[Senate Hearing 108-211]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 108-211
ALBUQUERQUE BIOLOGICAL PARK TITLE CLARIFICATION ACT; TAMARISK CONTROL
AND RIPARIAN RESTORATION ACT; SALT CEDAR CONTROL DEMONSTRATION ACT;
REPAYMENT CONTRACT WITH TOM GREEN COUNTY WATER DISTRICT; AND UPPER
MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASIN PROTECTION ACT
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
S. 213 H.R. 856
S. 1236 H.R. 961
S. 1516
__________
SEPTEMBER 23, 2003
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
90-751 WASHINGTON : 2003
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800, DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, Chairman
DON NICKLES, Oklahoma JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming BOB GRAHAM, Florida
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee RON WYDEN, Oregon
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
CONRAD BURNS, Montana EVAN BAYH, Indiana
GORDON SMITH, Oregon DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
JIM BUNNING, Kentucky CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
JON KYL, Arizona MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
Alex Flint, Staff Director
Judith K. Pensabene, Chief Counsel
Robert M. Simon, Democratic Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Water and Power
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado, Vice Chairman
GORDON SMITH, Oregon BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
JON KYL, Arizona BOB GRAHAM, Florida
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho RON WYDEN, Oregon
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
JIM BUNNING, Kentucky DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
Pete V. Domenici and Jeff Bingaman are Ex Officio Members of the
Subcommittee
Shelly Randel, Counsel
Patty Beneke, Democratic Senior Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Allard, Hon. Wayne, U.S. Senator from Colorado, Letter........... 2
Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from New Mexico................ 3
Brown, A. Gordon, Invasive Species Coordinator, Liaison to the
National Invasive Species Council, Department of the Interior.. 13
Campbell, Hon. Ben Nighthorse, U.S. Senator from Colorado........ 3
Carlson, Tim, Executive Director, Tamarisk Coalition............. 29
Domenici, Hon. Pete V., U.S. Senator from New Mexico............. 4
Gabaldon, Michael, Director of Policy Management and Technical
Services, Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior.... 19
Hirsch, Robert M., Ph.D., Associate Director for Water, U.S.
Geological Survey, Department of the Interior.................. 22
Hughes, Debbie, Executive Director, New Mexico Association of
Conservation Districts......................................... 38
Kind, Hon. Ron, U.S. Representative from Wisconsin............... 6
Marshall, John, Assistant Director, Colorado Department of
Natural Resources.............................................. 36
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator from Alaska................... 1
Stenholm, Hon. Charles W., U.S. Representative from Texas........ 9
Stoerker, Holly, Executive Director, Upper Mississippi River
Basin Association.............................................. 41
Tate, Jim, Science Advisor to the Secretary of the Interior,
Department of the Interior..................................... 15
APPENDIX
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 49
ALBUQUERQUE BIOLOGICAL PARK TITLE CLARIFICATION ACT; TAMARISK CONTROL
AND RIPARIAN RESTORATION ACT; SALT CEDAR CONTROL DEMONSTRATION ACT;
REPAYMENT CONTRACT WITH TOM GREEN COUNTY WATER DISTRICT; AND UPPER
MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASIN PROTECTION ACT
----------
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2003
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Water and Power,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:37 p.m. in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Lisa
Murkowski presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
Senator Murkowski. I call to order this meeting of the
Subcommittee on Water and Power. It is my pleasure to welcome
everybody to the subcommittee this afternoon. We have a total
of five bills before the subcommittee today: S. 213, the
Albuquerque Biological Park Title Clarification Act, introduced
by Senators Bingaman and Domenici; S. 1236, the Tamarisk
Control and Riparian Restoration Act, introduced by Senators
Campbell and Allard; S. 1516, the Salt Cedar Control
Demonstration Act, introduced by Senators Domenici and
Campbell; H.R. 856, a bill authorizing the Secretary of the
Interior to revise a repayment contract with the Tom Green
County Water Control and Improvement District No. 1, introduced
by Congressman Stenholm; and H.R. 961, the Upper Mississippi
River Basin Protection Act, introduced by Congressman Kind.
I would like to extend a special welcome to our two
distinguished House members here today, Congressman Stenholm
who will be offering remarks in support of H.R. 856, and
Congressman Kind on behalf of H.R. 961.
I would also like to welcome: Michael Gabaldon, the
Director of Policy Management and Technical Services for the
Bureau of Reclamation; Gordon Brown, the Invasive Species
Coordinator for the Department of the Interior; and Bob Hirsch,
Chief Hydrologist and Associate Director of the U.S. Geologic
Survey.
Additionally, we will have: Debbie Hughes, representing the
New Mexico Association of Conservation Districts; Tim Carlson,
representing the Tamarisk Coalition; and John Marshall,
assistant director of the Colorado Department of Natural
Resources, who will be testifying in support of S. 1236. Holly
Stoerker, executive director of the Upper Mississippi River
Basin Association, will be testifying in support of H.R. 961.
The subcommittee has also received a letter from Senator
Allard in support of S. 1236, written testimony from the Middle
Rio Grande Conservancy District and the city of Albuquerque on
S. 213, and the Tom Green County Water Control Improvement
District No. 1 in support of H.R. 856.
The first bill I would like to mention today is S. 213. A
similar measure, S. 2696, was introduced last Congress by
Senator Bingaman, and it is my understanding that an amended
version of S. 2696 passed the Senate late last year, but left
no time for action by the House. I understand there were some
changes made and I look forward to hearing today whether or not
those concerns have been addressed.
Also before the subcommittee this afternoon are two
measures dealing with eradication of tamarisk or salt cedar.
The two final bills before the subcommittee today are those
which have already passed the House, H.R. 856 and H.R. 961.
I welcome the testimony of the witnesses here today. We do
recognize that we have some votes that I do not think we have
scheduled with a time agreement yet, but we would anticipate
perhaps some interruptions this afternoon. So we appreciate
everyone bearing with us.
At this point in time then I would like to invite up
Congressman Kind and Congressman Stenholm. Gentlemen, thank
you.
If any of the members would like to make any opening
statements this afternoon, I would entertain them.
Senator Bingaman.
[The letter from Senator Allard follows:]
November 17, 2003.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
Committee and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: As you know, the western United States continues
to suffer through a sustained period of unprecedented drought. Large
portions of my home state of Colorado are in the midst of a fourth year
without adequate moisture. While state efforts to provide the
appropriate relief continue, the federal government must act
cooperatively with the states to bolster drought mitigation efforts
where such federal involvement is appropriate. Appropriate action
includes federal aid in dealing with invasive plant species--one of the
largest culprits of water theft.
The expansion of a variety of invasive plant species known as
phreatophytes threatens more than the natural plant mix and wildlife
forage. Phreatophytes, including the Salt Cedar (or Tamarisk) consume
vast amounts of water and degrade the natural environment. For example,
the Tamarisk is known to consume more than 200 gallons of water a day
and may lead to high salinity levels in rivers and soil. They also
alter the natural course of the river through a root system that grows
some 250 feet down into the ground.
I commend your efforts to introduce legislation that creates new
partnerships and funding to eradicate these invasive plants. Senator
Campbell also deserves praise for his efforts as well. I am a strong
supporter of the legislation and look forward to providing you with any
assistance you should require. By working together, we can develop a
common sense approach to tackling the water theft by invasive plant
species and ultimately restoring the health of our riparian systems.
Sincerely,
Wayne Allard,
United States Senator.
STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM NEW MEXICO
Senator Bingaman. Madam Chairman, let me just make a very
brief statement. First, I welcome the two Congressmen here and
support their efforts. I wanted to make a short statement about
S. 213 that you mentioned. This is a bill that Senator Domenici
and I have introduced. We did make some changes in it. It is
intended to allow the city of Albuquerque to proceed with its
plans to develop a biological park along the banks of the Rio
Grande near downtown Albuquerque.
The city had acquired two parcels of land from the Middle
Rio Grande Conservancy District in 1997 for the purpose of
creating this park. Its plans were interrupted, however, when
the Bureau of Reclamation later asserted that it held title to
these two parcels, as well as various other property believed
to be owned by the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District.
The issue of title is in litigation and S. 213 does not
interfere with that litigation. It merely directs the Bureau of
Reclamation to transfer any interest it is determined to have
in the two properties to the city of Albuquerque. As I
understand it, the city already occupies these two parcels and
it is considered to be surplus to the needs of the Middle Rio
Grande Project.
Obviously, I am disappointed that the Bureau of
Reclamation, through its testimony, appears to continue to
oppose what we are trying to do. I do not know that that is
helpful. I think this should be an easy matter to resolve and I
think the legislation Senator Domenici and I have proposed is a
good resolution. That is the main issue I wanted to address,
Madam Chairman.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
Senator Campbell.
STATEMENT OF HON. BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO
Senator Campbell. Madam Chairman, I wanted to speak to the
two tamarisk bills. Would it be better to do that now or when--
--
Senator Murkowski. If you would like to do it now.
Senator Campbell. All right. I will try and make it brief,
too.
I want to welcome Congressman Kind and my old colleague
Charlie Stenholm. It is nice to see you, Congressman Stenholm.
We spent some years together on the Ag Committee when I was on
the House side, and when I came over here some accused me of
moving to the lower body, as you might guess. But it is always
nice to see him.
Also, two of our witnesses from Colorado are going to be
talking about this tamarisk problem, Tim Carlson and Mr. John
Marshall, and I appreciate them being here, too.
You know, I was very unfamiliar with what this weed is,
very frankly, before it was brought to your attention. I am
sure Senator Domenici has probably had more experience with it.
But I was absolutely amazed, the amount of water this noxious
weed uses. It is not a natural species. It was imported
originally to the United States from the Orient as an
ornamental tree.
It has a terrific appetite. Primarily it uses a significant
amount of water, far more than I ever realized, than I think
most people do.
We are experiencing a terrible drought in the West as you
probably know, Madam Chairman. People have been selling their
farms or ranches. People who have been ranching for generations
have had to give that up. Many of us, including our little
ranch, we had to drill new wells. Our wells went dry. Some
people are simply going out of business.
Now, we cannot blame all that on the tamarisk obviously,
but it has certainly been one of the contributing factors.
Studies have found that this tamarisk, which is now in 11
Western States, uses from 2 to 4.5 million acre-feet of water a
year, 2 to 4.5 million acre-feet of water a year that we simply
cannot afford to lose.
To put it in perspective, several other States as well as
Colorado and the Republic of Mexico, they are delivered 10
million acre-feet from Colorado's rivers and streams, including
the mighty Colorado itself. California is allotted 4.5 million
acre-feet of water per year. That means that this weed is
eating up about the same amount of water under the interstate
compacts that California gets out of the Colorado Upper Basin,
Lower Basin compacts.
This bill that I introduced seeks to get that tamarisk
problem under control. It requires the Secretary of the
Interior to assess the extent of the tamarisk invasion,
identify where it is and how it affects each State, and
estimate the cost to restore the land and to establish a State
tamarisk assistance program to provide States the needed
funding to control and eradicate the tamarisk. Grant funds will
be distributed to States in accordance with the severity of the
problem in each State.
Water is a very, very scarce resource, as you know, Madam
Chairman. So I am also a prime co-sponsor of Senator Domenici's
bill. As I understand, it basically sets up a study that
parallels what I am trying to do. I guess in my bill I am just
trying to get the money to the States a little faster than in
Senator Domenici's bill, but I think we are both going the same
direction on these two bills.
Thank you for chairing this hearing.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
Senator Domenici.
STATEMENT OF HON. PETE V. DOMENICI, U.S. SENATOR
FROM NEW MEXICO
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
I heard most of Senator Bingaman's statement and I do not
want to repeat if I can help it. I want to particularly say
that I am glad to see Debbie Hughes as one of the panelists.
She has been an active advocate for salt cedar control. I look
forward to her comments. It is also a pleasure to see Mike
Gabaldon, a New Mexican serving in Washington at the Bureau.
The Western United States, while we have been gripped by a
drought with its devastating impact on every kind of water use,
has the presence of these invasive plants like the salt cedar.
They have helped to exacerbate the situation. These plants also
move into newly exposed areas in dry reservoirs and thus,
threaten our ability to recover by decreasing our water storage
capacity. Even in wet years, these invasive plants have
negative impacts. They invade agriculture, grazing land,
etcetera.
Two of the bills we are going to discuss today were
introduced to address the invasive plants, one Senator
Campbell's, one mine. Mine is a demonstration bill to get on
with it, taking a piece of the problem and solving it. The
Senator's is more long-range. I am for combining the bills
ultimately and hopefully getting the best possible bill for
these invasive plants and their removal as possible.
I ask the remainder of my remarks on that be made a part of
the record and conclude with a brief statement about the third
bill, S. 213. Senator Bingaman spoke most about it, and I will
merely say that the Albuquerque Biological Park Title
Clarification Act is absolutely necessary. I know the
administration has concerns--quiet title action. I have
received a letter from the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy
District, and we have a statement from the mayor of
Albuquerque, both supporting our bill.
I look forward to working with the administration to
address any of the concerns that they might raise here today,
because we should proceed with this bill. I agree that it was
introduced for the right reasons, Senator Bingaman joined in it
for the right reasons, and we ought to join together in seeing
that it gets done.
I ask that any remarks that are here that I did not give be
included in the record and I yield at this time. Thank you very
much, Madam Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Domenici follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Pete V. Domenici, U.S. Senator
From New Mexico
I am grateful to Senator Murkowski for holding this hearing. Three
of the bills to be discussed today matter greatly to the State of New
Mexico.
I am particularly glad to see Debbie Hughes here as one of the
panelists. She has been an active advocate for salt cedar control and I
look forward to her comments. It is also a pleasure to see Mike
Gabaldon--a New Mexican serving here in Washington at the Bureau of
Reclamation.
The Western United States has been gripped by drought with its
devastating impact on agriculture and municipal water supplies. The
presence of invasive plants, like Salt Cedar, has exacerbated these dry
conditions. These plants also move into newly exposed areas in dry
reservoirs and thus threaten our ability to recover by decreasing our
water storage capacity.
The dry conditions have also greatly increased fire danger. I
personally witnessed the devastation of a fire that ravaged the center
of the City of Albuquerque. The primary fuel and the greatest hindrance
to fighting the fire was Salt Cedar.
Even in wet years these invasive plants have negative impacts. They
invade into agriculture and grazing land and they displace native
vegetation with its scenic, historic and environmental benefits.
Two of the bills we will discuss today were introduced to address
the control of these invasive plants.
The first of these is S. 1516, the ``Salt Cedar Control
Demonstration Act'' which I introduced in July with my colleague
Senator Campbell. This bill authorizes the Department of the Interior
to assess the full severity of this infestation. The Bureau is then
directed to establish a series of research and demonstration programs
to develop and test control strategies for this non-native species.
The second, S. 1236 ``The Tamarisk Control and Riparian Restoration
Act'' was introduced by several of my western colleagues. Their bill
addresses fundamentally the same issue but directs the Secretary of the
Interior to create a grant program to provide funding to states for
Tamarisk eradication.
My staff and I have reviewed much of the historical efforts and
research on control of these plants. As a result, I am concerned that
we have made large federal, state and private investments without a
fully developed management strategy.
I believe we can move forward in an environmentally sensitive
manner, that we can save water, that we can reduce fire danger and we
can improve range conditions, but at the same time, we must do so in a
smart and cost-effective manner.
That is why I have sponsored a bill leading to large, long-term
demonstration projects. I believe this approach will develop and test
management strategies to guide our long-term federal and state
investments in Salt Cedar control.
These bills have received support from the State of New Mexico
Department of Game and Fish, the large irrigation districts impacted by
Salt Cedar infestation in New Mexico and environmental groups such as
the Alliance for the Rio Grande Heritage.
As we hear from our panel, I look forward to hearing about the
successes, the challenges and possible future approaches we can take to
manage these invasive species.
The third bill of importance to the State of New Mexico is S. 213,
the Albuquerque Biological Park Title Clarification Act. I know the
Administration has concerns about the impact this bill will have on the
pending litigation related to the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy
District's quiet title action. I have received a letter from the Middle
Rio Grande Conservancy District and we have a statement from the Mayor
of Albuquerque both supporting this bill. I look forward to working
with the Administration to address any of the concerns they might raise
here today.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, and those remarks will be
included in the record. Thank you, gentlemen.
With that, Congressman, again welcome to the subcommittee.
Glad to have you here. At this time why do we not proceed with
Congressman Kind.
STATEMENT OF HON. RON KIND, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE
FROM WISCONSIN
Mr. Kind. Thank you, Madam Chairman and members of the
committee. I appreciate your interest in the legislation that
we are here to talk about today, H.R. 961, and I would
encourage your support of the bill. I want to also thank your
staff, who has worked closely with mine in regards to
scheduling this. I want to give a special thanks to my staff,
who has put in a lot of time and effort in order to coordinate
this legislation and work on the bipartisan support that it has
received.
This has passed the House of Representatives on two
previous occasions, both in the 107th with unanimous consent
and now in the 108th earlier this year by a 411 to 13 margin.
Bipartisan support of this magnitude is a rarity these days,
unfortunately, but I think it speaks to the effort that many of
us have been putting into this legislation.
I also want to thank the members of the bipartisan
Mississippi River Caucus, who has been very involved with this
legislation too and have expressed a lot of support and put a
lot of energy of their own in crafting the bill.
The bill itself is designed to enhance the existing
monitoring programs on the Upper Mississippi River Basin and
provide reliable, scientific data for targeting future nutrient
and sedimentation reduction efforts. I mentioned the bipartisan
support that it has received in Congress. I think it is a
recognition of the importance of the Mississippi River, the
river basin, the entire watershed area, in regards to middle
America.
I believe it is one of the great neglected natural
resources that we have in this country. It is nothing short of
a national treasurer, the Upper Mississippi River Basin,
particularly the Upper Midwest, and the river that provides the
fertile plains for agriculture that we have there, the primary
drinking source for about 22 million Americans. It is also
North America's largest migratory route, with about 40 percent
of the waterfowl species using that as their route during the
annual migration patterns every year.
The Upper Mississippi region benefits from the river and
the basin with a $1.2 billion recreation impact, a $6.6 billion
economic impact. One of the unique features is its multiple use
function, not only for river navigation with the barge traffic
going up and down delivering goods to market, but the
recreation and the various other economic development
activities that the river provides.
You are also going to hear testimony shortly from Holly
Stoerker, who is the executive director of the Upper
Mississippi Basin Association. That is a collaboration of
mainly the five Upper Mississippi States who are working in
partnership much closer in addressing the needs of the river
basin.
You will also hear from Bob Hirsch, who is with USGS, which
is the principal lead agency envisioned in this legislation.
The purpose of the bill again is to develop a coordinated
public-private approach to reducing nutrient and sediment
losses in the Mississippi River Basin. It is one of the great
threats that the river itself faces. You talk to any of the
scientific experts who have devoted a lot of time in regards to
the preservation and protection of this ecosystem, they all
point to one of the great threats that is facing it and that is
the amount of sediments and nutrients flowing into the river
basin, destroying wildlife habitat, affecting the quality of
water supplies and the natural habitat that relies upon it for
its existence.
This bill relies on existing Federal, State, and local
programs. The bill establishes a water quality monitoring
network and an integrated computer modeling program. These
monitoring and modeling efforts will provide the baseline data
needed to make scientifically sound and cost-effective
decisions.
Additionally, the bill contains provisions to protect the
privacy of personal data that is collected in connection with
the monitoring and the assessment activities. The bill
recognizes the need for scientific research on a sub-basin
scale, enables sensible and effective strategies to be
developed, and ensures that more local and regional support
will be gained for those efforts.
The bill also is consistent with the recommendations made
with the Federal Inter-Agency Mississippi River, Gulf of Mexico
Watershed Nutrient Task Force that released the report in
January 2001. Part of the recommendations in that report is
having a much more extensive comprehensive monitoring and
computer modeling program in place along the basin,
particularly the Upper Mississippi region, so we can better
track to nutrient and sediment flows going in and obviously
flowing south and having an effect with regards to the hypoxia
area that has been created down in the Gulf of Mexico.
A number of States have also weighed in on the need to
increase monitoring and modeling efforts throughout the Upper
Mississippi Basin. In a October 23, 2001 a letter to the Bush
administration officials, six governors of States bordering the
Mississippi River wrote, and I quote: ``A monitoring effort
conducted jointly by USGS and the States is required within the
basin to determine the water quality effect of the actions
taken and to measure the success of efforts on a sub-basin and
project level.''
That is exactly the intent of this legislation, what we are
trying to accomplish with this bill. Again, with the bipartisan
support that it has enjoyed on the House side, I am hoping it
will receive similar consideration here in the Senate. I can
sit here and honestly testify that I am not aware of any
individual or group that is in opposition to this legislation.
Bob Hirsch will be testifying. I do not need to speak for
him, but the issues that he raised in previous testimony in the
House I think we have addressed fully. But you can hear from
him specifically.
Thank you again for the opportunity to address the
committee on this important piece of legislation, and we hope
for your support. Thank you.
[The prepared ststement of Mr. Kind follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ron Kind, U.S. Representative
From Wisconsin
Thank you Madam Chairman and members of the Subcommittee for the
opportunity to comment on H.R. 961, the Upper Mississippi River Basin
Protection Act. This bill was designed to enhance existing monitoring
programs on the Upper Mississippi River Basin, and provide reliable,
scientific data for targeting future nutrient and sediment reduction
efforts. I'm pleased to note this legislation has repeatedly received
broad support in the House--passing that body in the 107th Congress
with unanimous consent, and again in the 108th by an overwhelming vote
of 411-13.
The Upper Mississippi River system, whose tributaries and basin
encompass much of Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, and Missouri,
is widely recognized as one of our nation's great multi-use natural
resources. While the Mississippi River and its tributaries provide
drinking water to approximately 22 million Americans, the system's
1,300 navigable miles transport millions of tons of commercial cargo
via barges. In addition, 40% of North America's waterfowl use the
wetlands and backwaters of the main stem as a migratory flyway,
illustrating the environmental significance of the system as well as
recreation capabilities. Overall, the Upper Mississippi River Basin
provides $1.2 billion annually in recreation income and $6.6 billion to
the area's tourism industries.
Unfortunately, high sediment and nutrient levels threaten the
health of the river system and the vast recreational, agricultural, and
industrial activities it supports. Sediment fills the main shipping
channel of the Upper Mississippi and Illinois Rivers, costing over $100
million each year to dredge. Nutrient inputs degrade water quality in
the Upper Mississippi River system and impact far downstream to the
Gulf of Mexico.
As a basis for making effective decisions for improving water
quality, accurate data must be available. Building the nutrient and
sediment monitoring system that provides this data will require
extensive communication and coordination between government agencies at
the federal, state, and local levels, as well as other stakeholders. By
utilizing existing monitoring programs to the maximum extent possible,
H.R. 961 builds upon existing efforts by authorizing the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) to coordinate and integrate these efforts,
expand where necessary, develop guidelines for data collection and
storage, and establish an electronic database system to store and
disseminate information. USGS would also establish a state-of-the-art
computer modeling program to identify significant nutrient and sediment
sources, at the subwatershed level, to better target reduction efforts.
In addition, H.R. 961 includes strong protections for the privacy of
personal data collected and used in connection with monitoring and
modeling activities.
H.R. 961's goal of coordinating and collecting scientific research
on a sub-basin level will enable sensible and effective strategies of
minimizing sediment and nutrient runoff far beyond the five-state
region, and ensure that more local and regional support will be gained
for those efforts.
Furthermore, the sub-basin approach of The Upper Mississippi River
Act fits with the recommendations of the federal interagency
Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Taskforce, released
in a report to Congress in January of 2001. In the ``Action Plan for
Reducing, Mitigating, and Controlling Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of
Mexico,'' the Task Force notes that water quality throughout the
Mississippi River Basin has been degraded by excess nutrients, and that
most states in the basin have significant river miles impaired by high
nutrient concentrations that can be a human health hazard. That Action
Plan also outlines a series of short- and long-term goals, including
sub-basin coordination and implementation of sediment and nutrient
reduction efforts, and expanding existing monitoring and modeling
efforts to identify additional management actions to help mitigate
nitrogen losses to the Gulf.
In crafting this legislation, I have worked closely with farmers,
the navigation industry, sporting groups, environmental organizations,
and government agencies throughout the region. As co-chair of the
bipartisan Upper Mississippi River Basin Congressional Task Force, I
have also labored to build consensus among regional legislators and
governors on how best to approach the natural resource challenges of
the basin.
In response to my efforts, a number of states have signaled their
support for increasing monitoring and modeling efforts throughout the
Upper Mississippi River Basin. In an October 23, 2001, letter to Bush
Administration officials, six Governors of states bordering the
Mississippi River wrote that, ``. . . a monitoring effort conducted
jointly by the U.S. Geological Survey and the states is required within
the basin to determine the water quality effects of the actions taken
and to measure the success of efforts on a sub-basin and project
level.''
As this Subcommittee knows well, water quality problems in the
Mississippi River Basin cross traditional state and administrative
boundaries. Solving these problems requires a coordinated and
cooperative approach between the federal, state, and local agencies and
groups working throughout the region. H.R. 961 represents a common-
sense move toward building the scientific foundation necessary to
remedying nutrient and sediment problems in the region, and may
ultimately serve as a model for future watershed and basin initiatives
in other parts of the nation.
Thank you for the opportunity to share my remarks on this important
legislation. I appreciate your consideration and I urge the
Subcommittee's support.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you. It is always nice to find
there is something that nobody disagrees with. We will see if
that is the case.
Congressman Stenholm, welcome.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES W. STENHOLM,
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM TEXAS
Mr. Stenholm. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I thank this
committee for allowing me the privilege of testifying before
you today.
I commend this committee for taking such swift action on
H.R. 856, legislation I introduced on February 13 of this year.
The bill extends the repayment period on a loan contract
between the Tom Green County Water Control and Improvement
District No. 1 and the Department of the Interior and the
Bureau of Reclamation. The district has an outstanding loan for
construction of an irrigation canal and the remaining balance
is approximately $2.4 million.
These farmers in the water control district have made
diligent efforts to make timely payments on the contract and
have paid about $1.5 million of the original debt owed despite
the fact that they have yet to receive a fair return on their
investment. The increased annual payments place additional
financial burdens on the water control district. However, the
Bureau of Reclamation cannot extend the loan repayment contract
without approval from Congress.
Because of this, I introduced H.R. 856 to get this loan
restructured and provide the much-needed financial relief for
these farmers. This legislation would allow the Secretary of
the Interior to revise the repayment contract by extending the
period authorized for repayment of construction costs of the
canal from 40 to 50 years.
In west Texas there is virtually nothing of higher daily
concern than the availability of water and, much like many
parts of the United States in recent years, Texas has been
devastated by drought. As a result, these farmers have received
a full year's allocation of irrigation water only 50 percent of
the time. Moreover, for the other 50 percent of the time they
received either less than the annual allocation or no
irrigation water at all, but still have made their payments.
Despite that, payment on the debt has never been forgiven,
even in years when they received no water. Deferments have been
granted several times. However, those payments still have to be
made, which the farmers fully intend to do.
Compounding the problem, these deferments were added to the
remaining loan balance and the payments continue to increase
annually because the original contract termination date does
not change.
I am happy to report that these west Texas farmers have
been doing their part to meet their responsibilities and I am
glad Tom Green County Commissioner Clayton Friend brought this
issue to our attention. I am also very appreciative of the
consideration of this committee which you are giving it. At
this time I would like to submit Mr. Friend's testimony for the
record, and I am glad to do so on his behalf.
I have high hopes that we will be able to get this
legislation to the President very soon.
Additionally, I would commend this committee for taking
such swift action on S. 1516, the Salt Cedar Control
Demonstration Act introduced by Senator Domenici. Congressman
Steve Pierce and I have worked together to introduce companion
legislation in the House of Representatives. The effects of
salt cedar and Russian olive invasion can be seen in more than
half the continent of the United States. As you may know, I
represent the 17th District of Texas, central west Texas. As
much of America, drought has left its mark. During the
abnormally dry conditions, salt cedar proliferated in this area
when receding water left ideal conditions for growth of this
invasive plant.
The devastating results evident throughout the Upper
Colorado River Basin have become more acute in recent years as
this invasive species has severely diminished the availability
of fresh water supply in west Texas. I am convinced this
legislation moves in the right direction toward real solutions
to the salt cedar and Russian olive invasion. After all, it
will take integrated control and management practices to
significantly deter further spread of this non-native species.
The fact remains, to minimize the wasteful reduction in our
Nation's water supply Congress must take immediate action to
implement a control plan for salt cedar.
I thank you for allowing me to testify and I hope that you
can give good consideration to both of these matters. Thank
you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
Congressman Kind, with the legislation that you have
introduced you have highlighted the benefits for industry and
transportation and the environment. The Mississippi and the
Missouri systems are frequently the subject of conflict over
competing needs. Can you help us understand how this monitoring
program will help resolve rather than create additional
conflict over the shared water resources of the Upper Midwest?
Mr. Kind. Well, Madam Chairman, I appreciate the question.
is all basically getting the scientific research in place so we
can better track and monitor the sediment and nutrient flows
that are entering the Upper Mississippi Basin and obviously
affecting everything flowing south. It is something that the
States, the Governors, the various task forces that have been
formed to address the ecosystem needs of this valuable river
basin have been calling for for some time.
I do not view this legislation as providing any type of
conflict between the Mississippi itself or the Missouri River.
If there is one issue that perhaps we can talk about, it is the
extent of the legislation. It is limited to just the Upper
Mississippi River States, the five Upper Mississippi States.
There has been some discussions already within my office with
other groups and organizations of this serving as a model for
an extension in other watershed areas, but especially
throughout the entire Mississippi River Basin.
This approach is kind of the baby step of trying to get it
in place initially to see how well it works before we talk
about extending it throughout the entire river basin area,
which I think is also necessary and should occur in the future,
too. But right now this is kind of a limited approach to try
the get the good science in place so we can start doing the
monitoring and establish the computer models in the Upper Miss
region, which also will benefit the lower Mississippi Basin.
I think it is a practical approach, given the limitation of
resources that we have right now in the budget and the cost-
share arrangements with the various States that are required
with the legislation.
Senator Murkowski. I thank you for that response.
Congressman Stenholm, the Tom Green County Water Control
Improvement District has apparently struggled with their water
supply for a number of seasons, and of course we are sensitive
to the needs of the farmers. It is my understanding that the
administration is supportive of this legislation. Do you have
any specific requests or suggestions for the administration to
guide their additional activities in the farming community in
the Tom Green County? Since you have the floor here, you may as
well provide them with whatever input you have.
Mr. Stenholm. Yes. Yes, ma'am, surely would, Madam
Chairman. That is why I mentioned in my statement integrated
approaches. I think we are looking all throughout this region,
because the San Angelo area in this particular part of west
Texas has a terrific water shortage. We are talking about if
the good lord does not send the rain within the next couple of
years that we are going to be really struggling for drinking
water.
There are many projects going on right now with the Corps
of Engineers looking at a study that is looking where we might
find the water and bring it to it. But on specifically the
purpose of the hearing today, we have a mesquite control
project that is ongoing in Texas that has been partially funded
by the State of Texas, partially funded by the individual
producers within this area, and partially funded by the Federal
Government, and that was part of the farm bill, the EQIP
program that passed last year.
The key to any of these type projects is getting the
support of the producers within the area. There has been a
tremendous amount of effort going on the part of the ranchers
in that area to gain the kind of support of the individual
ranchers required to not only start the project--now I am
talking about mesquite--but then also the maintenance that is
going to be required, because if you do not have a regular
maintenance program in which you commit long-term to how you
are going to, once you get the mesquite under control, that you
will then continue to keep it under control as part of a
regular conservation program, which is part of the farm bill.
The salt cedar is exactly the same as mesquite and I think
we are using the same model, and I feel quite certain that,
even though here we are talking about the Interior and the
Bureau of Reclamation, there is now a growing spirit of
cooperation between USDA and all of the Federal agencies,
recognizing that we can do a better job with less of our
taxpayer dollars by having a cooperative venture between
government and the local ranchers with the proper role of the
State.
So yes, I would encourage that spirit of cooperation to
continue, which we have seen, ironically, in parts of my
district on flood control, while at the same time in other
areas we are talking about doing something about the drought,
and it is only 120 miles between the two.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
Senator Campbell, any questions for either Congressmen Kind
or Stenholm?
Senator Campbell. It would not make much sense, but I read
somewhere that mesquite is actually spread in Texas by cattle,
that they eat the mesquite, that the beans are not digested or
something, and so they are spread and then they grow. You also
heard about our salt cedar bills and our tamarisk bill. Do you
know, do cattle eat that as well as mesquite?
Mr. Stenholm. I do not believe that the salt cedar, the
cattle eat that. I wish they did. But they do not eat the
mesquite, but they like the mesquite beans. And when you have a
drought period, the mesquite tree puts out an inordinate amount
of mesquite beans, and many times that is all that has been
able to get our cattle through a drought, because we feed them.
And unfortunately, the seeds do pass through the animal and
then do get spread, and that is part of the invasive species
that we are trying now to deal with.
Senator Campbell. The only reason I knew something about
that is I read the history of the King Ranch one time and it
mentioned that problem with mesquite. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
Gentlemen, thank you for your testimony this afternoon.
Mr. Stenholm. Thank you.
Senator Murkowski. The next panel we will bring up: Mr.
Gordon Brown, the Invasive Species Coordinator from the U.S.
Department of the Interior; Mr. Michael Gabaldon, Director of
Policy Management, Bureau of Reclamation; and Mr. Bob Hirsch,
the Associate Director of the U.S. Geological Survey for the
Department of the Interior.
Good afternoon, gentlemen. Mr. Brown, why do we not start
with you, please.
STATEMENT OF A. GORDON BROWN, INVASIVE SPECIES COORDINATOR,
LIAISON TO THE NATIONAL INVASIVE SPECIES COUNCIL, DEPARTMENT OF
THE INTERIOR
Mr. Brown. Madam Chairman and members of the committee, I
am Gordon Brown, Invasive Species Coordinator for the Secretary
of the Interior. Dr. Jim Tate was looking forward to testifying
today, but I am sorry to report that while helping a neighbor
stow his canoe on Thursday as the winds began to blow he broke
his leg after a fall. He is still in the hospital with a broken
femur.
I want to thank you for providing the Department of the
Interior the opportunity to testify before you regarding these
bills which seek to promote the assessment, management, and
restoration after control of salt cedar or tamarisk and Russian
olive. The Department supports the goals of both S. 1236, the
Tamarisk Control and Riparian Restoration Act, and S. 1516, the
Salt Cedar Control Demonstration Act.
The Department is currently working with partners to
develop an integrated approach to management of tamarisk and we
are committed to working with you to ensure that tamarisk
control efforts are efficient and effective. We are also
concerned about the cost of the proposed programs and note that
they would have to compete with existing programs for limited
resources.
Let me begin by providing you with some background on this
issue, followed by brief comments on the legislation. The
Department is one of the Nation's principal conservation
agencies, charged with protecting and providing access to our
Nation's natural and cultural heritage. Today departmental
authorities provide for the management and protection of
resources in an area of the West now increasingly under
pressure as population densities mushroom and water resources
are increasingly stressed. This region of the country also has
seen the greatest impact from the species addressed in this
legislation.
Russian olive is a hearty, fast-growing tree native to
Europe and Western Asia. It is shade-tolerant and grows well in
a variety of soil and moisture conditions and, while it is
primarily found in the West, it is also present in the East.
Its large seeds result from trees that mature very early.
Tamarisk comprises a suite of several species which also
hybridize in the United States. They have been imported for use
as windbreaks and erosion control plantings and now cover
approximately 1.6 million acres of riparian lands within all
the 17 Western States as far north as Montana. It rapidly
produces dense biomass and suppresses native plant seed
germination and seedling growth, spreading widely by overbank
flooding that can transport millions of tiny seeds.
Limited studies suggest that dense tamarisk stands can
utilize more water on an annual basis than native cottonwood-
willow plant communities. There can be more total surface area
on the leaves of tamarisk plants than on the cottonwood and
native shrubs growing in a given area and thus tamarisk
continues--and tamarisk continues to release water through the
pores in its leaves during midday, when others have shut down
that process.
In addition, tamarisk growing in a streambed can also slow
the water flow, thus allowing additional time for percolation
of the water into the alluvium. Water released for irrigation
purposes from an upstream reservoir may thus not get to its
intended destination when tamarisk is blocking the channel.
The growing abundance of tamarisk along Western rivers has
led resource managers to seek to control it in order to, one,
increase the flow of water in streams that might otherwise be
lost to evaporation and transpiration and percolation; to
restore the native vegetation along the banks and flood plains
of those rivers; and to reduce hazardous fuels; and to improve
wildlife habitat.
As you know, the Department through the Bureau of
Reclamation has a significant role in the distribution of water
throughout much of the West and Southwest. Because of its
significant impact on water resources alone, the Department has
a strong interest in the control of tamarisk as part of its
management efforts. For this reason, much of the remainder of
my statement will focus on control efforts for the species.
Current departmental programs and activities focus control
and management efforts for tamarisk on areas where the resource
is at risk. Some areas are so heavily infested that expert
strike teams have been used to remove the dense vegetation. For
example, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is in the process
of establishing such strike teams modeled after the National
Park Service's Exotic Plant Management Teams.
All of these activities are conducted with observation of
comprehensive conservation and planning, and that is to take
account for the highest priority waterfowl, endangered species,
or other wildlife habitat values. This early detection and
rapid response model is receiving increased attention as a
means of preventing the spread and establishment of tamarisk
and restoration and ongoing monitoring to prevent reinfestation
are essential.
Departmental land management operations focus significant
funding for tamarisk control on refuges, national parks and
monuments, along irrigation canals under the jurisdiction of
the Bureau of Reclamation. Bosque del Apache National Wildlife
Refuge has served as a demonstration laboratory for control and
management of tamarisk, including research and development of
innovative methods for restoring native riparian vegetation and
working with nearby private landowners and Indian tribes to
implement them.
Biomass removal, intermittent flooding, chemical
treatments, and other mechanical methods have all been tested
and measured for effectiveness and efficiency. Cooperating with
researchers from nearby universities and other research
institutions such as the Los Alamos National Laboratory,
scientists and land managers have also tested methods to reduce
the likelihood of later reinfestation.
Various other programs within the Department seek to
promote partnership on a broad basis. One of them includes the
challenge cost share components of Bureau of Reclamation,
National Park Service, and Fish and Wildlife Service. The Fish
and Wildlife Service's Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program
promotes private landowner cost share projects, as does BLM in
its programs.
USGS scientists can help identify site potential for water
salvage, revegetation and wildlife value and develop protocols
and measures for prioritizing sites for control or
revegetation. The USGS also has partnerships with NASA, the
Tamarisk Coalition, and these are aimed at providing mapping
information to identify new invasions.
In conclusion, I want to assure the committee that the
Department is prepared and committed to identifying, assessing,
and acting to curb the economic and ecological impacts of
tamarisk and Russian olive in the West. We will continue to
work with our partners. Tamarisk is risky business, however.
While providing some cover for wildlife in the arid Southwest,
absent widespread control and restoration efforts to eliminate
it we will continue to be frustrated in our science and
conservation mission to assure future use of our Nation's
natural resources.
We share the committee's concerns and offer to work with
the committee to ensure that any legislation promotes an
efficient and effective control strategy.
Madam Chairman, this concludes my statement and I am happy
to answer any questions that you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tate, follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jim Tate, Science Advisor to the Secretary of the
Interior, Department of the Interior
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am Jim Tate, Science
Advisor to Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton. I want to thank you
for providing the Department of the Interior (Department) the
opportunity to testify before you regarding these bills which seek to
promote the control and management of the invasive species like
saltcedar, or tamarisk, and Russian olive. The Department supports the
goals of both S. 1236, the Tamarisk Control and Riparian Restoration
Act, and S. 1516, the Salt Cedar Control Demonstration Act. As
discussed below, the Department is currently working with our partners
to develop an integrated approach to management of tamarisk, and we are
committed to working with you to ensure that tamarisk control efforts
are efficient and effective. We are also concerned about the cost of
the proposed programs, and note that they would have to compete with
existing programs for limited resources.
Let me begin by providing you with some background on this issue,
followed by brief comments on the legislation.
background
In the late 19th century, importation of several species of the
genus Tamarix, commonly called tamarisk, and Russian olive came just as
the Department began efforts to mediate land speculation and work
closely with western governors and Indian tribes during the settlement
of the West. The scientific expeditions of John Wesley Powell (which
carried out the Geographical and Geological Survey of the Rocky
Mountain region in 1874) set in motion the still-evolving paradigm that
wise development informed by science provides the best hope for
conservation and future use of our Nation's natural resources.
The Department is one of the Nation's principal conservation
agencies, charged with protecting and providing access to our Nation's
natural and cultural heritage. Today, Departmental authorities provide
for the management and protection of resources in an area of the West
now increasingly under pressure as population densities mushroom and
water resources are increasingly stressed. This region of the country
also has seen the greatest impact from the species addressed in this
legislation.
scope of the problem
Russian olive is a hardy, fast-growing tree native to Europe and
western Asia. It was introduced into the United States in the 19th
century and was promoted as windrow and ornamental plantings. It grows
along streams, in fields, and in open areas. It is shade-tolerant, and
it grows well in a variety of soil and moisture conditions. While
Russian olive is primarily found in the West, it also is present in the
Eastern United States.
Tamarisk comprises a suite of several species also imported to the
United States in the 19th century for use as windbreaks and erosion
control plantings. Several species of tamarisk and their hybrids now
cover approximately 1.6 million acres of riparian lands within all the
seventeen western states (as far north as Montana). The spread of
tamarisk is often supported by its extreme flammability. It rapidly
produces dense biomass and, absent flooding or heavy rains, causes
deposits of salt on the soil sufficient to suppress native plant seed
germination and seedling growth.
Limited studies suggest that dense tamarisk stands can utilize more
water on an annual basis than native cottonwood-willow plant
communities. There can be more total surface area on the leaves of
tamarisk plants than on cottonwood and native shrubs growing in a given
area, and tamarisk continues to release water through the pores in its
leaves during mid-day, whereas native cottonwoods shut this process
down to conserve water. In addition, tamarisk growing in the streambed
can also slow the water flow, allowing additional time for percolation
of the water into the alluvium. Water released for irrigation purposes
from an upstream reservoir may thus not get to its intended destination
when tamarisk is blocking the channel.
The growing abundance of tamarisk along western rivers has led
resource managers to seek to control it in order to: (1) increase the
flow of water in streams that might otherwise be lost to
evapotranspiration and percolation; (2) restore native vegetation along
the banks and floodplains of rivers and shorelines of reservoirs or
lakes; (3) reduce hazardous fuels; and (4) improve wildlife habitat.
As you know, the Department, through the Bureau of Reclamation, has
a significant role in the distribution of water throughout much of the
West and Southwest. Because of its significant impact on water
resources alone, the Department has a strong interest in the control of
tamarisk as part of its management efforts. For this reason, much of
the remainder of my statement will focus on control efforts for this
species.
current departmental tamarisk management efforts
Current Departmental programs and activities focus control and
management efforts for tamarisk on areas with resources at risk. Some
areas are so heavily infested that expert ``strike'' teams have been
used to remove the dense vegetation. For example, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) is in the process of establishing such ``strike
teams,'' modeled after the National Park Service's (NPS) Exotic Plant
Management Teams (EPMT), to combat invasive species, including
tamarisk, in the Southwest. Areas vital to wildlife resources are
cleared using mechanical, chemical, and physical means. Comprehensive
conservation plans are used to guide these efforts and to indicate the
areas of highest priority for waterfowl, endangered species, or other
wildlife habitat values. In some cases, resources potentially at risk
from tamarisk incursion are spot-treated early enough to keep the
plants away, thus avoiding costly control efforts. This early detection
and rapid response model is receiving increased attention as a means of
preventing the spread and establishment of tamarisk.
place-based research and testing
Departmental land management operations focus significant funding
for tamarisk control on refuges, national parks and monuments, and
along irrigation canals under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of
Reclamation. Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge has served as a
demonstration laboratory for control and management of tamarisk,
including research and development of innovative methods for restoring
native riparian vegetation and working with nearby private landowners
and Indian Tribes to implement them. Biomass removal, intermittent
flooding, chemical treatments, and other mechanical methods have all
been tested and measured for effectiveness and efficiency. Cooperating
with researchers from nearby universities and other research
institutions, such as the Los Alamos National Laboratory, scientists
and land managers have also tested methods to reduce the likelihood of
later re-infestation by tamarisk.
Because of our role in the management of Western lands, we
recognize the need for on the ground management of invasive species
like tamarisk. However, we also recognize that there are areas where
our control and restoration efforts will benefit from targeted research
and development projects. More information is needed regarding the
identification of areas or situations that would most likely respond to
vegetative restoration projects once tamarisk removal has begun. Such
information will also assist in the development of an integrated
control and restoration plan a ``best practices'' plan that will
provide land managers at all levels of government with options for
removal, control, and restoration of lands infested with tamarisk.
programs to promote private partnerships
Various programs within the Department seek to promote partnerships
with private landowners to address problem species like tamarisk. One
initiative that addresses these issues is the cooperative conservation
component of the challenge cost share programs in the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM), NPS and FWS. These programs emphasize building
partnerships for the conservation of natural resources and provide
expanded opportunities for land managers to work with landowners and
others to form creative conservation partnerships. This initiative
recognizes that nature knows no jurisdictional boundaries and that,
through these partnerships, the Department's land managers can work
with landowners and other citizen stewards to tackle invasive species,
reduce erosion along stream banks, or enhance habitat for threatened
and endangered species. Among other things, in FY 2003 we have funded
through this initiative projects that are aimed at the eradication and
control of tamarisk, Russian olive, and other invasive plants, and
reclamation of impacted lands.
Another program is the FWS's Partners for Fish and Wildlife, which
promotes private landowner cost-share projects for habitat restoration,
including funds targeted for control of invasive plants and subsequent
restoration. The Partners Program has worked with private landowners
across the Nation to remove, burn, biologically control, and otherwise
combat invasive plants on thousands of acres of wetlands and upland.
Tamarisk control is a focus of technical and financial assistance in
the Southwest.
The control and management of tamarisk is part of the BLM's
Partners Against Weeds Strategy Plan, BLM's Strategic Plan, and the
National Fire Plan. The Partners Against Weeds program funds
cooperative efforts with landowners to control invasive species. It
also funds cooperative outreach and education projects with schools and
local and county governments. In one important project, the BLM plans
to work with several groups, including Clark County and the communities
of Bunkerville and Mesquite in southern Nevada, to remove tamarisk
along portions of the Virgin River floodplain. As I noted above,
because of its properties, tamarisk poses a potential fire risk to
homes, ranches, farms, and recreational facilities in the wildland-
urban interface.
This project involves mechanical removal of tamarisk in the project
area. The goal of the project is to move away from the tamarisk-fueled,
high intensity fires that are now typical of the area concerned and to
restore native vegetation, such as the relatively inflammable grasses,
sedges, shrub communities, cottonwoods, and willows. Current planning
calls for 95 acres of treatment in FY 2004, with an additional 100
acres per year during the following 7-8 years.
The NPS, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and the Bureau of
Reclamation partner with the Agriculture Research Service and the U.S.
Forest Service, both within the Department of Agriculture, and
university scientists to develop and test biological control agents,
including the beetles used for biological control of tamarisk in the
West, to conduct studies of stream flow management for vegetation
control, and on studies of hybridization and environmental tolerances
to better predict the potential future spread of tamarisk.
USGS scientists can help identify site potential for water salvage,
revegetation, and wildlife value, and develop protocols and measures
for prioritizing sites for control or revegetation. The USGS also has
partnerships with state and county weed departments, the National
Aeronautics and Space Agency (NASA), and the Tamarisk Coalition aimed
at mapping currently invaded sites and identifying new invasions. The
USGS also has ongoing studies mapping tamarisk in Western Colorado and
Southern Utah, relating its distribution to environmental factors at
USGS stream gauging stations throughout the West, assessing vegetation
changes over time in tamarisk habitat on the lower Colorado River, and
promoting restoration of native vegetation through water management.
The Bureau of Reclamation leads, along with USDA's Agricultural
Research Service, the Saltcedar Biological Control Consortium, a task
force comprised of over 40 agencies. The Bureau of Reclamation, in
collaboration with Los Alamos National Laboratory, also develops new
technologies for determining the amount of water lost from the Rio
Grande River due to tamarisk.
crosscut budget for fiscal year 2004
The Administration is also working toward an interagency approach
to invasive species control. The President's Budget Request for Fiscal
Year (FY) 2004 contains a performance budget crosscut on tamarisk.
Agencies would work together to develop common performance measures.
Under this performance umbrella, new and base funds will be applied in
the Departments of Interior and Agriculture to control and manage the
spread of tamarisk in the Southwest. Within the Department, the BLM
proposes to control 2,750 acres of tamarisk with a $500,000 funding
increase. The Bureau of Reclamation, utilizing $600,000 in new funding,
proposes to control 22,000 acres of tamarisk. The FWS has proposed an
increase of $640,000 for treatment of tamarisk and other species on
refuge lands, and the NPS, utilizing $200,000 in base funding, proposes
to treat 1,000 additional acres. A proposed funding increase of
$100,000 will help the Bureau of Indian Affairs control tamarisk on
4,000 acres. Finally, USGS proposes an increase of $300,000 for two
additional research projects in direct support of land management
efforts, including the development of protocols and measures to
prioritize sites for control and revegetation efforts.
In addition, both Interior and Agriculture agencies are working
together with our state and local partners to develop and implement
control technologies as part of an integrated approach to pest and weed
management. New chemical and biological control methods for tamarisk
are being tested under strictly controlled conditions because the
endangered southwest willow flycatcher occupies areas now infested with
tamarisk that were once occupied by stands of native willows and
cottonwoods. The federal agencies are providing support for a multi-
pronged approach to tamarisk control utilizing prevention, early
detection and rapid response, and other control and management
activities to limit the introduction and spread of tamarisk into new
areas of the Southwest.
coordinated tamarisk control and revegetation workshop
As a means of deciding how to spend the FY 2004 funds proposed in
the President's Budget for tamarisk control, the Department is
considering a strategy workshop to be held in the West sometime this
fall. The purpose would be to gain stakeholder input for a roadmap
containing common protocols (decision criteria) and best practices for
tamarisk control and management. The roadmap would provide guidance for
selecting on-the-ground projects and research efforts with the twin
goals of generating increased water supply and restoring ecosystems
through long-term tamarisk control, revegetation, and habitat recovery.
departmental views on s. 1236 and s. 1516
I hope that this overview has provided you with a picture of what
the Department is doing to manage the control of tamarisk and other
harmful exotic species. With the above discussion in mind, let me
briefly turn to the legislation.
S. 1236 would require the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary),
through the Bureau of Reclamation, to complete an assessment of the
extent of tamarisk invasion in the western United States. In addition
to identifying the states affected by tamarisk, including a gross-scale
estimation of acreage within the identified states, the assessment
would include both past and ongoing research on tamarisk control
methods, and the estimated costs of destruction, biomass removal, and
restoration and maintenance.
The Secretary would also establish a State Tamarisk Assistance
Program to provide grants to affected states. Grants would be awarded
to states in amounts to be determined by the Secretary based on
infestation in a particular state. Those states would then be
responsible for designating a lead state agency to administer the
program and to work with listed entities, including the National
Invasive Species Council, the Invasive Species Advisory Committee,
representatives from relevant tribes, and others in the state, to
establish priorities for awarding cost-share grants to projects to
control or eradicate tamarisk. The bill carries a limitation (10
percent) on the use of grant monies for administrative expenses, and
would require the lead state agency to provide the Secretary with a
report at the completion of funded projects.
S. 1516, the ``Salt Cedar Control Demonstration Act,'' would also
establish a two-pronged approach. First, it would require the
Secretary, through the Bureau of Reclamation, to complete a detailed
assessment of the extent of infestation by salt cedar and Russian Olive
in western states. The assessment would include past and present
assessments and management options to control these species; the
feasibility of reducing water consumption; methods and challenges in
land restoration; and the estimated costs of destruction, biomass
removal, and restoration and maintenance. Finally, the assessment is to
identify long-term funding strategies that could be implemented by
federal, state, and private land managers. Second, S. 1516 would also
require the Secretary to initiate demonstration projects to determine
the most effective control methods for these species, and it provides
criteria to be included in the project designs.
We fully support the concepts advanced by these bills. In general,
we view a comprehensive assessment positively, and believe such an
approach helps federal land managers develop a more coordinated, long-
term approach to addressing the problems associated with these species.
We also recognize the importance of carrying out strictly controlled
projects that will quickly provide us with practical control methods
that can be used by land managers on the ground.
As noted above, however, the Department is already working with our
partners to develop and implement an integrated approach to management
of tamarisk. Moreover, we have a concern about the overall cost of the
proposed legislation. S. 1236 would authorize $20 million for fiscal
year 2004, with additional necessary sums thereafter, while S. 1516
would authorize $50 million on the same terms. While the
Administration's cross cut budget evidences our commitment to control
invasive species like those addressed here, the program established
under this legislation would have to compete with other priority
activities within the context of the President's Budget. Finally, the
Department notes that the demonstration projects called for in S. 1516
can be achieved within existing authorities.
conclusion
In closing, I want to assure the Committee that the Department is
prepared and committed to identifying, assessing, and acting to curb
the economic and ecological impacts of tamarisk and Russian olive in
the West. We will continue to work with our partners, and we agree with
the intentions of both bills to more systematically develop an
effective control strategy. Our goal is to ensure the protection of our
water resources and the restoration of important wildlife habitat.
We share the Committee's concerns and interest in this issue, and
offer to work with the Committee to ensure that any legislation
promotes an efficient and effective control strategy. Mr. Chairman,
this concludes my statement and I am happy to answer any questions that
you might have.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Brown.
Let us go to Mr. Gabaldon.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL GABALDON, DIRECTOR OF POLICY MANAGEMENT
AND TECHNICAL SERVICES, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, DEPARTMENT OF
THE INTERIOR
Mr. Gabaldon. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Before I begin, I
would like to request that my written statements be submitted
for the record.
Senator Murkowski. Certainly.
Mr. Gabaldon. Thank you.
My name is Michael Gabaldon. I am the Director of Policy,
Management, and Technical Services with the Bureau of
Reclamation. I am pleased to be here today to present the views
of the Department of the Interior on S. 213 and on H.R. 856.
Let me begin with S. 213, which would clear title to real
property in New Mexico associated with the Middle Rio Grande
Project. While my written testimony contains more detail, I
would like to use my time to summarize my remarks.
The Department has some concerns with S. 213 as drafted,
primarily that the dispute over ownership of the San Gabriel
and the Tingley Beach parcels currently implicates a lawsuit
pending before the U.S. District Court in the District of New
Mexico.
The Department also has some concerns with the findings of
section 2 in the bill. Contrary to the implication of section
2(a)(3) of the bill, the United States did not claim title to
Tingley Beach and San Gabriel Park for the first time in 2000.
Rather, until recently the United States and the Middle Rio
Grande Conservancy District had agreed for decades that title
to all properties necessary for the Middle Rio Grande project
had been conveyed to the United States.
For example, both the United States and the district filed
several briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court in the fifties
stating unequivocally that title had been transferred to the
United States, and in the 1970's the district got a nuisance
case involving the Middle Rio Grande project ditches and canals
in the Albuquerque area, they got that dismissed on the basis
that these properties had been conveyed to the United States.
The Department is not adverse to quit claiming any property
interest it has to the city of Albuquerque. But all parties
must agree on the venue and all applicable Federal laws must be
met, must be met through the process. The Department believes
that the prudent course of action would be to allow the legal
system to render its decision before instituting a legislative
remedy.
With respect to the city of Albuquerque's desires to make
improvements on this property, Reclamation has provided a
license to the city which allows the use of the land in the
city's--for the use of the lands as proposed in the city's
improvement plans. In addition to the license, Reclamation has
met directly with members of the city planning department to
facilitate the review of the city's proposed improvements for
the Tingley Beach and we've also worked with other staff to
assist them in that process.
Despite the disagreement between the district and the
Bureau of Reclamation and the United States on this matter, the
district has been a good partner on this project and has
retired its debt to the United States. While we are always open
to working with all interested parties to find acceptable
solutions, we believe that it is in the best interests of all
to wait for the court's decision on the quiet title claims.
In summary, because the title issue is in active litigation
and because some inaccurate language appears in section 2, the
Department cannot support S. 213 at this time.
I would now like to turn my attention to H.R. 856, which
authorizes the Secretary to revise a repayment contract with
the Tom Green County Water Control and Improvement District at
Reclamation's San Angelo Project in Texas. The San Angelo
project was authorized by Congress in 1957 to provide flood
control, municipal and industrial water for the city of San
Angelo. It also provides recreation, fish and wildlife, and
supplemental irrigation supplies to the district.
The project has been beset by chronic drought conditions
since it was constructed in 1963. These arid conditions have
resulted in Reclamation granting a total of seven deferments of
the annual installments due under the district's 40-year
repayment contract. Due to the continued drought, the district
has requested a partial deferment for 2003. Since 1997, four
deferments for the district's annual payment to the United
States have been granted because of the unavailability of
irrigation water. The district has not taken any water from the
reservoir since 1998.
H.R. 856 provides some immediate financial relief to the
district by extending its contract with Reclamation by 10 years
and thereby reducing its annual payments to the United States.
Extension of the repayment period will not likely be a
permanent solution to the water scarcity facing this project.
However, taking this action will give Reclamation some time to
assess the project's long-term challenges and will aid the
district by providing repayment relief. Therefore the
Department supports H.R. 856.
Madam Chairman, that concludes my remarks and I would be
happy to respond to any questions.
[The prepared statements of Mr. Gabaldon regarding S. 213
and H.R. 856 follow:]
Prepared Statement of Michael Gabaldon, Director, Policy Management and
Technical Services, Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior,
on S. 213
My name is Michael Gabaldon, Director, Policy, Management, and
Technical Services of the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). I am
pleased to be here today to present the views of the Department
regarding S. 213, which would clear title to real property in New
Mexico associated with the Middle Rio Grande Project and for other
purposes.
The Department has several concerns with S. 213 as drafted,
primarily that the dispute over ownership of the San Gabriel and
Tingley Beach parcel currently implicates a lawsuit pending before the
United States District Court for the District of New Mexico. In
addition, the Department has concerns about how the transfer of
property that would be effected by this legislation may affect other
property rights in the litigation related to this matter.
The Department is not averse to transferring ownership to another
entity, but all parties must agree on the venue and all applicable
federal laws must be met in the process. The Department believes the
prudent course of action is to allow the legal system to render its
decision before instituting a legislative remedy. Therefore, the
Department cannot support S. 213 at this time.
With respect to the City of Albuquerque's desires to make
improvements on this property, Reclamation has provided a license to
the City which allows the use of those lands as proposed in the City's
improvement plans. In addition to the license, Reclamation has met
directly with members of the City Planning Department to facilitate the
review of the City's proposed improvements for Tingley Beach and worked
with staff to assist them with State Historical Preservation Office
review.
The Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District (District) was created
by the Conservancy Act of 1923 to improve the economy of the Middle
Valley by lowering the water table and providing flood protection and
water for irrigation. In the 1940's, the District requested that
Reclamation take over the operation of the District and retire its
outstanding bonds. In September 1951, the District and Reclamation
entered into a 50-year repayment contract in the amount of $15,708,567.
A key component of the contract is Article 29, which states:
``Title to all works constructed by the United States under this
contract and to all such works as are conveyed to the United States by
the provision hereof, shall as provided in Article 26, be and continue
to be vested in the name of the United States until otherwise provided
for by Congress, notwithstanding the transfer hereafter of any such
works to the District for operation and maintenance.''
Therefore, the Department is also concerned with some of the
findings in Section 2. Contrary to the implication of Section 2 (a) (3)
of the bill, the U.S. did not claim title to Tingley Beach and San
Gabriel Park for the first time in 2000. Rather, until recently, the
U.S. and MRGCD had agreed for decades that title to all properties
necessary for the Middle Rio Grande Project had been conveyed to the
United States. For example, both the United States and MRGCD filed
several briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1950's stating
unequivocally that title had been transferred to the U.S., and in the
1970's MRGCD got a nuisance case involving all MRP ditches and canals
in the Albuquerque Area dismissed on the basis that these properties
had been conveyed to the United States.
Furthermore, in 1998 testimony before a committee of the New Mexico
Legislature, the District acknowledged the need and desire to seek
reconveyance after its debt was repaid.
Section 5 of the bill states that ``nothing in this act shall be
construed to affect or otherwise interfere with any position set forth
by any party in the lawsuit . . .'' It is unclear how the passage of
this legislation could not affect the lawsuit given that the ownership
of Middle Rio Grande Project properties is a central question in the
quiet title claim of the litigation.
Despite this disagreement, the District has been a good partner on
this project and has retired its debt to the United States. While we
are always open to working with all interested parties to find
acceptable solutions, we believe that it is best to wait on the court's
decision on the quiet title claims.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks and I would be happy to
respond to any questions the Committee may have.
______
Prepared Statement of Michael Gabaldon, Director, Policy Management and
Technical Services, Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior,
on H.R. 856
My name is Michael Gabaldon and I am the Director, Policy,
Management, and Technical Services of the Bureau of Reclamation. I am
pleased to present the Department's views on H.R. 856 which authorizes
the Secretary to revise a repayment contract with the Tom Green County
Water Control and Improvement District No. 1 (District) at
Reclamation's San Angelo Project, Texas.
The San Angelo Project (Project) was authorized by the Congress in
1957 to provide flood control, municipal and industrial water for the
City of San Angelo, recreation, fish and wildlife, and supplemental
irrigation supplies to the District. The Project has been beset by
chronic drought conditions since it was constructed in 1963. These arid
conditions have resulted in Reclamation granting a total of seven
deferments of the annual installments due on the District's forty-year
repayment contract. Due to the continued drought the District has
requested a partial deferment for the 2003 annual installment. Since
1997, four deferments for the District's annual payment to the United
States have been granted because of the unavailability of irrigation
water. The District has not taken any water from the reservoir since
1998. H.R. 856 provides some immediate financial relief to the District
by extending its contract with Reclamation by ten years and thereby
reducing its annual payments to the United States by approximately
$70,000 per year. Extension of the repayment period will not likely be
a permanent solution to the water scarcity facing this project.
However, taking this action will give Reclamation some time to assess
the project's long-term challenges and will aid the District by
providing needed repayment relief.
Therefore, the Department supports H.R. 856.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for the opportunity to present the
Department's views on H.R. 856.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you very much. We appreciate your
testimony.
Mr. Hirsch, welcome.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT M. HIRSCH, Ph.D., ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR
WATER, U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Dr. Hirsch. Madam Chairman, I am Dr. Robert Hirsch,
Associate Director for Water, U.S. Geological Survey. I thank
you for the opportunity to provide the views of the Department
of the Interior on H.R. 961, the Upper Mississippi River Basin
Protection Act.
The Department agrees with the goals of H.R. 961. We
especially appreciate the bipartisan efforts of the sponsors of
the bill for their emphasis on the need for sound science to
resolve the important issues of nutrients and sediment losses
in the Upper Mississippi River Basin. However, we do have
concerns about the financial resources that would be required
for the USGS to carry out the provisions of this bill.
The bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to provide a
scientific basis for the management of the sediment and
nutrient losses in the Upper Mississippi River Basin. This
would be accomplished through several activities that would be
conducted or coordinated by the USGS. These are: establishing a
sediment and nutrient monitoring network that builds on
existing monitoring activities; conducting research and
modeling to predict sediment and nutrient losses on the basis
of landscape, land use, and land management within individual
watersheds; providing the States and other organizations with
technical assistance regarding use of consistent and reliable
methods for data collection; and finally, dissemination of new
information to managers, scientists, and the public.
The role identified in the bill for the USGS is consistent
with our leadership role in monitoring, assessment, and
research related to the water and biological resources of the
Nation. The USGS is the Nation's largest water, earth, and
biological science and civilian mapping agency. The USGS has
been active in a number of programs and investigations that
involve the Upper Mississippi River Basin specifically. The
USGS is a participant in the Mississippi River-Gulf of Mexico
Watershed Nutrient Task Force. This task force, which has
representation from Federal agencies and State and tribal
governments in the basin, is charged with fulfilling the
requirements of the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research
and Control Act of 1998 by preparing a plan for controlling
hypoxia in the northern Gulf of Mexico, and it shares the
common goal of improving water quality conditions in the
Mississippi River Basin.
The USGS has also had a lead role in the preparation of a
science report that used available water quality information to
define a recent basin condition for nutrient sources and loads
in the Mississippi River Basin, a baseline from which future
water quality trends and improvements will be measured. This
report identifies those parts of the Upper Mississippi River
Basin that have the highest nutrient yields.
The USGS has offices in each of five Upper Mississippi
River Basin States. These offices have a long history of
conducting water quantity and quality monitoring and assessment
activities within the basin. Several USGS programs currently
provide information on nutrients and sediments within the
basin. These include two programs that are based on
partnerships between the USGS and the States: the Cooperative
Water Program and the Water Resources Research Institutes.
For the past 20 years, the USGS Upper Midwest Environmental
Science Center in LaCrosse, Wisconsin, Congressman Kind's home
town--he is actually a very close neighbor of that center--that
center has provided research support in the Upper Mississippi
River Basin to Department of the Interior bureaus and the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers to address complex issues of navigation
contaminants and other natural resource concerns.
For 15 years, the center has provided the scientific and
management leadership for the long-term resource monitoring
program of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers environmental
management program for the Upper Mississippi River Basin main
stem rivers. This monitoring program of water quality,
fisheries, vegetation, land use, and other critical indicators
of river health is the largest main stem river assessment
program in the Nation.
The USGS is also active in hydrologic and water quality
studies in the lower Mississippi River Basin. The continuity of
research between the upper and lower basins is important. To
this end, the USGS has begun a partnership with the Long-Term
Estuary Assessment Group Center at Tulane University.
We are pleased to see that the provisions of H.R. 961 are
consistent with the Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task
Force recommendations. We are particularly appreciative of the
efforts of the bill's sponsors in the House for making some
adjustments to the bill language to avoid conflicts between the
program authorized in this legislation and longstanding
nationwide programs of the USGS.
In summary, the goals of the bill are commendable and the
bill contains provisions that would build on existing USGS
programs and expertise. However, funding for the activities in
H.R. 961 is not included in the fiscal year 2004 President's
budget proposal.
Thank you, Madam Chairman, for the opportunity to present
this testimony and I will be pleased to answer questions you
and other members of the subcommittee might have.
On a personal note, I would like to mention that just a
month ago I participated in a water quality study of the mighty
Yukon River in the State of Alaska, and I now have a new
appreciation for the beauty and the resources of the central
part of your wonderful State. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Hirsch follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert Hirsch, Ph.D., Associate Director for
Water, U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the Interior
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Robert Hirsch,
Associate Director for Water, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). I thank
you for the opportunity to provide the views of the Department of the
Interior (Department) on H.R. 961, the ``Upper Mississippi River Basin
Protection Act.''
The Department agrees with the goals of H.R. 961; we especially
appreciate the bi-partisan efforts of the sponsors of the bill to
address this important issue and emphasis within the bill on the need
for reliance on sound science. We have concerns about the financial
resources that would be required for the USGS to carry out this bill in
the context of the availability of resources overall for Administration
programs.
The bill directs the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the
USGS, to provide a scientific basis for the management of sediment and
nutrient loss in the Upper Mississippi River Basin. This would be
accomplished through establishing a sediment and nutrient monitoring
network that builds on existing monitoring activities; conducting
research and modeling that relates sediment and nutrient losses to
landscape, land use and land management characteristics; providing
technical assistance regarding use of consistent and reliable methods
for data collection; and instituting a program to disseminate new
information to managers, scientists and the public.
The role identified for the Department in this bill is consistent
with USGS's leadership role in monitoring, interpretation, research,
and assessment of the health and status of the water and biological
resources of the Nation. As the Nation's largest water, earth, and
biological science, and civilian mapping agency, USGS conducts the
largest single non-regulatory ambient water-quality monitoring activity
in the Nation. The USGS has been active in a number of programs and
investigations that involve the Upper Mississippi River Basin (UMRB)
specifically.
The USGS is a participant in the Mississippi River, Gulf of Mexico
Watershed Nutrient Task Force. This Task Force, which has
representation from federal agencies, and state and Tribal governments
in the basin, is charged with fulfilling requirements of The Harmful
Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act of 1998, by preparing
a plan for controlling hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico, and
shares a common goal of improving water-quality conditions in the
Mississippi River Basin.
The USGS also had a lead role in the preparation of a science
report that used available water-quality information to define a recent
baseline condition for nutrient sources and loads in the Mississippi
River Basin--a baseline from which future water-quality trends and
improvements will be measured. This report identifies those parts of
the Upper Mississippi River Basin that have the highest nutrient
yields.
The USGS has offices in each of the five Upper Mississippi River
Basin states. These offices have a long history of conducting water-
quantity and water-quality monitoring and assessment activities within
the basin. Existing USGS programs include the Hydrologic Networks and
Analysis Program, the National Water-Quality Assessment Program, the
National Stream Quality Accounting Network, the National Streamflow
Information Program, the Toxic Substances Hydrology Program, the Water
Resources Research Act Program, and the Cooperative Water Program, as
well as reimbursable programs, such as the Long-Term Resource
Monitoring Program funded by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. These
programs currently provide information on nutrients and sediment within
the basin.
For the past 20 years, the USGS Upper Midwest Environmental
Sciences Center (UMESC) in La Crosse, Wisconsin has provided research
support in the Upper Mississippi River Basin to DOI agencies and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to address complex issues of navigation,
contaminants, and other natural resource concerns. More recently, this
Center has developed an active partnership with the Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, on sediment and
nutrient concerns of the agencies. For 15 years, the UMESC has provided
the scientific and management leadership for the Long-term Resource
Monitoring Program of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer's Environmental
Management Program for the Upper Mississippi River Basin main stem
rivers. This monitoring program of water quality, fisheries,
vegetation, land use, and other critical indicators of river health is
the largest main stem river assessment program in the Nation. The USGS
conducts monitoring activities in cooperation with many states and
local governments in the Upper Mississippi River Basin. The USGS is
also active in hydrologic and water-quality studies in the Lower
Mississippi River Basin. The continuity of research is important from
the standpoint of developing a complete assessment of the entire
Mississippi River basin. To this end, the USGS has begun a partnership
with the Long-term Estuary Assessment Group, centered at Tulane
University.
H.R. 961 acknowledges the need to use all existing monitoring and
science programs of the USGS and those of other entities while
identifying information needs in the Upper Mississippi River Basin.
Existing monitoring and assessment programs and development of models
are tools for defining how water-quality conditions are affected by
human activities and natural climatic variations and how management
actions may best improve water-quality conditions at a wide range of
scales from small watersheds to the Mississippi River Basin.
The bill would also authorize integration of activities conducted
in cooperation with other federal partners and would emphasize and
expand the existing USGS coordination and assistance to state
monitoring programs. For example, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
(Service) Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program restores wetland
habitat in watersheds across the country, including the Upper
Mississippi River Basin. The Service can apply its expertise to the
reduction of sediment and nutrient loss in the basin through
participation in demonstration projects, technical assistance, and
working groups. We recognize the need to ensure that future monitoring
activities complement and do not duplicate state monitoring activities.
The provisions of H.R. 961 are consistent with Gulf of Mexico
Watershed Nutrient Task Force recommendations with regard to science
and management activities. The proposed legislation describes a program
consistent with current USGS activities to support protection of the
UMRB.
In summary, the goals of the bill are commendable, and the bill
contains provisions that are within the scope and expertise of the
USGS, and that are already being addressed by other on-going programs.
However, funding for the activities in H.R. 961 is not included in the
fiscal year 2004 President's Budget proposal and would remain subject
to available resources.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present this
testimony. I will be pleased to answer questions you and other members
of the Subcommittee might have.
Senator Murkowski. Good. Now, you led right into that. I
have to ask, how did we do?
Dr. Hirsch. The Yukon River is really quite a pristine
river. Its condition is very natural and our reason for doing
the study is really to try to provide a baseline to understand
this river, particularly in light of global warming, which is
having significant effects in terms of the melting of
permafrost, and we expect to see changes in the future and we
wanted to have a good baseline. It was actually our studies of
the Mississippi that got us thinking about that. We had some
data from about 100 years ago on the Mississippi that are very,
very useful in understanding the issues that we have there
today.
Senator Murkowski. Great. Well, nice that you could make it
up there.
Dr. Hirsch. Yes.
Senator Murkowski. Now that you have the baseline, we will
just have to invite you back later.
Let me ask you one quick question and then I will move on
to the other gentlemen. You have obviously spoken to a broad
array of programs that are under way in the Upper Mississippi,
and from your testimony, it appears that many of the objectives
in the legislation in front of us already exist in different
forms.
Do you feel that the USGS already has sufficient authority
to develop an integrated program with appropriate
administrative direction, or is additional authority and
direction needed at this time?
Dr. Hirsch. I think that the things provided for in this
bill do not require additional authority. I think the existing
programs that we have would provide sufficient authority. I
think this bill would provide a focus to that, which I think
could be useful in carrying it out.
I would add that, while we have a good track record of work
done in the Upper Mississippi Basin, the level of effort in
terms of monitoring the water quality in that area has
decreased considerably since our efforts of about a decade ago,
simply due to budgetary limitations.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
Mr. Brown, in your testimony it is apparent that the
administration is supportive of salt cedar management and in
general management of invasive species, particularly in the
West. We have got two bills before us today: S. 1236, Senator
Campbell's bill, which directs the funding for the salt cedar
control to a single agency designated to each State via grant;
then we also have Senator Domenici's bill which establishes the
demonstration programs.
Can you comment on which approach would be most effective
and the issues or concerns with each?
Mr. Brown. I would be glad to provide a preliminary
response today and look forward to providing a response in
greater detail at a later time. On the front end, what I would
suggest is that the involvement of multiple groups to set
priorities for the projects is one appealing aspect. That is,
utilizing not only a State lead agency, but also the technical
and economic and social skills brought to bear by the National
Invasive Species Council and its Invasive Species Advisory
Committee.
That two-pronged approach of having all Federal agencies
around the table discussing with States and local landowners
issues, as well as having a Federal advisory committee which
brings expertise from the non-federal arena, is a marvelous
model for setting guidelines and helping to set those
priorities. So on the one hand I believe there's a tremendous
amount of support for that team effort, if I may call it that.
There is advantage too in jumping into demonstration
projects. I think that the Department has called attention in
its testimony to the need to combine the scientific work with
the control and management efforts, so that constant monitoring
and reassessment can be conducted right away, and that in
conjunction with discussions with the various entities--the
landowners, the Federal agencies with land management
responsibilities--that scientific information needs to be
shared broadly so that the stakeholders as a group can better
define whether they are succeeding or not in those
demonstration programs.
So I think in our written response what will come back is a
collation of the two that would say we see merit in both
approaches and we see a way that we would be glad and would be
glad to provide help to the committee in trying to fashion a
melding of the two.
Senator Murkowski. If I heard Senator Domenici correct in
his opening statement, it suggested that it would be his desire
to perhaps combine the two.
Let me ask you about just invasive species in general. I
mean, we have been focusing on the tamarisk, the salt cedar,
and the Russian olive, and these plants seem to represent, or
at least based on what we have heard, the largest invasive
species problem in the inter-mountain West. But I would ask you
if there are any other invasive species of equal concern to the
States or on our Federal lands that you are currently
addressing?
Mr. Brown. Again, I would ask for permission to provide
written remarks for a more comprehensive response. Clearly the
array of invasive species that we are trying to address under
the auspices of the executive order signed under the last
administration and in ongoing programs of the Department
address the full array of species. Those can be aquatic
nuisance species like kalerpa, the killer algae that was
discovered off San Diego Bay and may now be fully eradicated.
One more quarter of analysis will allow us to determine whether
in fact it has been eradicated successfully.
The leafy spurge, which is the scourge of the northern
plains, of course has devastated ranching operations in the
past there, but has succumbed in great part because of
biological control efforts that were orchestrated in a team
effort between the Departments of Agriculture and Interior and
private ranchers who worked together to test the organisms that
actually eat the leafy spurge enough that native organisms can
get in and kill the plants back so that it takes a background
level on the landscape rather than the dominant level. That is
a very famous one.
Obviously, snakehead is an example of charismatic
negafauna, something that is easy to hate. That is an example I
believe of the difficulty in distinguishing between food-
related pathways and other accidental or unintentional pathways
that allow organisms to come into the country, versus the
intentional pathways that were utilized when ornamentals were
brought in such as tamarisk and salt cedar.
So I think in our written response I could save you time
now and we will provide a listing of the array of different
kinds of organisms that run the gamut from West Nile Virus
right through some of the big ones that are now well known,
like snakeheads.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you. I will look forward to that.
I do not know that I have heard any fauna being described as
``charismatic megafauna.''
Mr. Brown. Nega. I was trying to make a bad pun, I am
sorry. Nega with an ``n''. Elephants being charismatic
megafauna, and I was trying, I admit desperately, to capture
something there for snakeheads. Better known as the
Frankenfish; maybe we should stick with that.
Senator Murkowski. Frankenfish, there we go.
Thank you. We will look forward to that then.
Mr. Gabaldon, regarding the Tom Green County Water Control
and Improvement District, you have suggested that a broader
assessment of water needs and supply options for this area
might be appropriate and I am wondering if such an assessment
has been initiated and, if so, if you can comment on the
objectives and the timing of such an assessment.
Mr. Gabaldon. Madam Chairman, the assessment has not begun.
We are working with the district and the district has provided
us some options to us, some of the things that they see could
work out here. So we are working with the irrigation district
on that and we will continue working with them to see what we
can come up with there in terms of trying to extend that water
supply out there.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
Then moving over to S. 213, if I understand you correctly
the administration's position is that you do not oppose the
transfer of public lands to private--excuse me--of public lands
to private landholders in general, but the concern here is
waiting for the completion of the lawsuit concerning the
ownership.
Would it be fair to say that if the court rules in favor of
the Government, establishing Federal ownership, that you would
be willing to proceed with the transfer to the city of
Albuquerque?
Mr. Gabaldon. Madam Chairman, we would proceed in that
fashion, with the caveat that the Department of Justice would
have to ensure that there is not some additional ties there
that would bind the Government in some way. So as far as the
Department of the Interior, we would be--we are not opposed to
conveying this property back over, specifically in this one to
the city of Albuquerque.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
Let me make sure--then again, also on the Albuquerque land
transfer, speaking to lands that are deemed to be surplus lands
or unnecessary to the needs of a particular project, you
obviously can move to a quitclaim. Do you consider that the
parcels that you referred to, Tingley Beach and San Gabriel
Park, do you consider these to be unnecessary to the needs of
the bureau?
Mr. Gabaldon. Madam Chairman, we do not see a problem in
these two parcels if they were to be conveyed, deeded over to
the city of Albuquerque. We do not see that interfering with
our operations of the Middle Rio Grande project.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
Thank you, gentlemen. I appreciate your testimony and your
response to the questions this afternoon. We will now go to the
next panel, which consists of: Mr. Tim Carlson, director of the
Tamarisk Coalition; Mr. John Marshall, assistant director from
the Colorado Department of Natural Resources; Ms. Debbie
Hughes, executive director, New Mexico Association of
Conservation Districts; and Ms. Holly Stoerker, executive
director of the Upper Mississippi River Basin Association.
Ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon and welcome to the
subcommittee. I think what we will do is--let me see what kind
of an order we have here. Why don't we start with you, Mr.
Carlson. We stuck you in the middle and you get to go first.
STATEMENT OF TIM CARLSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, TAMARISK
COALITION
Mr. Carlson. Madam Chairman and members of the committee:
Thank you for this opportunity to present testimony before your
committee on the important issue of tamarisk and Russian olive
control in the West. The mission of the Tamarisk Coalition is
to provide education on the problem of the non-native invasive
plant tamarisk, which has been referred to also as salt cedar--
it is the same plant--and to help develop long-term management
and funding structures to control its infestation. Our goals
are the restoration of the native habitat to the West's rivers
and streams and the preservation of its water resources for
beneficial uses.
I would first like to take the opportunity to thank both
Senator Domenici and Senator Campbell for their sponsorship of
these two bills. The proposed legislation includes significant
on-the-ground demonstration projects, and I will concentrate my
testimony on the importance of these large-scale demonstrations
beyond the obvious benefits of site-specific tamarisk control
and restoration.
The demonstrations serve to help answer critical questions
on what will be the true changes that will result after
tamarisk control and restoration take place. That is, changes
to water availability in both the surface and groundwater
supplies, changes to water quality, changes to wildlife
habitat, and changes to biodiversity of plants and animals.
It is acknowledged that considerable research has already
been done in these areas. However, much of this work was done
on a small scale and some results are conflicting. The
significant demonstrations associated with these bills can be
used to better understand the impacts of control and
restoration to help improve the economic viability of future
work.
The demonstrations under these bills will not solve the
tamarisk problem, but will be vitally important to developing
long-term solutions. They can be used to support international
cooperation on tamarisk control between the United States and
Mexico by including in the legislation at least one border
demonstration, and the demonstrations can also serve to foster
quality work experience for youth through existing programs.
Both S. 1236 and S. 1516 are well thought out and have many
similarities. The differences between the current bills can
enhance the final bill that goes through the markup process. We
have identified a number of issues in our written testimony. I
would like to just concentrate on a couple of these.
First, there has been significant biocontrol research and
release programs that have shown some significant success in
the past couple years. If this approach can be shown to be
successful on the large scale demonstrations that are
authorized under these bills, the economics of control could be
reduced by as much as 90 percent over any existing herbicide or
mechanical control tamarisk. Currently no similar type of
biocontrol research is being conducted on Russian olive and it
would be appropriate to include specific language in the final
bill to energize this effort.
Secondly, S. 1516 includes the costs for control of Russian
olive as well. Thus the higher authorized funding, $50 million
per year, is appropriate and reasonable to address the combined
problems of both tamarisk and Russian olive.
Thirdly, S. 1516 identifies the importance of developing
long-term management and funding strategies that could be
implemented by State, Federal, and local land managers. The
development of sustainable funding over a long time frame is
crucial to solving the tamarisk problem.
Finally, the question has to be asked, what would the
public gain from these efforts? From a cost standpoint,
tamarisk control and restoration is low-hanging fruit.
Preliminary cost estimates would indicate that long-term gains
in water availability are 5 to 20 times less costly than other
alternatives. This change in water availability will not
immediately be evident in the river system. What will likely
first be seen is changes to groundwater levels that have been
drawn down from decades of tamarisk infestation.
Beyond improving the abundance of water, the other
important side benefits of tamarisk control and riparian
restoration are that water quality will be enhanced, wildlife
habitat will be improved, there will be greater biodiversity
among both plants and animals, and there will be improved
conditions for human enjoyment of the river systems. These
benefits are important to the people of the West, but they are
also important to the people of the Nation.
Although most people think of the tamarisk problem as one
that is principally located in the Southwest, it is important
to know that it is quickly spreading throughout the plains
States as well as in the Northern Western States. For example,
tamarisk now infests the Arkansas River for over 150 miles into
Kansas. More dramatically, tamarisk occupies over 200 miles of
Yellowstone River in Montana, the longest free-flowing river in
the lower 48 States.
The Tamarisk Coalition encourages Congress to pass and fund
this legislation to help preserve the limited water resources
of the West and to help restore riparian habitat. Thank you for
this opportunity to speak before this committee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Carlson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tim Carlson, Executive Director,
Tamarisk Coalition
Dear Madam Chairman and Members of the Committee: Thank you for
this opportunity to present testimony before your committee on the
important issue of tamarisk (also known as Salt cedar) and Russian
olive control in the West.
The Tamarisk Coalition is a non-profit organization that represents
a wide variety of interests that includes state and federal land
managers, Tribal units, local governments, environmental organizations,
water conservation districts, farmers, and ranchers. The mission of the
Tamarisk Coalition is to provide education on the problem of the non-
native invasive plant tamarisk and to help develop long-term management
and funding structures to control its infestation. Our goals are the
restoration of native habitat to the West's rivers and streams, and the
preservation of its water resources for beneficial uses.
The proposed legislation, S. 1236--Tamarisk Control and Riparian
Restoration Act and S. 1516--Salt Cedar Control Demonstration Act are
extremely important and needed pieces of legislation. While the
tamarisk issue has been identified as a significant problem for almost
50 years, it has taken the drought of the past several years to gain
widespread acceptance that solving this problem should be an important
component of the West's water management strategy. S. 1236 and S. 1516
provide significant on-the-ground demonstration projects that will help
to answer critical questions on potential changes to water
availability, water quality, habitat, and biodiversity. S. 1516 also
identifies the critical issue of developing long-term management and
funding strategies that could be implemented by Federal, State, local,
Tribal, and private land managers.
The Tamarisk Coalition believes that these bills provide
appropriate direction to help gain protection of the West's limited
water resources and riparian habitats from the infestation of tamarisk
and Russian olive. This written testimony is divided into four sections
that provide a background on the problem, suggested changes to the
legislation with a comparison of the two bills, important issues to
consider, and importance of the on-the-ground demonstrations.
background
Tamarisk is the primary non-native phreatophyte (water loving
plant) of concern in the West and thus has the dubious distinction as
the ``poster child'' of non native plants impacting the riparian zone
of rivers and streams. Other plants, notably Russian olive (Elaeagnus
angustifolia), co habit with tamarisk and also deserve attention.
Therefore, within the context of this testimony, whenever the term
``tamarisk'' is used, one must also consider Russian olive as the other
principal invasive plant that may be important to control within
riparian areas.
Impacts--Tamarisk (Tamarix spp.) is a deciduous shrub/small tree
that was introduced to the western U.S. in the early nineteenth century
from Central Asia and the Mediterranean for use as an ornamental, in
windbreaks, and for erosion control. Tamarisk is well suited to the
hot, arid climates and alkaline soils common in the western U.S., and
has escaped cultivation to displace native vegetation. It gradually
became naturalized along minor streams in the southwest and by the mid-
twentieth century, tamarisk stands dominated low-elevation (under 6,500
feet) river and stream banks from Mexico to Canada. Tamarisk is now
believed to cover anywhere between 1.0 and 1.5 million acres of land in
the western U.S. and may be as high as 2 million acres (Zimmerman
1997). The severe impacts on riparian systems that this infestation
causes throughout the West include (Carpenter 1998, DeLoach 1997):
Tamarisk populations develop into dense thickets, with as
many as 3,000 plants per acre that can rapidly displace all
native vegetation (e.g., cottonwoods and willows).
As a phreatophyte, tamarisk invades riparian areas, leading
to extensive degradation of habitat and loss of biodiversity in
the stream corridor.
Excess salts drawn from the groundwater by tamarisk are
excreted through leaf glands and are deposited on the ground
with the leaf litter. This increases soil salinity to levels
that kill saline intolerant willows and other plants and
prevents the germination of many native plants.
Tamarisk seeds and leaves lack nutrients and are of little
value to wildlife and livestock.
Leaf litter from tamarisk tends to increase the frequency
and intensity of wildfires which tend to kill many native
plants but not tamarisk. An example of this process was the
2003 fires in Albuquerque along the Rio Grande River.
Dense stands on stream banks may gradually cause narrowing
of the channel and an increase in flooding. Channel narrowing
along with tamarisk induced stabilization of stream banks,
bars, and islands lead to changes in stream morphology, which
can impact habitat for endangered fish.
Dense stands affect livestock by reducing forage and prevent
access to surface water.
Aesthetic values of the stream corridor are degraded, and
access to streams for recreation (e.g., boating, fishing,
hunting, bird watching) is lost.
While each of these points is important to one or more
constituencies, the single most critical problem is that tamarisk uses
more water than native vegetation that it displaces. This non-
beneficial user of the West's limited water resources dries up springs,
wetlands, and riparian areas by lowering water tables (Carpenter 1998,
DeLoach 1997, Weeks 1987). As tamarisk moves into adjacent upland
habitats through the aid of its deep root system, it consumes even more
water as it replaces the native grass/sagebrush/rabbit brush
communities (DeLoach 2002). Zaveta (2000) demonstrates that a program
of tamarisk control and revegetation would have clear economic, social,
and ecological benefits. The National Invasives Species Council has
identified tamarisk as one of its primary targets, most western states
have listed it on their noxious weed list, and Colorado Governor Bill
Owens has issued an Executive Order to control tamarisk on public lands
within ten years.
Water Usage by Different Vegetative Types--Limited evidence
indicates that water usage per leaf area of tamarisk and the native
cottonwood/willow riparian communities may not be that different.
However, because tamarisk grows into extreme thickets, the leaf area
per acre may actually be much greater; thus, water consumption would
also be greater on an acre basis (Kolb 2001). Probably the most
insidious aspect of tamarisk and its consumption of water is that its
much deeper root system (up to 100 feet compared to healthy cottonwoods
and willows stands at 6 feet (Baum 1978, USDI-BOR 1995)) allows
tamarisk to grow further back from the river and thus can occupy a
larger area and use more water across the floodplain than would be
possible by the native phreatophytes. This is especially significant,
because the adjacent uplands and floodplain typically occupy a cross-
sectional area several times that of the riparian zone. In these areas,
less dense areas of mesic plants can be replaced by tamarisk resulting
in overall water consumption several times that associated with these
other plants (DeLoach 2002).
From thirteen different studies conducted between 1972 and 2000 on
tamarisk evapotranspiration rates, the average water use reported is
approximately 5.3 feet per year (Hart 2003). More recent work performed
on the Pecos River in Texas over the last three years indicates water
use by tamarisk of 7.7 feet per year (Hart 2003). Recent research by
the U.S. Department of Interior on the middle Rio Grande estimates
evapotranspiration rates on the order of 4.3 feet per year (Interior
2003). These studies were performed using different methods of
measurement, at different locations, and for different densities of
infestation. Native cottonwood/willow communities have been estimated
to use approximately one foot less per year than tamarisk (Weeks, 1987)
while the native shallow-rooted upland plant communities of grasses,
sage, etc. principally use only the moisture received by precipitation.
Unpublished research on the Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge
on the middle Rio Grande River in New Mexico indicates that Russian
olive has very similar evapotranspiration rates as tamarisk (Bawazir
2003).
Estimates of Non-Beneficial Water Use--The term ``non-beneficial
water use'' is defined as the difference in water consumption
(evapotranspiration) between tamarisk and the native plants it has
replaced. Estimates on water consumption by tamarisk vary a great deal
depending on location, maturity, density of infestation, and depth to
groundwater. This will also be true for the cottonwood/willow
community. Using the above information, one can reasonably estimate
that this non-beneficial use of water is approximately 1 foot per year
for tamarisk in the riparian areas that could support a cottonwood/
willow community and approximately 4 feet per year for the upland areas
that could support a native grasses/sage/rabbit brush type of plant
community. For the West, it is estimated that one-third to two-thirds
of the land currently infested by tamarisk was formerly occupied by
cottonwood/willow communities and that the remaining percentage of land
would have been occupied by grasses/sage/rabbit brush type of plant
communities. If one takes the estimated infested acreage of 1.0 to 1.5
million acres in the West, the estimated non-beneficial water
consumption is approximately 2.0 to 4.5 million acre-feet per year.
These estimated water losses represent enough water to supply upwards
of 20 million people (Denver Water Board 2002) or the irrigation of
over 1,000,000 acres of land. At a modest infestation rate of only 1%
per year, these losses will increase by two-thirds in the next 50 years
(see attached Figure). These values obviously represent a great deal of
water that is being consumed beyond what the valuable native plants
would have used. It would be even higher if the areas occupied by other
non-native phreatophytes, such as Russian olive were included.
Costs--Costs for removal vary depending on the expanse of the
infestation, existence of other valuable plant species, and terrain.
For aerial helicopter spraying with herbicide the cost is around $200
to $250 per acre (Hart 2003, Lee 2002). While aerial herbicide spray is
extremely effective in killing tamarisk, it also kills most other
vegetation types and must be used judiciously. For mechanical mulching
and herbicide application the cost ranges from $300 to $800 per acre
(McDaniel 2000, Taylor 1998, CWCB 2003). For hand clearing and
herbicide application the cost can range from $1,500 to $5,000 per acre
(Tamarisk Coalition 2002). Terrain, access, presence of other native
vegetation, etc. all dictates which approach to use. No one approach is
right for all situations. The U.S. Department of Agriculture recommends
the strategy of Integrated Pest Management that matches the right
methods for each situation.
Additionally, a bio-control approach that uses a Chinese leaf
beetle (Diorhabda elongata) has been undergoing research for the past
10 years by the U.S. Departments of Interior and Agriculture, and is
showing great promise for reducing costs (De Loach 2002). Recent work
from the Lovelock, Nevada bio-control release site showed near 100
percent defoliation on nearly 400 acres of tamarisk (Carruthers 2003).
Based on preliminary estimates, this control technique could reduce the
costs to a small fraction (10 to 20 percent) of any herbicide and/or
mechanical approach. The current status of this bio-control program is
that the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's (APHIS)
intention is to publish for review the recommendation to implement the
release of the Chinese leaf beetle in 2004 north of the 38th parallel--
essentially 70 miles north of the Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Arizona
state lines (Richard 2003).
The important role that APHIS plays in helping states implement
these bio-control efforts in the future cannot be overlooked. As part
of any demonstration that involves the use of the Chinese leaf beetle,
it should include the combined involvement of USDA and Interior
scientists working with APHIS to help guarantee the utmost success.
Tamarisk control is only part of the cost. Restoration is the other
component which is necessary to bring back the right native plants and
restore habitat. If the objective is to only kill tamarisk, other
invasive noxious weeds will likely take their place if restoration is
not part of the effort. Restoration may occur naturally where native
plants are still viable or may require specialized efforts to restore
the riparian lands. In general, costs may range from $50 to $1,500 per
acre.
The Tamarisk Coalition has estimated that the overall cost for
control and restoration could have an average range of $250 to $350 per
acre-foot of water resources recovered (CWCB 2003). As a reference
point, the cost of purchasing senior water rights in the Denver,
Colorado area is valued at $4,000 to $12,000 per acre-foot (Franscell
2002). This change in water availability will not immediately be
evident in the river systems but will likely first be seen as changes
to groundwater levels that have been drawn down from decades of
tamarisk infestation.
Beyond improving the abundance of water, the other important side
benefits of Tamarisk control and riparian restoration are 1) water
quality will be enhanced, 2) wildlife habitat will be improved, 3)
there will be greater bio-diversity among both plants and animals, and
4) there will be improved conditions for human enjoyment of the river
systems. The value of this improved viability of the West's river
systems is difficult to measure in terms of dollars but is considered
to be highly significant.
suggested changes and comparison of s. 1236 and s. 1516
Suggested Changes: The Tamarisk Coalition offers for consideration
the following three suggested changes to the Senate bills:
1. Add: ``The Secretary shall also identify at least one
international demonstration project between the U.S. and
Mexico.'' This addition is important because tamarisk
infestations do not recognize political boundaries, and
eventual control will require cooperation between both
governments and will aid in meeting international agreements
for water delivery.
2. Change the language associated with Cost-Sharing to read:
``The Federal share of the costs of any demonstration activity
funded under this program shall be no more than 75 percent of
the total cost. Research activities associated with
demonstrations shall be 100% Federal share.'' This change is
important because critical research issues on water
availability, water quality, habitat, and bio-diversity benefit
the entire West and are not solely a local issue. Additionally,
this type of research will be a collaborative effort between
federal scientists and numerous universities throughout the
West that are not project specific.
3. Add: ``For demonstration projects, the Secretary is
encouraged to award procurement contracts, grants, or
cooperative agreements under this section to entities that
include Youth Conservation Corps, Americorps, or related
partnerships with State, Native American, local or non-profit
youth organizations, or small or disadvantaged businesses where
appropriate.'' This change would reinforce the use of youth
programs for performing many of the labor-intensive activities
associated with control and restoration. The use of youth
programs provides added value in the form of training, work
experience, and work ethics.
Comparison of Bills: Both S. 1236 and S. 1516 are very similar with
few exceptions. These differences can enhance the final bill that goes
through the mark-up process. The following are those areas that the
Tamarisk Coalition views as important to consider.
a. S. 1236 identifies the States as the grant recipients to
administer the demonstrations through a lead state agency. We
believe this to be an efficient approach for the on-the-ground
demonstration projects. We recommend that the research and
monitoring components of the demonstrations identified in S.
1516 be directed by the Secretary of Interior.
b. S. 1236 identifies that not more than 10 percent of the
grant amount to the states be used for administration expenses.
We would suggest similar language in S. 1516 for research
efforts, such as ``not more than 20 percent of the total funds
authorized under this act shall be used for research and
monitoring activities''.
c. S. 1516 includes the costs for control of Russian olive.
Thus, the higher authorized funding ($50,000,000 per year) is
appropriate and reasonable to address the combined problems of
tamarisk and Russian olive.
d. S. 1516 identifies the importance of developing long-term
management and funding strategies that could be implemented by
Federal, State, and private land managers. The development of
sustainable funding over a long time frame is critical to
solving the tamarisk problem.
e. Bio-control research and release programs are showing
significant success. If this approach can be shown to be
successful on the large-scale demonstrations proposed under S.
1236 and S. 1516, the economics of control could be reduced by
as much as 90% over any herbicide and/or mechanical control
technology. Currently, no similar type of bio-control research
is being conducted on Russian olive and it would be appropriate
to include specific language in the final bill to energize this
effort.
f. Both S. 1236 and S. 1516 include the importance of
restoration and maintenance. These components are essential
because tamarisk control without restoration and maintenance
will generally not achieve the desired objectives.
important issues
Tamarisk Coalition partners have raised four issues that are
important to consider in the overall control of tamarisk and
restoration in the West. They are:
1. Water Rights--The control of tamarisk should improve both
groundwater and surface water supplies in the future. This is
not the creation of new water but rather the prevention of a
non-beneficial use of water and, therefore, no new water rights
should be implied. Respect for existing State water law and
water rights are important to maintain.
2. Property Rights--While private property owners are some of
the strongest supporters of this legislation, it is important
to acknowledge that private property rights must be respected.
3. Existing Infrastructure--The rivers of the West are highly
impacted by man to improve their capability to store and supply
water (e.g., dams, irrigation systems) for beneficial use.
Existing infrastructure is important for the continuation of
these uses and tamarisk control and restoration should respect
these conditions.
4. Endangered Species--Protection of endangered species have
been viewed in the past as a potential obstacle to tamarisk
control. This is not now the case. The Final Southwestern
Willow Flycatcher Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
2002) does provide management approaches that will allow staged
removal of tamarisk and restoration to occur. The Upper
Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program also recognizes
the impacts tamarisk has had on river structure and its
subsequent impact on fish breeding opportunities. The
Endangered Fish Recovery Program is working directly with the
Tamarisk Coalition to develop compatible tamarisk control and
restoration strategies that will enhance fish recovery.
The value of well designed demonstration projects authorized under
S. 1236 and S. 1516 is that these projects will help to demonstrate
that tamarisk control and restoration can be successful while
maintaining respect for water rights, property rights, existing
infrastructure, and endangered species.
importance of the on-the-ground demonstrations
The proposed legislation includes significant on-the-ground
demonstration projects. The Tamarisk Coalition would like to
concentrate on 4 points that emphasize the importance of these large-
scale demonstrations beyond the obvious benefits of site specific
tamarisk control and restoration.
First: Under S. 1516, the demonstrations serve to help answer
critical questions on what will be the true changes that will result
after tamarisk control and restoration takes place. That is, changes to
water availability in both the surface and groundwater supplies,
changes to water quality, changes to wildlife habitat, and changes to
the biodiversity of plants and animals. It is acknowledged that
considerable research has already been done in these areas; however,
much of this work was done on a small scale and results are
conflicting. The significant demonstrations associated with these bills
can be used to better understand the impacts of control and restoration
and to help improve the economic viability of future work. Because
these monitoring activities go beyond single demonstrations and will
involve many federal scientists, we encourage that monitoring be 100%
federally funded.
Second: As stated above, Tamarisk Coalition partners have
identified four important issues. These include respect for existing
state water laws and water rights, respect for property rights, respect
for existing infrastructure such as water storage and delivery systems,
and respect for endangered species. We believe that large-scale
demonstrations will show that tamarisk control and restoration can be
successful, and at the same time be supportive of these issues. In
fact, both water rights and endangered species recovery should be
enhanced under well-designed demonstrations.
Third: The demonstrations will not solve the tamarisk problem.
However, the demonstrations can be used as an educational and
cooperational tool to help develop the strategies for long-term
management and funding for tamarisk control and restoration.
Fourth: The demonstrations can be used to support international
cooperation on tamarisk control between the U.S. and Mexico by
including at least one border demonstration within the legislation. The
demonstrations can also serve to foster quality work experience for
youth through existing programs.
Finally, the question has to be asked--What will the public gain
from these efforts? From a cost standpoint, tamarisk control and
restoration is low hanging fruit. Preliminary cost estimates would
indicate that long-term gains in water availability are 5 to 20 times
less costly than new storage, water recycling, conservation, or
desalination efforts. Beyond improving the abundance of water, the
other important side benefits of tamarisk control and riparian
restoration are: 1) water quality will be enhanced; 2) wildlife habitat
will be improved; 3) there will be greater bio-diversity among both
plants and animals; and 4) there will be improved conditions for human
enjoyment of the river systems. These benefits are important to the
people of the West and the Nation.
Although most people think of the tamarisk problem as one that is
principally located in the Southwest, it is important to know that it
is quickly spreading throughout the Plains states as well as northern
western states. For example, tamarisk now infests the Arkansas River
for over 150 miles into Kansas. More dramatically, tamarisk occupies
over 200 miles of the Yellowstone River in Montana the longest free-
flowing river in the lower 48 states (Richard 2003).
The Tamarisk Coalition encourages Congress to pass and fund this
legislation to help preserve the limited water resources of the West
and to help restore riparian habitat. Thank you for this opportunity to
present testimony before your committee.
references
Baum, B. R. 1978. The Genus Tamarix. Israel Academy of Sciences and
Humanities, Jerusalem. 209 pp.
Bawazir, A.S., New Mexico State University, Personal communication,
April 2003.
Carpenter, A. 1998. Element Stewardship Abstract for Tamarix
ramosissima Lebedour, Tamarix pentandra Pallas, Tamarix
chinensis Loureiro, and Tamarix parviflora De Candolle. The
Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia.
Carruhers, J., Personal Communications. September 2003.
CWCB 2003, Colorado Water Conservation Board, ``Impact of Tamarisk
Infestation on the Water Resources of Colorado'', May 30, 2003,
prepared by the Tamarisk Coalition.
DeLoach, J. 1997. Effects of Biological Control of Saltcedar (Tamarix
ramosissima) on Endangered Species: Biological Assessment. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Temple, Texas.
DeLoach, J., R. Carruthers, J. Lovich, T. Dudley, and S. Smith, 2002.
``Ecological Interactions in the Biological Control of
Saltcedar (Tamarix spp.) in the United States: Toward a New
Understanding''--Revised.
Denver Water Board, 2002. ``Denver Water Comprehensive Annual Financial
Report 2001''.
Franscell, R., Denver Post, Drought years plumb the depths of water
rights, Conflicts inevitable in self-policing system based on
prior claims, September 10, 2002.
Hart, C.R., Texas A&M, Personal communication on the Pecos River
Ecosystem Project. March 2003.
Kolb, Thomas E. 2001 ``Water Use of Tamarisk and Native Riparian
Trees.'' Proceedings of the Tamarisk Symposium, September 26-
27, 2001, Grand Junction, Colorado.
Lee, B., Northstar Helicopter. Personal communication, August 2002
McDaniel, K.C., and Taylor, J.P. Saltcedar Recovery After Herbicide-
burn and Mechanical Clearing Practices, New Mexico State
University and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000
Richard, R., USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Personal
communication, September 2003.
Tamarisk Coalition, 2002. ``National Fish and Wildlife Foundation--
Pulling Together Initiative Final Report on Tamarisk control in
the Upper Colorado River'', Project #2001-0028-006.
Taylor, J.P., and McDaniel, K.C. Restoration of Saltcedar (Tamarix
sp.)--Infested Floodplains on the Bosque del Apache National
Wildlife Refuge. Weed Technology, 1998, Volume 12:345-352
Weeks, E., H. Weaver, G. Campbell and B. Tanner, 1987. Water use by
saltcedar and by replacement vegetation in the Pecos River
floodplain between Acme and Artesia, New Mexico. U.S.
Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.
USDI-BOR 1995. ``Vegetation Management Study: Lower Colorado River,
Phase II.'' U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation,
Lower Colorado River, Draft Report, Boulder City, Nevada.
U.S. Department of Interior personal communications, 2003
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, ``Southwestern Willow Flycatcher
(Emidonax traillii extimus) Final recovery Plan'', August 2002.
Zavaleta, E., 2000. ``Chapter 12--Valuing Ecosystem Services Lost to
Tamarix in the United States; Invasive Species in a Changing
World'', Mooney, H. A. and R.J. Hobbs (eds.) Island Press,
Washington, D.C.
Zimmerman, J. 1997. Ecology and Distribution of Tamarix chinensis Lour
and T. parviflora D.C., Tamariccea. Southwest Exotic Plant
Mapping Program, U.S. Geological Survey.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Carlson.
Mr. Marshall.
STATEMENT OF JOHN MARSHALL, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr. Marshall. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I appreciate that.
My name is John Marshall. I am here on behalf of the State of
Colorado and I would like to convey to the committee some of
the State's perspective on this problem. This obviously has
come to the fore in the wake of, in Colorado's terms, the worst
drought in 300 years. We know that there are a lot of things
about drought we cannot control. However, there are things that
we can control. Non-native noxious plants such as tamarisk are
precisely one of those things. As Mr. Carlson and others have
pointed out, there are numerous benefits to removing it in
terms of protecting the resource and improving quality and
quantity of flows.
We had to take a look in Colorado at how extensive the
issue is. We estimate it to be over a quarter million acres of
Colorado, which is significant primarily because Colorado is
the headwater State for so many of the Western rivers. We know
that, for instance, if it is a problem for Colorado these
issues, water flows, are going to be--they are also a major
concern for our friends downstream.
What we see in Mr. Campbell's bill I think is something
that can be extremely helpful for States. We have partnerships
in place where we have already begun some tamarisk control
projects. I would point specifically to one in the San Miguel
Basin where the Nature Conservancy has partnered with some of
our friends in the Federal Government, the State government,
counties, local governments, as well as nonprofit groups such
as the Tamarisk Coalition and have been able to attack on a
very small and basin-specific region and try and start moving
toward ridding that basin of tamarisk.
To expand this across different land ownership patterns in
terms of the BLM, other Federal lands, and the Arkansas River
specifically, which is predominantly private lands, we believe
that we need assurances and some helpful matching grants from
the Federal Government, and I think that is where Mr.
Campbell's bill would give us a hand there.
There are a lot of research items that we know we need to
improve upon. We understand to a great extent what the problem
is and some of the ways to control it, but there are gaps in
our science as I understand it. So we like the approach that
Mr. Domenici is taking in terms of doing some on-the-ground
experiments while we are learning and improving our
understanding of that.
But we would like to convey to your committee that we do
have the partnerships in place. We have the ability to bring
together water conservancy districts as well as local
governments and State and nonprofit groups, who are all very
interested, for various reasons, in attacking this problem. If
we can receive some matching grants and some assurances from
the Federal Government that we are willing to attack this in a
broad and comprehensive fashion because of the way tamarisk
spreads, that obviously is necessary and would be very helpful
for the State.
I do not hope to repeat anything that has been said prior
to me, so I will at this point yield my time back to the chair
and would be happy to entertain any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Marshall follows:]
Prepared Statement of John Marshall, Assistant Director,
Colorado Department of Natural Resources
Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, my name is John Marshall and
I currently serve as an assistant director of the Colorado Department
of Natural Resources (DNR). It is my distinct honor to come before you
on behalf of Governor Bill Owens and DNR Director Greg Walcher and
provide Colorado's perspective on the two pieces of legislation
currently before the committee. I wish to provide a glimpse of both the
extent of the tamarisk problem we face, as well as some of the direct
and immediate steps we have taken at the state level to cope with this
problem.
The tamarisk infestation in Colorado is quickly reaching epidemic
proportions. Because of Colorado's natural hydrology, we rely solely on
snowpack that falls within our borders, as no rivers or streams flow
into our state. We are home to the headwaters of such major Western
rivers as the South Platte, the Arkansas, the Rio Grande, the Yampa,
and the mighty Colorado River.
Tamarisk has now infested all of our major waterways to varying
degrees. We estimate that more than 250,000 acres of riparian areas are
now choked with the woody noxious weed. The scientists on today's panel
have spoken to the biology of this invasive plant species with far more
eloquence and precision than I could hope to repeat. I would like to
speak specifically to the problem itself and what we are doing about
it.
Rural Colorado has known of the damaging effects of tamarisk for
quite some time. It increases the salinity of rivers, increases the
threat of wildfire, and degrades wildlife habitat. But until the
extreme drought that Colorado faced last year the worst in 300 years
the majority of the public simply had not focused on the issue. The
nature of tamarisk allows it to absorb far more water than native
vegetation does and so as our rivers and streams began to dry up last
summer, we naturally began looking at some of the conditions we can
control.
We know as a result of the extensive research already accomplished
on tamarisk that we could dramatically improve hundreds of thousands of
acres of riparian ecosystems by removing tamarisk and replacing it with
native vegetation such as cottonwood trees and willows. And despite
allegations to the contrary by some scientists, our state wildlife
professionals are confident that we can change these habitats for the
better without harming sensitive species.
As a result of increased public attention on the drought in
Colorado, Governor Bill Owens issued an executive order this past
January directing state agencies to work with the federal government,
local governments, as well non-profit groups and institutions of higher
education, to identify partnerships and funding necessary to rid the
state of the non-native tamarisk weed within a decade. Since that time,
we have been gathering information that will allow us to provide the
Governor with a cohesive strategy to actually remove tamarisk in
Colorado.
Governor Owens used his Fifth Annual Colorado Cares Day this past
July to bring volunteers together specifically for the purpose of
removing tamarisk. Hundreds of volunteers from all across Colorado
gathered together to help remove tamarisk from state parks and
waterways. Colorado has donated thousands upon thousands of dollars for
tamarisk removal on state lands, but recently has also donated
resources to various non-profit partnerships working toward tamarisk
control. As a case in point, the Nature Conservancy has partnered with
local governments, federal agencies, and the State of Colorado to
attack the San Miguel river drainage in Western Colorado. We believe
that TNC and our other partners will have the San Miguel free of
tamarisk within five years. So we know these projects can be effective
and we know there is state and local support for such efforts. We have
also been able to raise the public's awareness of the issue through the
Governor's executive order, through statewide volunteer efforts, and by
working with our partners in the non-profit sector, such as TNC and the
Tamarisk Coalition. What we need is concentrated support from the
federal government.
The primary need that Colorado has is funding for on-the-ground
projects. We have identified water users, state agencies, counties and
local governments, as well as conservation organizations, all of whom
have the capacity to provide matching funds, but are very hesitant to
get involved financially without some assurance that the resources they
contribute will have a measurable impact.
Here is where the Senate, specifically via Sen. Campbell's and Sen.
Domenici's tamarisk bills, can be of great assistance. If the federal
government could provide matching grants to states, administered by the
governors and based on a formula of tamarisk-infested acres in the
respective Western states, we believe Colorado can generate very
effective projects with all of the right stakeholders and really begin
to make a difference.
In a time of tight budgets and difficult national security
decisions, we understand that a large federal appropriation is not
always feasible. This is not to suggest that funding for research and
other ancillary issues is not appropriate. But specific to funding
removal projects, we would recommend that instead of continuing to
spread weed management resources across multiple federal departments
and agencies, it would be far more effective to provide grants to
governors who already have strong partnerships built and can leverage
those dollars beyond what the federal government could do alone. We
vigorously support the passage of tamarisk legislation out of the
United States Senate that will provide governors the opportunity to
remove this invasive species through already-established local
partnerships.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you. We appreciate your testimony.
Sticking with the tamarisk issue, Ms. Hughes.
STATEMENT OF DEBBIE HUGHES, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
NEW MEXICO ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS
Ms. Hughes. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
My name is Debbie Hughes and I am the executive director
for the New Mexico Association of Conservation Districts. So I
appreciate being able to be here and represent the 47 soil and
water conservation districts in New Mexico. They are partners
with many State and Federal agencies and a local delivery
system for a lot of programs like the ones in the Tamarisk
Control and Riparian Act and the Salt Cedar Control
Demonstration Act will fund.
S. 1516 requires an assessment of the extent of the salt
cedar infestation in the Western United States. This is very
important. We are currently trying to gather some of that
information. We feel that the soil and water conservation
districts can be and are an essential partner because we can
work on private lands, State land, Federal land, and tribal
land.
We are putting this into practice right now. We are
currently working with five pueblos in New Mexico, the Bureau
of Land Management, the Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, as well as the State lands and many, many
private landowners.
We support the requirement in the legislation to implement
various types of control methods. We realize we have got to
have integrated types of control. Our experience to date is
showing there is a wide variance in the cost of the types of
control. Currently we are spending around $200 per acre for
aerially applying a herbicide to kill the salt cedar, in
comparison to an average of $3,000 per acre for different types
of mechanical control. So it is going to take integrated
approaches.
We know there is going to be challenges to being able to
restore and maintain these infested lands and we do appreciate
there is some focus on that within this legislation.
We are extremely pleased with this bill requiring
monitoring and documentation of water savings. That is a big
question, how much are we actually going to gain. We think
there is a lot of new technology that can help us look at that.
We also really appreciate the support--and support the
cost-share portion of this. We think that it is going to enable
buy-in and support from the local and the State level. We with
the soil and water conservation districts look forward to
working with our State and local government to help come up
with that local match.
Just prior to coming up here, the Friends of Rio Rancho and
the Pueblo of Isleta called and asked that I be sure and
express their support for this legislation. They are desiring
additional funding and wanting to continue working with us.
S. 1236 provides grants to States, which is also a concept
that we support. It allows for more local decisionmaking and
control of the projects by the local, State, and Federal
agencies within each State, depending on who desires to be
involved. Both of these bills have language that allow for the
local soil and water conservation districts to be involved with
the implementation of the research and control activities. Our
partnership, core partnership with the USDA and RCS and other
different agencies enable us to be a catalyst in working with
private landowners and others on a watershed basis. We applaud
your wisdom for including us and we will work hard to help
Congress do a very good job if we are able to get these
programs.
I will just add a few words from my written testimony. I
would like to also add that in New Mexico we have just recently
received in the last 2 years $6.2 million specifically focused
on salt cedar control and restoration efforts. So we are
actively involved in this. Some of that funding is going on
Federal land. We have got some going to the Bureau of
Reclamation lands, some on U.S. Fish and Wildlife. We are doing
some partnership programs with the BLM.
So we are showing that we can work with diverse groups,
pueblos. We have got a lot of things going on in the Rio
Grande, actually with like the nature center, the city of Rio
Rancho, the city of Bernalillo Hispanic cultural center. We are
working with Acequias in New Mexico and land grants.
So we applaud this effort. We are very supportive and will
do whatever we need to do to help Congress make this happen.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hughes follows:]
Prepared Statement of Debbie Hughes, Executive Director,
New Mexico Association of Conservation Districts
The New Mexico Association of Conservation Districts would like to
go on record as supporting S. 1516, the ``Salt Cedar Control
Demonstration Act'' and S. 1236, the ``Tamarisk Control and Riparian
Restoration Act''.
We are currently conducting projects in New Mexico funded by the
state legislature that would greatly benefit from the passage of one or
both of these bills. New Mexico legislature appropriated 5 million
dollars in 2002 to be utilized on the Pecos and Rio Grande Rivers for
the eradication of non-native phreatophytes. Another 1.2 million was
appropriated in 2003 for the same purpose. The legislature also
appropriated an additional $100,000 for a pilot project, utilizing
goats on the Rio Grande.
This funding is appropriated to the soil and water conservation
districts in New Mexico.
The conservation districts are also pursuing additional funds and
programs for the restoration of the riparian areas. One of the federal
programs being utilized is the Corps 1135 program entitled ``Bosque
Restoration''.
The Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) is benefiting from some of these
state dollars as they have completed an environmental analysis on the
Rio Grande and we are treating 7,641 acres in southern New Mexico.
On the Rio Grande, another successful cooperative effort was with
the US Fish & Wildlife Service to work on the Sevilleta National
Wildlife refuge, which included work on another 1,200 acres utilizing
state and federal dollars.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is also cooperating with the
local soil and water conservation districts through a MOU and 1,900
acres of BLM land benefited from our state dollars while another 1,150
acres of BLM was treated with federal dollars through a local
cooperative effort.
Our project in New Mexico is working with a tremendous number of
partners. On the Pecos River in 2002, we treated 9,100 acres of salt
cedar spanning 185 miles of river and worked with 409 private
landowners.
On the Rio Grande, we have treated 700 acres of land for the Santo
Domingo Pueblo, over 1,000 acres of land for the Isleta and Laguna
Pueblos with aerial application. We have also completed mechanical work
on the Nambe and Pojoaque Pueblos. Soil and Water Districts are
conducting mechanical work on the Rio Grande on lands that belong to
the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District, City of Bernalillo, Rio
Rancho, Nature Center, Hispanic Culture Center, Acequias and private
landowners. In the Southern Rio Grande we have completed work in the
city of T or C and Leasburg State Park.
We have several on-going partnerships working with us on monitoring
efforts such as the UNM Bosque Ecosystem Monitoring Project, the FS
Rocky Mountain Research center, and the Carlsbad Environmental
Monitoring Center.
USF&W has just recently approved the release of leaf beetle at 20
new sites in 7 states of which one of those sites is located in New
Mexico.
Soil and water conservation districts in New Mexico are also taking
advantage of other sources of funding such as the Collaborative Forest
Restoration Program to fund removal of salt cedar, which are high fuel
hazards near communities.
We supported legislation that allows for a corporate income tax
credit for companies utilizing biomass including salt cedar passed and
it became law in NM.
Conservation districts that have not been funded by the state
legislature direct appropriation have applied for and received funding
to do additional work through the ``Water Trust Board'' in several
areas of the state.
We welcome the requirements for cooperation in S. 1516 and S. 1236
and also for the required matching cost share.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you. It is good to hear the
collaborative process is working.
Next let us go to Ms. Holly Stoerker. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF HOLLY STOERKER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, UPPER
MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASIN ASSOCIATION
Ms. Stoerker. Thank you, Madam Chairman. My name is Holly
Stoerker and I am the executive director of an organization
called the Upper Mississippi River Basin Association, which was
formed 22 years ago by the Governors of the five States that
border the upper river, and those would be Wisconsin and
Minnesota and Illinois and Iowa and Missouri.
First, I would like to thank Congressman Kind for his
leadership in addressing what we have come to recognize in our
basin as being one of the most problematic and persistent
issues, which is sedimentation and of course nutrients, which
we have seen in the headlines perhaps more recently. But
sediment in particular is a problem for us because not only
does it fill in our valuable backwater habitat areas on the
Mississippi River, but it also fills in the navigation channel
and so the Corps of Engineers has to dredge the channel in
order to maintain a safe navigation system for commercial
navigation.
I think that is why, as Mr. Kind noted earlier, we have a
noncontroversial bill. We are dealing with an issue that is a
problem for everyone.
I am here today on behalf of the five States that border
the Upper Mississippi River basically with a very simple
message, which is we need what H.R. 961 is seeking to
establish, which is an integrated monitoring and modeling
network for not only the river but the whole basin, so that we
can better understand sediment transport and nutrient
transport, so that we can not only take care of our own rivers
and streams, but also the stewardship of the Gulf of Mexico,
our downstream water resource.
Let me assure you that our organization is not the only
one, of course, that is interested in not only a scientific
approach to these issues in our basin, but this bill in
particular. As I believe Mr. Kind alluded to earlier, nearly 2
years ago we had 6 governors from our basin--tripartisan, by
the way; Mr. Ventura is no longer in Minnesota, but at the time
made the letter a tripartisan letter--not advocating this
particular piece of legislation, mind you, but certainly the
exact same thing that this piece of legislation is seeking to
do.
Similarly, as Mr. Kind and I believe Dr. Hirsch also
mentioned, this bill is very consistent with recommendations
that came out in January 2001 from the Mississippi River-Gulf
of Mexico Watershed Nutrients Task Force, which more recently
actually formed a particular work group to design a science
strategy for the basin to look at nutrient modeling and
monitoring and in fact within the next couple of weeks are
expected to release the report, which, although still draft in
form, is actually recommending very much what this bill, H.R.
961, is seeking to establish.
I am not going to review all the points in my testimony,
but I do want to emphasize one before I close, which is that in
establishing a new USGS monitoring program we must not do it at
the expense of our existing programs. There is a very practical
reason that I say that. We simply cannot assess nutrient and
sediment transport without good flow data. It seems that nearly
every year we struggle to maintain funding for the U.S.
Geological Survey's national stream flow information program.
As part of that program, USGS operates about 650 stream
gauges in our 5 States and the upper basin. But we have lost 80
of those gauges because of funding cutbacks in the recent past.
So we cannot launch new initiatives, regardless of how well
they are needed, without maintaining what we have already got,
which is the flow data.
I would be happy to answer any questions and we look
forward to implementing this program in partnership with the
U.S. Geological Survey.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Stoerker follows:]
Prpared Statement of Holly Stoerker, Executive Director,
Upper Mississippi River Basin Association
Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Murkowski and Members of the
Subcommittee, for this opportunity to appear before you. My name is
Holly Stoerker and I am Executive Director of the Upper Mississippi
River Basin Association (UMRBA). The Governors of Illinois, Iowa,
Minnesota, Missouri and Wisconsin formed the UMRBA in 1981 to
coordinate the state agencies' river-related programs and policies and
to work with federal agencies on regional issues. On behalf of our
member states, I am pleased to offer the following comments regarding
the Upper Mississippi River Basin Protection Act (H.R. 961).
overview
The Upper Mississippi River Basin Association (UMRBA) is a strong
supporter of efforts to reduce sediment and nutrients in the basin. As
such, the UMRBA enthusiastically supports the Upper Mississippi River
Basin Protection Act (H.R. 961).
The UMRBA applauds the leadership of Representative Ron Kind and
his House colleagues on the Upper Mississippi River Congressional Task
Force in addressing water resource needs in the basin and their
commitment to providing sound scientific data upon which to make water
resource management decisions. The UMRBA has worked closely with the
sponsors of H.R. 961 on previous versions of the legislation including
H.R. 4013 in the 106th Congress and H.R. 1800 and H.R. 3480 in the
107th Congress. The fact that this legislation has been introduced in
three Congressional sessions and undergone numerous changes in response
to suggestions from both state and federal water agencies, as well as
stakeholders in the basin, is testimony to the tenacity and patience of
its sponsors. The UMRBA is hopeful that this Senate hearing marks the
final leg of the journey to enactment of H.R. 961.
the importance of monitoring and modeling
Both sediment and nutrients have a profound affect on the quality
of lakes, rivers, and streams throughout the Upper Mississippi River
Basin. Sediment fills in valuable wetlands and streams throughout the
basin, as well as the unique backwater habitats and navigation channel
of the Mississippi River. Excess nutrients degrade water quality,
impairing rivers and streams and threatening ground water supplies. In
addition, excess nutrients from the Mississippi River Basin have been
linked to oxygen depletion in the Gulf of Mexico, resulting in what is
known as Gulf hypoxia. Meeting these challenges will require
significantly enhancing our understanding of sediment and nutrient
sources, mobilization, and transport. The monitoring and modeling
program authorized in H.R. 961 is not a scientific luxury; it is a
management imperative. The data and information that results from these
efforts will help guide federal, state, and local programs designed to
solve the very real problems of water quality and habitat degradation.
Targeting our efforts to restore wetlands, reduce non-point pollution,
and help agricultural producers apply best management practices,
depends on good scientific data.
The need for enhanced sediment and nutrient monitoring in the Upper
Mississippi River Basin is widely recognized. In the January 2001
``Action Plan for Reducing, Mitigating, and Controlling Hypoxia in the
Northern Gulf of Mexico,'' state and federal agencies participating in
the Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force
called for ``increasing the scale and frequency of monitoring of both
the extent of the hypoxic zone and the sources of nutrients and
conditions of waters throughout the basin.'' In an October 23, 2001
letter to Bush Administration officials, six Governors of Mississippi
River Basin states urged that federal programs to reduce nutrient
inputs be enhanced. In this regard, the Governors stated that a
``monitoring effort conducted jointly by the U.S. Geological Survey and
the states is required within the basin to determine the water quality
effects of the actions taken and to measure the success of efforts on a
sub-basin and project level.'' H.R. 961 reflects just the type of
increased monitoring effort that has been proposed by both the Task
Force and the Governors.
specific comments on h.r. 961
Sediment and Nutrient Monitoring Differences--The monitoring
network and modeling efforts described in H.R. 961 are designed to
address both sediment and nutrients. However, the sources, transport,
delivery, and impacts of sediment and nutrients are not identical and
will require different monitoring and modeling approaches. Moreover,
there are natural baseline levels of sediment and nutrients that would
occur without human activity. For many water bodies in the basin,
acceptable levels of sediment and nutrient impairment have not been
identified. While it may not be necessary for the legislation to
explicitly acknowledge or accommodate these considerations, they will
be critical in the design of the monitoring network and in development
of the models. In part, this is why Section 104 of the bill is a key
provision. Section 104 requires that USGS collaborate with other
federal agencies, states, tribes, local units of government, and
private interests in establishing the monitoring network. Such
collaboration should help ensure that the design of the monitoring
network yields data that is relevant to both sediment and nutrient
management issues.
Relationship to Existing Efforts--Sections 103 and 104 require that
USGS coordinate with other agencies and programs and build upon
existing monitoring efforts. Such provisions are critical to the
ultimate success of the new monitoring and modeling initiatives
authorized in H.R. 961. For example, it is important that a basin-wide
monitoring network be linked to on-going work in the basin's tributary
watersheds, such as the sediment transport modeling in the Illinois
river watershed, cooperatively sponsored by the State of Illinois and
the Corps of Engineers. In addition, the Monitoring, Modeling and
Research Workgroup of the Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed
Nutrients Task Force will soon release its recommended ``Science
Strategy to Support Management Decisions Related to Hypoxia in the
Northern Gulf of Mexico and Excess Nutrients in the Mississippi River
Basin.'' It is our expectation that the monitoring network and modeling
activities authorized in H.R. 961 be designed and implemented
consistent with the framework being developed by the interagency Task
Force.
Additional New Funding--Section 301 of H.R. 961 authorizes annual
appropriations of $6.25 million for this new monitoring and modeling
effort. It will be imperative that this funding represent additional
new resources, rather than a redirection of existing resources. H.R.
961 emphasizes integration of existing monitoring efforts and use of
existing data, a strategy that will certainly help to leverage scarce
resources. However, integration of existing efforts is not a substitute
for a real increase in the level of effort. And most importantly, this
increased effort must not come at the expense of other important USGS
programs such as the National Water Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA)
or the National Streamflow Information Program (NSIP). In particular,
stream-gaging supported by NSIP provides flow data that will be
critical to successfully monitoring and modeling sediment and nutrient
loads. We cannot afford to lose any of that stream-flow data, and in
fact will likely need to increase discharge measurements.
Cost-Sharing--The states are pleased that the cost-sharing
requirements in Section 302 of H.R. 961 reflect a more practical
approach than was embodied in previous versions of the bill. In
particular, H.R. 961 relies upon existing USGS program accounts and
cost-sharing provisions to fund this new initiative. Given the
geographic scope of the basin and the complex array of potential
nonfederal partners, aggregating contributions to ensure compliance
with cost sharing requirements in prior versions of the bill would have
been virtually impossible.
National Research Council Assessment--Section 106 of H.R. 961
directs the National Research Council of the National Academy of
Sciences to conduct a ``comprehensive water resources assessment of the
Upper Mississippi River Basin.'' In the context of this legislation, it
is our assumption that such an assessment would be focused on the
specific water quality issues associated with sediment and nutrients.
As such, it would potentially provide important input to the scoping
and implementation of the monitoring and modeling authorized in H.R.
961.
Thank you for the opportunity to share the basin states' views with
you and underscore their strong support for H.R. 961.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you. I appreciate your testimony,
and I will follow up with my questions to you first.
You just indicated that you do not want to move forward
with this monitoring at the expense of what is already in place
there. My question to you would be, it does appear that there
is a fair amount of monitoring already in the area, both the
monitoring and the analysis. So you have ongoing programs, you
have an existing effort ongoing. Why do we need an additional
effort and an expansion, essentially, of funding for USGS and
their partners?
So just define for me very clearly why we do one more?
Ms. Stoerker. Well, there are a couple of reasons, one
certainly being that, as I just alluded to, much of the
monitoring that is done is not always targeted at the
particular pollutants we are looking at, in this case sediment
and nutrients. But I think more importantly, what we are
talking about is not only the data-gathering right at stream
and river level, but integrating that in a way that we can come
to a better understanding of how it all moves throughout our
basin and affects the gulf.
That is not an issue which, even though we may be doing
monitoring of our local streams and rivers, we are necessarily
directing that monitoring and that research towards. There are
different science questions for us. So with that we need
leadership at the national level through USGS to help integrate
the work that is already being done, as well as add value by
some additional monitoring.
Senator Murkowski. So in your view it is not duplicative;
it will just enhance and integrate what is existing?
Ms. Stoerker. That is right. I think that there is a
section of the bill--I cannot recall offhand; perhaps section
104--that specifically talks about integrating the existing
data. In other words, we are not just collecting new data, but
we are looking at ways to use what we already know and in that
way add value.
Senator Murkowski. Great, thank you.
The questions that I will ask next to the three of you who
have given your testimony on the salt cedar-tamarisk issue, you
can all just jump in where appropriate. I have to admit that I
have learned a great deal about this plant. We do not have it
in Alaska and, based on what I have heard today, I want to make
sure that we do not get it in Alaska.
But from what I understand, where you are able to eradicate
it--the whole point here is that we are going to see savings in
water, that more water will actually be made available. But
apparently it comes initially from the shallow groundwater and
only a portion of the water that is saved actually gets out
into the adjacent rivers, or that is what they have said the
experience is in the Pecos River.
I would ask any of you to comment on how well we actually
understand how the water savings work and what monitoring needs
to be done to understand how we actually get the surface water
recovery. Any of you?
Mr. Carlson. I will jump in.
Senator Murkowski. Jump in.
Mr. Carlson. There has been an awful lot of work done in
this area. It has been done principally in the States of New
Mexico and Texas most recently, but other places throughout the
West it has also been looked at. That is the water availability
after tamarisk control has taken place.
That information is not conclusive by any means. In some
areas there seems to be a gain that occurs, in other areas
there does not; there seems to be groundwater changes that do
occur. One of the things that has happened in the past is there
has not been a well-focused effort that combines the large-
scale demonstrations with this applied research that is tied to
it, like Senator Domenici's bill would include.
Like Debbie Hughes pointed out, it is very important that
this monitoring activity be part of any major demonstration
activity so that we in the future really know better the water
changes, the changes in water availability that will take
place, as well as the changes in water quality, because if
there is more water that occurs in the river system that also
means the water quality should improve. There is some work that
has shown that, especially in the Texas area.
Debbie, you have got some recent stuff I think.
Ms. Hughes. Madam Chairman, what we believe is it is going
to be variable depending on the location, the depth to water,
the type of soils. There is just going to be a lot of
variables. But what we are seeing is, if this work is done
directly on a stream system, the tamarisk had more access to
water, there is going to be water available in the system for
other uses, whether it is for plants that create wildlife
habitat or actually stream flow or helping to recharge our
aquifers.
But there are so many variables. We do have a couple of
small successes in New Mexico just recently. Where you do work
where there historically were springs, I think we are seeing a
lot more immediate response. Actually we have got a flume up
near Santa Fe that has shown just 30 acres were treated and we
have got an increase in flow there, and that is without
additional rainfall. We are seeing some groundwater monitoring
wells that are coming up.
I do not think we are able to show how much is going to be
in the streams, but we know that these non-natives by all of
the transpiration data studies that have been done are using
about twice what native trees like a cottonwood would use. So
we are real excited about this, but we think there is a lot of
information that we do need to look at, and it is going to
really vary depending on the location and a lot of other
variables.
Senator Murkowski. That was going to be my next question:
some specific examples of where you have seen the benefit, the
value. Mr. Marshall, you mentioned something in San Miguel
basin, but did not really go into much more detail about it.
But we are able to quantify the benefits then of eradication in
specific areas?
Mr. Marshall. Madam Chairman, I will expand on that a
little bit. The San Miguel basin is one of the few free-flowing
rivers in western Colorado and we see there probably as close
to a natural, native ecosystem as we think maybe exists in our
part of the world. So part of what the effort in the San Miguel
basin is intended to do is to maintain that ecosystem, because
there are a lot of rare plants where you just do not see those,
the complexity, as you do in other parts of the world.
We also have there a tamarisk infestation that is less
severe than in some parts of the State, and so we are able to
attack that in a much more individualized way. There are places
in western Colorado that it is so thick and such a monoculture
that it makes it much more difficult to get to. So what we
would see in the San Miguel would probably be less drastic in
terms of changes in water yield because it simply has not
gotten hold. But that is also what allows us, is allowing us,
to attack that region a little bit more aggressively, because
we know we can make an impact in a fairly short order.
But as to the science of it, I will not go into that. I am
certainly not a biologist. But I can tell you that in terms of
the policy in treating we are excited about that basin because
it has not taken the foothold it has in some other areas. But
it is certainly going to take a much bigger effort, and I would
anticipate that we would see a much larger difference in the
flows and the hydrology in some of these areas where it has
taken a much bigger grip, such as the main stem of the Colorado
or the Arkansas River.
Senator Murkowski. One of the points that was made was that
just the wide range of estimates, the cost to eradicate. I
think, Ms. Hughes, you mentioned that it can range from $200 to
I think you said $3,000 an acre to deal with this. Recognizing
just the magnitude, the area that we are talking about--I mean,
this is a huge, huge, huge project--what kind of funding
mechanisms are currently in place or being developed to support
the control on State or private lands?
I know you have mentioned matching funds, but what kind of
initiatives are out there currently?
Mr. Marshall. I will just speak to a couple of things in
Colorado. Governor Owens this last January, partially as a
reaction to the drought, issued an executive order that within
a decade he would like to see tamarisk removed from Colorado.
The complexity of that order you can appreciate, I am sure,
because part of what we are tasked with doing is coming up with
a funding strategy that will allow us to accomplish that.
There are things that the State does as a matter of, well,
say, fulfilling compact requirements. We must do an aerial
survey of irrigated acreage as part of our compact agreements
with other States on various rivers. Something that we are
moving towards is just tying in tamarisk inventory as a part of
that. We are up there anyway. We have experts that know what to
look for. That is something the State can very easily take
control of and save the Federal Government money in terms of a
bill like this, where we are able to take some efforts that are
already under way and help defray some of the costs to avoid
duplication.
I know that that has been probably--I know that has been
addressed in some of the bills in terms of inventorying, but I
would just suggest that there are places where we are already
duplicating and we would have partnerships with nonprofits,
with water conservancies and things that are already out there,
that the States already have some of those partnerships and
funding mechanisms in place.
What we do not have are the larger dollars to go after some
of the large land, the large acreages that we are talking about
in several parts of Colorado along the main stem, the Arkansas,
and things like that. Those are a few of the things that we
have been able to do in terms of the State specifically.
Senator Murkowski. Ms. Hughes.
Ms. Hughes. Madam Chairman, we also are pursuing State and
local funding as well as incentives. The State legislature in
New Mexico did create what is known as a water trust fund
through the Water Project Finance Act. We are also utilizing
other programs through USDA, through the farm bill EQIP
program. We have also been able to match some of our State
funding with other programs, like through the Forest Service
for collaborative forest restoration for fire prevention.
But this past legislative session the New Mexico
legislature also passed legislation that gave a corporate
income tax credit for companies that utilize the biomass, and
they were very explicit that it also included salt cedar. There
was language in there. So we are looking for other innovative
approaches that will hopefully help build businesses in the
rural areas to utilize this woody species besides just coming
here with our hands out to the Federal Government. We realize
that it is going to take everybody working together.
Thank you.
Senator Murkowski. Just one last question, again for all of
you. We have not really talked about how you eradicate it. I
have been told some of the methods. But what about things like,
we have a lot of spruce bark beetle up in Alaska that decimate
our trees. Not that we want to share these and allow you to
have another outbreak of even worse invasive species, but what
about things like beetles or goats, some of the other
alternatives to controlling this?
Mr. Carlson. I have some very recent information. USDA and
Interior people have been working for almost 15 years now in
identifying a biocontrol agent that would be very plant-
specific. It would just attack tamarisk and nothing else. They
have found one they feel is really pretty ideal. It comes from
China and, because it is a non-native species to this country,
they have to go through a very rigorous program that APHIS--and
I cannot recall what the acronym for ``APHIS''--Animal and
Plant Health and something Service, under USDA--requires them
to go through.
They have had releases of this insect--it is a leaf
beetle--that in Nevada, Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah has shown
significant success to a point on a ranch in Nevada where it
has totally defoliated over 400 acres. That will be an approach
that can be added to the other approaches, that could greatly
reduce the cost. It may reduce the cost down, instead of
hundreds of dollars or thousands of dollars per acre, down to
tens of dollars per acre, so getting it down significantly
below.
But like a number of people have pointed out, no one
approach will work everywhere. So you have to use integrated
pest management where you tailor the approach to the situation.
We would love to have your whatever the beetle is that is
infesting your area, but I suspect that it probably would go
after a more palatable, other pine trees or whatever. We do not
want it. Just like we do not want--we will not do a trade. We
will not give you tamarisk, we do not want the beetle from
Alaska.
Senator Murkowski. That sounds fair.
I appreciate the testimony that you all have given this
afternoon. It has certainly been very helpful for me on a
number of issues. I appreciate the attention of all that have
come to listen this afternoon as well as testify and again
appreciate your time.
Thank you, and with that we will conclude the hearing.
[Whereupon, at 4:11 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
September 15, 2003.
Hon. Pete Domenici,
Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Domenici: I wanted to provide comments on S. 213,
which would convey title to Tingley Beach and San Gabriel park
properties to the City of Albuquerque from the United States.
First, let me state that the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District
(``MRGCD'') fully supports the City's right to ownership of that land
and supports passage S. 213.
Certain timing issues may be relevant. For example, the MRGCD suit
to this same property is scheduled for Trial early in the coming year,
and by the Doctrine of ``Worthier Title,'' if we prevail, the title to
the City's property will be cleared.
Second, in addition, the issue of Federal ownership of Bureau of
Reclamation properties is in dispute throughout the West. Congressional
action in the case of the City might be cited as an example of why the
Congress, not the Courts, should clear title.
Finally, the Petition for Rehearing pending in the 10th Circuit
Court of Appeals in RGSM v. Keys might also clarify this issue.
I believe it might be useful for you and your staff to have this
information.
Sincerely,
Subhas K. Shah,
Chief Engineer/CEO.
______
State of New Mexico,
Department of Game & Fish,
Santa Fe, NM, September 15, 2003.
Erik Webb,
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Hart Senate Building,
Washington, DC.
Re: S. 1236 ``Tamarisk Control and Riparian Restoration Act.'' NMDGF
Doc. #8916
Dear Sirs: The New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (Department)
has reviewed bill, S. 1236, a bill to direct the Secretary of the
Interior to establish a program to control or eradicate Tamarisk in the
Western United States, and for other purposes. The Department supports
the goals of restoration of native riparian habitats addressed by this
bill. The department also urges the long-term fiscal support of this
project to assure complete restoration of native habitats.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this document. Should
you have any further questions please contact Michael Roedel, Aquatic
Habitat Biologist, of my staff at 476-8091 or [email protected].
Sincerely,
Lisa Kirkpatrick,
Chief Conservation Services Division.
______
State of New Mexico,
Department of Game & Fish,
Santa Fe, NM, September 15, 2003.
Erik Webb,
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Hart Senate Building,
Washington, DC.
Re: S. 1516 ``Salt Cedar Control Demonstration Act.'' NMDGF Doc. #8915.
Dear Sirs: The New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (Department)
has reviewed bill, S. 1516, a bill to further the purposes of the
Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 by
directing the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the
Commissioner of Reclamation, to carry out an assessment and
demonstration program to assess potential increases in water
availability for Bureau of Reclamation projects and other uses through
control of salt cedar and Russian olive. The Department supports the
goals of restoration of native riparian habitats addressed by this
bill. The department also urges the long-term fiscal support of this
project to assure complete restoration of native habitats.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this document. Should
you have any further questions please contact Michael Roedel, Aquatic
Habitat Biologist, of my staff at 476-8091 or [email protected].
Sincerely,
Lisa Kirkpatrick,
Chief Conservation Services Division.
______
Statement of Martin J. Chavez, Mayor, Albuquerque, NM
Thank you for inviting me to testify on Senate Bill 213.
The City of Albuquerque is the victim of a fight between the
Federal government and the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District over
water. The fight has jeopardized the development of Albuquerque's Rio
Grande Biological Park.
In 1997, the City paid the Conservancy District $3,875,000.00 for
Tingley Beach and San Gabriel Park in order to expand the Rio Grande
Biological Park. The Federal government now claims that the City does
not own the property. (United States District Court for the District of
New Mexico Cause No. CIV 99-1320 JP/KBM-ACE, entitled Rio Grande
Silvery Minnow, et al. v. Eluid L. Martinez, et al.) The Federal
government claims that in 1953, in an unrecorded ``Grant of Easement'',
the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District conveyed fee title to all of
its property to the Federal government. If the claim is valid, the
Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District did not own Tingley Beach and
San Gabriel Park in 1997, and under Reclamation law, title to the
property can be conveyed to the City only by an act of Congress.
The Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District suggested that the
parties seek Congressional action to clear the City's title to Tingley
Beach and San Gabriel Park. The Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District
also suggested the method which is incorporated in Senate Bill 213 to
resolve the issue in a way that will not jeopardize the Middle Rio
Grande Conservancy District's or the United States' claims in the
litigation over ownership of Middle Rio Grande Project property. The
City agrees that the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District's
suggestions will remove the cloud on the City's title to Tingley Beach
and San Gabriel Park and permit the City to proceed with development of
the property.
The City plans to invest $15,300,000.00 of City funds to improve
and develop Tingley Beach and San Gabriel Park for the Rio Grande
Biological Park. The City cannot, however, risk the investment of
public funds to improve property it may not own. Until the cloud on the
City's title to the property has been removed, the City cannot improve
Tingley Beach and San Gabriel Park and complete the Rio Grande
Biological Park.
Because of their location and characteristics, Tingley Beach and
San Gabriel Park are unique properties for the development of the Rio
Grande Biological Park. Monetary damages or the purchase of other
property will not permit the City to develop the unique, high quality
park that it can develop by improving Tingley Beach and San Gabriel
Park.
The Conservancy District leased Tingley Beach to the City in 1931
and San Gabriel Park in 1963. The City has been in possession of the
property since that time. The Conservancy District has not used the
property and there are no reclamation works on the property. The Bureau
of Reclamation recently determined that Tingley Beach and San Gabriel
Park is surplus to the reclamation project and that the Bureau of
Reclamation does not want the property.
The enactment of Senate Bill 213 will remove the cloud on the
City's title to Tingley Beach and San Gabriel Park and permit the City
to complete the development of the Rio Grande Biological Park.
Rio Grande Bioloqical Park
The Rio Grande Biological Park lies along the east side of the Rio
Grande River north and south of Central Avenue, which is historic Route
66 through Albuquerque. It is an educational, research and recreational
treasure, that provides a unique and vital view of New Mexico and our
biologically diverse world, not only for the residents and visitors to
Albuquerque, but for the State of New Mexico. When completed, the Rio
Grande Biological Park will instill in the public a recognition of the
need for water conservation, habitat conservation, the interdependence
of life and environmental stability that is essential to our future as
a community, state and nation; support and enhance environmental
education, awareness and stewardship; and provide a recreational,
cultural and educational facility and resource that uniquely portrays
the cultural, environmental and ecological aspects of the Rio Grande
River.
The Rio Grande Biological Park occupies 170 acres and consists of
the Rio Grande Zoo, Tingley Aquatic Park, and the Albuquerque Aquarium
and Botanic Garden. Tingley Aquatic Park will be constructed on the
site of Tingley Beach and the Botanic Garden will be expanded into San
Gabriel Park.
Tingley Beach consists of 35.3 acres and is located south of
Central Avenue between the Rio Grande Zoo and the Albuquerque Aquarium
and Botanic Garden. It was created when Mayor Clyde Tingley, who later
became Governor of New Mexico, asked the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy
District to lease burrow pits that had been dug to construct a levy to
the City for a park and swimming beach.
The Albuquerque Aquarium and Botanic Garden is located north of
Central Avenue across from Tingley Beach. San Gabriel Park consists of
42.7 acres and is located northwest of and adjacent to the Botanic
Garden. In the late 1950's, the Conservancy District moved the
Albuquerque Drain west and isolated a portion of the Rio Grande River
channel. The Conservancy District leased this property to the City for
park and recreation purposes.
Tingley Aquatic Park
Because it lies between the Rio Grande Zoo and the Albuquerque
Aquarium and Botanic Garden, Tingley Aquatic Park is a key transitional
and connecting element in the Rio Grande Biological Park system that is
accessible by trail, road and eventually by a railroad.
Tingley Aquatic Park will be developed for water-oriented
recreational use, education and environmental research and planning.
Improvements will consist of five lakes for boating, deep-water
fishing, children's fishing and model boating. One lake will be an
observation lake. The City will also construct a swimming pool, picnic
areas and facilities, and a building for group meetings and gatherings
on the property.
As part of this project, the City will remove all non-native plants
from the bosque adjacent to Tingley Beach and re-establish and maintain
the Rio Grande cottonwood as the dominate canopy species. The City will
also create additional wetlands and marshes that were historically
abundant in the Rio Grande Valley.
The United States Corps of Engineers has plans to assist the City
in the reclamation and construction of the lakes. The Corps of
Engineers also plans, in association with the Rio Grande Zoo, to
construct a bosque exhibit on property adjacent to Tingley Beach that
will illustrate a succession sequence from an oxbow lake, to a cattail
marsh, to a saltgrass meadow, to a bosque.
The City's and the Corps of Engineers' projects at Tingley Beach
will improve wildlife habitat along the Rio Grande River at Tingley
Aquatic Park.
Tingley Aquatic Park is also a part of the Rio Grande Valley State
Park which was authorized by the New Mexico Legislature in 1983 to
preserve, protect and maintain the natural scenic beauty of the Rio
Grande River and its immediate riverine corridor. The City is the
operator of the Rio Grande Valley State Park.
San Gabriel Park
The Botanic Garden was created to reflect the region's
environmental and cultural heritage. The expansion of the Botanic
Garden into San Gabriel Park will carry through with this theme. The
improvements will include seventeen gardens, including a Japanese Tea
Garden, conservatories, a tree nursery, botanic library, herbarium,
office and meeting rooms, and support facilities.
The expansion at San Gabriel Park will include ethnobotanic
exhibits which will offer the only place in the state to learn about
the historic use of plants for fiber, food and medicine. An antique
apple orchard will feature apple trees that were brought to the area by
Hispanic settlers. The Zuni Waffle Garden will illustrate ancient
Anazazi Indian methods for conserving water and will feature ancient
plants cultivated by the Anazazi. The City has already constructed the
El Jardin de la Curandera exhibit at San Gabriel Park, honoring 400
years of Hispana presence in New Mexico and exploring herbal medicines
used within the contexts of the practices of curanderismo.
A Period Farm will illustrate farming techniques and practices
during the period from 1920 through 1940 which was the period of
Albuquerque's greatest growth and transformation into an urban center.
The Trial Garden will feature new breeds of plants and the Camino
de Colores will be a highway of flowers.
An exhibit entitled El Canoncito will provide the backdrop for the
Conifer and Mountain Meadows exhibit and will illustrate the varied
microclimates found in the mountain environments of New Mexico.
San Gabriel Park is in the cottonwood bosque (riparian forest) of
the Rio Grande River and offers an unparalleled opportunity to showcase
this distinctive natural environment. The expansion of the Botanic
Garden into San Gabriel Park will include a Cottonwood Gallery of the
magnificent existing stands of cottonwoods that remain to provide a
living example of the native bosque.
The City, in cooperation with the State of New Mexico and the
United States Bureau of Reclamation, has construct, at San Gabriel
Park, the Rio Grande Silvery Minnow Rearing and Breeding Facility for
breeding and conditioning the endangered Rio Grande Silvery Minnow for
release into the Rio Grande River.
Rio Grande Bosque Railroad
The master plan for the Rio Grande Biological Park includes the
construction of the three-quarter scale Rio Grande Bosque Railroad
which will provide a transportation link that covers the four miles of
the Rio Grande Biological Park between the Aquarium and Botanic Garden
in the north, through Tingley Aquatic Park, to the Rio Grande Zoo in
the south. A depot and turnaround will be constructed at San Gabriel
Park and a depot will be constructed at Tingley Aquatic Park. The Rio
Grande Bosque Railroad will also connect the national Hispanic Cultural
Center south of the Rio Grande Zoo with the Rio Grande Biological Park.
The enactment of Senate Bill 213 will make the City's vision for a
unique biological park possible. I urge your support of Senate Bill
213.
______
Statement of the American Farm Bureau Federation
on S. 1236 and S. 1516
The American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) is pleased to offer this
statement for the hearing record in support of S. 1236 to establish a
program for the control of salt cedar in the western United States, and
S. 1516 to provide for a demonstration program to assess increases in
water availability that might be achieved through salt cedar control.
Salt cedars were introduced into the United States from the Middle
East in the 1800's. Salt cedar is a fast spreading plant that has
invaded stream banks, bottomlands and riverbanks throughout the western
United States. They are highly invasive plants, and once established
are highly persistent. Today, salt cedar occupies more than a million
acres from Texas to Tacoma. Salt cedar has substantially impacted the
natural riparian and wetland ecosystems throughout the West.
The presence of salt cedar along riverbanks and in wet areas
affects both water quantity and water quality. Salt cedar trees consume
huge quantities of water, with each tree ``capable of using tip to 200
gallons of water per day. In addition, salt cedar can excrete salt from
its leaves, increasing the salinity of surrounding soil and waterways,
making both the land and the water less useable for growing crops or
forage.
The control of salt cedar is important to farmers and ranchers, and
to all water users. It is a competitor for water in an already
overcrowded field.
Demands for water in the western United States are increasing
significantly. The West is the fastest growing region in the country.
There are greater demands made through the Endangered Species Act and
implementing court decisions to provide greater water to fish and
wildlife. Requirements to keep minimum instream flows in rivers and
streams are becoming more widespread.
At the same time that demand for more water is growing, the
available supply of water is dwindling. The West has been in a
prolonged drought for several years, an already scarce resource is even
scarcer.
This combination of increasing demand and decreasing supply has led
to serious conflicts among water users. The Klamath Basin in California
and Oregon grabbed national headlines when the Bureau of Reclamation
shut off water to over 1,400 farmers and ranchers in order to use
project water for two endangered fish. Likewise, Albuquerque, New
Mexico became a hotbed of controversy earlier this year when a federal
appeals court ordered the Bureau of Reclamation to breach decades-old
water contracts with farmers, ranchers and other landowners and to take
their water to use for the endangered silvery minnow.
The water issue in the West has reached such a serious state that
earlier this year the Secretary of the Interior announced the
development of ``WATER 2025,'' a blueprint to guide the Department and
the federal government to prevent another confrontation among competing
water users such as occurred in the Klamath Basin and Albuquerque.
With water such a critical issue, it makes little sense to allow
the unfettered spread of an invasive plant that can take up to 200
gallons per day out of the water supply. Farm Bureau believes that
control and eradication of salt cedar should be an essential component
of any western water strategy.
Both S. 1236 and S. 1516 would require an assessment of the extent
of the salt cedar problem in the West and the costs of its removal and
restoration of the land. S. 1236 would create a Tamarisk Assistance
Program to provide grants to the states for salt cedar control
projects. S. 1516 would provide for five demonstration projects using
different control methods to determine the most effective means of
control, monitor and document the extent of any water savings,
determine conditions under which biomass removal is appropriate, and
identify methods for preventing regrowth and reintroduction.
Both bills are necessary and sound. States should be encouraged to
control highly invasive and destructive species like salt cedar within
their boundaries. Federal grants will allow states to undertake this
needed control.
At the same time, research is needed to assess the most effective
and efficient control methods, and also to measure the water savings
that might result from salt cedar control.
Following are some specific suggestions for the bills:
1. Legislation should include provisions for farmers,
ranchers and other private landowners to be eligible for grants
and to participate in any demonstration projects. We suggest
that both bills add provisions that provide for voluntary,
incentive based programs for farmers and ranchers to control
salt cedar on private lands. One incentive such a program might
provide would be to allow farmers and ranchers to keep all or a
portion of the water that is saved by salt cedar removal. For
that to occur, projects would have to monitor water
availability before and after cedar removal. Such programs
might be administered either through the Department of the
Interior or the Department of Agriculture with up to a 75
percent cost share as provided in the bills.
2. S. 1236 would provide federal grants to state programs to
control salt cedar. We suggest that the bill contain a
provision that streamlines the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) process for salt cedar removal projects. Grants
should be used for on-the-ground activities as much as
possible, and not for doing extensive NEPA paperwork.
3. The demonstration projects that would be created under S.
1516 should be allocated equitably in different areas of the
region and among the tribes. In addition to providing
demonstration projects based on different control methods, we
suggest that demonstration projects also include different
organizational structures, such as federal projects and private
projects. One demonstration project should include a model for
voluntary, incentive-based private landowner control projects.
Effective control of salt cedar will help provide a cleaner, more
plentiful water supply to the water-starved West. Farm Bureau supports
S. 1236 and S. 1516, and we look forward to working with the Committee
to craft an effective salt cedar control program.
______
Statement of Tom W. Davis, Manager, Carlsbad Irrigation District,
Carlsbad, NM, on S. 1516 and S. 1236
I am Tom W. Davis. Since 1987, I have been the Manager of the
Carlsbad Irrigation District. For the sixteen years prior to my current
employment, I was employed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest
Service in the field of natural resources management. During the past
fifteen years I have had extensive experience in control and/or
management of salt cedar (tamarisk spp.) in the Pecos Basin in New
Mexico using chemical and mechanical methods.
In recent years, driven primarily by drought conditions and water
demands throughout the western United States, a tremendous amount of
interest has been generated in salvaging water by eradicating salt
cedar and to a lesser extent, Russian olive. This movement has been
promoted by some as the ``Silver Bullet'' to increasing flowing water
and restoring native riparian vegetation in our rivers. It is all too
easy to over-simplify the complex nature of river systems and over-
promote the possible benefits of salt cedar removal while overlooking
the possible unintended negative impacts of such actions or any
environmental virtues salt cedar might provide.
When considering conducting large salt cedar and Russian olive
removal projects costing millions of dollars, a list of simple
questions should be resolved to the extent possible before proceeding
with the larger projects. Those questions are simple: Why; How; How
much (cost and amount of acreage); What are the intended results; What
are the unintended consequences; How to mitigate for these unintended
consequences.
I believe S. 1516, properly implemented, will provide the best
answers possible to these questions.
Salt cedar and Russian olive control is not a new concept along the
Pecos River. In 1946, Royce Tipton, a hydrologist working with the
National Water Planning Board, convinced both the states of New Mexico
and Texas to sign the Pecos River Compact appropriating the waters of
the Pecos River between the two states. The primary underpinning of
this allocation of the flows of the Pecos was the perceived water
salvage potential resulting from the eradication of non-native
phreatophytes (salt cedar).
Public Law 88-594, 78 Stat. 942 was signed on September 12, 1964
authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to carry out a continuing
program to reduce non-beneficial consumptive use of water in the Pecos
River Basin in New Mexico and Texas. The Bureau of Reclamation was
charged with the responsibility of implementing this project.
Eventually, 36,000 acres in New Mexico and about 17,000 acres in Texas
were mechanically cleared in the Pecos River Flood Plain. The areas
originally cleared are maintained as cleared today. Salt cedar was left
on the river bank for bank stabilization. With the exception of
McMillan Delta, this area represented about 85% of the existing acreage
infested by salt cedar.
In 1988, G.E. Welder, a hydro-geologist with the U.S. Geological
Survey, completed and published the results of a ten-year study
attempting to quantify any additional base flows in a specific reach of
the Pecos River resulting from eradication of 20,000 acres of salt
cedar from that particular reach of the river flood plain. This study
was not able to specifically quantify any increases in river base
flows, but indicated that evapotransportation (ET) had been reduced by
removing salt cedar from the flood plain vegetation. The study could
only speculate as to the fate of any salvaged water made possible by a
reduction in ET.
To date, the 5,000-acre demonstration project on the Pecos River
that I have been involved with since 1993 has not shown any increase in
river base flows, nor has it shown any rise in the ground water table
measured at ten monitoring wells. Although we used the best methods
available to re-establish native vegetation by pole planting and re-
seeding, we have had only very marginal success. There has been an
increase in wind erosion and an overall negative impact to wildlife. We
have had problems with salt cedar re-establishment when conditions are
favorable.
More of these demonstration projects should be conducted before
large-scale projects are conducted. S. 1516 will provide for that.
However, with respect to the Pecos River in New Mexico, with exception
of the McMillan Delta just north of Carlsbad, an estimated 95% of all
salt cedar has been killed. However, based on experience, I predict the
salt cedar will readily re-establish on these areas when favorable
conditions exist. Also, it is interesting to note that the base flows
in the Pecos River have been lower this summer than any other time in
recorded history.
However, in today's environment of increased demands on our river
systems, we are obligated to investigate every option to maintain river
flows. This legislation provides the opportunity to establish several
demonstration projects. These projects will take another look at
determining the merits of salt cedar removal, and monitor, measure and
track any salvaged water and increased river flows. Using todays
technology we must not only attempt to quantify actual water salvaged
by reducing ET, but we must be certain of the environmental impacts,
monetary costs and effectiveness associated with the different methods
of salt cedar and Russian olive control. Also, we must mitigate the
unintended consequences of removal of these species and prove reliable
methods of re-establishing native vegetation. We must determine how to
replace the virtues of salt cedar after its removal, such as stream
bank stabilization and nesting sites for birds and cover for other
wildlife. Also, we need to focus on the detrimental effects of large
scale ground water pumping on river flows.
These demonstration projects must be conducted in a variety of
river systems throughout the western United States by non-biased
professionals, representatives of federal and state agencies,
universities, national laboratories and private contractors. The
knowledge gained from these demonstrations will be critical in
conducting proper future management of our riparian ecosystems and
stabilizing river flows.
S. 1516 provides for all of these elements and more. I request that
you vote in support of this bill.
It is my position that S. 1516 should be implemented to get at some
of the unanswered questions before any large-scale control projects, as
are provided for by S. 1236, are conducted. There are too many risks by
immediately implementing S. 1236 before we know what the unintended
consequences are, how to mitigate and the cost of this mitigation.
Nature is not very forgiving here in the southwest. Any mistakes made
might require decades to correct. I think S. 1236, in it's current
form, should be put on hold.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these bills.
______
Statement of Steve Harris, Alliance for the Rio Grande Heritage
Mr. Chairman, the Alliance for Rio Grande Heritage and its member
groups have, over the past seven years, devoted their private resources
to the problem of restoring the ecological health and integrity of the
Rio Grande in Southern Colorado, New Mexico and West Texas. The Rio
Grande problem is a difficult one stemming, as it does, from a century
and a half of intensive development and control of land and water
resources. Today, we are left with a river transformed by flood control
and water diversion projects, a river that occupies only a portion of
its historic floodplain and that retains a scant fraction of its
natural water flows.
One of the most vexing manifestations of the Rio Grande problem is
the dominance of the river's ecosystem by non-native plants. The
fertility of the Rio Grande basin, its ability to produce healthy crops
and healthy wildlife has been sacrificed to persistent non-native
species, like salt cedar.
In speaking with local people in places like Presidio, Texas,
Socorro, New Mexico and Alamosa, Colorado, we hear deep concern about
the loss of land productivity from the invasion of salt cedar and a
desire to reclaim the ecological and economic benefits of a healthy
agro-ecological system, supported by a restored and healthy river.
In the Rio Grande, producers and environmentalists have come
together to attempt to address the salt cedar problem. Last year, the
Alliance and the state Association of Soil and Water Conservation
Districts successfully lobbied a $5 million appropriation from the New
Mexico Legislature for salt cedar control and reestablishment of native
vegetative associations. Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge and
Santa Ana Pueblo, to cite just two projects in the Middle Rio Grande,
that have become model projects. They are indeed inspiring a growing
regional effort to restore the Rio Grande.
We are very pleased that the 108th Congress is addressing this
problem, which plagues not only our locality but so much of the West.
In deliberating this issue, we hope the Senate Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources will consider a few reflections from our own
experiences:
Impacts to Soutwestern willow flycatcher habitat are a
consideration. It is an established fact that, in the absence
of other types of habitat, the endangered flycatcher will
utilize mature salt cedar for nesting. We have been able to
conduct salt cedar projects without disturbing the flycatcher
by surveying project sites during nesting season to determine
whether nesting flycatchers are present. If the project area
contains flycatchers, the project is suspended. Consultations
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in our area have been
fairly consistent: if the salt cedar project is designed to
result in restoring similar acreages of native habitats,
eradication of non-native habitats can go forward.
Salt Cedar Eradication and Management is worth undertaking,
even if it does not salvage one acre-foot of useable water.
Although we would desire a measurable increase in the
availability of water to address the West's water shortages,
neither Congress nor restoration practitioners should succumb
to unreasonable expectations about the amount of water to be
produced.
The connection between surface water and groundwater is quite
complex. In our experience, most of the expected gains from eradicating
water-consuming non-native plants have remained in the groundwater
system, and are not added directly to the useable supplies. What we can
be sure of is that the water saved will remain on the landscape,
elevating water tables and adding modest amounts to the surface water
system. We maintain that the benefits of improved wildlife habitat,
restoration of native associations and of land productivity are reason
enough to undertake salt cedar management projects.
Land restoration resulting from this measure is not apt to
be truly successful without attention to restoring some measure
of the underlying hydrologic regime. In many cases, it is the
loss of seasonal floods in the streams that has most
contributed to the dominance of these non-native trees.
Projects that fail to address the need of native species for
periodic inundation of floodplains have been least successful
in terms of self-maintenance of the desirable species and the
regrowth of the target species.
Monitoring, not just water salvage benefit, is essential in
restoring desirable plant associations. We all want to maximize
the number of acres restored using the limited funds available.
In our experience, there is a tremendous temptation to devote
almost no resources to long-term monitoring of the success of
these projects, especially the succession of vegetative
associations that follow the treatments. We urge this
Committee, in its findings to the Congress, to recommend for
appropriate monitoring regimes.
Treatments selected for elimination of invasive species will
vary from location to location. We have observed a tendency to
over-rely upon aerial herbicide applications because initial
per acre costs are lowest. However, these treatment methods are
not appropriate in a number of cases where native species,
valuable pasture or open water is present on the project site.
Project proponents should be advised to carefully assess the
conditions of individual sites and avoid reliance on an
expedient, ``one size fits all'' approach.
Fire prevention objectives in riparian areas may not be
served by aerial spraying alone. In the Rio Grande region,
dense thickets of invasive trees have increased the frequency
of fires, threatening both wildlife and human habitation by
providing more fuel than in native, open understory
assemblages. Salt Cedar eradication projects which result in
removal of the plants can assist in preventing bosque fires.
However, in areas where aerial spraying has been conducted, the
dead trees may not be removed. In such cases, the fire
potential may remain high until the hulks have been removed.
Salt Cedar, Russian Olive and other persistent invaders have indeed
become a scourge on the West. We have made most progress in reclaiming
afflicted lands where we recognize that underlying ecological factors
have contributed to our problem, have corrected these conditions and
provided hydrologic and soil conditions which will favor the desirable
native vegetation over the invasives.
In most cases, restoration of the land's agro-ecological potential,
not water salvage, ought to be the primary objective. If a site cannot
support restoration or is likely to require repeated, costly
maintenance, it may be a poor candidate for eradication of non-native,
invasive plants..
Thank you.
______
Capitan, NM, September 19, 2003.
Erik Webb,
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Washington, DC.
Subject: Salt Cedar Hearings
Dear Mr. Webb: I received your posting today and hope that it is
not too late. I am a vegetation management specialist, with 23 years
experience in fuel reductions, removal of woody species, weed and brush
control through integrated management including herbicides and
rehabilitation techniques. I have some comments about the bill.
Salt cedar is definitely a very damaging plant and should be
managed. However, the scapegoat technique should not apply. People in
the southwest are being led to believe that if we eradicate the salt
cedar their water problems will go away. This is not the case. Salt
cedar is one of many problems our bosques, watertables, riverbanks,
landscapes and riparian areas are facing. Water management must be part
of this program, or a program that promotes water management should be
created or supported.
In my experience of treated sites, I have notices that only the
wealthy landowners are receiving benefits of the program. They are the
ones who are going to the meetings and signing up. The less wealthy
families are still at work. one soil and water conservation district
has been completely successful and has provided the state of NM with
the most efficient program yet. This is the Carlsbad SWCD. The manager
of this program is a paid employee, well educated in conservation and
experienced in vegetation management.
Salt Cedar is not the only plant that is causing problems. Russian
olives, Siberian Elm, Pinion, Juniper, and a variety of other plants
are creating monocultures in areas that are already damaged due to
drought and poor land management. These plants have been allowed to
invade due to several human caused factors, and a few environmentally
caused factors, but mainly human. Education could follow a removal
program. Otherwise, another problem will appear.
As a vegetation management specialist, I have personally removed
thousands of acres of plants with the use of bulldozers, fire,
chemicals, extraction and chain saws. Once one species is removed, we
anticipate that desirable, healthy vegetation will reappear or
reestablish. This is not the case. Other plants, possibly those even
less desirable than salt cedar, pinion, elm or olive will establish.
Often these plants are more difficult to control than the target
species. I've seen this occur many times. Measures must be made, prior
to salt cedar removal, to inventory existing alternate vegetation so
the management of the land can prepare for these species increased
establishment.
In other words, at this time, the salt cedar control project has
people managing the land that have absolutely no experience in this
matter. We have volunteer supervisors with the soil and water
conservation district managing land with no knowledge of these species
or of land rehabilitation determining the fate of these lands. The
management of these species is large and the mistakes will be and are
large. Major mistakes are being made, and large amounts of money are
being spent. This is not necessary.
In these programs, we have coordinators that do not even understand
procurement policy. The contractors are running amuck with their prices
($3200/acre and up). This is outrageous. Management of the program must
be professional and designated. We have management from volunteers and
that is what is happening with the progress. There is very little.
The public would like to think that salt cedar is the cause of all
our problems, however, the fact of the matter is, we are completely
over-vegetated with non-natives as well as natives. I wrote a grant for
the soil and water conservation district (and was granted $350,000) for
watershed rehabilitation. The grant is to remove ALL trees/vegetation
necessary to provide management to create less than 5 trees to the
acre. The canopy will have a 60% reduction in canopy cover and the
vegetation will be mulched to protect what little moisture is in the
ground.
Many people think that more research needs to be done. That is
incorrect. we have years of research. During the past three contracts I
have received for salt cedar removal, my company has been in touch with
these researchers, constantly providing information, statistics and
pertinent data to continue research. However, we will never obtain the
information we are wanting unless we do the work and make changes as we
move along. In the meantime, we will be in accomplishing positive
results.
Many environmentalists are wanting to stop this program. Some
reason are valid, however, due to the drought, not just poor water
management, we are faced with a dilemma. Do we stop? Do we research
more? Do we discuss? In the mean time, we are on the verge of
irreparable damage to waterways, watersheds, rivers and streams. I am a
firm believer that the only way to manage growth is to manage the
water. If we cannot manage the water, how could we ever hope to manage
growth? Our economic basis is founded on management and specific
growth. some areas have chosen tourism to provide jobs, schools,
community needs and taxes. If there is no water, if the fuel load is so
high the area is closed, if the water smells due to contamination and
overloading, how can that community grow? some areas have chosen
retirement for their slow but secure growth. Again, with unmanaged
water, or with water being consumed only by those who can buy it, how
will senior people have a chance to compete in a fast paced water
market?
These questions I raise are much more than salt cedar eradication,
but the point is, salt cedar is one method to control our water, our
land, and our land management. However, management is the key. We must
provide an integrated management plan. The management team must be more
than volunteer conservation district supervisors. The NRCS is much more
equipped to handle this, or the state can assign the fund to a task
force to manage. This would insure equal and fair application and use
of the money.
We also have an issue with one county. Many land owners are
removing the salt cedar and assisting the program. Private property can
quickly participate in the management of these plants because EA's
don't have to be done. There are no evaluations or monitors or
assessments on private land. So, much of the taxpayers dollars are
being spent on private land. We have one county, who, after many
landowners treated their land, has decided to raise the taxes on their
land due to what the county assessor is calling a property improvement
which has increased the value of the property.
In one instance, many acres were treated at the headwaters of the
watershed. The community felt that the increase in water salvage was
theirs, and the community quickly approved a new subdivision that would
build two new golf courses. However, during the past 20 years, this
community had no water management, but rather continued to pump at
their leisure. The two rivers through this community began to show the
damage, with one river being completely dry. The new ``water'' was
being absconded, while the people downstream still had no benefit nor
increased water. The two small irrigation communities saw no increase
in water as the amount of salvage was already ``used'' upstream. Water
management, again.
I would like to be more involved with this process. Thank you for
your question and inquiry and your time.
Sally K. Canning,
DeVeg Management Group.
______
Statement of Clayton Friend, Tom Green County Commissioner, Precinct #1
and District Manager, Tom Green County Water Control & Improvement
District #1, Veribest, TX
History
The San Angelo Project was constructed with oversight by the Bureau
of Reclamation and completed around 1962. The project included the Twin
Buttes Reservoir which was to provide municipal, industrial and
recreational water for the City of San Angelo, Texas with storage
capacity of approximately 180,000 acre feet of water. In addition, the
San Angelo Project was to provide irrigation water to the District by
using a 65 mile concrete lined irrigation canal system that was
constructed with Bureau of Reclamation oversight during the same
period. This canal system was to provide access to the water stored in
the Twin Buttes Reservoir to irrigate 10,000 acres of farmland. Ten
years passed before there was enough water in the Reservoir to release
any water into the canal system. In 1972, the first irrigation releases
were made to the District through the canal system. Both the City of
San Angelo and the District have repayment contracts with the Bureau of
Reclamation, Department of the Interior for their portion of the costs
of the San Angelo Project.
The District's outstanding loan with the Department of the Interior
for the construction of the irrigation canal is Contract No. 14-06-500-
369, San Angelo Project. The original amount of the District's loan was
$4,000,000. The District has paid $1,506,132, and the remaining balance
is $2,487,707.
Problems
The farmers in the District have made diligent efforts to make
timely payments on the contract. They have, in fact, paid 38% of the
original debt owed to the Department of the Interior. One of the
problems is that the farmers haven't received a fair return on their
investment. The farmers have received a full year's allocation of
irrigation water, 24 inches per acre, only 50% of the time since 1962
when the canal was completed. However, for the other 50% of the time
the farmers received either less than the annual 24 inches per acre of
irrigation water or no irrigation water at all. Payment on the debt has
never been forgiven, even in years when the District received no water.
Deferments have been granted seven times due to drought conditions.
Those payments, however still have to be made. They are added to the
remaining balance and the payments continue to get higher annually
because the original contract end date does not change.
The last time the farmers have had any water available from Twin
Buttes Reservoir was in 1998 when they received 1\1/2\ inches of water
per acre. The last time they had the full allocation of 24 inches per
acre was in 1997. Farmers cannot exist paying the operation and
maintenance costs of the District and the repayment to the Bureau of
Reclamation when there is little or no water available.
The following represents the amounts of irrigation water available
from Twin Buttes reservoir since completion of the canal system:
1962--0 inches
1963--0 inches
1964--0 inches
1965--0 inches
1966--0 inches
1967--0 inches
1968--0 inches
1969--0 inches
1970--0 inches
1971--0 inches
1972--24 inches
1973--24 inches
1974--24 inches
1975--24 inches
1976--24 inches
1977--24 inches
1978--24 inches
1979--24 inches
1980--24 inches
1981--24 inches
1982--24 inches
1983--4.5 inches
1984--0 inches
1985--0 inches
1986--0 inches
1986--0 inches
1986--0 inches
1987--24 inches
1988--24 inches
1989--24 inches
1990--24 inches
1991--24 inches
1992--24 inches
1993--24 inches
1994--24 inches
1995--10 inches
1996--4 inches
1997--24 inches
1998--1.5 inches
1999--0 inches
2000--0 inches
2001--0 inches
2002--0 inches
As indicated in the chart above, the District has received little
or no water in 21 of 40 years.
Current Lake Level and Water Credit Procedures
At the present time, Twin Buttes Reservoir only has 5% of water in
storage. This amounts to approximately 9,100 acre feet. There is a
water accounting system that credits water to the District and to the
City of San Angelo. The District gets credit for all of the water above
50,000 acre feet of stored water. With the current lake level at 9,100
acre feet, the lake would have to have inflow of over 40,000 acre feet
before the District gets even one drop of water in storage credits. To
irrigate 10,000 acres, it takes about 867 acre feet to equal one inch
of water per acre of farmland.
Evaporation also must be considered which sometimes can amount to
15% to 20%, so additional water must be available to allow for
evaporation. As has been stated previously in this report, a normal
irrigating season with a full allocation of irrigation water (24 inches
per acre) there must be approximately 22,000 acre feet available for
10,000 acres of farmland.
Additional Problems
There has been an additional problem facing the farmers in the
District. The concrete lining that was placed in the canal system in
the early 60's has started to deteriorate after 40 years and now
repairs are necessary. The canal lining was designed without any
reinforcement steel of any kind and has progressively become worse over
time. To repair the canal lining places additional burdens on the
farmers because the repairs are very expensive. The farmers in the
District have to pay the annual payment for the construction of the
canal plus the operation and maintenance costs for the operation of the
District. If you have to add the expensive repair costs that need to be
done, it makes it virtually impossible for the farmers to make a profit
when there is no water available from Twin Buttes Reservoir. The
District is, however, trying to repair parts of the canal system that
need the most attention. With Bureau of Reclamation approval, the
District is using up to $30,000 of its reserve funds to pay for some of
the necessary repairs. The amount of reserve funds available is very
limited and will only cover a small amount. The following slides show
the deteriorating canal lining and small places where repairs have been
made at the District's own expense.
Looking for an Alternative Water Supply
Because there was no water available in Twin Buttes Reservoir, the
District has contracted with the City of San Angelo for the use of it's
reclaimed wastewater from it's wastewater treatment plant. This
provides for 8 inches of wastewater per acre of land annually. This
water has to be used on a continual basis because the City of San
Angelo produces wastewater daily and has limited storage capacities.
This reduces the amount of water that can be provided to farm crops
during the growing season which is typically during the spring and
summer months. There was additional stress placed on the District
because a return flow pumping system had to be installed to keep the
wastewater from entering into the Concho River. A loan from the Texas
Water Development Board in the amount of $150,000 was made available to
the District to help finance the cost of the pumping system which cost
around $190,000. Annual payments to the TWDB are made by assessing fees
to the farmers in the District. These fees are in addition to the fees
already mentioned. The amount of water available from the wastewater
treatment plant is only 8 inches per acre per year. The farmers have to
pay full irrigation prices yet they only receive 8 inches of wastewater
per acre per year and nothing from Twin Buttes Reservoir.
Effects of Drought and Depressed Commodity Prices on Farmers in the
District
The local Texas Agricultural Extension Agents assisted the District
personnel in preparing the following data. The data compares the
average income during the years from 1988-1992 when 24 inches of
irrigation water per acre was available and the year 2000 when there
was no water available for irrigation from Twin Buttes Reservoir.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crop years 1988-1992 Crops grown Cash receipts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cotton.............. $1,705,312.50
Grain Sorghum....... 232,232.00
Wheat............... 61,620.00
Corn Ensilage....... 200,000.00
Total all crops............... .................. $2,199,164.50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crop Year 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cotton.............. $1,085,280.00
Grain Sorghum....... 94,500.00
Wheat............... 115,670.00
Corn Ensilage....... 124,800.00
Total all crops............... .................. $1,420,250.00
Difference.................... .................. ($778,914.50)
This equals a 33.3% loss in
income.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The results for the year 2000 would be very similar to the years
2001 and 2002 as well as other years that there was no irrigation water
available from Twin Buttes Reservoir. The Extension Agent was only
asked to provide the most recent year's data available which, at the
time, was the year 2000.
Possible Solutions
Included below are several suggestions that would help solve the
current problem.
Extend the repayment period of the loan from 40 to 50 years.
This would allow the annual payments to be reduced because they
would be extended for an additional 10 years. This same option
was granted to the City of San Angelo in 1971.
Reduce the amount owed to the Bureau of Reclamation on the
repayment contract to allow the District to have funds
available for the repairs on the canal system. The canal system
is going to continue to deteriorate and must be repaired.
Restructuring the loan would also help. If the end date of
the repayment contract could be extended for each year that a
deferment was granted this would keep the payments the same
each year and not get bigger each time a deferment was granted.
Have payments to be made only when water in Twin Buttes
Reservoir is available for irrigation use. If a full 24 inches
per acre is available, then the full payment would be due. If
12 inches, for example, per acre is only available, then 1/2
the payment would be due. This would give some relief to the
farmers when the full allocation is not available.
If we continue as we are, the payments will only get bigger and the
ability of the farmers to pay the debt will only get more difficult. On
August 29, 2000, then Regional Director Maryanne Bach states
``Reclamation is aware of the drought conditions in the State of Texas
which continue to impact the availability of water within the San
Angelo project. Although the deferments received by the District to
date have not increased the District's remaining obligation to the
United States, the deferments have increased the amount of the annual
payments for the remaining repayment period because Reclamation does
not have the authority to extend the repayment period without
congressional approval. The increased annual payments place additional
burden on the District. This financial burden has been exacerbated by
current drought conditions and Reclamation believes any additional
increase will only lead to future financial difficulty that cannot be
offset by Reclamation under its limited authority.''
Conclusions
The Tom Green County Water Control & Improvement District #1 does
not ask for a handout. Instead, the District is asking for a helping
hand. Any consideration in the form of relief will be greatly
appreciated. The District has tried to be a good partner in this
effort. The District also has an excellent working relationship with
the Bureau of Reclamation and has welcomed any and all support or
suggestions made by its personnel.
Honorable members of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources
Committee, we have a deteriorating canal system and we still owe over
19 years on the debt. It's like owning an old worn out car but still
making payments. Repairs can be devastating.
Thank you,
Clayton Friend,
District Manager.