[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.]