[Senate Hearing 108-668]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 108-668
WATER RECLAMATION IN THE TULAROSA BASIN; NEW MEXICO WATER PLANNING
ASSISTANCE ACT; REDESIGNATE RIDGES BASIN RESERVOIR, COLORADO; CHIMAYO
WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM, ESPANOLA, NEW MEXICO; AND EASTERN NEW MEXICO WATER
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
on
S. 1211 S. 2460
S. 2508 S. 2511
S. 2513
__________
JUNE 17, 2004
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
_______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2004
96-598 PDF
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (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 Carolina
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
Kellie Donnelly, Counsel
Mike Connor, Democractic Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Allard, Hon. Wayne, U.S. Senator from Colorado................... 2
Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from New Mexico................ 2
D'Antonio, John R., Jr., PE, New Mexico State Engineer, Santa Fe,
NM............................................................. 11
Keys, John W., III, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation,
Department of the Interior..................................... 3
Lansford, David M., Mayor of Clovis, NM, and Chairman, Eastern
New Mexico Rural Water Authority, Clovis, NM................... 16
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator from Alaska................... 1
APPENDIXES
Appendix I
Responses to additional questions................................ 29
Appendix II
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 35
WATER RECLAMATION IN THE TULAROSA BASIN; NEW MEXICO WATER PLANNING
ASSISTANCE ACT; REDESIGNATE RIDGES BASIN RESERVOIR, COLORADO; CHIMAYO
WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM, ESPANOLA, NEW MEXICO; AND EASTERN NEW MEXICO WATER
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 17, 2004
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Water and Power,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:32 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. Good afternoon. I call to order the
hearing of the Subcommittee on Water and Power. It is my
pleasure to welcome everyone to the subcommittee this
afternoon. We have a total of five bills before the
subcommittee today.
We will be taking up: S. 1211, the Reclamation Wastewater
and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act, introduced by Senator
Domenici; S. 2460, the New Mexico Water Planning Assistance
Act, introduced also by Senator Domenici; S. 2508, a bill to
redesignate the Ridges Basin Reservoir in Colorado as Lake
Nighthorse, also introduced by Senator Domenici; S. 2511, the
Chimayo Water Supply System and Espanola Filtration Facility
Act of 2004, introduced by Senators Domenici and Bingaman; and
S. 2513, the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water System Act of 2004,
introduced by Senator Bingaman.
I would like to extend a special welcome to our
administration witnesses. On the first panel we have
Commissioner Keys from the Bureau of Reclamation and
Commissioner Keys will testify on S. 1211, S. 2460, S. 2511,
and S. 2513. We will look forward to your testimony, as we
always do, Commissioner.
I would also like to welcome the witnesses who will testify
before the subcommittee's second panel this afternoon. We have
John D'Antonio, the New Mexico State Engineer, who will testify
on S. 2460, S. 2511, and S. 2513. We also have David Lansford,
the Mayor of Clovis, New Mexico, and the Chairman of the
Eastern New Mexico Rural Water Authority.
The remaining bill on the subcommittee's agenda will be
addressed via statements submitted for the record. The
subcommittee has already received written testimony from
Senator Allard in support of S. 2508 and letters from the
cities of Chimayo and Espanola in support of S. 2511. These
statements will be made an official part of the hearing record.
Once again, I look forward to the testimony of the
witnesses. Before we do that, Senator Bingaman, do you have any
opening comments that you would like to make at this time?
[The prepared statement of Senator Allard follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Wayne Allard, U.S. Senator
From Colorado
Thank you, Madam Chairman and thank you for allowing me to
participate. It is an honor for me today to extend my support in
recognizing the hard work and dedication of my fellow friend and
colleague Colorado Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell. It is a privilege
to honor him through re-designating Ridges Basin Reservoir as ``Lake
Nighthorse'' in recognition of his unwavering commitment to the
citizens of Colorado.
The Ridges Basin Reservoir was originally constructed under the
Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement Act of 1988, as part of a
resolution to end an ongoing water dispute between the Ute Indian tribe
and the federal government. However, it wasn't until 2000, when the
historic Animas-LaPlata agreement brought the end to over three decades
of conflict in Colorado. Now, four years later, and thanks to the
efforts of Senator Campbell, ground has been broken, and the Ute Tribes
are finally seeing their water treaties being fulfilled.
The results of the ALP agreement were due much in part to the hard
work of Senator Campbell, in bringing both parties to the table.
Senator Campbell was at the forefront of negotiations and was
instrumental in facilitating open-minded, rational and progressive
discussions. His relentless pursuit of ensuring the fulfillment of our
treaties with the Ute Tribe was beyond compare. It would only be
suiting to recognize Senator Campbell's valiant efforts in resolving
these conflicts by naming a portion of the project in memory of Senator
Campbell's innumerous services to Colorado.
But Senator Campbell's efforts are not limited to the Animas-
LaPlata project. Through his many dedicated years of service, Senator
Campbell worked on several other environmental issues in Colorado
including the Black Canyon of the Gunnison, tamarisk control, and farm
and ranch drought assistance to name a few. Senator Campbell also
fought hard to bring about POW awareness and created a welcoming
atmosphere in Washington for his Colorado constituents. I am proud to
call Ben Nighthorse Campbell my friend.
Thank you Madam Chairman.
STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM NEW MEXICO
Senator Bingaman. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman,
for holding this hearing.
I would just like to say a few words, particularly about
the legislation with regard to eastern New Mexico, S. 2513,
which I recently introduced. The other bills I certainly
support and have co-sponsored several of them. I also join in
welcoming Mayor Lansford from Clovis and also John D'Antonio,
our State Engineer in New Mexico, and thank them for coming to
testify.
This S. 2513 would authorize planning, design, and
construction of the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water System. It
is a system designed to serve nine communities in three
counties in eastern New Mexico. I know that the administration
position is in opposition to this bill. I regret that. I think
rural water projects have generally not been highly supported
by the administration. There was a proposal to zero out funding
for those projects in the 2004 budget, and although we have
restored some of that funding, the 2005 request is still
significantly less than what we have had in the previous 3
years.
I do think that the Bureau of Reclamation has an important
role to play in assisting with rural water programs throughout
the West and in my view this New Mexico Rural Water Authority,
Eastern New Mexico Rural Water Authority Project, is certainly
one that deserves support. So I hope very much that we can gain
the administration's support as we go through the process and I
look forward to the testimony.
Thank you.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Bingaman.
I understand that Senator Domenici is in the Appropriations
markup, but will be joining us later in this hearing.
So with that, let us turn to Commissioner Keys. Welcome and
good afternoon.
STATEMENT OF JOHN W. KEYS, III, COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF
RECLAMATION, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Keys. Madam Chairman, it is an absolute pleasure to be
here today. Before I get into the legislation in the testimony,
let me tell you that this is a momentous day. June 17, 102
years ago, President Roosevelt signed the Reclamation Act of
1902 that established the Reclamation Service as part of the
Geological Survey in the Department of the Interior. This
committee at that time was the Committee on Public Lands, but
it was this committee that actually had worked the Reclamation
Act and made it ready for the President to sign on June 17,
1902. So it is a good day to be here.
Senator Murkowski. Happy birthday.
Mr. Keys. Thank you.
With your approval and for the record, I would submit four
separate testimonies for those four bills that we are
testifying on today: S. 1211, S. 2460, S. 2511, and S. 2513.
Senator Murkowski. Those will all be included as part of
the record.
Mr. Keys. Thank you.
Madam Chairman, let me first discuss S. 1211, the Tularosa
desalination facility. The project is already authorized for
construction, and we are scheduled to break ground for
construction of the test facility later this month. In our
view, if desalination can be made more economic it could
contribute significantly to water supply solutions in the West.
We are actively engaged in several desalination projects
already. In particular, desalination of brackish inland water
needs research, development, and demonstration that might not
otherwise occur without the Tularosa test facility.
There are a couple of aspects of that legislation that we
would like to work further with the committee on, particularly
with Senator Domenici, who has already invested a great deal of
effort in this area. First, while we welcome opportunities to
partner with other Federal agencies, we are concerned that as
originally drafted our research role under the bill could be
reduced to merely a funding path through the Department of the
Interior to other government agencies and laboratories. We
would like to take more direct stewardship for the underlying
work associated with the lab.
Likewise, if we are to build, manage, and maintain the
facility, as provided in section 1(a) of the bill, we think
that the legislation should also clarify that we will have more
than a physical custodial role. In other words, our underlying
program responsibilities should be clarified there.
Madam Chairman, desalination is a new and dynamic policy
area for Congress and the administration. It has a significant
role in the Water 2025 effort that we have under way in
Reclamation and Interior at this time. Our thinking on it will
continue to grow and mature as the research field does.
Applying the Federal research and development investment
criterion, in other words relevance, quality, performance, and
addressing industry issues, should help to guide all of us in
our efforts on desalination.
We welcome the opportunity to work closely with your
committee as that process unfolds.
Turning to the New Mexico Water Planning Assistance Act, S.
2460, S. 2460 represents a long-term response to those
challenges by starting with actual scientific measurements for
managing on the ground water resource issues in New Mexico. We
commend Chairman Domenici for his vision to develop a more
comprehensive scientific and technical foundation for water
resource planning in New Mexico.
The bill directs Reclamation and the U.S. Geological Survey
to provide technical assistance and grants to the State for the
development of comprehensive State water plans, conduct water
resource mapping in the State, and conduct a comprehensive
study of groundwater resources to assess the quantity, quality,
and interaction of groundwater and surface water resources in
New Mexico.
The technical assistance role that this bill identifies for
the Geological Survey matches their leadership role in
interpretation, research, and assessment of the earth and its
biological resources. Reclamation conducts the most extensive
water and river storage and delivery operations and related
research in the West. So the bill comes to the right agencies
for the work.
However, the administration does have a few concerns with
S. 2460. First, the Department is concerned about the financial
resources required for Reclamation and the Geological Survey to
carry out S. 2460 in the context of the availability of
resources overall for administration programs.
Second, the requirement that any assistance or grants not
be cost-shared is inconsistent with the funding requirements
for similar Reclamation and Geological Survey programs. We
believe the non-Federal cost share for work performed under
this legislation should be a minimum of 50 percent and that
section 3(d) in the bill should be modified to reflect 50
percent cost-sharing.
A third concern is that section 3(e) seems to give the
State the authority to direct the transfer of funds
appropriated under this act to other Federal agencies. This
could prevent Interior from meeting its stewardship
responsibilities in a lot of other areas. We believe that the
bill should authorize the funds for one agency or the other and
not make them subject to a State Governor's decision to
transfer them after appropriation across Federal agency lines.
We recommend that subsection 3(e) be deleted from that bill.
Also, we think that other Western States should have a
chance to compete for this technical and financial assistance
as they do in our Water 2025 program.
For these reasons, the administration cannot support S.
2460 as written.
With regard to S. 2511, we view both the Chimayo and
Espanola projects as case studies for why we need to enact
rural water legislation. While our familiarity with the Chimayo
especially is limited, we think both projects might benefit
from a systematic rural water program within Reclamation, such
as the bill that we have previously testified to in this
subcommittee.
Rural water legislation would help Reclamation help
communities as they shape proposals for rural water solutions
based on sound economics and best practices. All three rural
water bills before the Senate agree that the Federal cost for
rural water legislation would help Reclamation help communities
as they shape proposals for rural water solutions based on
sound economics and best practices.
All three rural water bills before the Senate agree that
the Federal cost for rural water project planning should
generally not exceed 50 percent. S. 2511 specifies a Federal
cost share of 75 percent for the Chimayo feasibility study.
With regard to the Espanola filtration project, Reclamation
is cooperating with the city of Espanola on a feasibility
study. So far we have contributed $400,000, but we have not yet
received that study. We need it to determine whether the plan
for the proposed filtration facility is comprehensive and
viable.
For example, if it does not contemplate providing water to
Chimayo it may need to be expanded. After reviewing the
feasibility study provided by Espanola, we would be in a far
better position to advise the committee. Until then it is not
ready for construction authorization.
Finally, Madam Chairman, let me comment on S. 2513, the
Eastern New Mexico Rural Water System. Again, we commend
Senator Bingaman for putting so much effort into meeting the
needs of his rural constituents and we commend the local
sponsors for bringing the project as far as they have since
1972, when the first of four reports on it were completed.
Eastern New Mexico faces an impending water shortage and
with continued effort we hope a successful project for these
communities can be formulated. However, whenever we examine a
project proposal at the appraisal or even feasibility study
phase, we ask several questions about the project. Many of
these questions are the same ones that Congress asks and local
sponsors ask when considering a project: Is the proposal the
most economic alternative? Have we included everything in the
construction cost estimate? Have the right materials been
selected? Have the studies been adequately peer reviewed? Do
communities have an accurate idea of how much their cost share
will come to, both for the initial construction and the
operation and maintenance of that facility? And is the
construction schedule realistic?
These are some of the questions we need to explore in depth
with the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water System before we know
whether we can support construction authorization. In addition,
the cost share percentage set forth in the legislation is
beyond the Federal cost share for rural water projects
contemplated in our rural water legislation now pending in the
Senate. We hope the local sponsors can resolve these concerns
and we would be happy to work with them, Senator Bingaman, and
the committee toward getting that done.
Thank you, Madam Chairman, for the opportunity to be here
and present this testimony. I would certainly try to answer any
questions that you might have at this time.
[The prepared statements of Mr. Keys regarding S. 1211, S.
2460, S. 2511, and S. 2513 follow:]
Prepared Statement of John W. Keys, III, Commissioner, Bureau of
Reclamation, Department of the Interior
on s. 1211
Madam Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am John Keys,
Commissioner of Reclamation. I am pleased to be here today to present
the Department of Interior's views on S. 1211, a bill to undertake a
demonstration program for desalination of brackish, inland groundwater
in the Tularosa Basin of New Mexico, as well as to provide Reclamation
additional authority to undertake desalination research through a
variety of institutional arrangements, or outside the United States.
The Tularosa desalination test and evaluation facility will be
capable of processing at least 100,000 gallons of water per day at the
Tularosa Basin in New Mexico. In the FY 2002 Energy and Water
Appropriations Act, Congress directed the Bureau of Reclamation, in
cooperation with Sandia National Laboratories, to evaluate the
potential for developing such a desalination research facility in the
Tularosa Basin of New Mexico. The facility study began in January 2002.
Reclamation entered a phased design/build contract with Laguna
Construction Company, Inc. in July 2003. Congress provided $4 million
for the continuation of this project in fiscal year 2004. Construction
will begin this month.
The Administration supports Congressional interest in pursuing
avenues of research that look at potential long-term methods of
augmenting scarce water supplies, including both technical and market
approaches. We are interested in working with the Congress to determine
whether the research program identified in S. 1211 meets the federal
Research and Development Investment Criteria. These criteria were
developed over several years through a process of intense, thorough
consultation with the research community. They include four main
elements:
Relevance;
Quality;
Performance; and
Criteria for R&D Programs Developing Technologies That
Address Industry Issues.
Applying the criteria to the proposed research will help determine
the appropriate federal R&D role, if any. As the Administration
considers the appropriate level of federal involvement, there are a few
provisions of the bill that we would like to work with the Committee
on.
Reclamation's Science & Technology program, which plans and
coordinates the bulk of our research activities, is our main program
for identifying and implementing our research priorities. This program
received a high rating during its recent evaluation under the
Administration's Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART), which rated it
as `Effective'. This recently revamped program should play a central
role in the determination of which research priorities the Bureau
should pursue. We are concerned that the bill as currently written does
not make use of this well-established expertise. If we are to build,
manage, and maintain the facility, as provided for in Section 1(a) of
the bill, the legislation should also clarify that we will have more
than a physical custodial role, i.e., our underlying program
responsibility should be delineated, and that should include a central
role in determining research priorities. Our process, in turn, is
subject to the federal R&D Criteria sketched out above.
Additionally, while we welcome opportunities to partner with other
agencies of the federal government, particularly where we have
complementary missions and. capabilities, we are concerned that, as
originally drafted, our role under the bill could be reduced to a
funding path through the Department of the Interior to other government
agencies and laboratories. If funds are ultimately appropriated to
Interior, we want to take more direct stewardship responsibility for
the underlying work. We suggest that funds for other agencies should be
appropriated directly to those agencies, for there is no compelling
reason to funnel them through Reclamation.
The Administration suggests that the portion of the bill that would
provide treated water to local communities at no cost be rewritten to
say that any such sale of water must be for fair market value.
Furthermore, facility operation and maintenance should be based on
user fees. Larger demonstration projects, in most cases, would be
conducted off-site at urban and rural locations under field conditions,
and are not contemplated in the construction of Tularosa.
While some facility users would be funded out of Reclamation's
research budget, supplemental fees could come from the many other
agencies currently funding desalination research, such as the Office of
Naval Research or the Department of Energy when they perform work at
Tularosa. In the future we would hope that additional agencies would
join the list of desalination researchers using the facility.
We would be happy to work with the Subcommittee to further develop
these concepts.
Madam Chairman, our thinking on desalination will continue to grow
and mature as the research field does, and as the federal government
further subjects desalination research to scrutiny under the federal
R&D criteria. We welcome the opportunity to work closely with the
Committee as that process unfolds, beginning with adjustments to S.
1211.
Madam Chairman, this concludes my remarks and I would be happy to
answer any questions.
______
on s. 2460
Madam Chair, my name is John W. Keys, III, Commissioner of
Reclamation (Reclamation). I am pleased to be here today to present the
views of the Department of the Interior (Department) regarding S. 2460,
which would authorize assistance to be provided to the State of New
Mexico for the development of comprehensive State water plans, and for
other purposes.
We share the views of the sponsor of this bill, Senator Domenici,
that is, the importance of sound science for use by water resource
planners. However, the Department is concerned about the financial
resources that would be required for Reclamation and the United States
Geological Survey (USGS) to carry out S. 2460 in the context of the
availability of resources overall for Administration programs. Further,
the provision for any assistance or grants to be made on a non-
reimbursable basis and without a cost-sharing requirement is
inconsistent with the funding arrangements that Reclamation and the
USGS have for similar activities in other states. For these reasons,
the Administration cannot support the bill as currently written.
The bill directs the Secretary of the Interior, acting through
Reclamation and the USGS, to (1) provide technical assistance and
grants to the State for the development of comprehensive State water
plans; (2) conduct water resources mapping in the State; and (3)
conduct a comprehensive study of groundwater resources (including
potable, brackish, and saline water resources) to assess the quantity,
quality, and interaction of groundwater and surface water resources in
the State. This would be accomplished through technical assistance and
grants.
The technical assistance role identified for the Department in this
bill is consistent with the USGS's leadership role in interpretation,
research, and assessment of the earth and biological resources of the
nation. It is likewise consistent with the Reclamation's leadership
role in water resources research, modeling, analysis, assessment and
management. However, the direction to provide these grants to the State
on a noncompetitive basis is not in harmony with the Administration's
efforts, such as through Water 2025, to use a competitive process to
focus our existing resources in those areas where future water
conflicts are most likely to occur. Even though some New Mexico
projects would likely be very competitive in that process, the
Administration would prefer that New Mexico's needs compete on an equal
footing with other meritorious projects that apply for assistance. Let
me briefly describe the activities of the USGS and Reclamation in this
context.
As the nation's largest water, earth, biological science, and
civilian mapping agency, USGS conducts the most extensive groundwater
and surface water investigations in the nation in conjunction with
state and local partners. The USGS New Mexico District currently
operates 209 streamflow stations and routinely measures groundwater
levels at 1,658 well sites through cooperative programs with several
local, state, tribal, and federal agencies. In addition to hydrologic
monitoring programs, the USGS is providing hydrologic understanding to
water agencies through the Cooperative Water Program by conducting
several investigative projects that include describing the interaction
of surface water and ground water in the Mesilla and Middle Rio Grande
basins, evaluating modeling approaches in the Santa Fe Embayment and La
Cienega areas of the Espanola Basin, and quantifying streamflow gains
and losses in the Espanola Basin along the Rio Grande mainstem and its
tributaries. In support of all water agencies within New Mexico, USGS
technical specialists participate on work groups and committees each
year. Currently, USGS personnel are involved in the New Mexico Brackish
Water Task Force, the Rio Grande Environmental Assessment for Upper Rio
Grande water operations, and the Department of the Interior's Southwest
Strategy.
Reclamation, as the nation's largest western water and
hydroelectric power supplier and water management agency, conducts the
most extensive river storage and delivery operations and related
research in the seventeen western states in conjunction with tribal,
state and local partners. Reclamation has provided technical and
monetary assistance to two of the New Mexico state regional water
plans, reviewed and commented on the draft State Water Plan, and
provided water resource-related technical assistance through
Reclamation's Technical Assistance to States planning program. In
addition, Reclamation is actively involved in several Indian water
supply projects within New Mexico, and has developed and maintains
state-of-the-art, internet-delivered decision support data on
evapotranspiration depletions to the Rio Grande system, and conducts
daily river system modeling for water accounting, contracted deliveries
and endangered species support.
In summary, the goals of the bill are commendable, and the bill
contains provisions that are within the scope and expertise of
Reclamation and the USGS. However, it is the position of the
Administration that funding for the activities in this bill be pursued
through existing authorities and procedures, and not through specific
Congressional direction that supersedes established processes,
competitive or otherwise. Also, we believe that the cost-sharing
provisions of this bill should conform to other similar programs
undertaken by Reclamation and the USGS, such as Reclamation Title XVI
program, which requires a 50 percent local share, or the USGS
Cooperative Water Program, which requires a dollar for dollar match of
federal and non-federal funds. Requiring these cost-shares not only
stretches limited federal funds, but also emphasizes that States are
primarily responsible for managing the water resources within their
borders, and not the Federal government. Finally, we find that S. 2460
is sufficiently vague regarding the relative roles and functions of
Reclamation and the USGS, which could cause significant delay in
implementation, as well as the fact that the bill, as written,
duplicates some existing agency programs and authorizations and sets a
major precedent of providing federal funding for State water plans.
Thank you, Madam Chair, for the opportunity to present this
testimony. I will be pleased to answer questions you and other Members
of the Subcommittee might have.
______
on s. 2511
Madam Chairman, I am John W. Keys III, Commissioner of Reclamation.
I am pleased to be here today to present the views of the Department of
the Interior regarding S. 2511 which would authorize a feasibility
study for a Chimayo water supply system, and for planning, design, and
construction of a water supply, reclamation, and filtration facility
for Espanola, New Mexico.
We share the views of the sponsor of this bill, Senator Domenici,
regarding the importance of safe and reliable water supplies for
cities, towns, and villages. The goals of the bill are commendable.
While the Administration cannot support S. 2511 in its current form, we
do think that it points out the urgency for Congress to enact rural
water legislation now pending before the Senate. Both the Espanola and
Chimayo communities may directly benefit from establishment of a
systematic rural water program within Reclamation.
Rural water legislation would provide Reclamation with authority
and guidelines to assist rural communities as they develop proposals
for rural water solutions based on sound economics and best practices.
Among three separate versions of rural water legislation now pending
before the U.S. Senate, there is bipartisan, interbranch consensus that
the federal cost share should not exceed 50% for planning on rural
water projects, at least until a capability-to-pay analysis that is
consistently utilized indicates that a different cost-share is more
equitable.
The rural water legislation would provide a mechanism for
Reclamation and the communities to calculate that capability to pay for
both construction and operation and maintenance. This helps in tow
ways. Reclamation and Congress will be able to identify fair
construction cost-sharing requirements, and local sponsors will be able
to objectively assess whether they will have the resources to properly
operate and maintain projects constructed under the program.
By contrast, Title I of S. 2511 provides that any assistance or
grants for Chamayo would be made on a non-reimbursable basis, and with
only a 25 percent local cost-sharing requirement.
Title II of the bill directs the Secretary of the Interior, acting
through the Bureau of Reclamation to provide financial assistance to
the city of Espanola, New Mexico, for the construction of an Espanola
water filtration facility.
Reclamation has already provided financial assistance of about
$400,000 to the City of Espanola to perform a feasibility study,
including environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy
Act. However, Reclamation has not yet received the feasibility study
from the City of Espanola required under Section 1604 for review and
acceptance. We believe this is a critical step that should preceded
construction authorization of the proposed filtration facility for
three reasons: 1) Reclamation has not yet reviewed the feasibility
study for adequacy; 2) the feasibility report never contemplated
providing water to Chimayo; and 3) the Espanola feasibility study may
need to be expanded to include these additional concerns.
Until these questions are resolved, construction authorization is
not appropriate. Reclamation believes that after reviewing the
feasibility study provided by Espanola, we would be in a far better
position to help shape legislation to authorize construction.
Furthermore, regarding the Chimayo project, with which we are only
minimally familiar, the needs of the Community may be better met by one
of the other numerous Federal rural water programs.
Thank you, Madam Chairman, for the opportunity to present this
testimony. I will be pleased to answer questions you and other members
of the subcommittee might have.
______
on s. 2513
Madam Chair, I am John W. Keys III, Commissioner of Reclamation,
and I am pleased to be here today to present the views of the
Department of the Interior regarding S. 2513, which would authorize the
planning, design, and construction of the Eastern New Mexico Rural
Water System.
We commend the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water Authority (ENMRWA)
for bringing this project as far as it has since 1972 when the first of
four reports on it was completed. Eastern New Mexico needs to address
an impending water shortage and, with continued effort, additional
reports can be developed to ensure a successful project for these
communities. However, because of several questions and issues discussed
below, the Administration cannot support this bill as written.
The communities that form the ENMRWA, the local sponsor of the
Eastern New Mexico Rural Water System, need a long-term renewable water
supply. All of these communities take water from the Ogallala aquifer
which is experiencing water quantity and quality problems. The
viability of the Ogallala is hard to predict and heavily reliant on
agricultural use in the area. Estimates on when it will be fully drawn
down range from 20 to 40 years at current consumption rates. The
Eastern New Mexico Rural Water System is proposed to provide a long-
term renewable water supply and includes a wastewater treatment
facility. In general, participation in the design and development of
wastewater systems is beyond the purview of Reclamation's mission, and
detracts resources from core activities.
Reclamation received authorization to develop a feasibility study
for the Eastern New Mexico Water Supply Project in 1966, P.L. 89-561.
The 1972 feasibility study was followed by special reports developed in
1989 and 1993. The most recent report, dated August 2003, the
Conceptual Design Report (CDR), was developed by Smith Engineering
Incorporated with funds provided through Reclamation at the direction
of Congress
Madam Chairman, anytime that Reclamation undertakes appraisal and
then feasibility phase planning on a proposed project we ask ourselves
a series of critical questions. We feel examination is even more
important when Reclamation, itself, did not perform the appraisal or
feasibility work. Here are some of the questions that we ask:
Have the most economic alternatives been considered?
Does the construction cost estimate include all likely items
and anticipate items that may not yet be listed?
How do estimates for services such as design and
construction management compare with our experience with
comparable projects?
Have the right materials been selected?
Do assumptions in the construction estimate match
assumptions in the operation, maintenance, and replacement
costs?
Have the studies supporting a proposal to proceed with a
project been adequately peer reviewed?
Do communities who will be sharing project costs have an
accurate estimate of how much those costs might be, and do they
have agreement on how to apportion those costs among
themselves?
Is the proposed construction project schedule realistic
given the design uncertainties and the backlog of already
authorized Bureau of Reclamation rural water projects?
Does the work otherwise meet the Administration's principals
and guidelines for construction authorization?
Madam Chairman, we would like to sit down with the project sponsors
and the consultants who are working on Eastern New Mexico and carefully
go over each of these questions. Until then, we are not prepared to
support authorization of construction as currently contemplated by the
Conceptual Design Report.
In general, the Administration will not support authorization of a
project that has not undergone a thorough review, which is necessary to
ensure sound stewardship of taxpayer funds, and to help both the
Administration and Congress in developing the budget. The
Administration must have full oversight of the development and final
review of reports that could form the basis for any authorized project.
Finally, the cost share percentage set forth in the legislation is
beyond the normal federal cost share for rural water projects.
Legislation proposed by the Administration to establish a systematic
rural water program in Reclamation would base the non-federal cost-
share for a project such as the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water System
on a capability-to-pay calculation, but in no event less than 35%.
The Eastern New Mexico Rural Water Authority has plans to develop
additional studies, including a pipe corrosion evaluation, bench and
pilot water treatment testing, energy management, threat assessment, an
operation and maintenance plan, and a storage assessment. All of the
studies planned by the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water Authority will
impact the accuracy of cost estimates for construction as well as OM&R.
Because the CDR currently does not meet Reclamation standards for a
feasibility level study, it is impossible to estimate construction
costs accurately enough to warrant project authorization. While the
Administration cannot support this bill at this time, we pledge to work
more closely than ever with the project sponsors and Senator Bingaman
to develop answers to our questions.
Thank you, Madam 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. We are dealing with the fact that we
have got a roll call vote that has just started and I am told
that we will have three more roll call votes immediately
following that. So we are going to have a little bit of
difficulty getting all of the testimony in. What we may want to
do, since we have three--just two witnesses, we could take the
testimony from the witnesses now so that we can get that before
us.
I know that I have some questions of you, Commissioner, and
I know that Senator Bingaman does as well. But if we could get
the testimony in and perhaps then have an opportunity to either
question you or to present our questions to you in writing, we
are going to proceed that way.
Mr. Keys. Madam Chairman, I would be glad to do that and I
would be glad to stand by until you return, if that is the best
thing.
Senator Murkowski. Well, let us ask you to stand by if you
would not mind.
Mr. Keys. I would be glad to do that.
Senator Murkowski. While we bring up the other two
gentlemen for their testimony so that we can get that on the
record.
[Pause.]
Senator Murkowski. Gentlemen, thank you for joining us. I
apologize that we might not have the opportunity for questions
afterwards, but maybe that gets you off the hook. I am sure we
will have the questions in writing.
Mr. D'Antonio, if you would like to present first we would
appreciate it.
STATEMENT OF JOHN R. D'ANTONIO, JR., PE, NEW MEXICO STATE
ENGINEER, SANTA FE, NM
Mr. D'Antonio. Sure. Thank you, Madam Chair. The order of
my presentation will be--I have three that I am going to
provide testimony for. Does it matter the order? Okay, I have
S. 2460, S. 2511, and S. 2513, in that order.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on S.
2460. It is a bill to provide assistance to the State of New
Mexico for the development of comprehensive State water plans
and for other purposes as well. As State Engineer and on behalf
of the State of New Mexico, we support this bill with
enthusiasm as it is critical to assist both the State and the
Federal agencies in response to the drought in New Mexico. The
State Engineer is tasked with investigating the numerous stream
systems and groundwater basins located within New Mexico to
assist New Mexico's available water supply. The State Engineer
does this through completing hydrographic surveys and
developing hydrologic models.
Federal agencies who have a long history of cooperation
with New Mexico in State water management will have available
current information that is essential to making informed
decisions based on current hydrologic conditions, such as flood
assessment, land management, tribal water resource assessment,
and Federal water project management.
The New Mexico Office of the State Engineer lacks adequate
resources to perform comprehensive hydrologic models and data
collection in a manner that is required for the State to
respond to its citizens' needs during this protracted period of
drought. Additional resources will aid the State Engineer's
ability to make informed decisions concerning the State's water
resources, participate in State-Federal water management
decisions, effectively perform water rights administration, and
comply with New Mexico's compact deliveries.
S. 2460 would provide Federal financial and technical
assistance through the Secretary of the Interior acting through
the Bureau of Reclamation and the USGS, U.S. Geological Survey,
to New Mexico so New Mexico may expeditiously develop
comprehensive water management plans as a response to the
drought.
S. 2460 would provide $12.5 million to the State of New
Mexico to undertake statewide digital orthophotography mapping,
develop hydrologic models, and acquire associated equipment for
those ground and surface water systems having priority within
the State. S. 2460 would also authorize $2.5 million per year
for each fiscal year from 2005 through 2009. That is the total
of $12.5 million.
The State of New Mexico supports this bill. I believe it
will provide New Mexico and Federal agencies the best
opportunity to continue their collaborative efforts to
efficiently manage New Mexico's water and to do so at a point
never more critical to the State and Federal interests.
That concludes testimony for S. 2460.
S. 2511 is the Chimayo Water Supply System and Espanola
Filtration Act. Madam Chair and members of the subcommittee:
Again, thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on S.
2511. It is a bill to direct the Secretary of the Interior to
conduct a feasibility study of Chimayo water supply system, to
provide for the planning, design, and construction of a water
supply, reclamation, and filtration facility for the city of
Espanola, New Mexico, and for other purposes.
As New Mexico State Engineer, I supervise all diversion and
uses of New Mexico's water supply. The magnitude of water
availability and quality have become serious problems for New
Mexico and its communities. Given its limited tax base, these
problems could become insurmountable if preventive action is
not taken now.
While water quality is not my direct responsibility, its
degradation is directly impacting on my duties. Additionally,
in my role with the New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission
I have first-hand knowledge of the water quantity and quality
challenges confronting New Mexico. Most Western States
unfortunately are the same and are similarly challenged.
The unincorporated community of Chimayo, New Mexico, is an
example of a type of water quality problem confronting small
communities throughout New Mexico and the West. Chimayo
residents rely on individual wells for their potable drinking
water and septic systems to dispose of that wastewater. This
picturesque canyon setting limits water supply availability and
septic system sitings, causing the degradation of water supply,
with the deterioration of septic systems resulting in 75
percent of the wells sampled having significant contamination
in both total coliform and fecal coliform and high levels of
total dissolved solids.
There exists no community-wide supply and-or treatment
infrastructure, so many residents have resorted to the use of
free-flowing irrigation ditch water for drinking. Yet it also
contains high levels of fecal coliform contamination. Since
2001 the region has been declared an emergency area,
necessitating the National Guard to provide potable water to
the areas with tanker trucks.
Chimayo's situation remains unchanged. While the city of
Espanola has its own water quality challenges, the more
important immediate challenge is to address its current
situation, which is a water system that produces approximately
1,000 gallons per minute less than is needed to provide for its
current population. This has resulted in inadequate water
pressure throughout the city, which is especially problematic
for Espanola Hospital that serves the region. The lack of
adequate water and water pressure has twice led to declared
states of emergency. Like in Chimayo, the National Guard has
been called to supply water to the hospital.
The city of Espanola has an allocation of 1,000 acre-feet
per year of San Juan-Chama water by contract with the Bureau of
Reclamation. This bill will aid the city in developing the
infrastructure necessary if it is to divert this water, as the
existing infrastructure is inadequate. Until it can use its San
Juan-Chama water, the city will continue to deplete its limited
groundwater supplies and continue to suffer from water pressure
and water supply problems.
S. 2511 would direct the Secretary of the Interior, in
cooperation with the State and local authorities, to conduct a
feasibility study of constructing a water supply system for
Chimayo. In conducting the feasibility study, the Secretary is
to consider various options for supplying water, long-term
operation and maintenance costs, and local water resources. S.
2511 would authorize $2 million at a 75 percent Federal cost
share for the feasibility study.
Senator Murkowski. Mr. D'Antonio, I hate to cut you off,
but in order to get to Mr. Lansford before we have to go to the
vote, are you just about done with your summation on S. 2511?
Mr. D'Antonio. Yes.
Senator Murkowski. Because what we might want to do is for
your third, the third bill that you are testifying to, just
submit that written testimony for the record. So are you just
about complete with S. 2511?
Mr. D'Antonio. Yes, I have two short paragraphs and I will
be done and I will give it over to the Mayor.
The bill would direct the Secretary to provide emergency
water assistance to Chimayo, which may include water treatment,
installation of an emergency water supply system, and
installation of transmission and distribution lines. S. 2511
would authorize $3 million at a 75 percent Federal cost share
for emergency water assistance. It would also authorize the
Secretary of the Interior to provide financial assistance to
the city of Espanola for the construction of a water filtration
facility and also authorize the Secretary to provide financial
assistance to the Pueblos of Santa Clara and San Juan for water
infrastructure as a component of the facility. The bill
authorizes $3 million at a 25 percent Federal cost share for
the filtration facility and associated pueblo infrastructure.
This is the type of legislation that is essential to the
viability of rural and small communities throughout not only
New Mexico but the western States.
Madam Chair, with that I will let Mayor Lansford talk about
the next, Eastern New Mexico.
[The prepared statements of Mr. D'Antonio on S. 2460, S.
2511, and S. 2513 follow:]
Prepared Statement of John R. D'Antonio, Jr., PE,
New Mexico State Engineer
on s. 2460
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to submit testimony on the S. 2460, a bill to provide
assistance to the State of New Mexico for the development of
comprehensive State Water Plans, and for other purposes as well.
As State Engineer and on behalf of the State of New Mexico, we
support this bill with enthusiasm as it is a critical measure that will
assist both the state and federal agencies respond to the drought. The
State Engineer is tasked with investigating the numerous stream systems
and ground water basins located within New Mexico to assess New
Mexico's available water supply. The State Engineer does this through
completing hydrographic surveys and developing hydrologic models.
Federal agencies, who have a long history of cooperation with New
Mexico in state water management, will have available current
information that is essential to making informed decisions based on
current hydrologic conditions, such as flood assessment, land
management, tribal water resources assessment and Federal water project
management. The New Mexico Office of the State Engineer lacks adequate
resources to perform comprehensive hydrologic models and data
collection in a manner that is required for the state to respond to its
citizens needs during this protracted period of drought. Additional
resources will aid the State Engineer's ability to make informed
decisions concerning the state's water resources, participate in State-
Federal water management decisions, effectively perform water rights
administration, and comply with New Mexico's compact deliveries.
S. 2460 would provide federal financial and technical assistance
(through the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Bureau of
Reclamation and the United States Geologic Survey) to New Mexico so New
Mexico may expeditiously develop comprehensive water management plans
in response to the drought.
S. 2460 would provide $12.5 million to the State of New Mexico to
undertake statewide digital orthophotography mapping, develop
hydrologic models and acquire associated equipment for those ground and
surface water systems having priority within the state. S. 2460 would
authorize $2.5 million per year for each fiscal year of 2005 through
2009.
The State of New Mexico supports this bill. I believe it will
provide New Mexico and federal agencies the best opportunity to
continue their collaborative efforts to efficiently manage New Mexico's
water, and do so at a point never more critical to state and federal
interests.
Note: S. 2460 was introduced by Senator Pete Domenici on May 20,
2004 and was referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
______
on s. 2511
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to submit testimony on the S. 2511, a bill to direct the
Secretary of the Interior to conduct a feasibility study of a Chimayo
water supply system, to provide for the planning, design, and
construction of a water supply, reclamation, and filtration facility
for the City of Espanola, New Mexico, and for other purposes.
As New Mexico State Engineer, I supervise all diversions and uses
of New Mexico's water supply. The magnitude of water availability and
quality have become serious problems for New Mexico and its
communities. Given its limited tax base, these problems could become
insurmountable if preventative action is not take now. While water
quality is not my direct responsibility, its degradation is directly
impacting on my duties. Additionally, in my role with the New Mexico
Water Quality Control Commission, I have first hand knowledge of the
water quantity and quality challenges confronting New Mexico. Most
western states, unfortunately, are or will be similarly challenged.
The unincorporated community of Chimayo, New Mexico is an example
of the type of water quality problems confronting small communities
throughout the New Mexico and the west. Chimayo residents rely on
individual wells for their potable water to drink and septic systems to
dispose of waste water. This picturesque canyon setting limits water
supply availability and septic system sitings causing the degradation
of the water supply with the deterioration of septic systems resulting
in 75 percent of wells sampled having significant contamination of both
total coliform and fecal coliform and high levels of total dissolved
solids. There exists no community water supply and/or treatment
infrastructure, so some residents have resorted to the use of free-
flowing irrigation ditch water for drinking, yet it also contains high
levels of fecal coliform contamination. Since 2001, the region has been
declared an emergency area necessitating the National Guard to provide
potable water to the area with tanker trucks. Chimayo's situation
remains unchanged.
While the City of Espanola has its own water quality challenges,
the more important immediate challenge is to address its current
situation, which is a water system that produces approximately 1,000
gallons per minute less than is needed to provide for its current
population. This has resulted in inadequate water pressure throughout
the city, which is especially problematic for the Espanola Hospital
that serves the region. The lack of inadequate water and water pressure
has twice led to declared states of emergency. Like Chimayo, the
National Guard was called in to supply water to the hospital. The City
of Espanola has an allocation of 1,000 acre-feet per annum of San Juan-
Chama Project water by contract with the Bureau of Reclamation. This
bill will aid the City develop the infrastructure necessary if it is to
divert this water as the existing infrastructure is inadequate water.
Until it can use its San Juan-Chama water, the City will continue to
deplete its limited groundwater supplies and continue to suffer from
water pressure and water supply problems.
S. 2511 would direct the Secretary of Interior, in cooperation with
State and local authorities to conduct a feasibility study of
constructing a water supply system for Chimayo. In conducting the
feasibility study, the Secretary is to consider various options for
supplying water, long-term operation and maintenance costs and local
water resources. S. 2511 would authorize $2 million at a 75 percent
federal cost share for the feasibility study. The bill would also
direct the Secretary to provide emergency water assistance to Chimayo
which may include water treatment, installation of an emergency water
supply system and installation of transmission and distribution lines.
S. 2511 would authorize $3 million at a 75 percent federal cost share
for emergency water assistance. S. 2511 would authorize the Secretary
of Interior to provide financial assistance to the City of Espanola for
the construction of a water filtration facility. It would also
authorize the Secretary to provide financial assistance to the Pueblos
of Santa Clara and San Juan for water infrastructure as a component of
the facility. The bill authorizes $3 million at a 25 percent federal
cost share for the filtration facility and associated Pueblo
infrastructure.
This is the type of legislation that is essential to the viability
of rural and small communities throughout, not only New Mexico, but the
western states.
Note: S. 2511 was introduced by Senator Pete Domenici on June 8,
2004 and was referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
______
on s. 2513
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to submit testimony on the S. 2513, a bill supporting an
Eastern New Mexico Rural Water System pipeline.
This bill would authorize the Secretary of Interior to provide
financial assistance to the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water Authority
for the planning, design, and construction of the Eastern New Mexico
Rural Water System, and for other purposes.
The New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission completed construction
of Ute Dam and Reservoir in 1962 at a cost in today's dollars of over
$125 Million. The Interstate Stream Commission owns and operates the
dam and reservoir for the benefit of New Mexico pursuant to the
Canadian River Compact and the 1993 U.S. Supreme Court Stipulated
Judgment. The reservoir was constructed for the specific purpose of
providing a sustainable water supply to the communities of eastern New
Mexico.
In 1997, the Interstate Stream Commission entered into an agreement
with Eastern New Mexico communities and counties for the purchase of
24,000 acre-feet per year of Ute Reservoir water. The Eastern New
Mexico Rural Water Authority will manage the pumping and storage
facilities and delivery of Ute water through the Eastern New Mexico
Rural Water System (ENMRWS) pipeline.
The development of this Ute Reservoir water is critical.
Communities in eastern New Mexico rely on non-renewable groundwater
from the Entrada aquifer and Southern High Plains Ogallala aquifer for
their municipal and industrial water supply. Historical pumping in the
area has resulted in water level declines exceeding 100 feet. Both
aquifers are deteriorating in water quality. The remaining saturated
thickness of the aquifer in some locations near Clovis and Portales
cannot sustain demand for more than 10 to 20 years, even at current
usage levels.
The rapid depletion of these aquifers places the economic viability
and perhaps the very existence of these eastern New Mexico communities
at risk. Ute Reservoir provides the only significant source of
renewable water supply in the region. Without the ENMRWS pipeline,
Eastern New Mexico Communities cannot access their only sustainable
water supply.
Saline aquifers have been considered as potential sources of
additional water supply in the area. We have limited knowledge
regarding the quantity and characteristics of saline aquifers in the
area. Reliable, cost-effective production from these saline sources is
likely decades away and in any event is not renewable.
In December 2003, the Interstate Stream Commission solicited an
independent peer review of the updated ENMRWS Conceptual Design Report
(CDR). The report findings correlated well with the review conducted by
the ENMRWA and we feel there should be little or no unforeseen costs.
Interstate Stream Commission staff completed preliminary ecological
surveys and document collection in 2004 in anticipation of the NEPA
process. These studies revealed no anticipated significant
environmental impacts. The inclusion into the project of the Logan
Sewer Project and Tucumcari Advanced Wastewater Treatment facility is
an important feature that will protect the project source water supply.
The Interstate Stream Commission completed a sediment survey in
2003 that indicated the pipeline project will be viable for at least
the next eighty years. Completion of this project will provide the
eastern New Mexico communities in Curry, Quay, and Roosevelt counties a
reliable and renewable source of water to support economic development
and current and future needs. In March 2004, the New Mexico Water Trust
Board approved $2 million for the ENMRWS. The communities in Eastern
New Mexico provide option payments of $36,000 per year. We believe the
communities can pay for their share of this project economically and
support the OM&R Plan language in the draft legislation requiring the
ENMRWA to consult with the Secretary and develop a framework of rates
and fees that will finance their share of the project.
Madam Chair, the State of New Mexico, the Office of the State
Engineer, and the Interstate Stream Commission support the development
of the ENMRWS and endorse the federal authorization request. I
appreciate the opportunity to address the Committee on this important
water project.
Senator Murkowski. We will include all of the testimony
part of the record.
Mr. Lansford.
STATEMENT OF DAVID M. LANSFORD, MAYOR OF CLOVIS, NM, AND
CHAIRMAN, EASTERN NEW MEXICO RURAL WATER
AUTHORITY, CLOVIS, NM, ACCOMPANIED BY SCOTT
VERHINES, CIVIL ENGINEER, PROGRAM MANAGER, ENMRWA
Mr. Lansford. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I am David Lansford. I am the mayor of the city of Clovis
and in addition I serve as the chairman of the Eastern New
Mexico Rural Water Authority. The city of Clovis represents
over 50 percent of the population served by the Eastern New
Mexico Rural Water System. In addition, the city of Clovis
serves as the fiscal agent for the project.
Along with me is Scott Verhines. Mr. Verhines is a civil
engineer and he is also the program manager for the Water
Authority.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to be before you today
to make a presentation regarding the need and support for the
Eastern New Mexico Rural Water System Project.
Today, because of the prospect of the Eastern New Mexico
Rural Water System, we are very optimistic about the long-term
sustainability of the water supply in eastern New Mexico. This
project is not new. It was first conceived in the 1950's when
the New Mexico legislature appropriated funding to construct a
dam on the Canadian River near Logan, New Mexico, to create Ute
Reservoir. Following the completion of the dam, the first
feasibility study was conducted to determine the steps
necessary to deliver surface water to eastern New Mexico for
the principal purposes of supplying domestic and industrial
water to the region.
Water is the most vital of all resources and New Mexicans
have consistently ranked the availability of quality water as
the most important issue facing those who make public policy.
This is evidenced by Governor Bill Richardson's efforts under
the direction of the Interstate Stream Commission to develop
the New Mexico State Water Plan, which consists of 16 planning
regions. In addition, the New Mexico legislature created the
Water Trust Board to fund water projects which principally are
regional in nature and will leverage local, State, and Federal
dollars to the fullest extent possible.
On the local level, many communities throughout the State
are developing and implementing water conservation measures,
which clearly demonstrate that stewardship of our water supply
is of paramount importance to New Mexico's economic future.
This project is viewed by many as the only long-term
sustainable source of water for eastern New Mexico. There are
currently no viable alternatives to this project. Eastern New
Mexico sits above and at the west end of the Ogallala Aquifer.
The aquifer is declining at a rapid rate relative to its
recharge rate. No one can know with certainty how long this
aquifer can provide our water supply, but estimates range from
15 to 25 years based on current demand.
The prospect of not having a sustainable water supply has
clearly given rise to the widespread belief that this project
is needed. Support for this project exists at all levels of
government as well as from the citizens which the project will
benefit.
The current initiative for the Eastern New Mexico Rural
Water System Project began 5\1/2\ years ago. The Ute Water
Commission and the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water Authority
have conducted over 50 public meetings around the region. In
August 2003 the conceptual design report was completed and
since then has been subjected to two peer reviews. We have
consistently asked the question, have we developed the project
to a level at or exceeding other similarly authorized projects.
The answers have all been yes.
We recognize the financial burdens that would be placed on
all levels of government for this project to be completed and
on the local governments' financial responsibility for the
system to be maintained and operated. Considerable work is
being done to develop financial plans for the member
communities and develop cost pro-ration methods and water rates
that are affordable to all members of the authority. Many
member communities are acting proactively by passing gross
receipts taxes dedicated to this project.
Much discussion has taken place regarding the member
communities' ability and willingness to pay for this project,
can we afford the cost. The more pressing question to me is not
can we afford to do this project, but rather can we afford not
to.
Again, I want to thank you for the opportunity to make
these comments today in this presentation and will be happy to
answer any questions when it is convenient for your committee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lansford follows:]
Prepared Statement of David M. Lansford, Mayor of Clovis, NM, and
Chairman, Eastern New Mexico Rural Water Authority, Clovis, NM
introduction
The purpose of this project is to address an established critical
need. The Eastern New Mexico Rural Water System (ENMRWS) will, when
implemented, provide east-central New Mexico communities, counties, and
a military base with a sustainable source of water for municipal and
industrial use. The project is not new and the need for a renewable
water supply has not diminished. On the contrary, the need for potable
water grows annually as existing supplies are depleted.
Groundwater reserves in the east-central New Mexico region
represent a limited resource that is both declining in quantity and
deteriorating in quality. Two groundwater basins generally serve the
region, the Entrada Aquifer to the north and the Southern High Plains
(Ogallala) Aquifer to the south. The western edge of the Ogallala
formation extends from Texas into eastern New Mexico with relatively
shallow saturated thickness. The formation was discovered in 1912.
Water levels in the vicinity of Clovis have declined in excess of
100 feet in the ensuing period with estimated recharge being on the
order of only \1/2\ inch per year. Even though voluntary conservation
efforts and continued improvements in agricultural water use efficiency
can extend the available supply of groundwater, the depletion problem
in most of the area makes sustainability over the next 15-25 years a
virtual impossibility.
Groundwater hydrologists in the Office of the NM State Engineer
(Musharrafieh, May 2004) recently reported to the ENMRWA that average
annual water level decline in the Clovis area is 1.8 ft., approximately
1.2 ft. in the Portales area, and 1.8 ft. in the Tucumcari region.
Saturated aquifer thickness remaining in the Ogallala formation in the
vicinity of Clovis is less than 50 ft. and less than 20 ft. in the
Portales area. Precipitation is the primary source of recharge to the
aquifer, and only a small portion of precipitation infiltrates.
The New Mexico Legislature recognized the water supply problems in
eastern New Mexico when it passed an Act authorizing the State Engineer
to construct a dam on the Canadian River near Logan in 1959. At the
time, it was recognized that existing groundwater supply sources were
declining and demand from Texas for more water was coming from both the
Canadian and Pecos River basins. In 1964, almost 40 years ago, a major
feasibility study was completed by a Consulting Engineering firm to
furnish water from the newly constructed Ute Reservoir to communities
in eastern New Mexico as a supplemental source of water. In 1975, 1978
and 1981, the New Mexico Legislature authorized and funded improvements
to the spillway to increase storage at Ute Reservoir. A 1994 study by
the New Mexico Interstate Streams Commission (ISC) estimated the firm
annual yield to be 24,000 acre-feet per year in all but extreme drought
years.
Regional water planning in eastern New Mexico is an active and
involved program and the ENMRWS serves as the cornerstone of the
planning efforts. Decline in water availability to the region will
constitute a major economic impact. Local officials have consistently
ranked water as the most serious long-term development issue facing the
area. Inaction with respect to implementation of the ENMRWS project
will result in lost opportunity for economic development and may result
in serious losses to the existing economic base.
Bi-partisan Congressional and Legislative support, and Federal
Agency support for the ENMRWS has been ongoing since the completion of
Ute dam in the late 1950's. The United States Bureau of Reclamation
(USBR) has participated with a number of studies since the 1970's to
help advance the project and has served as the federal sponsor for
funding of ongoing project development activities.
The project has received the support of Governor Richardson and
bipartisan support from the New Mexico State Legislature. The most
recent examples include the creation and implementation of the New
Mexico Water Trust Fund (WTF) and Water Project Fund (WPF) specifically
to advance projects such as the ENMRWS, and dedication of 10% of the
State's severance tax backed bonding capacity to the WTF. The 2002 NM
State Legislature appropriated $2 million under HB.88a specifically to
provide state assistance to the ENMRWA. Locally, members of the ENMRWA
are committed to moving forward with project development activities and
have taken steps to finance their share of capital funding in advance
of the project. Each of the twelve member entities are currently
preparing financial plans specific to their community. In addition,
members of the Ute Water Commission (UWC) have spent in excess of
$400,000 in local funds legally reserving water under the terms of the
purchase agreement with the ISC since 1983.
A team of Consultants began their activities in February 1999,
under contract to the Eastern Plains Council of Governments (EPCOG),
and on behalf of the participating member agencies, to prepare a plan
to advance the ENMRWS project to a final conceptual and fundable stage.
The resulting document, the October 2003 Conceptual Design Report
(CDR), serves as the project roadmap.
Subsequently, the ENMRWA solicited a Peer Review of the CDR that
was completed in December 2003. The PRT validated the project as
detailed in the CDR as ``a sound, well thought-out project. It provides
the structure of a reliable and appropriate water supply system''. The
Peer Review team's recommendations resulted in an approximate increase
in actual construction costs of $26.2 million. The additional $26.1
million increase includes $16.3 million in nonconstruction activities
and $9.8 million in expected ``premium'' costs necessitated by building
the project over several years in smaller construction packages. The
ENMRWA took action at their Dec. 2003 regular meeting to adopt the
recommendations of the Peer Review Team (PRT), and the associated
financial ramifications, in moving forward with the project. Those
recommendations are included in ongoing project development efforts,
and reflected in the cost estimates and implementation plan detailed
herein.
Participating agencies making up the UWC, and the ENMRWA, include
the communities of Clovis, Elida, Grady, Logan, Melrose, Portales, San
Jon, Texico, and Tucumcari; and the counties of Curry, Roosevelt, and
Quay. The City of Clovis and Cannon Air Force Base (CAFB) have a water
lease/purchase agreement in place, since 1996, for a portion of Clovis'
reservation. The UWC was formed by Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) in 1987
for the purpose of contracting with the NM Interstate Stream Commission
for the purchase, acquisition and distribution of water from Ute
Reservoir. The ENMRWA was formed subsequent to the UWC, initially in
November 2001, for the purpose of advanced planning, financing, design,
construction and operation of the facilities. The USBR has a long
history of involvement in the project and is the cooperating federal
agency for funding and technical support.
Specifically, the scope of work associated with the CDR included:
Research, review and update of prior study efforts.
Data collection and review relative to mapping availability,
land ownership, availability of water quality data, existing
and projected water usage, existing community water systems and
their operation,. existing water rate structures, pertinent
environmental process and status, assessment of current
applicable materials and technologies, identification of
comparable facilities, and water yield from Ute Reservoir.
Development of a conceptual design for the project and
associated documentation. It is intended that the CDR report be
used as the basis for pursuing local, state and federal
funding, and as the basis for detailed design of the facilities
once funding is secured.
Evaluation of funding/financing mechanisms and availability
for the project.
A determination of water needs and uses for the individual
participating entities.
Development of a plan for staffing and administration of the
system once operational.
Development of an implementation plan and schedule for the
project.
Development of a plan for operation and maintenance of the
facilities to deliver the water.
demographics
The need for the project stems from both a declining and
deteriorating water supply and the rural environment of eastern New
Mexico. Population density associated with the area represented by the
ENMRWA ranges from 0.5 to 30 persons per square mile and averages less
than 4.5 persons per square mile. The current population within the
three county service area (2000 census) is 73,000 and is approximately
32% Hispanic and 68% Non-Hispanic.
The land area used for agricultural purposes, ranching, farming,
feedlots, and dairies accounts for approximately 93 percent of the
total area. Approximately 68 percent of the region's population resides
within the municipalities and the remainder reside in non-urban
incorporated and unincorporated communities or the farms and ranches in
the area. The ENMRWA members in the region to be served by the project
are geographically remote. The pipeline system that will connect them
all extends approximately 100 miles north-south and 40 miles east-west.
On average, the current cost of producing water from existing
groundwater sources accounts for 30 to 50% of the total cost of system
operation for the members. Approximately 30 to 50% of current water
sales are to commercial and industrial users, and 50 to 70% to
residential customers.
options previously considered
The initial study phase of the CDR was completed in October 1999,
and addressed the supply of Ute Reservoir water to the Quay Working
Group (QWG) members of the UWC including the communities of Logan, San
Jon, and Tucumcari, and Quay County--the nearest neighbors to the
Reservoir. That effort evaluated three water system alternatives
defined for the QWG. They were the outcome of a number of public
meetings with input from the QWG members, prior work by the USBR and
EPCOG, newly enacted groundwater storage and recovery legislation
(GWSRA), completion of an extensive data collection effort, and site
visits to similar surface water supply projects in South Dakota, Texas,
and Arkansas. The three previously considered options were as follows:
QWG Option A--Conventional Treatment and Pumping (CTP) with
the QWG as an initial phase of a full UWC project. Option A,
initially sized to deliver to the QWG communities, included:
A lakeside intake structure and raw water pumping station.
Raw water storage tanks.
A water treatment plant.
A treated water pump station.
Treated water elevated storage.
A main transmission pipeline, which would be extended in
future phases to serve the remaining agencies of the UWC.
Lateral pipelines to each of the QWG communities.
QWG Option B--Conventional Treatment and Pumping (CTP)
serving the QWG as a stand-alone project. Option B includes:
A lakeside intake structure and raw water pumping station.
Raw water storage tanks.
A water treatment plant.
A treated water pump station.
Direct transmission pipelines to each of the QWG
communities.
QWG Option C--Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR). Option C
was made possible by the recently (at the time) passed GWSRA
legislation, and includes:
A lakeside intake structure and raw water pumping station.
Raw water storage tanks.
A water filtration plant.
A filtered water pump station.
Direct transmission pipelines to each of the QWG
communities.
Infiltration basins above the existing well fields at each
member community that would serve to recharge the existing
groundwater basin.
Existing water well and transmission infrastructure would
be used to extract and distribute water stored in the
underground aquifer.
Of the previously considered options, Option A was found to be the
most cost effective for the QWG and formed the framework for the ENMRWS
to serve the entire UWC membership. The possibility of significant
state and federal funding assistance, and the economies of scale
realized by the distribution of common facilities costs over 24,000 ac-
ft of total reservation, by inclusion of the entire UWC membership,
favored QWG--Option A. Since QWG--Option A was the only option that
considered expansion to a regional water supply project, this option
also helps solve the regional water supply problem. In November 1999,
both the QWG and the UWC voted unanimously to expand the scope of
Option A to address the full UWC membership. The extension of Option A
to serve the full UWC membership is the focus of the Conceptual Design
Report and includes analysis of the water system to deliver 24,000
acre-feet per annum to all twelve UWC members.
While ASR is not considered as a primary system configuration for
the ENMRWS project, it is certainly considered as a long-term adjunct
to the system as a means to store water that would otherwise spill from
the reservoir in years of abundant rainfall. During 1999 while the
outlet works were being repaired on Ute Dam, the ISC estimates that
150,000 acre-feet overflowed the spillway. According to the USBR
Special Environmental Report of 1993, it is estimated that in the
forty-seven years from 1943 to 1989, a total of 874,000 acre feet in
excess of the regular project withdrawals would have spilled during
fifteen of these years.
With this ENMRWS project in place, the existing well fields at each
delivery point may be configured to periodically inject these spill
waters to effectively increase the yield by a factor of 1.8 times
24,000 acre-feet/year over forty seven years.
Logan's proximity to the lake affords it a unique alternative. An
excellent case may be made that the existing geohydrologic connection
between the reservoir and Logan's well field already recharges Logan's
localized aquifer. If so, Logan could file with the Office of the State
Engineer Office (OSE) to extract its reservation from its existing well
fields without the need for significant additional infrastructure.
However, as a backup source, to take advantage of treated water
associated with future water quality regulations, and to potentially
provide service to the south side of the reservoir, a connection from
the project to Logan is included and associated costs developed.
key project assumptions
The following underlying assumptions are pertinent to this report:
Water delivery to ENMRWA members is based on satisfying
peak-day demand, and 24,000 ac-ft annual delivery.
Water is centrally-treated and potable water is delivered to
the members.
Water will be delivered in bulk (wholesale) to members.
County reservations will be available for future wholesale
delivery to currently. unincorporated areas--for fire
protection, livestock taps and for redistribution as domestic
water supply.
The infrastructure has been sized, and associated costs
developed, assuming that each participating member uses or pays
for their reserved allocation of Ute water annually (``take or
pay'').
Pipeline easements will be donated. Single payment damages
could be reimbursed where warranted. Fee simple property will
be purchased.
The expanding development of wind energy resources in the
region is potentially key to maintaining affordable operation
and maintenance project costs. New Mexico's renewable wind
energy resources rank 12th among the 50 states in value.
Water costs have been developed for each member agency on
the basis of possible funding arrangements described in the
following section.
It is intended that the system will deliver potable water
for domestic, commercial and industrial uses, and it will not
be used for the purposes of irrigated agriculture.
key project features
A lakeside intake structure and raw water pump station.
1.7 million gallon raw water storage (equalization) tanks.
39 million gallon per day (mgd) capacity central water
treatment, administration and maintenance facility.
A high service pump station at the water treatment facility.
Treated water elevated storage--Quay Co. storage and
pressure control.
Approximately 87.5 miles of main transmission pipeline
ranging in size from 30" dia. to 54" dia.
A booster pump station at the base of the Caprock.
2.4 million gallon ground storage at the top of the Caprock.
Gravity flow from the top of the Caprock to all downstream
members in Curry and Roosevelt Counties.
Approximately 94.8 miles of lateral pipelines to serve
individual communities and county demand, ranging in size from
8" dia. to 36" dia.
Telemetry and control systems.
Infrastructure security enhancements.
The ENMRWA has endorsed three (3) infrastructure projects as
adjuncts to the core water project, as follows:
$100,000 Energy recovery at Portales (PRT recommendation)
$3,000,000 Advanced wastewater treatment at Tucumcari (PRT
recommendation).
$6,000,000 Logan wastewater collection and treatment
project.
The first item listed above takes advantage of the amount of energy
available in the trunkline opposite Portales. In lieu of using a
pressure reducing valve, or similar appurtenance to reduce the pressure
to a match Portales' distribution system, the PRT recommends a small
``hydropower'' system that will accomplish a similar pressure reduction
while generating usable power at the same time. An initial investment
in the associated infrastructure will pay for itself many times over in
energy recovered.
The second and third items above are directly related to helping
ensure long-term water quality in the reservoir for the benefit of all
the authority members. Effluent from Tucumcari's wastewater treatment
plant discharges to Ute Reservoir. These funds would be used to add
tertiary treatment to improve effluent water quality, or alternatively
for effluent reuse back to the City of Tucumcari reducing or
eliminating discharge to Ute Reservoir. Tucumcari is presently studying
these options. Logan's project will reduce or eliminate the potential
for discharge from existing septic tanks and cesspools along the north
shore into the reservoir. Since the reservoir is intended to become the
primary source for municipal and commercial water supply to the water
authority membership protection of its long-term water quality, and
quantity, is paramount.
funding and cost proration
Fiscal evaluation of the feasibility of the ENMRWS is predicated on
an 80-10-10 funding mechanism for capital costs: 80% Federal assistance
in the form of grant, 10% State matching funds, and 10% Local members
share. This is based on an evaluation of the members' ability and
willingness to pay, on experience drawn from the successes of rural
water supply projects in South Dakota and other mid-western and western
states, and the fact that the ENMRWS is similar in both size and in
demographics of the population served by those projects. Estimated
costs are prorated to the members on the basis of these primary
considerations:
``Common facility'' capital costs, core to and necessary for
the water supply system to function, are prorated on the basis
of the amount of water reserved on the system. Examples of
common facilities are the intake structure at Ute Reservoir,
raw water pumping facilities, and the water treatment facility.
Infrastructure capital costs specific to serving each member
entity are accounted for and the associated costs applied to
the respective entity. For example, the lateral pipelines from
the main transmission trunk pipeline to the member communities.
In the case of the three counties, where specific locations for
water demand are not completely identified at this time, county
level capital costs were prorated for the common facilities,
along the transmission pipeline, and along lateral lines to
member communities.
Fixed non-construction costs necessary to implement the
project, such as engineering, special studies, funding and
programmatic activities, NEPA level environmental documentation
and permitting, public involvement programs and construction
management are prorated to the member entities on the basis of
their relative share of construction costs (including pro-rata
share of the common facilities).
The main transmission trunk pipeline is prorated on the
basis of Ute water reservation and pipeline length from
treatment plant.
Operation, maintenance and replacement costs are prorated
on the basis of member's relative share of the construction
cost, and are adjusted for anticipated phasing of the
improvements.
100% of recurring costs will be born by ENMRWA members and
associated water users over the project life. Recurring costs
are included in computed wholesale water rates. Recurring costs
include the cost of raw water, system operation and
maintenance, ISC Ute Reservoir operation and maintenance fee,
debt retirement on capital cost, and replacement costs.
probable project cost
The total core project cost estimate is $296.6 million, including
construction and nonconstruction items. The three adjunct projects
added by the ENMRWA take the total project cost to $305.7 million. The
population potentially served is approximately 73,000 and the total
project cost per capita is $4,188. The average wholesale cost to ENMRWA
members, considering a 10% cost share plus 100% of operation and
maintenance, is $1.92 per 1,000 gallons. Four major project phases are
anticipated. Assuming the proposed funding model, it is expected that
the four major phases will encompass approximately twelve (12) separate
construction packages over seven to eight years. The following graph*
approximates the local, state and federal funding necessary to meet the
aggressive goals defined in the implementation plan and schedule for
the project over the next 11 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* All graphs and tables have been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
capability to pay and regional economic benefits
The USBR Denver Technical Service Center prepared an economic
analysis of the project. The analysis includes an estimate of the
capability of water users to pay for construction of a Ute Reservoir
pipeline, the potential willingness to pay of water users for water
supply improvements associated with the pipeline, and the potential
regional economic impacts and tax impacts from building the pipeline.
The estimates of payment capability include both households and
commercial water users. The capability of households to pay for water
supply improvements is based on an analysis of household income,
expenses, and residential water payments made in similar areas. The
payment capability of commercial water users is based on the results of
previous rural water system studies and current business activity in
eastern New Mexico.
The total net payment capability was estimated to range from $2.8
million to $11.3 million annually for all households in the study area
and $1.6 million to $4.9 million annually for commercial
establishments. The most likely range of net payment capability is $10
million to $11 million annually for households and $2.6 million to $4.9
million for commercial establishments. The most likely range of
estimates is based on the maximum payment capability factors observed
for comparable water suppliers used in the payment capability analysis.
The payment capability estimates would cover operation, maintenance,
repair, raw water costs, and operation and maintenance fees associated
with the proposed pipeline project.
The willingness to pay estimates measure the amount water users
would be willing to pay to improve the water supply under current
conditions. The willingness to pay of households is estimated to be
$2,278,600 annually and the willingness to pay of commercial water
users is estimated to be $425,000 annually, for a total willingness to
pay of a little over $2.7 million each year given current levels of
population and commercial development. Both of the willingness to pay
estimates are based on the benefits transfer method, which can result
in a significant level of error.
The eastern New Mexico region has experienced a decline in
groundwater levels over recent years. If this trend were to continue
over time without planning for future use, it is very likely that the
cost of providing water supplies would increase significantly in the
future. As a result, the true benefit from providing water through an
alternate surface water supply will be greater than the estimated
willingness to pay. Assuming future water payments without an
alternative water source double, the benefits from the pipeline could
be $5 million annually.
Construction and operation expenditures associated with the
proposed eastern New Mexico Rural Water System will generate regional
economic impacts. It is estimated that the project would generate an
estimated $100 million in regional output, $25 million in employee
compensation, and a little over 1,500 jobs during construction. Annual
impacts from operation and maintenance activities would be about $16.5
million worth of regional output, $3.6 million in employee
compensation, and 170 jobs.
It should also be recognized that any commercial activity
attributable to the water supply project, either through the attraction
of businesses due to improved water supplies or through the retention
of businesses that would have left if water supplies became worse in
the future, would also generate positive regional economic impacts. The
magnitude of these impacts cannot be estimated with any certainty
because the extent to which business activity is affected is not known.
Construction of the pipeline will also generate tax revenues. It is
estimated that the project will generate as much as $8.5 million in
gross receipts tax revenues. Gross receipt tax revenues from operation
and maintenance expenditures to all levels of government are estimated
to be over $450,000 annually. Pipeline construction will also have an
impact on state income tax payments. Income tax payments are estimated
to increase by $360,000 as a result of construction and $53,000
annually from operation and maintenance expenditures. Implementation of
an additional gross receipts tax could increase the financial resources
available to pay for a pipeline significantly.
implementation and schedule
The proposed approach to project development and implementation is
anticipated to take approximately I 1 years, from the delivery of the
Conceptual Design Report in October 2003, to the completion of
construction of Phase 4 improvements in October 2014. A copy of the
detailed Implementation Plan and Schedule presented in Section 7 of the
CDR is included at the end of this brief. The main activities
envisioned are as follows:
Project Development Activities--July 2004 through January
2012.
Funding and supporting activities
Pilot treatment testing
Public involvement activities
Environmental Investigations and Documentation (NEPA)
Preliminary and Final Design
Construction Activities--November 2007 through October 2014
Phases 1 though 4
Based on the detailed analysis presented in the CDR, the ENMRWA
concludes that:
1. The ENMRWS is a feasible solution to the regional water supply
problem. From an engineering standpoint, the system as conceptually
conceived is viable. From a funding and project cost standpoint, it is
the potential leverage of local and state funds with significant
federal participation that makes the project feasible with respect to
the regional users ability to pay for and operate the system.
2. The formation of the ENMRWA (the ``Authority'' as was
recommended in the October 2000 Conceptual Design Report) representing
the interests of the UWC members is a prudent step, and provides the
mechanism for establishing operating procedures, seeking federal and
state funding, and initiating planning and design efforts. The ENMRWA
hired a Program Manager to serve as the point of contact for the
Authority and to represent the membership in subsequent project
development activities.
3. It should immediately concentrate its efforts on seeking federal
authorization and subsequent funding support, working with the State of
New Mexico within the framework of the Water Project Fund for
dedication of a state match to the project, and on initiating a public
awareness/education program.
4. The Authority should initiate negotiations with Farmer's
Electric Co-op over a satisfactory long-term power rate. Additionally,
the Authority should continue to strongly pursue renewable energy from
wind power development in the region as a potential long-term operation
and maintenance cost shaving measure.
5. The Authority should initiate the appropriate selection of
consultants to assist the members with funding, planning, design,
construction and public awareness activities in support of project
development. The consultant team's efforts should initiate pilot
testing to finalize the water treatment program, preliminary property
owner contacts to identify property acquisition opportunities and
constraints, and NEPA investigations and documentation.
6. Planning efforts should include development of detailed
operating and administrative procedures to be followed, and a process
for intra-authority interim water transfers between members within the
operating procedures of the Authority.
7. The Authority, in collaboration with the ISC and the Village of
Logan, must remain committed to long-term water quality monitoring and
source water protection at Ute Reservoir.
8. A great deal of work and background has been developed in
support of the ENMRWS over a 40-year period. A healthy, participative,
and collaborative effort between the project sponsors and stakeholders
is crucial to ensuring that the surface water resource will be put to
beneficial use in a timely and cost-effective manner.
current and ongoing efforts
Studies are nearing completion regarding development of
individual ENMRWA member financial plans.
Studies are nearing completion on an update to water rate
setting and cost proration.
The Authority has established a Public Involvement
Committee, developed a structured public involvement program
and initiated the public education component.
The Authority has established a By-Laws Committee that is
actively developing operating rules and procedures.
The Program Manager is currently updating the 2003 CDR
Implementation Plan and Schedule to reflect ongoing activities
at the local, state and federal level.
The Program Manager, in conjunction with the Authority's
consultants working on financial plans and water rate setting,
is developing a temporal cost estimate showing costs incurred
by the member entities and the associated impact to water rates
on an annual basis.
The Authority has approved a plan to solicit and select
consultants for Preliminary Design of the entire project,
associated special studies, and NEPA investigations and
documentation.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
I appreciate the testimony of both gentlemen. We will have
to depart to go vote. I do understand, though, that Senator
Domenici has already voted and is perhaps on his way back here
and wants an opportunity to pose about 5 minutes of questions.
So if I can ask, Commissioner, you to hold tight, and
gentlemen, if you can stay with us, we will hold the record
open for Senator Domenici to come. It is correct he is coming?
So Senator Bingaman, if you wanted to make a couple of
comments.
Senator Bingaman. Let me just thank you again for having
the hearing. Sorry these votes have interrupted our hearing. I
do not know if I will get back or not, but we will submit a
couple of questions for the record for both Commissioner Keys
and for these witnesses. I know they have come a great
distance, these two witnesses have, to testify today and we
very much appreciate it. We will continue to move ahead with
this legislation.
Thank you very much.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
I also have questions that will be submitted for the record
in the event that we do not get to all of them. But if we can
just take an at-ease here until Senator Domenici is able to
join the group and that allows us to vote. Thank you. Again,
thank you for making the commitment to come all this way. We do
appreciate it.
[Recess from 3:02 p.m. to 3:38 p.m.]
The Chairman [presiding]. Mr. Keys, why do you not come and
join at the table. I want to go rather quickly. I first want to
apologize to all of you. This has just been one of those days.
I would have let you go and called off the meeting, let it go
at the subcommittee level. But there are things here that are
very important to New Mexico and so I wanted to get a couple of
them out on the record and make sure.
Has Senator Bingaman been here? OK, so I imagine he got the
issues.
First, from New Mexico, I want to thank you, Mr. D'Antonio,
for coming. You have a tough job in New Mexico. From the last
time I have seen you, you look slimmer, your eyes look a little
bit more indented in your head. But I assume you still like it,
is that right?
Mr. D'Antonio. Yes, Senator Domenici. I am loving my job.
It needs to snow and rain more, but yes.
The Chairman. You got it.
Let me talk for a minute to you, Commissioner. New Mexico,
as many other Western States, has limited fresh water but
abundant brackish water, as you know. We plan to have a
groundbreaking later this month for a Bureau desalination
research and development facility in New Mexico. I thank you
for agreeing to attend that event.
Does the Tularosa facility fit well within the Bureau's
existing desalinization research program? I am asking you.
Mr. Keys. I am sorry. Say again, sir?
The Chairman. Does the Tularosa Basin facility fit within
the Bureau's existing desalinization research programs?
Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, our existing program runs out at
the end of 2004 and certainly would need to be reauthorized. It
extends that program and we think that the bill that you have
proposed here is a good way to extend that to include Tularosa.
The Chairman. What role do you foresee the Bureau having in
advancing desalinization technology as it pertains to
addressing our Nation's depleting water, fresh water resources?
Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, we think that the Bureau of
Reclamation has a lot to offer to the desalination effort. Our
comments on the bill that is before us today actually ask that
we be put into a better role with that facility than just being
a caretaker, in other words to define the effort that
Reclamation can do to be part of that research and development
effort to forward desalinization.
We have several programs under way that we are working with
now. We have some of the experts in the field working for us.
It is a significant part of the Water 2025 effort that we have
going. We certainly want to be part of that.
The Chairman. Now, let me move a minute to the S. 2460.
This is the New Mexico Water Planning Assistance Act.
Commissioner Keys, assessments have been made by the New Mexico
Office of the State Engineer assisting the Federal agencies,
including the Bureau, providing important information on
hydraulic conditions, important for flood assessments, flood
management, tribal water resources.
My staff has taken great care to solicit the
administration's concerns on S. 2460. As a result, my staff has
addressed an amendment to be offered at markup that would make
the grants to the State subject to a 50 percent cost share.
Would the administration support S. 2460 with such an
amendment?
Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, that is one of the problems that we
had addressed in our comments, this cost share. That would be
acceptable to us. We still have a couple of other hesitations
about the bill. One is section 3(e) that says that the Governor
of New Mexico could actually redirect Interior funding to
someone else, and we would request that section 3(e) be dropped
from that bill also.
Other than the general concern about it being a drain on
our budgets and so forth, those are our concerns.
The Chairman. Well, we are going to have to decide what is
most important around here. I can take the case to the Senate
that there is nothing more important out there in the West.
They tell us now that these have not been exceptionally dry
years, that we are kind of in the middle. That is what I hear.
I do not know what John has heard, but this drought is not
going away next year. It is going to be here pretty long, which
is very, very tough.
Let me ask you, Mr. D'Antonio. The subject matter is S.
2460, the Water Planning Assistance. Will S. 2460, the Senate
bill, help New Mexico make decisions about limited water
resources? Does S. 2460 better equip the office to deal with
years of drought?
Mr. D'Antonio. Senator, yes, S. 2460 would greatly enable
and enhance our ability to assess our water resources in the
State of New Mexico, both groundwater and surface water. We are
in probably a 5-year drought cycle right now and with no end in
sight and no rains in April or May. The drought--we are going
to be in a severe--most of the entire State is going to be in a
severe drought condition as the new data comes out. And yes,
this funding is critical for us to do our active water resource
management in New Mexico.
The Chairman. Mayor Lansford, would you please understand
that I fully support the importance of the Eastern New Mexico
pipeline as far as the future of that part of the State. I
commend you and others who have been involved for all the hard
work that you put in the project. I have some concerns about
the ability of some of the communities to raise their portion
of the moneys.
What are the findings of the financial assessments to
investigate the ability of the beneficiary communities to pay
for the non-Federal portion?
Mr. Lansford. Thank you, Senator, for your comments. The
study that we have looked at in general says that as a region,
as 12 member communities, collectively we have the ability to
pay. But individually there is a few communities that do not,
and as a result of that analysis we are looking at some pro-
rationing and some rates that will make it affordable for all.
An example would be the people of Clovis paying an
additional penny per thousand gallons would reduce the rate in
a neighboring community by as much as 7 to 8 dollars per
thousand gallons. So doing a little bit of cost-sharing and so
forth, I think we can come up with some formulas to make it
affordable to all the member entities.
The Chairman. Well, I thank you for that. I think we can
apply a little ingenuity, maybe give more flexibility to how
you can put that together, so it does not have to be exact if
you can meld it together. In doing that, we have got to make
sure that the result is fair, and if we can work on that in
putting it together we will.
I do not want to keep you any longer. I just want to thank
you. Some of these are not thought to be important bills,
Chimayo and the others, but anything we can do, a little bit
here and there, is helpful.
With that, we stand adjourned at the call of the Chair.
Thank you so much.
[Whereupon, at 3:47 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIXES
----------
Appendix I
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Department of the Interior,
Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs,
Washington, DC, August 27, 2004.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Enclosed are responses prepared by the Bureau of
Reclamation to questions submitted following the June 17, 2004, hearing
before the Subcommittee on Water and Power on S. 2513, ``To authorize
the Secretary of the Interior to provide financial assistance to the
Eastern New Mexico Rural Water Authority for the planning, design, and
construction of the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water System.''
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this material to the
Committee.
Sincerely,
Jane M. Lyder,
Legislative Counsel.
[Enclosure.]
s. 2513
Question 1. Your testimony on S. 2513 states that ``the cost share
percentage set forth in the legislation is beyond the normal federal
cost share for rural water projects.'' That statement is not correct.
The cost-share set out in the legislation is well-established by recent
precedent--for example:
The Lewis & Clark Rural Water System in South Dakota was
authorized in 2000 at an 80% Federal cost-share ($214 million);
The Dry Prairie Rural Water System in Montana was authorized
in 2000 at a 76% Federal costshare ($51 million); and
The Rocky Boys Rural Water System in Montana was authorized
in 2002 at an 80% Federal cost-share ($203 million).
Moreover, Reclamation's own capability and willingness to pay study
questions whether the communities in Eastern New Mexico can absorb any
more costs.
Isn't an 80% Federal cost-share appropriate under these
circumstances?
Answer. The three projects you mention were all authorized at the
high levels you stated. Nevertheless, as we have previously testified,
the Administration does not believe an 80% Federal cost-share is
appropriate for any rural water project. On March 25, 2004, I appeared
before the Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee to discuss the
merits of S. 1732, S. 1085 and S. 2218. S. 2218 is the Reclamation
Rural Water Supply Act of 2004, which was introduced by Senator
Domenici on behalf of the Administration. S. 2218 would require the use
of a well-established Reclamation methodology for identifying the
``capability to pay'' of rural communities to determine the appropriate
level of their contribution for development and construction costs and
would establish a 35% minimum non-Federal contribution. Reclamation's
rural water activities were assessed in 2002 under the Program
Assessment Rating Tool (PART), a method of assessing the performance of
program activities across the Federal government. The conclusions of
the review were clear--stronger controls for rural water project
development are needed and lack of Reclamation involvement during
project development increases the probability of projects that are not
successful according to the Federal program assessment measurements. So
even though the two Montana projects and the one South Dakota project
were all authorized at, or close to, an 80% Federal cost-share, the
Administration's objective with respect to rural water projects is to
follow the policies that would be mandatory under S. 2218 and require a
minimum non-Federal contribution of at least 35%.
Question 2. I agree with your assessment that the communities
participating in the Eastern New Mexico project need to have an
accurate estimate of the annual costs and an agreement on how to
apportion those costs. S. 2513 requires just such a plan to be in place
prior to initiating construction of the Project.
Doesn't this contingency in the legislation address Reclamation's
concerns?
Answer. As stated in my testimony, Reclamation has questions about
the construction and Operation, Maintenance and Replacement Plan (OM&R)
costs. The URS Corporation, which was hired by the State of New Mexico
to review the project Conceptual Design Report (CDR), raised many of
the same questions. Few of these lingering questions were addressed in
the August 2003 CDR developed by Smith Engineering, Inc. or the Jarnis
Consultants peer review conducted in December 2003.
Additionally, the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water Authority (ENMRWA)
is planning studies that will further refine construction and OM&R cost
estimates. Whether the additional studies will increase or decrease the
cost estimate is unknown at this time. If either the construction or
OM&R cost estimate changes significantly, the ability of the ENMRWA to
afford the project will also change. If the cost estimates increase,
the ENMRWA may not be able to afford the project, even with an 80
percent federal grant. If the cost estimates decrease, the ENMRWA may
be able to afford a larger portion of the construction cost. The
contingency in the legislation only addresses one of Reclamation's
questions: Do the communities have agreement on how to apportion the
construction and OM&R costs among themselves? The question of ability
to pay cannot be answered with certainty until more definite cost
estimates are developed.
We would like to work with the ENMRWA to obtain firmer estimates of
construction and OM&R costs as well as to establish a clear breakdown
of how these costs are to be apportioned among participating
communities, in order to eliminate the contingency in the legislation.
We note, however, that Reclamation's authority to participate in
developing this project, as with any other rural water project, is
severely limited by our lack of authority to develop rural water
projects.
Question 3. You also note the need to peer review the conceptual
design report for the Eastern New Mexico project. Both the Authority
and the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission conducted a peer review
of the design report.
Does Reclamation have objections to the findings of those two peer
review efforts?
Answer. A cursory review of the peer review report commissioned by
the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission reveals that a large
majority of comments made by URS Corporation were not addressed by the
ENMRWA. For example, the URS recommended project contingencies of 30 to
35 percent, engineering design of 8 percent, unidentified item
allowance of 10 to 15 percent, a contingency applied to Operation
Maintenance and Replacement (OM&R) of 30 to 35 percent, and included
costs for rock excavation and pipe bedding. The costs provided in the
Jarnis peer review and the Final CDR contain only a 25 percent
contingency, 5 percent for engineering design, no unidentified item
allowance, no identifiable contingency applied to the OM&R costs, and
no costs for rock excavation and pipe bedding. The Jarnis peer review
also contains OM&R line items that are disproportionate with the
construction costs.
In light of the inconsistencies between the two peer reports and
the Final CDR, we would like an opportunity to perform our own detailed
independent review and to work with the ENMRWA to develop a final
report that incorporates appropriate recommendations from each peer
review report. A full Administration review is necessary to ensure that
the project is in line with the best interests of the federal taxpayer,
and to help both the Administration and Congress assess what priority
this project should have, relative to other projects all awaiting
limited federal resources.
Question 4. The Administration is objecting to the design and
development of wastewater systems as ``beyond the purview of
Reclamation's mission and detract[ing] resources from core
activities.''
The wastewater systems included in the project are a small part of
the project ($9 million) and key to protecting the quality of the
source water. Has Reclamation implemented source water protection with
respect to other water projects that it is associated with?
Answer. Reclamation has constructed small sewage systems for
recreational or office use around various reservoirs, typically small
collection systems and septic tanks. Reclamation is also involved in
the Jicarilla Apache Nation Municipal Water and Wastewater Project.
Reclamation's involvement is the result of special circumstances that
posed a health hazard to the Nation in and around Dulce, New Mexico.
P.L. 106-243 (July 2000) directed the Secretary of the Interior to do a
study and submit a report on this problem. The Jicarilla Project is a
non-traditional Reclamation water project, and is not supported in the
Administration's budget.
One example of sewage handling for the purposes of source water
protection is the Arbuckle Project near Sulphur, Oklahoma. Effluent
from the Sulphur, Oklahoma sewage disposal plant is pumped four miles
to a different drainage than the Arbuckle Dam, avoiding possible
contamination of water stored at Arbuckle Dam.
The term source water protection can be viewed broadly and applying
a more expansive definition, Reclamation has implemented several source
water protection projects. These include the Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Project and the Leadville hazardous waste treatment
plant. However, most of these projects are associated with Reclamation
Projects and are considered ``issue-related'' to any core activities.
Our position is that wastewater systems are appropriately the
responsibility of local and State stakeholders and that Reclamation can
leverage its funding most effectively when our activities focus on
water storage and supply augmentation.
______
Department of the Interior,
Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs,
Washington, DC, October 7, 2004.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Enclosed are responses prepared by the Bureau of
Reclamation to questions submitted following the June 17, 2004, hearing
before the Subcommittee on Water and Power on S. 1211, S. 2460, and S.
2511.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this material to the
Committee.
Sincerely,
Jane M. Lyder,
Legislative Counsel.
[Enclosure.]
s. 1211, reclamation wastewater and groundwater study and facilities
act
Question 1. Commissioner Keys, Title 16 directs the Secretary of
the Interior to develop programs to ``investigate and identify''
opportunities to reclaim and reuse naturally impaired ground and
surface water. Do you feel that the Tularosa facility will further this
statutory mandate?
Answer. Construction and operation of the Tularosa facility is in
line with Section 1605 of Title XVI, which authorizes Reclamation to
conduct research and demonstration projects.
The focus of work at the Tularosa facility will be research on
desalination of naturally impaired groundwater as well as investigation
of means of disposal of the concentrate stream that is produced by
almost any desalination process.
Question 2. What do you believe the appropriate role of the federal
government is in helping communities make use of desalination
technology to meet their water needs?
Answer. The federal government has a history of involvement in
desalination research. The Administration is currently reconsidering
the appropriate role of the federal government in conducting research
in this area, which worldwide is linked to a multi-billion dollar
industry.
s. 2460, the new mexico water planning assistance act
Question 1. Last time that you and Director Groat testified before
this subcommittee, Director Groat said that we need a more detailed
assessment of our water resources. S. 2460 would enlist the expertise
of the USGS, in collaboration with the New Mexico Office of the State
Engineer in surveying and modeling stream systems in New Mexico.
Do you feel that the aim of S. 2460 is consistent with Director
Groat's testimony before this subcommittee on May 17 that we need a
more detailed assessment of our water resources?
Answer. Yes, the stated purpose of S. 2460, the New Mexico Water
Planning Assistance Act, ``to provide assistance to the State of New
Mexico for the development of comprehensive State water plans,'' is
consistent with Dr. Groat's testimony on May 19, 2004, in which he
states:
Water quantity and quality will most likely be the determining
and limiting factors that ultimately control future economic
development, population growth, and human health. . . . the
lack of basic inventory and monitoring information pertaining
to border water resources and water resources environments
prevents a comprehensive understanding of watershed and
regional processes and issues, and hinders the ability of
science to provide the essential predictive capability to
characterize or describe potential cause and effect relations
associated with alternative land and water use and management
actions.
While the stated purpose of S. 2460 is consistent with Dr. Groat's
testimony this past May, the Administration does not believe that S.
2460, as currently drafted, is an appropriate vehicle for improving
knowledge about New Mexico's water resources. As noted in my testimony,
funding for these activities should be pursued through existing
authorities and procedures. Also, cost-sharing provisions should
conform to other similar programs undertaken by Reclamation and the
USGS Cooperative Water Program. S. 2460 is too vague regarding the
relative roles and functions of Reclamation and USGS to promote
efficient implementation. Finally, the bill duplicates some existing
agency programs and authorizations and sets a major precedent of
funneling funds through the Department of the Interior for State water
plans.
Question 2. Do you believe that the federal government should
contribute to data gathering that benefits federal agencies?
Answer. Yes, in fact, it is within the missions of both USGS and
Reclamation to provide data to Federal agencies, and appropriate local
cost sharing is a normal part of this process. However, for the reasons
stated above, I do not believe that S. 2460 is the appropriate vehicle
to accomplish these objectives.
Question 3. Do you believe that the data that would be produced as
a result of this bill would help State and Federal governments plan to
ensure a sustainable water supply for the State?
Answer. Many local, State, and tribal New Mexico water agencies are
already using information produced through cooperative work with
Reclamation and USGS. Data produced as a result of this bill could
potentially help New Mexico and the Federal government plan for the
development of a sustainable water supply. But again I emphasize that
S. 2460 is not the appropriate vehicle towards this end.
Question 4. Do you agree that the Bureau, the USGS, and local
entities should work in concert to assess the region's groundwater
needs?
Answer. Yes, it is important that the Bureau, USGS, and local
entities work in concert to bring their collective expertise to
understanding and managing the region's groundwater resources.
Reclamation and the USGS have a history of working with local
governments regarding groundwater resources. The High Plains States
Groundwater Recharge and Demonstration Act (P.L. 98-434) legislation
authorized Reclamation, as lead agency, in conjunction with the USGS
and the EPA, to investigate opportunities and methods for enhancing
groundwater resources in the seventeen western states. The Bureau, the
USGS, and local entities should work in concert to assess the region's
groundwater needs. But assessment is only the first step toward the
development of reliable water supplies.
Question 5. As you know, this bill would direct the USBR and USGS
to provide technical and financial assistance to the State of New
Mexico for hydrologic modeling. Do you agree that this bill would help
plan for effective water management in times of drought?
Answer. The goals of S. 2460 are commendable. Clearly, water
management is primarily a matter for State authority, and the State of
New Mexico has invested significant state effort and resources for this
purpose. A key facet of Reclamation's support for local water
management strategies is in our Water 2025 program by which we make
grants to local water resource managers on a competitive, cost-shared
basis. Projects supported by Water 2025 are not only valuable for their
own local areas but can often become models for others.
On the other hand, we are not sure that S. 2460, as currently
drafted, will necessarily yield optimum water management for New Mexico
in times of drought. We would hope that the uncertainty as to the
respective roles of USGS and Reclamation, and the extent to which S.
2460 seems to overlap other existing authorities, would not complicate
our mutual effort to focus directly on the most pressing area for
information collection and action.
s. 2511, the chimayo water supply system and
espanola filtration facility act of 2004
Question 1. S. 2511 authorizes small projects that would provide a
clean, reliable water supply where it is desperately needed. Since
1980, Congress has approved and the Bureau of Reclamation has built
numerous rural water supply projects.
Do you feel that providing assistance for communities that are in
emergency water status is an appropriate use of the Bureau's resources?
Answer. With respect to municipal water supplies, the Bureau of
Reclamation's traditional role has been to develop water supplies in
the western states on a large scale for the benefit of multiple
communities. Once the Bureau's facilities are constructed and water is
stored, the allocation of that water must proceed in accordance with
state water law, compacts, sales contracts, power contracts and other
obligations. After a water supply has been developed, small
communities, such as Chimayo, have access, on an individual basis, to
other federal programs and agencies that can assist in the design and
construction of the smaller, community-specific, water systems for
transmission and distribution of water. However, if drought is causing
a true emergency, those traditional roles can be set aside and the
Bureau would be prepared to act under our drought authority.
Question 2. Do you believe that the federal government should
contribute to data gathering that benefits federal agencies?
Answer. Yes, in fact, it is within the missions of both USGS and
Reclamation to provide data to Federal agencies, and appropriate local
cost sharing is a normal part of this process (as is work done on a
reimbursable basis for other agencies). As I stated in my testimony,
among the three separate versions of rural water legislation now
pending before the U.S. Senate, there is bipartisan, inter-branch
consensus that the federal cost share should not exceed 50% for
planning on rural water projects, at least until a capability-to-pay
analysis that is consistently utilized indicates that a different cost-
share is more equitable. By contrast, Title 1 of S. 2511 provides that
any assistance or grants for the Chimayo water supply system would be
made on a non-reimbursable basis, with only a 25 percent local cost-
share. In addition, Title 2 of S. 2511 directs the Secretary of the
Interior, acting through Reclamation, to provide financial assistance
to the City of Espanola for construction of an Espanola water
filtration facility. Reclamation has provided the City with $400,000 to
perform a feasibility study, including environmental reviews under
NEPA, which did not contemplate providing water to Chimayo. The
feasibility report has yet to be received from the City.
Question 3. Do you believe that the data that would be produced as
a result of this bill would help State and Federal governments plan to
ensure a sustainable water supply for the State?
Answer. Many local, State, and tribal New Mexico water agencies are
already using information produced through cooperative work with
Reclamation and USGS. Data produced as a result of this bill could
potentially help New Mexico and the Federal government plan for the
development of a sustainable water supply. However, because of issues
discussed in the previous question concerning cost sharing requirements
for the Chimayo water supply system, and problems with the scope of the
feasibility study for the Espanola water filtration facility, along
with the fact that it has not been received by Reclamation yet, the
Administration does not feel that S. 2511, as drafted, will help State
and Federal governments plan to ensure a sustainable water supply for
the State of New Mexico.
Question 4. Do you agree that the Bureau, the USGS, and local
entities should work in concert to assess the region's groundwater
needs?
Answer. Yes, it is important that the Bureau, USGS, and local
entities work in concert to bring their collective expertise to
understanding and managing the region's groundwater resources.
Reclamation and the USGS have a history of working with local
governments regarding groundwater resources. The High Plains States
Groundwater Recharge and Demonstration Act (P.L. 98-434) legislation
authorized Reclamation, as lead agency, in conjunction with the USGS
and the EPA, to investigate opportunities and methods for enhancing
groundwater resources in the seventeen western states. The Bureau, the
USGS, and local entities should work in concert to assess the region's
groundwater needs. But assessment is only the first step toward the
development of reliable water supplies.
Appendix II
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
City of Espanola,
Office of the Mayor,
Espanola, NM, June 9, 2004.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Chairperson, Water and Power Subcommittee, Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Murkowski: The City of Espanola is in the process of
developing a new Water Filtration Facility (WFF) on property that it
has acquired in order to address current and future water system
demands for the City and surrounding communities. The City of Espanola
proposes to implement this project to capitalize on the availability of
the 1,000 acre-ft per year (AFY) of consumptive water rights that the
City owns contractually with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation for San
Juan-Chama Project water.
The City of Espanola is considered a regional community to the
surrounding area, capable of extending community services to outlying
communities. The completed Water Filtration Facility will allow the
City to expand its service area and infrastructure to allow surrounding
communities' access to the regional water system. The Community of
Chimayo is one of those surrounding communities that is in dire need of
a water supply system and currently relies on potable water from the
City of Espanola through deliveries from the National Guard.
The City of Espanola is in full support of ``The Chimayo Water
Supply System and Espanola Water Filtration Facility Act of 2004 (S.
2511) introduced by Senator Pete Domenici and cosponsored by Senator
Jeff Bingaman. This legislation includes a $3.0 million authorization
for the City's water filtration facility that will conclude the
necessary funding needed to complete the project.
Sincerely,
Richard L. Lucero,
Mayor.
______
Greater Chimayo Mutual Domestic Water Consumers
Association,
June 11, 2004
Hon. Pete Domenici,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Chairperson, Water and Power Subcommittee, Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Murkowski: The Greater Chimayo Mutual Domestic Water
Consumers Association would like to extend our sincere gratitude for
holding a hearing on ball 2511. The development of a reliable water
system is vital to the sustainability of our community. As you are
aware, the New Mexico Department of Health and the New Mexico
Environment Department identified fecal and total coliform
contamination in our water supplies in August 2001. Since then, the New
Mexico National Guard has been supplying potable water to our residents
using a portable water tank or ``water buffalo."
We have been diligently working on behalf of our community to
implement a community water system. We have initiated discussions with
the City of Espanola and Quatro Villas Mutual Domestic Water Consumers
Association, which would link a distribution system to the City of
Espanola's water system to ensure a continuous reliable supply of water
for our community. We need to prepare a Preliminary Engineering Report
(PER) and conduct an environmental assessment to determine the
feasibility of linking our system to the City of Espanola and to
evaluate site locations for system components, such as water storage
facilities, pipelines, and pump stations.
We have completed preliminary plans and specifications for design
of a Phase I of the Community Water System. We will require additional
funding to extend the distribution system to other areas of Chimayo.
Our service area encompasses approximately 6 square miles with an
estimated population of 5,500. We have funding to address the most
critical areas of the community, which will serve 175 residential
connections.
We look forward to working with you to establish a long-term,
reliable water supply for our community. If we can provide you with
further information, please contact me by phone at (505) 351-4311 or
via email at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Ilean Martinez,
President.