill provides resources requested by state and
    local water agencies and establishes the High Plains aquifer as a
    priority area of study. The U.S. Geological Survey has undertaken
    aquifer studies for most of its 115-year history. Early water studies
    on the High Plains by the U.S.G.S. go back to 1905. The role of the
    U.S.G.S. is being better defined through the High Plains Aquifer
    Coalition as one of support in response to state requests and as a
    source of highly specialized technical expertise that individual state
    and local jurisdictions cannot afford. In their testimony to the Senate
    regarding this bill last March, the U.S.G.S. stated that the, ``goals
    of this bill can be achieved without legislation through better
    coordination of existing Federal and State programs.'' While that may
    be possible, we have not seen that improved coordination. This bill
    sets those goals as higher priorities for the U.S.G.S. and authorizes
    resources to help achieve them.
        We in the states who are struggling to extend and preserve the life
    of the High Plains aquifer know that ignorance is dangerous. Good
    information is needed by farmers, bankers, cities and towns,
    businesses, water districts, and state legislators, among others, to
    make rational and realistic decisions.
        In conclusion, The High Plains Aquifer Hydrogeologic
    Characterization, Mapping, Modeling and Monitoring Act is an important
    step in a comprehensive program to extend the life of the aquifer. We
    are adamant about the primacy of the states in managing and controlling
    of our water. The Review Panel required in the bill is set up to assure
    state control of state activities under this bill. Each state is given
    the ability to assure that local stakeholders guide the investigations
    needed to address state and local issues. In times of reduced state
    funding, this bill will help states and local stakeholders develop
    their own data and interpretations without having to rely on federal
    agencies.
        The bill will help ensure that the relevant science needed by state
    and locals agencies to address aquifer depletion is available so that
    we will have a better understanding of the resources of the High Plains
    aquifer and can ultimately lead to extending the life of the aquifer.
    We urge this Committee to support Senate Bill 212--The High Plains
    Aquifer Hydrogeologic Characterization, Mapping, Modeling and
    Monitoring Act.
        This concludes my testimony. I would be pleased to answer any
    questions that the members of the Committee may have.
    Acknowledgments:
        Substantive parts of the above text were taken with permission from
    Buchanan and Buddemeier, 2001, and modified slightly for use here. Some
    material in this testimony was prepared with assistance from Dana
    Woodbury of the Ogallala Aquifer Institute, Garden City, Kansas.
    References:
    Rex Buchanan and Robert Buddemeier, 2001. The High Plains Aquifer.
            Kansas Geological Survey, Public Information Circular 18, 6p.
    James Miller, 1999. Ground Water Atlas for the United States. United
            States Geological Survey, Introduction and National Summary.
    V. L. McGuire, March 2001. Water-Level Changes in the High Plains
            Aquifer, 1980 to 1999. United States Geological Survey. Fact
            Sheet -029091.
    Ogallala Aquifer Institute, January 2003. Research on the High Plains
            Aquifer: A Report for the High Plains Aquifer Coalition. Kansas
            Geological Survey, Open-file Report 2003-54.
                                     ______

                                     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0157.001

                                     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0157.002

                                     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0157.003

                                     [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0157.004

               KANSAS GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OPEN-FILE REPORT 2003-54
                      research on the high plains aquifer:
        A REPORT FOR THE HIGH PLAINS AQUIFER COALITION

                       by the Ogallala Aquifer Institute

                                  January 2003

        Disclaimer The Kansas Geological Survey does not guarantee this
       document to be free from errors or inaccuracies and disclaims any
     responsibility or liability for interpretations based on data used in
    the production of this document or decisions based thereon. This report
       is intended to make results of research available at the earliest
       possible date, but is not intended to constitute final or formal
                                 publications.

                            Kansas Geological Survey

                              1930 Constant Avenue

                              University of Kansas

                            Lawrence, KS 66047-3726

       RESEARCH ON THE HIGH PLAINS AQUIFER: A REPORT FOR THE HIGH PLAINS
                               AQUIFER COALITION

                           Ogallala Aquifer Institute

                                  January 2003

    Executive Summary
        The High Plains aquifer underlies all or parts of eight Great
    Plains states. The High Plains aquifer, which includes the well-known
    Ogallala Aquifer, is the most important regional water source on the
    Great Plains, yielding about 30 percent of the nation's ground water
    used for irrigation. However, recent years have seen dramatic declines
    in water levels in parts of the aquifer--including depletion or near-
    depletion in some locations
        In response to concerns about this resource, individuals,
    organizations, and agencies across the eight states have taken various
    voluntary and regulatory actions. Long-term management of the aquifer,
    however, requires scientific understanding and access to high-quality
    scientific information. To enhance the scientific understanding and
    information about the aquifer, the state geological surveys of the
    eight states and their federal counterpart, the U.S. Geological Survey,
    formed the High Plains Aquifer Coalition. The Coalition's objective is
    to improve the geological characterization and understanding of the
    High Plains aquifer, with an eye toward extending the life of this
    vital resource.
        The High Plains aquifer varies considerably from place to place
    across the Great Plains--several hundred feet thick in some places,
    very thin in others. Similarly, each state has taken a different
    approach to managing water use. Additionally, each state has various
    levels of information about the aquifer and thus differing research
    programs aimed at understanding the aquifer. However, the states are
    increasingly recognizing the need to cooperate in managing and
    understanding the aquifer.
        The High Plains Coalition was formed in response to this need. As
    part of its mission, the Coalition (working with the Ogallala Aquifer
    Institute) collected information about the research efforts and needs
    of each state. Based on extensive interviews with individuals and
    agency staff, the Coalition produced a comprehensive inventory of the
    data that are available for each state. It also collected information
    about the types of data that are not available and are needed. In
    addition, the Coalition identified research needs common to all the
    High Plains states. Those needs are summarized below, and, as such,
    help provide a general plan of research aimed at better understanding
    and management of the aquifer.
        Aquifer subunits: The High Plains aquifer underlies more than
    174,000 square miles and is highly variable from place to place.
    Managing a resource of this size is more effective when the aquifer is
    divided into smaller areas of similar characteristics, such as similar
    geological make-up or ability to produce water. Managing the resource
    by these smaller areas (referred to as aquifer subunits or well fields)
    requires:
          detailed knowledge of the aquifer's make-up, geology,
    porosity (or pore space), permeability (ability of water to move
    through the formation), depth to bedrock, and other characteristics;
    and
          detailed knowledge of the vertical and horizontal
    distribution of these aquifer characteristics.
        Obtaining this detailed knowledge involves surface mapping,
    drilling, subsurface geophysical logging, correlation, and
    interpretation, and reexamination of existing surface and subsurface
    information.
        Recharge: Recharge is the movement of water from the land's surface
    back into the aquifer, usually originating in the form of
    precipitation. Knowledge of recharge is crucial to managing the
    resource, to calculating how much water will be replenished compared to
    how much is pumped. Knowledge of recharge is also important for
    understanding the movement of contaminants, such as nitrates, back into
    the groundwater. Recharge is generally believed to be very low across
    much of the High Plains (less than an inch per year in many places),
    but exact amounts are difficult to determine for any single location
    and difficult to estimate for large areas. Recharge research would
    focus on:
          quantifying recharge rates, understanding recharge
    processes, and predicting the variability of recharge;
          measuring deep recharge and rates of recharge;
          comparing recharge under irrigated land to that under
    dryland farms; and
          analyzing the efficacy of artificial recharge projects
    and the impact of natural features, such as playas, on recharge.
        Ground-water/Surface-water Interaction: Until the past few decades,
    it was generally assumed that there was little connection between
    groundwater (underground water in aquifers) and surface (streams and
    lakes) water. Recent research has made that connection clear: the
    amount and quality of water in streams affects water in neighboring (or
    alluvial) aquifers. Pumping from alluvial aquifers likewise has an
    impact on streams, with an attendant impact on wildlife, water quality,
    and other factors. However, this connection is not well understood.
    Very little is known about how these water sources influence each
    other, both in terms of quality and quantity. This requires detailed
    measurements of ground-water and surface-water interaction.
        Water Quality: Much of the water in the High Plains aquifer is of
    extremely high quality, one reason it is such a valuable resource.
    However, relatively little is known about the variability of water
    quality across the aquifer, how quickly contaminants can move into the
    aquifer, the role of natural contaminants such as uranium and radon,
    from bedrock geologic units, as well as man-made contaminants, such as
    nitrates. Research is also needed on:
          the way contaminant movement is affected by the geology
    of the aquifer, both regionally and over time;
          the way water quality is affected by the movement of
    water from one geologic unit to another; and
          the impact of production agriculture or confined-
    livestock feeding operations on ground-water quality.
        Climate change: Much of the High Plains aquifer is in a semi-arid
    area. Small changes in temperature and precipitation patterns may have
    a dramatic impact on land-use, irrigation, water in storage, and other
    factors. Understanding the role of climate and its impact is crucial to
    ground-water management here.
        Information/Data: The quality of information and data varies widely
    in the states underlain by the aquifer. Access to consistent, high-
    quality data is central to making the best possible management
    decisions. This includes the need for establishing:
          instrumentation to provide real-time monitoring of water-
    level changes;
          water-quality data bases and the linking of data bases in
    different areas;
          electronic access to drillers' logs and electric logs
    (the records of wells drilled);
          better data on actual pumping rates and amount of
    irrigated land; and
          taking advantage of the possibilities of electronic
    dissemination of information.
        New techniques: A variety of new scientific techniques can be
    developed or applied to ground-water issues on the High Plains.
    Geophysical measurements, such as the use of micro-gravity to measure
    the amount of water in storage in the aquifer, can be applied to better
    understand the aquifer and the amount of water it contains, to create
    more detailed and uniform analyses, and to do it more efficiently.

                         High Plains Aquifer Coalition

                       High Plains Aquifer Strategic Plan

                                   Jan. 2003

    Introduction
        Extending the life of the High Plains aquifer is essential to the
    economic viability of the High Plains region because there are no
    realistic alternative water sources. State and local water users,
    managers and regulators are increasingly demanding the types and
    quality of data needed to develop useful and reasonable water
    management programs. Accurate data about aquifer variability and
    subunit characteristics will allow for accurate determination of
    current water levels, where, and at what rates, aquifer water moves,
    and the variables that impact water recharge rates in aquifer subunits.
    Knowledge of these factors will allow for more accurate predictions of
    future water levels and ultimately will lead to development of improved
    approaches for enhancing and extending the life of the aquifer and
    other factors useful for management purposes.
        The eight High Plains aquifer states each manage their water
    resources in a different manner. The number of state and local water
    agencies and their duties vary dramatically among the eight High Plains
    states. Because the structure for conducting hydrogeologic research on
    the aquifer differs dramatically among states, both the existing
    knowledge base and ongoing aquifer research efforts vary substantially
    from state to state. Much of past research was limited by state
    expertise, budget allocations and cooperation among state agencies. To
    prevent future inconsistencies among state research efforts and to
    efficiently utilize existing research data, in June 2000, the
    geological surveys of the eight High Plains aquifer states formed the
    High Plains Aquifer Coalition (HPAC).
        This HPAC strategic plan is intended to guide the HPAC in the most
    effective use of resources, research, and technical capabilities
    targeted at the High Plains aquifer. In addition, the plan will be a
    roadmap for prioritizing issues and actions. A plan that supports an
    integrated science approach for planning and execution will more
    effectively facilitate the alignment of relevant science with local and
    regional needs and the delivery of information to decision makers in a
    useful format. This plan, and the activities defined, is a means for
    providing greater coordination of HPAC activities. A cooperative
    regional strategic plan for scientific research and collaboration will
    lead to a more detailed understanding of what research is required and
    a priority for the region.

    High Plains Aquifer Coalition Overview
        The High Plains Aquifer Coalition is a joint effort between the
    geological surveys of the eight High Plains Aquifer states and the
    USGS. Coalition members include Kansas Geological Survey, New Mexico
    Bureau of Economic Geology, Colorado Geologic Survey, Oklahoma
    Geological Survey, South Dakota Geological Survey, Wyoming State
    Geological Survey and U.S. Geological Survey.
        The Coalition objective is to improve the geological
    characterization and understanding of the High Plains aquifer. The
    purpose of the Coalition is to cooperate in joint investigations and
    scientific exchanges concerning the earth sciences (including
    hydrology, geology, geochemistry, geochronology, geophysics,
    geotechnical and geological engineering and related investigations) on
    topics of mutual interest. This agreement was specifically undertaken
    to advance the understanding of the three-dimensional distribution,
    character, and nature of the sedimentary deposits that comprise the
    High Plains aquifer in the eight-state Mid-continent region. It
    recognizes that the distribution, withdrawal, and recharge of
    groundwater, and the interaction with surface waters is profoundly
    affected by the geology and the natural environment of the High Plains
    aquifer in all eight States--New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, Colorado,
    Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Wyoming--thereby establishing a
    commonality of interests among the Surveys and citizens of these
    states.
        The Geological Surveys agreed that reaching a fuller understanding
    of the three-dimensional framework and hydrogeology of the High Plains
    Aquifer is necessary to provide local and state policymakers with the
    earth-science information required to make wise decisions regarding
    urban and agricultural land use, the protection of aquifers and surface
    waters, and the environmental well-being of the citizens of this
    geologically unique region.

    Regional Issues HPAC Can Address
          Research on the regional geologic framework, particularly
    the completion of detailed, quadrangle-size (1:24,000 scale) surface
    and subsurface geologic maps and models in digital format, and the
    public dissemination of these maps and models, as well as interpretive
    information derived from them.
          Research on geologic processes relating to deposition of
    sedimentary sequences--their definition, nature, extent, origin, and
    bounding surfaces--forming the High Plains aquifer and adjacent
    aquifers.
          Research on the region's hydrogeology and its fluid
    systems.
          Research on processes controlling the quantity and
    quality of water recharging the High Plains aquifer, including the
    effect of past and future changes in climate and land-use activities on
    recharge.
          Research on enhancing the recharge of the High Plains
    aquifer.
          Research on the porosity, permeability, storage capacity,
    and specific yield of the aquifer.
          Research on the geological and hydrological processes
    controlling regional differences and temporal changes in water quality.
          Research on the vertical and lateral exchange of
    groundwater between different formations that make up the High Plains
    and adjacent aquifers and the effect of such exchange on water quality
    in the High Plains aquifer.
          Research on the age of groundwater recharging and moving
    through the aquifer.
          Research on improved techniques for modeling the
    occurrence, movement, and quality of water in the High Plains aquifer.
          Research on using geophysical techniques, procedures, and
    models for regional application in mapping subsurface deposits in the
    Mid-continent region.
          Transfer of technology and information among the Surveys
    and to both the private and public sectors.
          Determination of the approach to define aquifer subunits,
    such as hydrologic boundaries, ground-water divides, hydrological
    characteristics, aquifer extent, major differences in recharge, or
    saturated thickness, in conjunction with administrative boundaries.
          Determination of recharge, stream outflow, and ground-
    water inflow and outflow to give estimates of net sustainable
    quantities of water to be pumped from areas of different saturated
    thickness in the High Plains aquifer. Estimates of total saturated
    thickness and how it varies across the aquifer that will be needed for
    continued pumping.
          Estimates of depth ranges from ground surface to the base
    of the aquifer.
          Assessment of uncertainties for estimating sustainable
    yield volumetrics of the aquifer, including practical saturation
    thickness, water level measures, and depth to bedrock in different
    areas.
          Determination of methods to reduce the largest
    uncertainties in calculating the aquifer volume.
          Delineation of critical recharge areas.

    Past and Current HPA Hydrogeologic Research Activities
        Both the existing knowledge base and ongoing aquifer research
    efforts vary substantially from state to state. In addition, the
    structure for conducting hydrogeologic research on the High Plains
    aquifer differs dramatically among the states. Following is an overview
    of the major hydrogeologic HPA related research that has been conducted
    in the eight states during the past decade. (see attached grid)

    HPA Strategic Plan

    Vision:
        The HPAC is a leader in the advancement and understanding of the
    three-dimensional distribution, character, and nature of the
    sedimentary deposits that comprise the High Plains aquifer in the
    eight-state region. Future decisions affecting the use, management and
    protection of the High Plains aquifer will benefit directly from the
    timely and appropriate HPAC research and data collection and
    collaboration.

    Mission:
        The mission of the HPAC is to improve the geological
    characterization and understanding of the High Plains aquifer through
    cooperation in joint investigations and scientific exchanges concerning
    the earth sciences (including hydrology, geology, geochemistry,
    geochronology, geophysics, geotechnical and geological engineering and
    related investigations) on topics of mutual interest.

    Goals and Action Areas:
          Identify priority areas of research that is mutually
    beneficial for the eight High Plains aquifer states. Action: Develop
    priority area list and gain approval from all members.
          Develop science plans that address specific High Plains
    aquifer research areas. Action: Develop a plan for each issue.
    Establish a team for each issue.
          Identify and secure funding and other resources to
    implement the HPAC scientific strategic plan. Action: Identify
    potential sources of external and/or internal funding for proposed High
    Plains aquifer activities. Develop proposals or action plans to request
    funding.
          Implement a communications strategy that promotes
    dissemination of information in a simple, timely, and efficient manner.
    Action: Define strategy for communicating HPAC results to High Plains
    stakeholders.

    Partners:
            Kansas Geological Survey
            New Mexico Bureau of Mines & Mineral Resources
            Nebraska Conservation & Survey Division
            Texas Bureau of Economic Geology
            Colorado Geological Survey
            Oklahoma Geological Survey
            South Dakota Geological Survey
            Wyoming State Geological Survey
            U.S. Geological Survey
            State and Local agencies

    Summary and Conclusions:
        This strategic plan defines the long-term goals for the HPAC to
    develop a unified approach to addressing High Plains aquifer issues in
    the eight state region. The priority areas will continually be refined
    as the HPAC determines areas of need. Each year the HPAC will meet to
    review progress on building the HPAC strategies and to define a new set
    of activities for the following year.
        Mr. Neugebauer. Thank you.
        The Chair recognizes Mr. Wall.

      STATEMENT OF SCOTT WALL, NATIONAL CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION,
                             YUMA, COLORADO

        Mr. Wall. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
    Napolitano. Thank you for inviting me to testify on S. 212.
        My name is Scott Wall, and I am a corn and wheat farmer
    from Yuma, Colorado. My family and I farm just 1,000 acres, and
    much of it is irrigated. I am a member of the National Corn
    Growers Association (NCGA), and I serve on the Corn Board.
        I am just finishing up my harvest, which is an incredibly
    demanding race against the clock. Yet I have left my work to be
    here for this hearing. The NCGA has three main concerns with S.
    212: it would intrude on law traditionally reserved for the
    States; it would duplicate existing programs; and it would have
    a high and unnecessary cost.
        The United States has a long and well-established tradition
    of respecting a State's right to govern and manage its water
    resources. While this tradition has been eroded for surface
    water, it still generally applies to groundwater.
        Obviously, Congress plays an important role in setting
    national environmental policies and priorities. But another
    intrusion, no matter how innocuously drafted to help States or
    to conduct research, eventually opens the door to new laws and
    new regulations. Congress should not impose on States water
    rights, especially when the States that would be affected by
    this legislation have robust laws, regulatory agencies, and
    research capabilities in place.
        For what should be a relatively simple concept--to create a
    program to characterize, model, and map the Ogallala Aquifer--
    S. 212 is a complex bill. Governors must request assistance. A
    review panel must be created. Funding must be split with the
    States. Reports must be generated. Why is this so prescriptive?
    It makes me wonder what the reason for the bill really is.
        If the goal is to help the States and the region better
    understand the aquifer, why can't they ask the Department of
    Interior for additional assistance? According to testimony
    previously provided by the Department, the U.S. Geological
    Survey already is working with the States on the aquifer. In
    addition, the USGS has the authority to help the States in any
    way they need.
        Colorado is a dry area, and we often suffer from droughts.
    Yet the Ogallala Aquifer has made my part of the State and the
    rest of the High Plains a highly productive agricultural area.
    Irrigators and other water users know intense use of
    groundwater has caused declines, and some serious. We know the
    trend raises questions about the sustainability of long-term
    agricultural production in the area.
        However, farmers and other stakeholders and the States are
    addressing these concerns. More than 15 years ago, State, local
    and Federal agencies began a long-term monitoring program of
    the aquifer. Yearly assessments show that decreases have
    slowed, mainly because of increased irrigation efficiencies,
    changing cultivation practices, and generous rainfall, except
    for 2002, and actually 2003.
        Most of the States in the region have robust, comprehensive
    ground and surface water management laws and programs. Colorado
    has two State agencies addressing water issues. Our agencies
    issue well permits, administer water rights, monitor flow, and
    educate the public.
        While additional study is probably needed on the aquifer,
    the responsibility for conducting it should remain in the State
    and local level where it belongs.
        According to the Congressional Budget Office, S. 212 would
    cost $90 million over 2 years. To a farmer, $90 million is a
    lot of money, especially for a program that duplicates State
    programs and is unnecessary to solve any perceived research or
    agency coordination deficiencies.
        As you know, the 2002 farm bill created the Ground and
    Surface Water Conservation Program. It provides cost-share
    payments, incentive payments, and loans to help farmers improve
    irrigation systems, enhance irrigation efficiencies, and
    mitigate drought.
        This program is about outcomes--actually conserving water
    and increasing efficiency. Just think of what $90 million could
    do if it were used for on-the-ground water conservation instead
    of for just another report. NCGA suggests that if the bill's
    sponsors are serious about groundwater issues, they should put
    real money toward real problems, not just set up another
    program.
        The Ogallala Aquifer is a wonderful resource. Colorado corn
    growers and all others that rely on it to produce their crops
    are well aware of what it has done for agriculture. Please
    leave its management to us and our States. We have done a good
    job and it shows.
        Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify, and if
    there are any questions, I would be glad to answer them.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Wall follows:]

                  Statement of Scott Wall, Corn Board Member,
                  National Corn Growers Association, on S. 212

        Good morning, Chairman Calvert and Ranking Member Napolitano. Thank
    you for inviting me to testify on S. 212.
        My name is Scott Wall. I am a corn and wheat producer from Yuma,
    Colorado. My family and I farm just under 1,000 acres, much of it
    irrigated. I am a member of the National Corn Growers Association
    (NCGA) and serve on the Corn Board. NCGA represents more than 33,000
    corn growers from 27 states.
        I am just finishing up my harvest, which those of you familiar with
    row crop production know is an incredibly demanding race against the
    clock. Yet, I left my work to be here for this hearing. NCGA has three
    main concerns with S. 212: it would intrude on law traditionally
    reserved for the states; it would duplicate existing state programs;
    and it would have a high and unnecessary cost.
    State Water Rights
        The United States has a long and well-established tradition of
    respecting a state's right to govern and manage its water resources.
    While this tradition has been eroded for surface water, it still
    generally applies to groundwater. The Federal Government--Congress--
    should resist the temptation to encroach on this area of law again.
    Obviously, Congress plays an important role in setting national
    environmental policies and priorities. But another intrusion, no matter
    how innocuously drafted to help states or to conduct research,
    eventually opens the door to more laws and new regulations. Congress
    should not impose on states water rights, especially when the states
    that would be affected by this legislation have robust laws, regulatory
    agencies and research capabilities in place.

    Duplication with existing efforts
        For what should be a relatively simple concept--to create a program
    to characterize, model and map the Ogallala Aquifer--S. 212 is a
    complex bill. Governors must request assistance. A review panel must be
    created. The review panel must evaluate research proposals and
    prioritize program activities. Funding must be split with the states.
    Reports on program implementation and the state of the aquifer must be
    generated. Why is this so prescriptive? It makes me wonder about the
    real reason for S. 212.
        If the goal is to help the states in the region better understand
    the aquifer, why can't they simply ask the Department of the Interior
    for additional assistance? According to testimony previously provided
    by the Department to the Senate Water and Power Subcommittee, the U.S.
    Geological Survey (USGS) already is working with the states to evaluate
    the present and future State of the aquifer. In addition, USGS has the
    authority to help the states in any way they need.
        Colorado is a dry area, and we often suffer from droughts. Yet, the
    Ogallala Aquifer has made my part of the state and the rest of the High
    Plains a highly productive agricultural area. Irrigators and other
    water users recognize that intense use of groundwater has caused
    declines, some serious. We know this trend raises questions about the
    sustainability of long-term agricultural production in the area.
        However, farmers, other stakeholders and the states are addressing
    these concerns. More than 15 years ago state, local and federal
    agencies began a long-term monitoring program to assess the changing
    condition of the aquifer. These yearly assessments show that decreases
    have slowed, mainly because of increased irrigation efficiencies,
    cultivation practice changes and generous rainfall (except for 2002).
        Most of the states in the region have robust, comprehensive ground
    and surface water management laws and programs. Colorado has two state
    agencies addressing water issues. Nebraska brought two separate
    entities under one department a few years ago. Texas has one agency
    solely dedicated to water issues and a comprehensive system of local
    groundwater management.
        In Colorado, our state water agencies issue water well permits,
    administer water rights, monitor flow and collect water data. We also
    have the Groundwater Commission and local water conservation districts
    that make recommendations to the commission. I list these entities and
    activities to give the Committee an idea of how seriously Colorado
    takes its water resources.
        While additional study is probably needed on the aquifer, such as
    on sustainable recharge rates and how recharge corresponds with
    changing agricultural practices, the responsibility for conducting it
    needs to remain where it belongs on the state and local level.

    Cost
        According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), S. 212 would
    cost $90 million over 10 years. To a farmer, $90 million is a lot of
    money, especially for a program that duplicates state programs and is
    unnecessary to solve any perceived research or agency coordination
    deficiencies relating to the aquifer.
        As you may know, the 2002 farm bill created the Ground and Surface
    Water Conservation program to be managed by the Natural Resources
    Conservation Service. The purpose is to provide cost-share payments,
    incentive payments and loans to help farmers improve water
    conservation. Eligible practices include improving irrigation systems,
    enhancing irrigation efficiencies and mitigating drought. The farm bill
    provided $25 million in 2002, $45 million in 2003 and $60 million for
    each FY 2004-2007.
        This program is about outcomes--actually conserving water and
    increasing efficiency. Just think of what $90 million could do if it
    were used for on-the-ground water conservation instead of for just
    another report. NCGA suggests that, if the bill's sponsors are serious
    about groundwater issues, they should put real money toward real
    problems, not just set up yet another duplicative, unnecessary program.

    Closing
        The Ogallala Aquifer is a wonderful resource. Colorado corn growers
    and all others that rely on it to produce their crops are well aware of
    what it has done for agriculture. Please leave its management to us and
    our states. We've done a good job and it shows.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. I would be
    happy to answer any questions.
                                     ______

        Mr. Neugebauer. Thank you.
        The Chair now recognizes Mr. Conkwright.

     STATEMENT OF JIM CONKWRIGHT, MANAGER, HIGH PLAINS UNDERGROUND
                  WATER DISTRICT NO. 1, LUBBOCK, TEXAS

        Mr. Conkwright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for
    the opportunity to be here today and to represent the High
    Plains Water District regarding Senate bill 212.
        As a local groundwater conservation district manager, I am
    concerned that S. 212 duplicates State and local efforts to
    date, that it creates a new and unnecessary layer of Federal
    oversight, and that it may provide an opportunity for eventual
    Federal regulation of groundwater resources. It is the
    district's firm belief that local control is the best control.
    This belief has been echoed by the Texas Legislature, which has
    repeatedly stated, ``Groundwater conservation districts are the
    preferred method of groundwater management in Texas.''
        Area residents and the Texas Legislature created water
    conservation districts in the early 1950s for local control of
    groundwater resources. The local boards and staff have a better
    understanding of the geology and hydrology of the aquifer than
    some outside the region. In fact, our district has two
    geologist-hydrologists on staff.
        The High Plains Underground Water District, headquartered
    in Lubbock, is the oldest groundwater conservation district in
    Texas. Created in September of 1951, the district is designed
    to help conserve, preserve, and prevent the waste of
    groundwater stored in the aquifers within a 15-county service
    area. Many water conservation successes have been accomplished
    through improving irrigation application efficiencies, reducing
    water waste from fields, and by providing public information
    about the importance of water and water conservation.
        The district work is supported through an ad valorem tax of
    0.0083 per $100 of valuation, less than 1 cent. Irrigated
    agriculture on the Texas High Plains depends upon the
    groundwater stored and the formation. It is important to
    realize that agricultural producers only pump groundwater to
    supplement the 18 to 20 inches of average annual precipitation
    for this region.
        Another issue that came up in questioning before the break
    from the Congressman from Nebraska. Much of the aquifer is
    site-specific. These are things, I think, that we all realize.
    The underlying materials are different. The way the aquifer
    operates is different. So we have site-specific situations that
    we deal with. And the residents of the Texas High Plains
    realize that the water stored in the Ogallala formation is a
    precious and limited resource.
        Senate bill 212 seeks to establish a cooperative
    partnership. Again, in our opinion, this proposed legislation
    duplicates local and State services. Chapter 36 of the Texas
    Water Code states that ``a district may make surveys of the
    groundwater reservoir or subdivisions or survey of the
    facilities in order to determine the quantity of water
    available for production and use and to determine the
    improvements, development, and recharging needed by a reservoir
    or its subdivision.'' Most underground water conservation
    districts in Texas that overlie the Ogallala conduct this
    activity.
        For example, the High Plains District publishes a series of
    hydrologic atlases for each county or portion of a county
    within the water district every 5 years. These atlases
    illustrate the volume of water in storage--the saturated
    thickness--and other important information. The atlas series is
    constructed from data collected in established water level
    observation wells and supplementary water level observation
    wells within our district.
        In addition, annual depth-to-water level measurements are
    made in a network of more than 1,200 privately owned
    observation water wells. These data are used to determine the
    average annual change in water levels in the Ogallala formation
    within the High Plains District. In recent years, district
    personnel have seen average annual changes in water levels
    decrease from 2 to 3 feet per year to approximately 1 foot per
    year. Our declines are declining.
        The use of this data from the High Plains Water District's
    water level observation program is used by the United States
    Internal Revenue Service to establish and support deductions
    from Federal income taxes based upon the use of groundwater
    from the Ogallala Aquifer for irrigated farming.
        Quickly, to wrap up, on the State level, the Texas Water
    Development Board in Austin is the lead agency for water
    matters. The 76th Texas Legislature approved funding for the
    Groundwater Availability Modeling (GAM) program. The GAM is to
    provide reliable and timely information on groundwater
    availability to the citizens of Texas. I am glad to say that we
    have just completed the first two aquifer models, and one of
    the first two is the Ogallala.
        In wrapping up, again, we feel that groundwater is best
    managed, is best handled on a local and State basis, and that
    is what we have been successfully doing. We would ask that our
    testimony as written be included in the proceedings for the day
    as it includes many other important items that need to come
    before the Committee but that we do not have time to relate.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Conkwright follows:]

         Statement of Mr. James C. (Jim) Conkwright, General Manager,
      High Plains Underground Water Conservation District No.1, on S. 212

        Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to
    speak before your Committee today regarding S. 212, known as the High
    Plains Aquifer Hydrogeologic Characterization, Modeling, and Monitoring
    Act.
        As a ground water conservation district manager, I am concerned
    that S. 212 duplicates state and local efforts to date, that it creates
    a new and unnecessary layer of federal oversight, and it may provide an
    opportunity for eventual federal regulation of ground water resources.
    It is the High Plains Underground Water Conservation District's firm
    belief that ``local control is the best control.'' This belief has been
    echoed by the Texas Legislature, which has repeatedly stated, ``Ground
    water conservation districts are the preferred method of ground water
    management in Texas.''
        Area residents and the Texas Legislature created ground water
    conservation districts in the early 1950s for local control of ground
    water resources. The local boards and staff have a better understanding
    of the geology and hydrology of the aquifer, water use practices, and
    farming operations within the region, as compared to a state agency in
    Austin or a federal agency in Washington, D.C.
        The High Plains Underground Water Conservation District No. 1,
    headquartered in Lubbock, is the oldest ground water conservation
    district in Texas. Created in September 1951, the district is designed
    to help conserve, preserve, and prevent the waste of ground water
    stored in the aquifers within a 15-county service area. Many water
    conservation successes have been accomplished through improving
    irrigation application efficiencies, reducing water waste from fields
    (``irrigation tailwater''), and providing public information about the
    importance of water and water conservation.
        Irrigated agriculture on the Texas High Plains depends upon the
    ground water stored in the Ogallala formation. It is important to
    realize that agricultural producers only pump ground water to
    supplement the 18 to 20 inches of average annual precipitation for the
    region.
        Residents of the Texas High Plains know the ground water stored in
    the Ogallala formation is a precious and limited resource.
        For many years, state and local agencies, ground water conservation
    districts, educational institutions, and the agricultural community
    have been leaders in efforts to monitor and conserve ground water
    stored in the Ogallala formation for future use. In addition,
    agricultural producers have proven to be the best stewards of our
    nation's natural resources. They continually work to implement the best
    management practices available to conserve our ground water supplies.
        S. 212 seeks to establish a cooperative partnership effort between
    the Secretary of the Interior, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the High
    Plains Aquifer states for physical characterization of the High Plains
    Aquifer.
        Again, in our opinion, this proposed legislation duplicates both
    local and state services. Chapter 36.106 of the Texas Water Code states
    that ``a district may make surveys of the ground water reservoir or
    subdivision or survey of the facilities in order to determine the
    quantity of water available for production and use and to determine the
    improvements, development, and recharging needed by a reservoir or its
    subdivision.'' Most underground water conservation districts in Texas
    that overlie the Ogallala conduct this activity.
        As an example, the High Plains Underground Water Conservation
    District publishes a series of hydrologic atlases for each county or
    portion of a county within the Water District every five years. These
    atlases illustrate the volume of water in storage (saturated
    thickness), elevation of the water table, base of the Ogallala
    Formation, and land surface elevation for each county or portion of a
    county it serves. The atlas series is constructed from data collected
    in established water level observation wells and supplementary water
    level observation wells within the district.
        In addition, annual depth-to-water level measurements are made in a
    network of more than 1,200 privately owned observation water wells.
    These data are used to determine the average annual change in water
    levels in the Ogallala formation within the High Plains Water District.
    In recent years, district personnel have seen average annual changes in
    water levels decrease from two to three feet per year to about one foot
    per year.
        Use of data from the High Plains Water District's water level
    observation program is also used by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service
    to establish and support deductions from federal income taxes based
    upon the use of ground water from the Ogallala Aquifer for irrigated
    farming.
        On the state level, the Texas Water Development Board in Austin is
    the lead agency for water matters. The 76th Texas Legislature approved
    funding for the Groundwater Availability Modeling (GAM) program. The
    GAM is to provide reliable and timely information on ground water
    availability to the citizens of Texas. These ground water models will
    be used by regional water planning groups and ground water conservation
    districts to evaluate water management strategies and to assess present
    and future ground water availability during normal and drought
    conditions. GAM models for the nine major aquifers in Texas are to be
    completed by September 1, 2004. Modeling of the 21 minor aquifers in
    Texas will follow soon thereafter.
        The proposed legislation is designed to ``undertake activities and
    provide technical capabilities not available at the state and local
    levels as may be requested by a Governor of a High Plains Aquifer state
    within each state.''
        It should also be noted that when the Governor of Texas desires
    water information, his staff generally contacts either the Texas Water
    Development Board in Austin and/or a local underground water
    conservation district. Both agencies have many years of geologic and
    hydrologic data on file at their offices. In addition, both promote
    water conservation programs to improve water use efficiencies, reduce
    water waste, and educate the public about the importance of water and
    water conservation.
        We believe that this proposed legislation does not adequately
    consider the water conservation efforts and research already conducted
    by federal agencies, such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural
    Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS) and the USDA-Agricultural
    Research Service (USDA-ARS); underground water conservation districts;
    state land grant colleges; and agricultural commodity producer groups.
        The 2003-2011 funding to enact this proposed legislation, conduct
    resulting meetings, and publish subsequent reports could be better
    utilized to help implement more water conservation measures--such as a
    water reserve program, patterned after the successful Conservation
    Reserve Program (CRP). Such a program would provide financial
    incentives to agricultural producers to set aside their land and not
    pump ground water for a 10-year period.
        Let me say again that we believe ``local control is best control.''
    Allowing state and local entities to direct water conservation efforts
    is best. By doing so, the federal government can accomplish its
    objectives in a manner that respects state law.
        I thank the Committee for the opportunity to offer the High Plains
    Underground Water Conservation District's concerns regarding S. 212.
                                     ______

        Mr. Neugebauer. Thank you very much. We have a great panel
    here. I am going to recognize myself for 5 minutes, and then I
    will recognize other members.
        Ms. Favila, this program is estimated to cost around $90
    million, and obviously we are in a difficult time now with
    trying to allocate Federal resources. How might this impact
    other programs that are important to the people in Plainview?
        Ms. Favila. Thank you. If we could be able to obtain
    additional funding, we could be able to restore the funding
    that was cut back from previous years. That would assist with
    rising operating and training costs. We could also be able to
    improve the ability of organizations to deliver a high-quality
    information technology training and services in isolated rural
    communities, not only in Plainview but throughout America.
        Mr. Neugebauer. Thank you.
        Mr. Arthur, what steps are the producers in your area
    taking to improve efficiency and to be better stewards of the
    aquifer?
        Mr. Arthur. Mr. Chairman, as I had mentioned in my talk,
    the efficiencies that I have used on my own operation, in 1998,
    I believe, in Crosby County, the county that I live in, we had
    somewhere in the neighborhood of 14 center pivots. Over a 10-
    year period, that has grown to 500 center pivots. So with these
    new technologies in conservation, we have tremendously put a
    big input of our dollars into conservation of the water into
    the aquifer.
        Also, we have used different techniques with research on
    trying to find drought-related crops that are more tolerant to
    drought. So, therefore, we are using less of the aquifer to
    water our crops.
        And, finally, in years past, in the 1950s and 1960s, in
    irrigation online ditches were a common thing to find. Nowadays
    we use techniques such a poly pipe or other pipe to lessen the
    burden of that filtration, unneeded water filtrating through or
    percolating through the soil.
        Mr. Neugebauer. Thank you.
        Dr. Allison, Senator Bingaman indicated in a Senate
    hearing, and I quote, ``If the Administration had this as a top
    priority themselves, it would not be necessary for this
    legislation.'' How would you respond to that statement?
        Dr. Allison. Well, I think that is probably true, Mr.
    Chairman. One of the reasons we urge that this be drafted in
    legislation is that we have not seen the priority placed within
    the USGS to do the kind of cooperative studies that we think
    need to be done. And when we have gone and talked to Congress
    in the past, the concern has been that if we do it through
    simply the appropriation process, it pulls the resources away
    from other programs that were considered higher priority at the
    time within the USGS.
        So the intent was to go with a separate legislative
    approach to indicate that this is a high priority driven by the
    State and local needs, and instruct the USGS to treat it as a
    higher priority and to put the resources there that haven't
    been available to this point.
        Mr. Neugebauer. I think Mr. Hirsch said this morning that
    he really didn't think that we had an authorization problem,
    that we had an appropriation problem, that we have not been--
    what kinds of commitment from the State, of your State, are
    going to this initiative, the research and monitoring of the
    aquifer? In other words, what is the commitment in your State
    to this issue?
        Dr. Allison. Mr. Chairman, in Kansas, we probably have the
    largest program of any of the eight States at the State level.
    The Kansas Geological Survey is the third largest State
    geological survey in the Nation and larger than any of the
    others in the region. And so because of our resources, we have
    been able to put more into this.
        But we have just completed a regional assessment, talking
    with our local districts, our water management districts and
    others, and all of them have a long laundry list of needs that
    they have that we are having trouble meeting. And so we have
    taken the leadership in bringing together the State geological
    surveys in the eight-State region, recognizing that we in
    Kansas have had more resources than they have had, and so they
    are much further behind. And every one we have talked to has
    indicated they need more resources.
        In terms of actual numbers, I probably have about a dozen
    people on my staff involved with water in all areas, and eight
    of those would be scientists. And out of those, probably half a
    dozen are working full-time or close to full-time on the High
    Plains Aquifer.
        Mr. Neugebauer. So this legislation really wouldn't be
    empowering you to do any more than you are doing as far as from
    an authorization standpoint? What you are really saying, if I
    hear you correctly, is that there are just more resources
    needed for this initiative.
        Dr. Allison. That is true. It does not change the
    authorization of what we do. We are authorized by the State to
    do what we do, as do all of my colleagues in the other States.
    It would provide resources and provide a higher priority within
    the USGS to provide that technical assistance. Each of us, if I
    have eight or ten people in my survey, they don't have the
    necessary specialization tools that we can get when we go to
    the USGS, which has hundreds of scientists working nationwide
    who have some great special technical capabilities that none of
    us can afford to maintain at the State level. So it would
    prioritize them working with us in the High Plains, being an
    area where this kind of research could be focused.
        Mr. Neugebauer. Thank you.
        The Chair then yields to the gentleman from New Mexico, a
    neighbor, Mr. Udall.
        Mr. Tom Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Dr. Allison, it was mentioned earlier that $90 million over
    2 years. I wasn't clear whether that is 2 years or 10 years. I
    am a little murky on the Congressional Budget Office numbers.
    What do you think this would cost from what your estimate would
    be?
        Dr. Allison. Mr. Udall, the bill I think lays out an 8-year
    period in which this cooperation would be authorized. There was
    no number ever put in any of the drafts of the bill. We have
    used a number of approximately $10 million a year as a ballpark
    estimate of what we thought this program might take. One of the
    studies we have been doing in cooperation with the Ogallala
    Aquifer Institute is try to do a comprehensive assessment of
    what status each State and local jurisdiction is in, what do
    they need, and from that we hope to come back and build a
    rough--a closer budget rather than the rough one we have.
        The $90 million over 2 years I think is a
    mischaracterization. I have heard if we had $10 million for an
    8-year period, that would be a maximum of $80 million. But my
    understanding was that the Congressional Office that does
    estimates of what this might cost assumed that it would ramp up
    over a few years. And so their estimates may have been closer
    to $43 million, is what I recall, over an 8-year period.
        Mr. Tom Udall. All right. Thank you.
        Mr. Tillman, you mentioned that the local people in New
    Mexico and the Eastern Plains out there support this. Could you
    elucidate a little more the cities and the--and I think the
    State engineer has taken a position, too. Isn't that correct?
        Mr. Tillman. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Udall, our mayors of
    our larger communities, Clovis and Portales and some of the
    smaller ones like Melrose and Grady, did sign support letters.
    The harsh reality is that New Mexico is winning the race to the
    bottom of the aquifer. We are on the shallow side. And our
    State hasn't devoted the necessary resources, but we need the
    partnership with the Federal Government.
        We also haven't had the institutional capacity that maybe
    exists in Texas nor the funding to adequately understand the
    sub-units and the unique circumstances in localized areas. So
    we are working with the State engineer, who has indicated
    support for Senate bill 212, and the local governments
    recognize that they lack the technical expertise and the
    funding. At the State level, we are daunted by a multitude of
    water-related issues. So any attention brought to this by this
    bill and cost sharing I think is the only way we are going to
    actually get through the complexity and the partnerships that
    are necessary.
        If it is true no authorization is needed, then why has it
    been 22 years since we have had a comprehensive study?
        Mr. Tom Udall. Mr. Chairman, I would like to put into the
    record the letters from the local officials and our State
    Engineer, if that would be all right.
        Mr. Neugebauer. Without objection, so ordered.
        Mr. Tom Udall. Thank you.
        [NOTE: Letters submitted for the record have been retained
    in the Committee's official files.]
        Mr. Tom Udall. Mr. Tillman, as you know, and you have
    worked in water issues many years in New Mexico and were very
    protective of the State of New Mexico having control over its
    water and protecting our State water laws and things like that.
    Do you see in this Senate bill 212 an effort by the Federal
    Government to intrude on State water law? Or is this more of a
    cooperative type arrangement?
        Mr. Tillman. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Udall, I recognize
    the concern that had been expressed. I think our experience
    with surface water, the Endangered Species Act, and other
    issues certainly make everyone at the local level in these
    Western States sensitive and concerned about those issues.
        I would point out that the Ogallala Aquifer, the High
    Plains Aquifer, doesn't care where the political boundaries
    are, the watershed doesn't care where the boundaries are. It
    just does what it does. So I don't see the intrusion here.
    Certainly, in the past, with the production of these maps that
    have been presented, I don't think there was anything with a
    regulatory implication there.
        So I understand the concern, but I don't see in the bill
    the Federalization prospect that has been suggested by other
    panelists.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Tom Udall. Thank you, Mr. Tillman, and thank you to the
    rest of the panel.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Neugebauer. Thanks to the gentleman.
        I recognize the gentleman from Kansas, Mr. Moran.
        Mr. Moran. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I appreciate
    this Subcommittee's indulgence of allowing me to join you at
    least in part today and appreciate the testimony of the
    witnesses that I have read and heard.
        Dr. Allison, you indicated that really what this is is an
    issue of resources, needing additional dollars in order to do
    things that can't be done. Your State geological survey may
    have additional resources as compared to the other seven
    States. Is there a component that is missing in regard to
    cooperation? If you had the resources, do you need anything
    more to get the research to be done across the Ogallala, across
    the High Plains Aquifer in all States? Will that happen if you
    have the dollars?
        Dr. Allison. We are trying to make it happen, Mr. Moran, by
    developing this High Plains Aquifer Coalition. Three years ago,
    we took the lead in building that because we recognized that
    there had not been the priority and the cooperation, and we saw
    all of our States suing each other over issues where we were
    affecting the aquifer by taking water out of rivers or, vice
    versa, affecting rivers by taking water out of the aquifer.
        We weren't seeing the kind of cooperation or the
    implementation of existing programs at the USGS that we felt
    were necessary. So we took the first steps on our own. But as
    we have worked together over the last 3 years, we have
    recognized that resources were a critical part of it and also
    raising the priority within the USGS that this is where their
    internal resources, their internal focus ought to be. But
    primarily resources would----
        Mr. Moran. If you had the resources, would this entity that
    you created 3 years ago conduct the research or monitor,
    organize, direct the research?
        Dr. Allison. The organization itself would not, but the
    individual States and local entities. The way this bill was
    crafted is that 50 percent of the money to the States goes to
    State and local groups that put forward the research that is
    requested at the State and local level. So no research would go
    forward unless it was requested at the local level, and the
    review panel is in place, dominate by State-appointed folks to
    make sure that it is State-driven research meeting State needs
    and State priorities.
        Mr. Moran. So, in every instance, the eight States that
    make up the High Plains Aquifer would be the ones who are
    deciding what research needs to be conducted within their
    State, and they would have the opportunity to direct the
    direction that the research goes.
        Dr. Allison. That is correct, sir.
        Mr. Moran. One of the things that has always seemed
    important to me on this issue is what we have done in Kansas in
    regard to trying to extend the life of our oil and gas
    production, and we have, with the help of the geological
    survey, found new technologies, new science that is making
    progress in extending the opportunity for us to mine oil and
    gas in our State.
        Is there analogy to what we can do with water? If we had
    the kind of information knowledge and research that we are
    developing in the oil and gas industry available to those who
    make decisions about the use of the Ogallala, can we extend--is
    the oil and gas research an example of what we can do, a role
    model that will demonstrate we can make a difference?
        Dr. Allison. Mr. Moran, that is absolutely true, and my own
    personal background comes from working many years within the
    oil industry. And what we have seen over the last 30 years or
    so, from billions of dollars invested by the oil companies, a
    way to characterize the geologic framework that holds the oil,
    and that technology, those understandings, have not been fully
    implemented in the groundwater area. We haven't had that same
    billions of dollars of investment, but we can learn from them.
    We can take that technology, those understandings.
        And what we have discovered with the High Plains Aquifer,
    and particularly the Ogallala portion of it, it is a very
    complex geologic unit. It is not a sponge that you stick a
    straw into and suck water out; it is an old ancient river
    system, five to six million years old, where rivers meandered
    over geologic time back and forth the countryside, and so in
    one place you may have multiple river channels stacked up; in
    other place, it may be the silty or muddy overbank areas piled
    up.
        We are working with Groundwater Management District No. 4
    in Kansas to define their unit, their aquifer into subunits so
    that when they make a decision based on the best data they
    have, we make sure they have not picked a really good spot of
    the aquifer or a really bad spot of the aquifer and applied
    that across the region. It is the same technology that the oil
    industry has used to extend the life of their oilfields,
    doubled the life of oilfields in many cases. And so by doing
    this subunit level characterization and making decisions based
    on local variations in the geology, we can employ the same
    technology that is keeping the oilfields alive, we can keep our
    aquifers alive in the same way.
        Mr. Moran. My time has about expired. So, if you can answer
    this very briefly, is there any question, scientific question
    that what happens in Nebraska or South Dakota affects the
    Ogallala in Kansas or Texas or New Mexico? Is there any
    question about the interrelationship between the aquifer across
    those State borders?
        Dr. Allison. The aquifer is a three-dimensional body, and
    the water moves back and forth, and what happens in one part of
    the aquifer can have an affect on it some distance away.
        Mr. Moran. And what you are attempting to do or the concept
    behind this legislation is supported by groundwater management
    districts in Kansas who operate similar to the ones in Texas as
    well. They just have a different opinion about the value of
    what we are doing here; is that true?
        Dr. Allison. That is correct. We have had the support from
    the groundwater management districts, the Kansas Water
    Authority, the Western States Water Council, and I understand
    that Governor's Cabinet in Kansas was preparing a letter to
    send as well.
        Mr. Moran. I agree with the gentleman, Mr. Conkwright, who
    testified about managing and handling water at the State and
    local level. Certainly, that is where we want to be. The
    question I think we have is where does the research need to be
    done or how could we get the resources on a broader basis. I
    also appreciate the compliment about the EQIP program. It is a
    Moran provision in the farm bill to try to provide some
    incentives for conservation, and I am glad to know that that
    was not seen as a threat to local use of water. We are glad
    here to try to cooperate with you.
        I appreciate the panel's testimony and thank the Chairman
    for his indulgence.
        Mr. Neugebauer. Thank the gentleman.
        Just for your information, Congress has adjourned, and
    there is a security situation where no one is being currently
    allowed to enter any of the House buildings or leave the House
    buildings. The Capitol Hill Police have encouraged everyone to
    stay just where we are for a while. We will keep you abreast of
    that. The good news is we have a very good Capitol Hill Police
    force, and whatever issue is there, I know they will take care
    of it quickly.
        So we are going to have a little time for some additional
    questions. We could be here for a while.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Neugebauer. Mr. Conkwright, there has been a lot of
    discussion about trying to relate what the oil industry knows
    about the geological formations in the oil and gas industry and
    what we do or do not know about the High Plains Aquifer. What
    other things, in your estimation, about the aquifer do we not
    know?
        Mr. Conkwright. Congressman, I think one of the things that
    is fairly unknown across the breadth of it, because it is so
    site specific, is information on recharge. We have just entered
    in or we are entering into an agreement with the Texas Water
    Development Board, and we will be starting in January 2004--
    actually, probably December--a new recharge study for our 15
    counties.
        But I think this area is one that certainly could use more
    research. How it works, where it works, there is a lot of
    unknowns in that area.
        Mr. Neugebauer. In the High Plains Water District, are you
    all doing, you said you have just got this new study. What kind
    of time frame on getting that program up and going?
        Mr. Conkwright. We should have our, basically, the sites
    that we will be working with identified, but we are shooting
    for the 1st of April because we want those in place before our
    normal rainy season begins. I would like to even have them in
    by March 15th. We will be working with personnel from the Water
    Development Board matching some funds and matching personnel,
    installing some equipment, some ideas that we are just going to
    try some different things that haven't been done, some that
    have, and monitor those. Our staff will be doing the monitoring
    and reporting to the State.
        Let me say this. Back in even the mid-1970s we had recharge
    projects there within the district. My predecessor was very
    active in working on recharge, and it is difficult. There are
    newer techniques maybe available now than we had 30 years ago,
    25 years ago, so we are anxious to get back into that area.
        Mr. Neugebauer. Thank you.
        The Chair just wants to make some observations, both as
    resident that lives in an area directly affected by the High
    Plains Aquifer and in listening to the testimony today. You
    know, number one is there seems to be a varying degree within
    the States of emphasis on this issue, and certainly I don't
    think the Federal Government ought to mandate emphasis. I think
    that the States certainly that are in this area ought to make
    this a priority if, in fact, they are deeply concerned about
    that.
        I think the other thing that I, the continuing theme of
    this is it is a resource issue and not an authorization issue,
    and certainly Mr. Moran has led the charge in making sure that
    some of the issues are addressed in the farm bill.
        I think maybe what this hearing may have brought forward is
    a need to emphasize in future appropriation bills the ability
    to fund additional resources for that.
        I think the good thing that I hear about what is going on
    is this coalition that is put together. Having been around this
    process from a local Government official and working on issues
    important to the region where I come from, I find that these
    coalitions that are formed, whether they bring together a theme
    and some synergy within themselves, those tend to be more
    productive than those ones that have some kind of a Federal
    mandate and that we create panels and layers of bureaucracy on
    how the money is going to be spent. Because you know it takes
    months, if not years, sometimes to write all of the regulations
    that might be imposed on that. Whereas, a coalition that has a
    game plan and a target and what they want to accomplish is much
    more fluid than something that the Federal Government might
    form.
        And so, for that reason, I am not going to be able to
    support this bill, but what I am supportive of is more
    conservation research, more research dollars to work with the
    coalition to see if there are other ways that we can improve
    the quality and the quantity and get a better handle on the
    aquifer.
        Is there any other questions of any of the panel members?
        [No response.]
        Mr. Neugebauer. There seems to be--I am all by myself, all
    alone.
        Just as a parting, any other member of the panel want to
    make a----
        [No response.]
        Mr. Neugebauer. Thank you very much for your travel and
    coming. This was very informative for us, and I appreciate your
    comments. If there are no other questions, this panel is
    dismissed, and this hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 1:58 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

        [Additional material submitted for the record follows:]

        [A letter to Chairman Richard Pombo and Chairman Ken
    Calvert submitted for the record by The Honorable Randy
    Neugebauer,, et al., follows:]

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0157.012

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0157.013

        [NOTE: Additional letters submitted for the record on H.R.
    3334, H.R. 3391 and S. 212 have been retained in the
    Committee's official files.]