[Senate Hearing 109-138]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 109-138
MISCELLANEOUS WATER BILLS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
S. 49 S. 247
S. 648 S. 819
S. 891 S. 1338
__________
JULY 12, 2005
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
23-730 WASHINGTON : 2005
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, Chairman
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska RON WYDEN, Oregon
RICHARD M. BURR, North Carolina, TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
MEL MARTINEZ, Florida MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
CONRAD BURNS, Montana MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia JON S. CORZINE, New Jersey
GORDON SMITH, Oregon KEN SALAZAR, Colorado
JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
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
GORDON SMITH, Oregon, Vice Chairman
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
RICHARD M. BURR, North Carolina BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
MEL MARTINEZ, Florida RON WYDEN, Oregon
CONRAD BURNS, Montana DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
JIM BUNNING, Kentucky MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri JON S. CORZINE, New Jersey
KEN SALAZAR, Colorado
Pete V. Domenici and Jeff Bingaman are Ex Officio Members of the
Subcommittee
Kellie Donnelly, Counsel
Patty Beneke, Democratic Senior Counsel
Mike Connor, Democratic Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Blatchford, Edgar, Commissioner, Alaska Department of Community
and Economic Development, Anchorage, AK........................ 20
Holland-Bartels, Dr. Leslie, Director, U.S. Geological Survey,
Alaska Science Center, Anchorage, AK........................... 9
Johnson, Hon. Tim, U.S. Senator From South Dakota................ 3
Keys, John, W., III, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation,
Department of the Interior..................................... 5
McDaniels, Elmer, Manager, Tumalo, Irrigation Water District,
Bend, OR....................................................... 23
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator From Alaska................... 1
Smith, Hon. Gordon, U.S. Senator From Oregon..................... 3
Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator From Oregon........................ 5
APPENDIXES
Appendix I
Responses to additional questions................................ 31
Appendix II
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 35
MISCELLANEOUS WATER BILLS
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 12, 2005
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Water and Power,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3 p.m. in room
SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Lisa Murkowski
presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF THE HON. LISA MURKOWSKI,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
Senator Murkowski. Okay, we are on record. Good afternoon.
I'd like to welcome everyone to the Water and Power
Subcommittee. We have a somewhat full agenda this afternoon.
We've got six bills before the subcommittee. We have S. 49, the
Alaska Floodplain and Erosion Mitigation Commission Act of
2005--this was a bill that was sponsored by Senator Stevens,
and I'm pleased to join him as a co-sponsor in that
legislation; S. 247, the Tumalo Water Conservation Project Act
of 2005, sponsored by Senators Smith and Wyden; S. 648, An
Extension of the Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief
Act of 1991, also sponsored by Senator Smith; S. 819, the
Pactola Reservoir Reallocation Authorization Act, sponsored by
Senator Johnson; S. 891, a Water Service Contract Extension for
the Ainsworth Unit--this is the Sandhills Division, Pick-Sloan
Missouri Basin Program in Nebraska, and this is sponsored by
Senator Hagel; as well as S. 1338, the Alaska Water Resources
Act of 2005, which I have co-sponsored.
We'll have two panels appearing before the subcommittee
this afternoon. The first panel is comprised of administration
witnesses from the Bureau of Reclamation and the USGS. I'd like
to thank you, Commissioner Keys, for joining us here this
afternoon. And Dr. Leslie Holland-Bartels, the USGS Deputy
Regional Director in Alaska--we shared the airplane coming back
tonight, we were on the same time zone here--I thank you for
making a long trip.
On panel 2, we are pleased to welcome Mr. Edgar Blatchford,
the commissioner of community and economic development from
Alaska. He will testify on S. 49 and S. 1338. Also, Mr. Elmer
McDaniels, the manager of the Tumalo Irrigation Water District
in Oregon, will be testifying on S. 247.
As either the sponsor or the co-sponsor of the two Alaska
bills, I will just offer a few brief comments this afternoon.
S. 49, which is the Joint Federal-State Floodplain and Erosion
Mitigation Commission Act, is a response to recent increases in
flooding and coastal and river erosion in rural Alaska.
According to a 2003 study by the GAO, 184 out of 213 Alaskan
native villages have experienced flooding or erosion problems.
This is 84 percent of Alaska's villages. When you think about
84 percent of your villages, your communities in your State
being subject to flooding or erosion, it's a pretty tough
figure.
Erosion, whether it's intensified by climate change or just
the fact that most rural communities are built along the coast
of Alaska's river banks, has already forced an effort to
relocate the southwest village of Newtok to more stable ground.
There's eight other villages that have been mentioned as
needing significant assistance. These are the communities of
Shishmaref, Kivalina, Koyukuk--and these are for possible
relocation aid--as well as the communities of Kaktovik, Point
Hope, Veral, Unalakleet and Bethel, where other actions have
been taken to reduce the erosion and flood threats.
There are a couple of charts that we have here that
demonstrate the problem. One shows the storm surges that
frequently impact Alaska's coastline. We've got another one
that shows the village of Unalakleet and the erosion along the
bluff there. As you can see, the damage is pretty striking.
The bill, sponsored by my fellow Alaska colleague, Senator
Ted Stevens, will establish a seven-member, joint Federal-State
commission to study floodplain and erosion issues and develop
feasible alternatives for flooding or erosion assistance. The
commission will also develop policy to guide infrastructure
investments in Alaska native villages. This is especially
important, because solutions to Alaska erosion issues often
entail a decision to simply move the impacted village to more
stable grounds. This, as we have learned, can cost hundreds of
millions of dollars to do these relocations.
So, clearly, Congress needs better information and more
unified policy recommendations, which this Commission will
hopefully provide before we tackle the expensive and unusually
complex decisions that may face us.
The other legislation, S. 1338, the Alaska Water Resources
Act--since becoming chairman of this subcommittee, I've learned
that Alaska increasingly faces the threat of future potable
water shortages. And this may seem as almost ironic to some,
because we hold one-third of the fresh water in all of America.
But it's because we know little, or in many cases nothing,
about our State's aquifers, and not much more is known about
the water contained in our 3 million lakes, our 12,000 major
rivers and thousands of streams, creeks and other ponds.
We've got 10 rivers that flow for more than 300 miles, and
yet we have fewer than 100 stream gaging stations. We've got
about one working gage for each 10,000 square miles. Now you
contrast this to the situation in the lower 48, and the
Pacific-Northwest in particular, where you have one stream gage
for each 365 square miles. So for Alaska to equal that level of
gage activity--and these gages are very important to help with
flood predictions, to determine the water available to fight
wildfires--we estimate that the State would need a total of
about 1,600 gages. And this could cost the USGS nearly a half
billion dollars to collect that much data for a decade, the
length of time needed for the data to be truly meaningful to
aid in resource decisions. And while our legislation is not
seeking anywhere near such a commitment, it will help to
improve gage information for flood forecasting, and should
result in studies of aquifers in the Railbelt Area, southeast,
where Alaskans are increasingly getting their water from wells.
I hope to hear from the administration in support of the
study measure since the population in the south central area
and on the Kenai Peninsula is growing. It's time that we have
an understanding as to how the aquifers in the area function.
Before we move on to our witnesses, I would ask if any of
my colleagues have opening statements that they would like to
make. Senator Johnson, you've got comments, I understand, on
the Pactola Dam, and Senator Smith, you would like to make
comments as well.
STATEMENT OF HON. TIM JOHNSON, U.S. SENATOR
FROM SOUTH DAKOTA
Senator Johnson. Well, thank you, Senator Murkowski. I
appreciate your leadership on this subcommittee and your work
on a whole array of important bills that are before the
committee. I would, in particular, like to express my views on
S. 819, the Pactola Reservoir Reallocation Authorization Act.
It's one of the bills on today's subcommittee agenda.
I appreciate the appearance of Commissioner Keys before the
subcommittee. It's good to see you again, Commissioner. We
would love to have you out to South Dakota, where we're making
good progress on some of the world's largest and most ambitious
rural water supply projects.
I want to point toward a bill I introduced earlier this
year that is on today's subcommittee agenda, S. 819, the
Pactola Reservoir bill. It's a straightforward solution to an
agreement reached in 2000 between the Bureau, the city of Rapid
City, South Dakota, and the Rapid Valley Irrigation District to
reallocate the construction costs from the Pactola Dam and
Reservoir. Enacting this bill will ensure that Rapid City and
other water users retain a reliable supply of water for
municipal, irrigation, as well as fish and wildlife purposes.
In negotiating a new repayment contract with Rapid City,
the Bureau understands the changing realities of Western water
uses for municipal and industrial demands now outstrip
traditional irrigation requirements. The passage of this bill
provides the Bureau with the authority to execute the new
contract while ensuring Rapid City with a reliable and secure
water supply for decades to come. So, again, welcome
Commissioner Keys and Dr. Holland-Bartels. I appreciate the
Bureau's support of the bill, and I look forward to the
testimony from witnesses.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Johnson.
Senator Smith.
STATEMENT OF HON. GORDON SMITH, U.S. SENATOR
FROM OREGON
Senator Smith. Thank you, Madam Chairman, for conducting
this hearing today. I have two bills before the subcommittee,
and I want to extend a special welcome to Mr. Elmer McDaniels,
the manager of the Tumalo Irrigation Water District who has
traveled here from Oregon to provide testimony on S. 247. I
look forward to his testimony, and all of the other witnesses
today.
S. 247 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
assist in the planning, design, and construction of the Tumalo
Irrigation District Water Conservation Project in Deschutes
County, Oregon. This project involved piping about 6 miles of
open canals. This will enable the District, in accordance with
State water law, to return an estimated 20 cubic feet per
second of conserved water to in-stream flows in the Tumalo
Creek and the Deschutes River.
In recent years, sections of the Deschutes River below
diversions by the Federal Reclamation Projects in the Basin
have dropped as low as 30 cubic feet per second during certain
times of the year. The Deschutes Basin is in arid central
Oregon, and there are several federally listed fish species in
the river. The water return to in-stream flows under this
conservation project would be significant, and could also help
Reclamation mitigate the impact of its Federal project
operations. This project will also enhance public safety in the
region by eliminating the concerns related to open canals. By
replacing these open canals with pressurized pipelines, it will
also improve the delivery of irrigation water to farmers in the
Tumalo Irrigation Service Area.
The bill, as introduced, provides for the District to
receive credit for the value of water return to in-stream
flows. As stated above, the enhanced flows will relieve
pressure on Federal project operations, enhance fish habitat
for ESA listed species, and help meet environmental restoration
goals of this important tributary of the Columbia River.
There's precedent for calculating the value of water
against the non-Federal cost-share obligations. Implementation
of the 1997 cooperative agreement between the States of
Nebraska, Wyoming and Colorado, and the Department of the
Interior, relating to the Platte River, recognized that the
conserved water added significant economic value to the
restoration program. The agreement gave respective States
credit for the water contributed. If we're going to meet the
Federal goals for recovery of fish species in the arid West, we
simply have to begin recognizing the economic value of water
conserved by non-Federal partners, such as the Tumalo
Irrigation District.
The second bill I sponsored that will be heard today is S.
648, which would re-authorize the Bureau of Reclamation's
authority under title I of the Reclamation States Emergency
Drought Relief Act to 2010. These authorities are currently set
to expire at the end of the year. The activities covered under
this important program include construction, management and
conservation activities to minimize losses and damage from
drought conditions. The bill extends the authority to make
loans to water users for these activities and for the purchase
and conveyance of water. Reclamation would be able to purchase
water from willing sellers in accordance with State water law,
for re-sale on a temporary basis to participate in State water
banks. It also provides greater flexibility in the use of
reclamation facilities for the storage and conveyance of water.
The Governors of affected States, or the governing bodies of
affected tribes must request temporary drought assistance for
the program to be operable in the respective State or
reservation. As much as we all wish that the droughts
experienced throughout the recent years are going to end, it's
unrealistic to think that droughts will cease on September 30,
2005. These authorities are important tools that help
Reclamation respond to the emergency drought needs of Western
communities and reservations, and I would urge the expeditious
consideration of this bill as well. Again, I thank our
witnesses today, and look forward to their testimony. Thank
you, Madam Chair.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
Senator Wyden.
STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM OREGON
Senator Wyden. Madam Chair, thank you very much. I'm not
going to be able to stay, I just want to make a quick comment
about S. 247, and also commend my colleague, Senator Smith, for
both of his bills. S. 247, in particular, is a project we feel
strongly about because of its importance in central Oregon and
the Deschutes River, specifically. My sense is that S. 247 will
save water and will help the farmers and fish, but I think it's
also going to save lives. There was a horrible tragedy with a
youngster drowning in that part of our State. That's why
Senator Smith and I have legislation that we think is going to
achieve multiple benefits for our part of the country. And we
thank you, Madam Chair, for scheduling this hearing. As we've
tried to do in our State, make it thoroughly bipartisan, and
hopefully we can move quick.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
With that, let's turn to our first panel. Commissioner
Keys, if you would like to lead off, please.
STATEMENT OF JOHN W. KEYS, III, COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF
RECLAMATION, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Keys. Madam Chairman, it's always a pleasure to be
here. We have submitted four formal testimonies, and would ask
that they be made part of the record, please.
Senator Murkowski. Each will be made part of the record.
Mr. Keys. The first bill, S. 648, would extend until 2010
title I of the Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief Act
of 1991. Title I provides authority for construction,
management and conservation measures to alleviate drought
impacts across the Western United States. Except for wells, all
title I work must be temporary. S. 648 would simply extend the
expiration. The $90 million ceiling in the law, we think, is
sufficient to carry us through that period.
Title I authorizes Reclamation to participate in water
banks established under State law, facilitate water
acquisitions between willing buyers and willing sellers,
acquire conserved water for use under temporary contracts, make
facilities available for storage and conveyance of project and
non-project water, make project and non-project water available
for non-project uses, and acquire water for fish and wildlife
purposes on a non-reimbursable basis.
Title I often helps smaller, financially-strapped
communities deal with the drought. Reclamation is often the
last resort for those small communities, that's one of the
reasons we highly support S. 648.
Now, Madam Chairman, the administration also supports S.
819, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to allocate
construction costs of the Pactola Dam and Reservoir through
municipal, industrial, fish and wildlife purposes. This
reallocation reflects the increasing water demands from Pactola
Reservoir for municipal and industrial purposes, specifically
within Rapid City and throughout the surrounding areas, for
fish and wildlife purposes in and along Rapid Creek.
Because current law prevents us from reallocating multi-
purpose construction costs, Reclamation's new repayment
contract with Rapid City is contingent on legislation. That's
why S. 819 will help us secure a reliable water supply for the
city and the surrounding area to support expected growth well
into the future.
The administration also supports S. 891, to extend the
water service contract to the Ainsworth Unit in Nebraska. In
2002, the Ainsworth Irrigation District undertook the process
to transfer title of Ainsworth Unit from Reclamation to the
District. Consequently, the District did not anticipate needing
to also go through the extensive contract process. However,
Ainsworth District recently concluded that due to unique
circumstances, title transfer was no longer its preference. So
it asked Reclamation to discontinue the title transfer process,
and instead start work on renewal of its existing water service
contract.
Throughout this process, Ainsworth has acted in good faith,
and worked closely with us to meet the needs of its water
users. S. 891 would extend the existing water service contract
for an additional 4 years, so that the current water service
contract renewal process can be completed. Reclamation law
requires us to have a contract in place in order to deliver
water. That's why we support S. 891.
Finally, Madam Chairman, let me share our views on S. 247,
a bill to authorize conversion of 6 miles of open canal in the
Tumalo Irrigation District into a pipeline. This District is
not part of a Reclamation project, but it did have a repayment
contract for rehabilitation of Crescent Lake Dam, and holds
title to all of its project facilities. While the
administration supports conserving water to improve in-stream
flows without diminishing water for agriculture, as this
pipeline would do, we cannot support S. 247 as written.
S. 247 would create credits to offset the non-Federal cost
share, including credits for water left in-stream after project
completion, and credits for foregone revenue from reduced
district assessments and headgate fees. Project sponsors value
the total credits at $7.4 million to the project, including
$5.4 million for the value of conserved water, $1.7 million for
reduced assessments and headgate fees, and $300,000 for in-kind
services. Established Federal policy only allows credit for the
actual costs of certain in-kind services, and calculating the
cost-share requirement for water conservation projects. The
credit system proposed in S. 247 does not meet these
requirements.
The sponsors estimate that the total cost of the project is
$14 million, and their contribution is 50 percent. However, S.
247 authorizes $14 million of Federal money to construct the
Project. This gap explains why the administration cannot
support S. 247 as currently written.
Madam Secretary, I'm pleased to answer any questions. That
ends my oral testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Keys follows:]
Prepared Statement of John W. Keys, III, Commissioner, Department of
Reclamation, Department of the Interior
ON S. 247
Madam Chairman, I am John W. Keys, Commissioner of the Bureau of
Reclamation. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on S. 247, the
Tumalo Water Conservation Project Act of 2005.
S. 247 would authorize a project that would convert approximately 6
miles of open canal in the Tumalo Irrigation District (TID) into a
pipeline. TID is not part of a Reclamation project, but it did have a
repayment contract for rehabilitation of Crescent Lake Dam. The
District satisfied its repayment obligation to the United States in
1998 and holds title to all project facilities. The Tumalo Water
Conservation Project, known locally as the Tumalo Feed Canal pipeline,
would conserve up to 21 cubic feet per second (cfs) of water for both
agricultural and instream uses in Tumalo Creek in Central Oregon. While
the Administration supports the aim of the TID to conserve water and to
improve instream flows while not diminishing the amount of water
available for agricultural uses, we cannot support the legislation as
written.
S. 247 creates a system of credits for offsetting the required 50%
non-Federal cost share. Credits would be given for TID expenses in
project design, planning and construction, for water left instream
after completion of the project, and for foregone revenue from reduced
District assessments and head gate fees. Project sponsors have
calculated that the credit system amounts to approximately $7.4 million
of ``contribution'' to the project, including $5.4 million for the
value of the conserved water, and $300,000 for the value of in-kind
services. Federal guidelines found in the Code of Federal Regulations
and OMB circulars only allow credit for the actual costs of certain in-
kind services in calculating the cost share requirement for water
conservation projects. These include items such as development of
project designs, survey work, NEPA, ESA and cultural resource
compliance costs, use of construction equipment and labor, and other
activities that directly relate to project completion. The credit
system proposed in S. 247, section 3(b)(2)(B) does not meet these
requirements.
The sponsors estimate that the total cost of the project is $14
million, and thus characterize their ``contribution'' as 50%. However,
the U.S. is being asked to pay up to $14 million to construct the
project, even though the legislation states that the Federal cost-share
shall be 50%.
This concludes my written statement. I am pleased to answer any
questions.
______
ON S. 648
Madam Chairman, I am John W. Keys, Commissioner of the Bureau of
Reclamation (Reclamation). I am pleased to appear for the Department in
support of S. 648 which extends Title I of the Reclamation States
Emergency Drought Relief Act of 1991 until the year 2010.
Title I provides authority for construction, management, and
conservation measures to alleviate the adverse impacts of drought,
including mitigation of fish and wildlife impacts. However, wells are
the only permanent construction authorized under the Act. All other
Title I work must be of a temporary nature. No new Reclamation projects
are authorized under Title I; Reclamation does not own, operate, or
maintain projects funded under it. S. 648 would simply extend the
expiration date. The $90 million ceiling in the law, initially
authorized in 1991, is adequate for the foreseeable future.
Title I also provides Reclamation with the flexibility to meet
contractual water deliveries by allowing acquisition of water to meet
requirements under the Endangered Species Act, benefiting contractors
at a time when they are financially challenged. Additionally, Title I
authorizes Reclamation to participate in water banks established under
state law; facilitate water acquisitions between willing buyers and
willing sellers; acquire conserved water for use under temporary
contracts; make facilities available for storage and conveyance of
project and nonproject water; make project and nonproject water
available for nonproject uses; and, acquire water for fish and wildlife
purposes on a nonreimbursable basis.
Title I often helps smaller, financially-strapped entities (towns,
counties, tribes) that do not have the financial capability to deal
with the impacts of drought. In many cases, Reclamation is the ``last
resort'' for these communities.
The Bureau of Reclamation has a long history of effective and
responsive water management in good times and bad. While we consider
ideas to make drought relief even more effective through improved
interagency cooperation and other changes, we recognize that the
reauthorization of Title I is necessary. S. 648 allows Reclamation the
flexibility to continue delivering water to meet authorized project
purposes, meet environmental requirements, respect state water rights,
work with all stakeholders, and to provide leadership, innovation, and
assistance. This is why Reclamation supports S. 648.
This concludes my statement. I am pleased to answer any questions.
______
ON S. 819
My name is John Keys. As Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation,
I am pleased to appear today in support of S. 819, the Pactola
Reservoir Reallocation Authorization Act of 2005.
Mr. Chairman, S. 819 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior
to reallocate construction costs of Pactola Dam and Reservoir, Rapid
Valley Unit, and the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program, South Dakota,
to municipal, industrial, and fish and wildlife purposes. This
reallocation reflects the increasing water demands from Pactola
Reservoir for municipal and industrial purposes, specifically within
Rapid City and throughout the surrounding areas, and for fish and
wildlife purposes in and along Rapid Creek.
Background
Rapid Valley Unit is served, in part, by the Pactola Reservoir.
Located on Rapid Creek in the Black Hills of South Dakota approximately
15 miles west of Rapid City, Pactola was constructed between 1952 and
1956. The Rapid Valley Irrigation District (District) consists of 8,900
acres of privately developed land and associated irrigation diversion
and supply works. The irrigable land is situated along Rapid Creek
immediately downstream of the City. Pactola Reservoir supplemented the
Districts' 8,000 acre-foot water supply from Deerfield Dam. The Rapid
Valley Unit provides a full water supply for Rapid City (including
Ellsworth Air Force Base), flood protection, recreation, and fish and
wildlife.
On October 20, 1952, the City entered into a 40-year water service
contract for municipal and industrial water supply from Pactola
Reservoir. Since the contract's expiration in 1992, annual water
service contracts have been issued to provide water to the City until a
replacement contract can be executed. The District also executed a 40-
year water service contract with the U.S. on January 6, 1961, for a
supplemental irrigation water supply from Pactola Reservoir. This
contract expired in 2001 and the District decided to not renew it. The
District will rely on its natural flow rights, return flows from the
City's water treatment plant, water purchased from the City, and water
from the Deerfield Dam and Reservoir.
Reclamation has negotiated a new repayment contract with Rapid
City. However, the McGovern Amendment to the Department of Energy
Organization Act prohibits Reclamation from reallocating multipurpose
construction costs without specific
Congressional approval. Therefore, execution of the negotiated
contract is contingent on authority from Congress to reallocate the
construction costs of Pactola Dam and Reservoir currently allocated to
irrigation purposes to municipal, industrial, and fish and wildlife
purposes.
Conclusion
Passage of this Act will provide Reclamation with authority to
enter into a new long-term contract with Rapid City to provide a water
storage right of 49,000 acre-feet in Pactola Reservoir. This contract
will secure a reliable water supply for the city and the surrounding
area to support expected growth well into the future. Reclamation will
retain 6,000 acre feet of storage in the reservoir to be used for fish
and wildlife, and other authorized beneficial purposes.
I am pleased to answer any questions.
______
ON S. 891
Madam Chairman, I am John W. Keys, III, Commissioner of the Bureau
of Reclamation. I am pleased to present the views of the Department of
the Interior in support of S. 891.
The Ainsworth Unit, a part of the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin
Program, is operated and maintained by the Ainsworth Irrigation
District, Ainsworth, Nebraska. The District receives its project water
from Merritt Dam and Reservoir, located on the Snake River, which has
its confluence with the Niobrara River just southwest of Valentine,
Nebraska. The Ainsworth Irrigation District and Reclamation have an
existing water service contract that will expire on December 31, 2006.
In November, 2002, the Ainsworth Irrigation District Board of
Directors adopted a resolution to request title transfer of the
Ainsworth project facilities from Federal ownership to the District.
The District worked with Reclamation following the process outlined in
the Title Transfer Framework document. However, on February 16, 2005,
the District adopted a subsequent additional resolution requesting
renewal of its existing water service contract and discontinuation of
the title transfer process.
Reclamation encourages water districts to explore title transfer as
the Ainsworth Irrigation district did. However, due to the unique
circumstances that it faces, the District determined after a
comprehensive analysis that title transfer was not the appropriate
action for it at this time. Because the District anticipated title
transfer for more than two years it was not, at the same time,
preparing for contract renewal. This legislation would extend the
existing water service contract for an additional 4 years to provide
time for the current water service contract renewal process to be
completed. Reclamation law requires us to have a contract in place in
order to deliver water. That is why we support S. 891.
I am happy to answer any questions.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
Dr. Bartels.
STATEMENT OF DR. LESLIE HOLLAND-BARTELS, DIRECTOR, U.S.
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, ALASKA SCIENCE CENTER,
ANCHORAGE, AK
Dr. Holland-Bartels. I'm Leslie Holland-Bartels, Director
of the U.S. Geological Survey's Alaska Science Center, located
in Anchorage, Alaska. I thank you for the opportunity to
provide the views of the Department of the Interior on S. 1338,
the Alaska Water Resources Act of 2005 and on S. 49, the Alaska
Floodplain and Erosion Mitigation Commission Act of 2005.
The Department agrees that the goals of each bill are
commendable and the needs that could be addressed are real. I
will address each of these bills separately.
S. 1338 directs the Secretary of the Interior, acting
through the Bureau of Reclamation, BOR, and the Director of the
U.S. Geological Survey, to conduct a series of ground-water
resource studies in Alaska, and a review of the need for an
enhancement of the stream-flow information collected by the
USGS and the State.
The role identified for the Department in this bill is
consistent with both BOR and USGS leadership roles in
monitoring and assessing water resources. The USGS has a long
history of conducting water resource assessments; however,
Alaska has not been covered in these studies. Basic ground-
water information is still needed in Alaska so that specific
resource management questions can be addressed. For example,
many Alaska citizens depend on good, quality ground-water for
domestic consumption and other uses; however, reliable
assessments of ground-water availability and quality are
limited for expanding population areas where individual wells
often supply homes and businesses with drinking water, and
waste water is posited through onsite septic systems.
Specific knowledge of aquifer properties will support
community planning to protect the ground-water, and to ensure
adequate supplies for both domestic and industry-related
consumption. Recent observations have been made of elevated
nitrate and arsenic concentrations in some shallow aquifers in
municipal areas of the State. The information collected under
this legislation would allow for identification of conditions
that may contribute to these elevated concentrations, and more
importantly, provide for a basis for mitigation.
Alaska has abundant energy resources which may require the
use or disposal of large amounts of ground-water. Recent
interests in the development of coalbed methane, for example,
in the Matanuska-Susitna and Kenai Peninsula Boroughs
highlights the need for detailed knowledge about ground-water
resources as resource managers work to understand the
connections among aquifers, to assess consequences of large-
scale de-watering of the coal aquifers. S. 1338 also requests a
view for the need for enhancement of streamflow information
collected by the USGS in Alaska related to critical water
needs.
The USGS has a program in place that can assist in
developing data for this task. The National Streamflow
Information Program, NSIP, is currently 18 nationally
prioritized gages to provide surface water information in
Alaska. They also support State priorities. For example, last
year some 6 million acres of land were consumed by fire in
Alaska. Our four NSIP streamgages within the burn area provided
critical information for local land managers. However, fire
managers now realize that they require additional, similar
kinds of data to assess watershed effects of fire on hydrologic
response and recovery.
In addition to the 18 fully federally-funded gaging
stations, the USGS in Alaska also works closely with a broad
spectrum of partners to increase its monitoring and studies
programs through cost sharing.
Finally, also within the Department, the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation's Science and Technology Program finds solutions to
complex management challenges through research and development
of state-of-the-art technology, such as those used by the
Bureau's Pacific Northwest Hydromet remote data collection
platforms. The expertise of these two Department Bureaus is
highly relevant to the tasks contemplated by this legislation.
I also appreciate the opportunity to provide the
Department's view on S. 49, the Alaska Floodplain and Erosion
Mitigation Commission Act. We believe that the Department
should be a part of any process intended to develop solutions
to coastal and river erosion and sustainability of Alaska
native communities. In addition, USGS has science capabilities
which may be key inputs in provisions envisioned in S. 49.
However, the Department has a number of concerns. Federal
programs that address flooding generally require satisfaction
of a cost-benefit analysis to qualify for Federal funding.
Therefore, the administration objects to those provisions that
would potentially require or authorize the Secretary to
implement solutions if the costs are greater than the benefits.
We also have concerns about the costs of implementing this
legislation.
We do believe that our agencies have a role to play in this
process, however, and offer to work with the subcommittee to
develop mutually acceptable legislation.
In conclusion, Alaska is a State experiencing significant
challenges in its water patterns, both in quantity and timing
of flow, challenging Alaska native, State, and Federal agency
management efforts. Such water changes can and do affect
infrastructure stability, fish reproduction and accelerated
river erosion and flood patterns. Establishing a viable and
reliable core of federally funded stream gages and funding
support for ground-water research monitoring assessment would
allow the public and resource managers to make science-based
decisions on allocation of water for competing uses. We also
support a process for evaluating the options for those Alaskan
native villages that are most subject to a risk of flood
damage. However, funding for the activities of these two bills
would remain subject to availability of resources within the
administration priorities. In addition, for the reasons
discussed above, we cannot support S. 49 in current form, but
offer to work with the subcommittee to develop mutually
acceptable legislation.
Thank you, Madam Chairman, for the opportunity to present
this testimony, and I'm pleased to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Holland-Bartels follows:]
Prepared Statement of Leslie Holland-Bartels, U.S. Geological Survey,
Department of the Interior, on S. 49 and S. 1338
Madam Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Dr. Leslie
Holland-Bartels, Director of the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) Alaska
Science Center, located in Anchorage, Alaska. I thank you for the
opportunity to provide the views of the Department of the Interior
(Department) on S. 1338, the ``Alaska Water Resources Act of 2005'' and
on S. 49, the ``Alaska Floodplain and Erosion Mitigation Commission Act
of 2005.''
The Department agrees that the goals of each bill are commendable
and the needs that could be addressed are real; however, we have
concerns with these bills, including the availability of funding for
the work proposed in the context of overall funding for the
Administration's priorities. I will address each bill independently in
my statement and will begin with S. 1338, the ``Alaska Water Resources
Act of 2005.''
S. 1338, THE ``ALASKA WATER RESOURCES ACT OF 2005''
S. 1338 directs the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the
Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) and the Director of the U.S. Geological
Survey, to conduct a study on ground-water resources in the State of
Alaska. The role identified for the Department in this bill is
consistent with BOR and USGS's leadership role in monitoring and
assessing ground-water resources.
The bill requires a study that includes a survey of accessible
water supplies (including aquifers on the Kenai Peninsula, in the
municipality of Anchorage and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough), and a
review of the need for enhancement of the streamflow information
collected by the USGS in Alaska relating to critical water needs.
The USGS has a long history of conducting ground-water assessments
on both a local and regional scale. In the 1950s and 1960s studies were
conducted across the nation to provide a basic understanding of
geohydrologic conditions at a county-level scale and, in the 1980s, 25
regional aquifer systems were studied in detail. However, Alaska was
not covered in these studies. As a result, basic geohydrologic
information is needed in Alaska so that specific resource management
questions can be addressed. Congress directed the USGS in their fiscal
year 2002 appropriation to ``. . . prepare a report to describe the
scope and magnitude of the efforts needed to provide periodic
assessments of the status and trends in the availability and use of
freshwater resources.'' That report, USGS Circular 1223, states that
ground-water levels should be based on repeated observations at
relatively large numbers of observation wells in a wide range of
representative hydrogeologic environments, and we continue to work
toward that goal.
Many Alaska citizens depend on good quality ground water for
domestic consumption and other uses. However, reliable assessments of
ground-water availability and quality are limited for expanding
population areas such as the Municipality of Anchorage, the Kenai
Peninsula Borough, Fairbanks-North Star Borough, and the Matanuska-
Susitna Borough. In many of these areas, individual wells supply homes
and businesses with drinking water, and wastewater is disposed of
through onsite septic systems. As populations and development
activities on the surrounding landscape increase in these areas,
additional consumption and demand on these aquifers is coupled with an
increased risk of ground-water contamination. Specific knowledge of the
aquifer properties will support proper planning to protect the ground
water from potential contamination and to ensure there is an adequate
supply and recharge needed for both domestic and industry related
consumption.
For example, recent observations have been made of elevated nitrate
concentrations in drinking water in parts of the Municipality of
Anchorage and the Fairbanks-North Star Borough. Arsenic concentrations
in some shallow aquifers in the Fairbanks-North Star and Kenai
Peninsula Boroughs exceed the new EPA maximum contaminant level
standards. The information collected under this legislation would allow
for the determination of sources of water to these wells, and for the
identification of geochemical conditions that may contribute to these
elevated concentrations and provide a basis for mitigation.
Ground water is also important to sustaining streamflow during
times of low precipitation and surface runoff. Alaska's world-renowned
salmon fisheries are economically important to the State and to local
communities. Salmon that spawn in streams throughout the State incubate
eggs in the streambed gravels where infiltrating ground water sustains
eggs during dry periods. Activities that disrupt the interaction
between ground water and streams may have adverse effects on these
fisheries. For example, increased withdrawals of ground water may lower
water tables sufficiently that the connection to the streambed is lost.
A lowered ground-water table in Juneau through natural geologic
processes is likely responsible for the dewatering of some small
streams that formerly supported significant runs of salmon. Current
information on the interaction between ground water and streams is
lacking for important salmon spawning areas in the Kenai Peninsula and
Matanuska-Susitna Boroughs.
Moreover, Alaska has abundant energy resources, including oil,
natural gas, coal, and coalbed methane, the development of which may
require the use or disposal of large amounts of ground water. Recent
interest in the development of coalbed methane in the Matanuska-Susitna
and Kenai Peninsula Boroughs highlights the need for detailed knowledge
about ground-water resources. Resource managers need to understand the
connections among aquifers to assess consequences of large scale
dewatering of the coal aquifers. The USGS has conducted detailed
studies related to development of coalbed methane in Wyoming and
Montana, but not yet in Alaska.
Infrastructure expansion is also necessary to support expanding
populations. Gravel used in construction material may be available
locally, but removal of gravels may alter ground-water flow patterns in
shallow aquifers. Gravel extraction and its potential effect on ground
water has been a focus of attention for citizens in the Municipality of
Anchorage, in the Homer/Anchor Point area of the Kenai Peninsula
Borough, and in the Fairbanks-North Star Borough. Shallow gravel
deposits are often the aquifers that provide drinking water for
individual residents and small communities, yet little information
exists on the extent of these aquifers or alternative water supplies.
Other types of resource extraction, such as development of world-
class mineral deposits are ongoing or planned in Alaska. Newly
discovered deposits, such as the Pebble gold-copper project near
Iliamna, Alaska are in areas where minimal information exists on water
resources. The Pebble gold-copper project is in the headwaters of
salmon and trout fisheries important to subsistence users. An
assessment of water resources that results in predictive models
describing interactions between ground water and surface water will
allow developers and regulators to evaluate alternative designs for
development and operation of the project. The USGS has extensive
experience in conducting detailed studies of hydrologic and water-
quality conditions on such a scale. The National Water-Quality
Assessment (NAWQA) Program has provided valuable information on major
river basins and aquifer system in the nation. One NAWQA study area was
located in Alaska and included the Municipality of Anchorage and parts
of the Kenai Peninsula and Matanuska-Susitna Boroughs.
S. 1338 also requests ``a review of the need for enhancement of the
streamflow information collected by the USGS in Alaska relating to
critical water needs.'' The USGS's program review process focuses on
program relevancy, quality, and performance.
The USGS has a program in place that can assist in developing data
for this task. National Streamflow Information Program (NSIP) is
currently operating 18 gages to provide surface water information. In
2004, 6.4 million acres of land, an area about the size of New
Hampshire, were consumed by fire. While the four streamgages operated
by the USGS within the bum area provided critical information, local
land managers realized that they lacked sufficient credible stream data
to assess watershed effects of fire on hydrologic response and
recovery. This information will also assist in protecting life and
property from flooding events caused, for example, by outburst floods
on glacier-dammed lakes, and would allow the National Weather Service
to do river and flood forecasting statewide with an appropriate level
of certainty.
The USGS in Alaska also works closely with a broad spectrum of
partners, including other federal agencies, State and local agencies,
and Alaska Native villages. Over $1.2 million dollars in federal cost
share funds were used to partner with State and local agencies in
jointly funding critical hydrologic information for their specific
agency needs in 2005. For example, the USGS has a long-term
relationship with most of these partners such as the Alaska Department
of Transportation and Public Facilities, Alaska Department of Fish and
Game, and the Kenai Peninsula Borough. We expect these relationships to
continue.
Finally, also within the Department, the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation's Science and Technology Program finds solutions to complex
water management challenges through research and development of state-
of-the-art technology. Reclamation operates a network of automated
hydrologic and meteorologic monitoring stations located throughout the
Pacific Northwest. This network and its associated communications and
computer systems are collectively called Hydromet. Remote data
collection platforms transmit water and environmental data via radio
and satellite to provide cost-effective, near-real-time water
management capability.
The expertise of these two Departmental bureaus is highly relevant
to the tasks contemplated by the legislation. However, the Department
is concerned with the funding requirements that accompany S. 1338. We
note that there are no funds in the Department's FY 2006 budget to
implement the legislation, and any future funding would have to compete
with other priority projects for funds.
S. 49, THE ``ALASKA FLOODPLAIN AND EROSION MITIGATION COMMISSION ACT OF
2005''
I also appreciate the opportunity to provide the Department's views
on S. 49, the ``Alaska Floodplain and Erosion Mitigation Commission
Act.'' We have concerns about the proposed commission and the potential
cost of the legislation. As a result, we cannot support the legislation
in its current form, but offer to work with the Subcommittee to develop
mutually acceptable legislation.
Background
In December 2003, the then-General Accounting Office, now known as
the Government Accountability Office, issued a report (GAO-04-142,
December 12, 2003) titled ``Alaska Native Villages: Most Are Affected
by Flooding and Erosion, but Few Qualify for Federal Assistance.'' That
report provides background on the problems associated with flooding and
erosion in Alaska Native Villages and recommended, among other things,
that Congress direct the relevant federal agencies (the Department was
not listed as such) and the Denali Commission, a federal-state
partnership designed to provide critical utilities, infrastructure, and
economic support throughout Alaska, to assess the feasibility of
alternatives for responding to flooding and erosion. We assume that
this legislation is a response to that report.
In sum, the GAO report found that 6,600 miles of the State of
Alaska's coastline, and many of the low-lying areas along the State's
rivers, the areas where most of the Alaska Native villages are located,
are subject to severe flooding and erosion. The GAO also found that
approximately 86 percent of Alaska Native villages experience some
level of flooding and erosion, and identified four villages--Kivalina,
Koyukuk, Newtok, and Shishmaref--that were in imminent danger from
flooding and erosion and were making plans to relocate. The report also
indicated that small and remote Alaska Native villages often fail to
qualify for assistance under federal programs addressing these issues
because they often do not meet program eligibility criteria.
As noted above, the GAO recommended that Congress direct the
relevant federal agencies and the Denali Commission to assess the
feasibility of alternatives for responding to flooding and erosion, and
listed a number of possible alternatives, including expanding the role
of the Denali Commission; directing federal agencies to consider social
and environmental factors in analyzing project costs and benefits;
waiving the federal cost-sharing requirement for such projects; and
authorizing the ``bundling'' of funds from various federal agencies.
The Alaska Floodplain and Erosion Mitigation Commission Act of 2005
Presumably in response to this recommendation, this legislation
would establish a seven-member federal-State commission co-chaired by
the Governor of Alaska and an appointee of the Secretary of the
Interior. Additional provisions allow the commission to hire staff. The
commission is tasked with, among other things, studying flood and
erosion processes and the planning needs associated with those
processes and the establishment of procedures to obtain the views of
the public on land use planning needs. The commission is also to
develop recommendations on control and mitigation solutions; budgets
and programs of federal and State agencies responsible for
administering floodplain management authorities; changes in law and
policy necessary or desirable to provide integrated erosion and flood
management authority; and other measures designed to ensure
coordination, cooperation, the achievement of sustainable Alaska Native
communities.
The legislation further directs the Secretary to evaluate and
prioritize specific flood and erosion circumstances that affect life
and property in Alaska and examine the most cost-effective ways of
carrying out flood and erosion control and mitigation solutions devised
by the commission for the 9 Alaska Native villages specified in the GAO
report--including the 4 villages previously mentioned. The Secretary is
authorized to make grants to the State or local governments using the
remainder of funds appropriated for flood and erosion control and
mitigation solutions, and may take any action necessary to mitigate the
loss of structures and infrastructure from flood and erosion using the
most cost-effective means practicable to provide the longest-term
benefit.
Given the Department's role in Alaska land management and its
relationship with Alaska Natives through the various Alaska-specific
land management laws, we believe that the Department and its bureaus
should be a part of any process intended to develop solutions to these
problems. In addition, the U.S. Geological Survey's existing science
efforts and capabilities have the potential to be key inputs in some of
the processes envisioned in S. 49. The USGS carries out coastal and
river erosion modeling and assessment, various land form imagery and
mapping projects, provides integrated geospatial information access,
and offers critical datasets, such as the National Hydrologic Dataset.
However, the Department has a number of concerns with S. 49.
Several officials representing federal agencies would be members of the
commission. Therefore, any recommendations by the commission could be
misconstrued as representing the views of the Executive branch. In this
regard, we are particularly concerned by subsections 102(d)(2),
102(d)(4), 102(d)(7), and 105(b)(2), which involve budgetary and
legislative recommendations, and recommend deleting these provisions.
Federal programs that address flooding generally require the
satisfaction of a cost-benefit analysis to qualify for federal funding,
therefore the Administration objects to those provisions of title II
that would potentially require or authorize the Secretary to implement
solutions if the costs are greater than the benefits, albeit using the
``most cost-effective'' technology or means. We also have concerns
about the costs of implementing this legislation. There are no funds
contained in the Department's fiscal year 2006 budget to fund the
commission, and future funding for such a commission or to implement
its recommendations would have to compete with potentially higher
priority programs. As a result, we cannot support S. 49 in its current
form. We do believe that our agencies have a role to play in this
process, however, and offer to work with the Subcommittee to develop
mutually acceptable legislation.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Alaska is a state experiencing significant changes
in its water patterns both in quantity and timing of flow, challenging
both Alaska Native and state and federal agency management efforts.
Such water changes can and do affect infrastructure stability (e.g.
road bridge scour), fishery productivity, and accelerated river erosion
and flood patterns.
Establishing a viable and reliable core of federally funded
streamgages and enhanced funding to support ground-water research,
monitoring and assessment would allow the public and resource managers
to make science-based decisions on allocation of water for the
competing interests. We also support a process for evaluating the
options for those Alaska Native villages that are most subject to a
risk of flood damage.
However, funding for the activities in S. 1338 and S. 49 would
remain subject to available resources within the Administration's
priorities. In addition, for the reasons discussed above, we cannot
support S. 49 in its current form, but offer to work with the
Subcommittee to develop mutually acceptable legislation.
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 may have.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you. I appreciate the testimony
from both of you. I've got a couple of quick questions for you,
Commissioner Keys, and then I'll turn to the Alaska issues.
On the first bill that you referenced--this is the
Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief Act, which you do
support--the extension, I guess, is now 5 years in this
legislation. Should we extend the Drought Act any further than
that? Any merit to that?
Mr. Keys. Madam Chairman, I think you could extend it as
long as you wanted to. Five years seems to be a figure that
works well with the amount, with the cost ceiling that we
have--in other words, that would make them coincide fairly
well--otherwise I think you could do it for as long as you saw
fit.
Senator Murkowski. Just tying it in with the funding
aspect.
Mr. Keys. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Murkowski. With regards to S. 819, the Pactola
Reservoir Reallocation, is there any opposition to this
proposed reallocation of costs?
Mr. Keys. Senator, I have heard of no opposition. It is a
good bill, it is the right thing to do, it helps that portion
of South Dakota address its water needs into the future. The
irrigation district there has other water that they are using
now, it did not want to renew its contracts for that storage
space, and it's a great use of that water for the area.
Senator Murkowski. And then S. 891--this is the Water
Service Contract Extension in Nebraska, you referenced in your
testimony--I think you used the terms ``unique circumstances''
where title was not transferred there; what happened there?
What were these circumstances?
Mr. Keys. Madam Chairman, I think when Ainsworth started
looking at title transfer, they had just seen the successful
title transfer of the North Loop Unit in Nebraska. The North
Loop Unit took almost 10 years to get transferred, with all of
the environmental studies, the other work that had to be done.
I think they thought it was going to be a fairly easy process.
It turned out that there was extensive environmental work that
had to be done, and while we didn't think it was going to take
10 years, it took more than 1 or 2 years for them to get done.
Their whole objective in this thing is so they didn't have to
renew the contract that's coming due next year. They saw that
they couldn't get that done, so they just dropped the title
transfer action and went to extension of the contract.
Senator Murkowski. And this extension to 4 years, is this a
typical extension, then?
Mr. Keys. It is a little longer than usual, but we wanted
to give ourselves and the District plenty of time to be able to
negotiate a good contract.
Senator Murkowski. And then last, on S. 247, the Tumalo
Water Conservation Project Act, what is the difference between
the method of crediting and accounting for water proposed in
this water conservation project?
Mr. Keys. Senator, I'm not sure that I quite understand the
question.
Senator Murkowski. Well, you've got a method of crediting
and accounting. So, you've got this proposed for the water
conservation project there in Deschutes, and the Platte River
Basin; how does that work?
Mr. Keys. In the Platte River Basin, that is an effort
that's been underway for several years. When it first started,
it appeared that the cost of doing the Endangered Species Act
work in the Platte River was going to be about $75 million, and
it was supposed to be 50/50, cost shared between the States,
the three States--Nebraska, Wyoming and Colorado--and the
Federal Government. Part of the investment of that project was
to go into the river and purchase water and land to make the
Endangered Species Act solution work, but it was part of the
project, and that cost was included in the cost of the project.
As they got further along in the plan, the States said, ``Why
would you go buy the water?'' In other words, ``We give you the
money, and you go buy the water, we will supply the water for
that much money that you were going to spend on purchasing
water.''
So the cost of purchased water and its benefits were inside
of the project plan. That's not true in Tumalo. In Tumalo, you
have a $14 million project cost estimate, and the legislation
says 50 percent can only come from the Government, which is $7
million. That leaves $7 million that nobody's there to pay,
because there is an outside water source that they're saying
has a benefit, but it's not part of the project, so it was not
included in the original project cost.
Senator Murkowski. Would the administration then support
this legislation if the cost-share amounts were amended to
reflect the credit for the actual costs?
Mr. Keys. Madam Chairman, if it were corrected, that would
mean that the project cost would be almost $20 million. Fifty
percent would mean the districts would have to come up with $3
or $4 million. So that being said, it is still a $10 million
drain on the Reclamation budget for a non-Reclamation project.
To fund work on a non-Reclamation project takes money away from
the operation and maintenance moneys that we depend on for
Reclamation facilities. I would have to ask the administration
again what their position would be on that bill.
Senator Murkowski. Dr. Bartels, let's go to you for a
couple of questions on the Alaska bills here. First, on the
Alaska Water Resources Act, in your written testimony--quite
honestly, I thought your testimony was terrific, because it was
very inclusive in terms of why we need to move forward with
this legislation--you had the one sentence at the end that
says, ``We've got a problem with the cost.''
Because I'm trying to determine where the administration is
on this legislation and whether or not they support it. Is it
just the cost that has raised the concern? And, essentially,
where does the administration come down on S. 1338?
Dr. Holland-Bartels. I believe the administration supports
S. 1338, it's just a matter of setting this within the other
competing priorities.
Senator Murkowski. Fair enough. We have both discussed the
number of stream gages in the State, and essentially the
inadequacy that is out there. Is it correct to state that the
numbers that we are looking at right now, the 100 that we know
are there, we have to assume that we may be talking about 85 of
them that are actually working? Is it correct to say that this
is the bare minimum needed for flood forecasting in a State as
big as ours, and it's almost a matter of health and safety that
we look at getting more stream gages in place?
Dr. Holland-Bartels. I guess I would have to support that
statement. The number that's provided is the basic number to
fit in within the national framework of the National Streamflow
Information Program. So in that sense, the number that we have
provided fits in in that national program. Those things that
are specific to the uniqueness of Alaska are not reflected in
that effort.
Senator Murkowski. Are there any technologies that are out
there that Alaska could benefit from in terms of--those
technologies that could help us develop more potable water,
what's out there, and are we constrained at all because of
either the climate or geography?
Dr. Holland-Bartels. That's a question that is outside of
my area of expertise, and I would be happy to provide more
information.
Senator Murkowski. We're always looking for the better
mousetrap when it comes to how we're going to provide the
water, particularly out in those north villages.
With regards to S. 49, the Floodplain and Erosion
Mitigation, you have indicated in your statement that USGS
wants to be part of any of this process in terms of
identifying--is it fair to say that the Department agrees that
some kind of a commission is appropriate or is needed to
coordinate and to really work on developing a policy with
regard to how we deal with erosion and flooding in Alaska?
Dr. Holland-Bartels. I think there are two points, two
answers to this question. One, the Department has concerns
about the cost as this relates to other administration
priorities. It does support, sort of, the underpinning issues
that exist for the native communities in Alaska, and also
believes that the Department can bring talent to the table. We
don't necessarily believe that, as outlined in the legislation,
either the Bureau of Reclamation or the U.S. Geological Survey
are the appropriate things for that.
Senator Murkowski. Would the Department prefer to be left
out of it altogether?
Dr. Holland-Bartels. I don't think so. I think we would
like to be able to provide the science that we're known for in
support of those activities.
Senator Murkowski. Do you think that the administration
would support an Alaska State government-led commission within
the bipartisan authorization that was authorized to recommend
Federal program, budget and performance-based accountability
charges?
Dr. Holland-Bartels. I can't answer that question, but I'd
like to reiterate our commitment to working with the
subcommittee on language----
Senator Murkowski. And I think that's where we would like
to be able to take this from here. I know that Senator Stevens
still will be working on this issue, but we'd like to know that
we've got that level of cooperation. And it sounds like we're
in alignment in terms of the goals out there, it's just a
question of how we might best form these commissions to make it
do what we all hope it could do.
Senator Johnson.
Senator Johnson. For Commissioner Keys, relative to S. 819,
the Pactola Reservoir Reallocation Authorization Act, are you
familiar with similar legislation, either proposed or
ultimately enacted, that reallocated costs from one authorized
use to another authorized use? Is this something that has been
done before?
Mr. Keys. Senator Johnson, it has been done before. In this
case, with the nature of the contract and the language in it
and so forth, it does need Senate approval to do it, but we've
done that before.
Senator Johnson. Very good. Relative to S. 648 and drought
relief, your testimony indicated that Reclamation is
considering ideas to make drought relief more effective. Could
you share with us a few of the ideas that we are just thinking
about relative to greater efficiencies or effectiveness of
drought relief?
Mr. Keys. Senator Johnson, I think the one that we are
practicing, even as we speak, is to try to involve Reclamation
with other agencies that have resources available to work with
drought-challenged areas. Today or tomorrow we will see a press
announcement on drought action teams that have been established
for the States of Washington and Idaho, trying to bring the
work that we can do, the planning that we can make available
under title I of this Act, together with some resources from
the Department of Agriculture, the FAS, the NRCS and other
resources that they have, to bear on problems. In our case, it
also lets us try some new technologies--new technologies such
as desalination facilities--to get some future planning
involved in--one of the things that we found in working with
this Act in other areas is the worst time to plan for a drought
is when you're in one. And it lets us do some of that forward
thinking at times that we can do it, when we're not right under
the gun of the drought.
Senator Johnson. Your testimony indicated that the original
Drought Relief Act included a ceiling of $90 million in
expenditures; can you share with us how close Reclamation is to
exceeding that cap? How adequate has that cap been?
Mr. Keys. Mr. Johnson, over the past 5 years that I've been
involved in the budgets from this end, our annual expenditures
have been--our annual appropriations have been to the tune of
$2 to $5 million. The remaining portion of that $91 million is
adequate to carry us the next 5 years.
Senator Johnson. Relative to S. 247, which my Oregon
colleagues are sponsoring, your testimony mentioned that the
Code of Federal Regulations and OMB circulars contained Federal
guidelines which specified the types of activities that qualify
as in-kind services to satisfy cost-share requirements for
water conservation projects. I wonder if you could share with
the committee copies of these regulations and circulars for the
record?
Mr. Keys. Mr. Johnson, we would be happy to supply those
for the record.
Senator Johnson. Very good. Again, Mr. Keys, I'm very
appreciative of your working closely with the committee, and
also appreciative of your support for S. 819. Thank you.
Mr. Keys. Sure.
Senator Murkowski. Senator Smith.
Senator Smith. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Commissioner Keys, it's good to see you. And I want to join
my colleague, Senator Johnson, in acknowledging all of the good
work you do all over the West. It is a pleasure to work with
you, and I am very grateful for your willingness on so many
issues to work with us to find solutions. I'm hoping to find a
way to get your support for S. 247. I think it is a fact that
in the Deschutes Basin there are ESA-listed species that do
affect your project and your work; is that a fair statement?
Mr. Keys. Senator Smith, that is a fair statement.
Senator Smith. I understand your concern in terms of the
economics and how this is being proposed, but clearly if we
could provide the 20 cubic feet per second of water that this
project would put back in the Deschutes, I imagine it would be
very helpful to your responsibilities to these species in your
other projects.
Mr. Keys. Senator Smith, 20 cubic feet per second on top of
the existing 25 to 30 cubic feet per second already there would
do wonders in that place.
Senator Smith. Okay. It does seem that we do have a Federal
stake in this. The bill certainly does provide for some real
help to the species in dry times of the year. It certainly
helps farmers, and certainly advances public safety. I guess
all I'm asking is that you'll work with us to find the right
financing formula to make this happen, because it does seem to
me the Federal stake is very real, the fish and wildlife
concerns are very real, and obviously, the irrigation aspects
really ought to be achieved. So my hope is that you'll work
with us, as you have in the past, and figure out how to make
this so it wins the administration's support.
Mr. Keys. Senator Smith, we will work with you. I certainly
will go back to the administration and show them different ways
to consider this bill. And then, if the committee and the
Senate decided to do that, we would certainly work very closely
with you to implement it.
Senator Smith. It's really just a matter of money, isn't
it? Or is it something in the calculation of credits for water
that just violates one of the procedures that you have to
follow?
Mr. Keys. Senator Smith, the way the bill sets out the cost
share, it doesn't work.
Senator Smith. Okay.
Mr. Keys. We would certainly work with you to make that
work.
Senator Smith. Okay.
Mr. Keys. And then, as you've said, it's a matter of money.
Senator Smith. It always comes down to that, doesn't it?
Mr. Keys. Yes, it does.
Senator Smith. Well, thank you, Mr. Commissioner, for all
that you do.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Smith.
Commissioner, Dr. Bartels, thank you both for your
testimony, again, and for the fine work that you do for the
Bureau. And Dr. Bartels, we appreciate you coming all the way
from Alaska. You can now go home and take care of things on the
home front. Have a nice flight. Again, thank you for your
willingness to work with us on some of these issues that are
outstanding, and for your help in getting some of these moving
forward, we appreciate that a great deal.
With that, let's move to the second panel, please. Good
afternoon, gentlemen. I'd also like to welcome you,
Commissioner Blatchford--I know that you have also traveled a
long way to be with us this afternoon--the Alaska Department of
Community and Economic Development. And Mr. McDaniels, I would
be remiss in not acknowledging that you, also, have a
transcontinental flight, so thank you for being with us, as
well, this afternoon.
Commissioner Blatchford, if we can start with your
testimony, and then we will proceed to Mr. McDaniels. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF EDGAR BLATCHFORD, COMMISSIONER,
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT,
ANCHORAGE, AK
Mr. Blatchford. Thank you, Madam Chair, and members of the
committee for this opportunity to testify on behalf of the
State of Alaska and the Department of Commerce, Community and
Economic Development. These legislative proposals are very
important to the affected communities and residents of Alaska.
I am testifying before you because our department's Alaska
constitutional mandate to assist communities.
Alaska believes a joint Federal-State Floodplain and
Erosion Mitigation Commission is long overdue. This legislation
recognizes that floodplain management measures and erosion
mitigation interrelate, frequently overlap and often rely on a
multi-agency approach. We work closer with the Federal, State
and Native organizations, and we encourage this working
togetherness.
We also believe, Madam Chair and members of the committee,
in being multi-objective. I, as Commissioner of the Department
of Commerce and Economic Development, cannot assist the
communities most at risk. The burden on our State and Federal
resources in disaster assistance and emergency response can and
should be reduced.
For a few communities, this can not happen without a
coordinated Federal-State effort to address the flood and
erosion problems. The Department of Commerce, Community and
Economic Development is charged with creating a local economic
base for most of our villages in rural Alaska. We need to
provide jobs, and it is difficult when the land under your feet
is washing away during each storm, or the river breaks up,
flooding the communities. We need a decisionmaking body that
can make recommendations and see direct implementation of flood
and erosion mitigation solutions. We need a decisionmaking body
to set priorities for those most in need, and to assign agency
leads in the State and Federal Governments. Right now, we do
not see the Federal or State governments as having direct
programs, roles or leadership in addressing erosion.
We have to avoid the problem to begin with. Sometimes we
can gather money to try to fix the problem through structural
erosion control, but if moving the community is the most cost-
effective, socially-acceptable solution, State and Federal
Governments do not have clear program authority to assist.
S. 49 includes matters to be studied by the proposed
Federal-State Floodplain and Erosion Mitigation Commission. My
staff advises me that much study has already been performed,
and is readily available from prior Federal and State-funded
study projects. Still, Alaska is very appreciative of the study
funding support.
However, what is lacking is a coordinated Federal-State,
high-level leadership team to make what in some cases will be
hard and difficult decisions. Let me make it clear, as I stated
before the U.S. Senate Appropriations hearing that Senator
Stevens chaired, and you, Senator Murkowski, participated in
last summer in Anchorage that started the momentum toward this
needed legislation, erosion and flooding is, with many of our
communities, having some type of impact. Erosion and flooding
are naturally occurring events. Few communities in Alaska are
at great risk, and need, in my opinion, to consider the option
of moving.
With good information, we hope to avoid placement of
expensive infrastructure that can be threatened or needs
erosion control, but we need good data. Our Department is
working closely with the Corps of Engineers to move forward on
the erosion assessments that have been stated as a priority
need, and was funded through the Corps in last year's Omnibus
Appropriations Bill. We believe these erosion assessments by
the Corps, which include using our Department's detailed
community maps, will provide excellent information for avoiding
siting of new infrastructure in erosion-prone areas.
Let me comment just briefly, Madam Chairman and members of
the committee, on Alaska's lack of water resource data, and
express my support for S. 1338. In the area of flood
forecasting, stream gaging is vital for the data needed to
support Alaska's flood map modernization effort. Our Department
is the State lead for map modernization and stream gage data is
critical for producing updated, accurate flood maps.
Alaska's stream gage density is about one stream for every
4,500 square miles, compared to the rest of the United States
which has one stream gage for every 430 square miles. USGS's
gaging program, the National Streamflow Information Program,
only has 19 percent of the approved gages in place to provide
surface water information. We encourage Congress to fund the
stream gaging deficit in our State.
Thank you again, Madam Chair and members of the committee,
for the opportunity to be here this afternoon. I look forward
to any questions that you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Blatchford follows:]
Prepared Statement of Edgar Blatchford, Commissioner, Department of
Community and Economic Development, Anchorage, AK
Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the Committee for this
opportunity to testify on behalf of the State of Alaska and the
Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development on these
legislative proposals that are important to the affected communities
and residents of Alaska.
I am testifying before you because of our department's Alaska
Constitutional mandate to assist communities.
Senate 49, a bill sponsored by the Alaska delegation and supported
by the State of Alaska and particularly by our Department will be the
primary legislation on which I will comment.
Alaska believes a joint Federal-State Floodplain and Erosion
Mitigation Commission is long over due.
This Legislation recognizes that floodplain management measures and
erosion mitigation interrelate, frequently overlap and often rely on:
1) A multi-agency approach--Federal-State-Native organizations
working together;
2) And must be multi-objective--I can't fulfill my Commerce &
Economic Development duties as Commissioner, unless I also assist the
Community's most at Risk. The burden on our State and Federal resources
in Disaster assistance and Emergency response can and should be
reduced. For a few communities (3-4) this can not happen without a
coordinated State-Federal effort to address the flood & erosion
problems. How do you create an economy, provide jobs when the land
under your feet is washing away during each storm, or as River Breakup
floods the community?
3) Finally, we need a DECISION-MAKING body that can make
Recommendations and see that direct implementation of flood and erosion
mitigation solutions, and SET PRIORITIES for those MOST in need, and
ASSIGN Agency leads in the State and Federal government. Right now we
do not see the Federal, or State Governments as having direct programs,
roles or leadership in addressing EROSION. Flooding and floodplain
management, Yes--Erosion--we don't have the program authorities needed
to:
AVOID the problem to begin with;
sometimes we can gather money to try to FIX the problem
through Structural Erosion Control, but if
MOVING is the most cost effective, socially acceptable
solution--State and Federal Governments do not have clear
program authorities to assist.
Senate 49, includes ``Matters to Be Studied'' by the proposed
Federal-State Floodplain & Erosion Mitigation Commission. Staff advises
me that much ``Study'' has been performed and is readily available from
prior Federal (primarily the Corps of Engineers) and State funded
``Study'' Projects. Alaska is very appreciative of the Study funding
support. However, what is lacking is a COORDINATED Federal-State high-
level leadership team to make, what in some cases, will be hard
decisions.
Let me make it clear, as I stated before the U.S. Senate
Appropriations Hearing that Senator Stevens chaired and Senator
Murkowski, you participated in last summer in Anchorage that started
the momentum towards this needed Legislation:
Erosion and flooding is, with many of our communities, having some
type of an impact--erosion and flooding are naturally occurring events.
A very few communities in Alaska are at great risk, and need, in my
opinion, to consider the option of moving.
With good information, we hope to avoid placement of expensive
infrastructure that can be threatened or that needs erosion control.
But we need good data. Our Department is working closely with the Corps
of Engineers to move forward on the Erosion Assessments that have been
stated as a priority need and was funded through the Corps in last
year's Omnibus Appropriations Bill. We believe these Erosion
Assessments by the Corps, using our Department's detailed Community
Maps, will provide excellent information for avoiding siting of new
infrastructure in erosion prone areas.
Let me comment briefly on Alaska's lack of water resource data, and
express my support for Senate 1338 ``Alaska Water Resources Act of
2005'', particularly the bills stated ``. . . particularly in the area
of FLOODFORECASTING. Stream gaging is also vital for the data needed to
support the Alaska's Flood Map Modernization effort (lead by FEMA
nationally). Our Department is the State lead for Map Modernization and
stream gage data is critical to producing updated, accurate flood maps.
Alaska's stream gage density is about 1 stream gage for every four-
thousand, five hundred square miles, whereas the rest of the U.S. has
about 1 stream gage per 430 square miles.
The USGS's gaging program (the National Streamflow Information
Program) only has 19% of the approved gages in place to provide surface
water information. We encourage Congress to fund the stream gage
deficit our State faces.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before you this
afternoon. I look forward to any questions you may have.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Commissioner.
Mr. McDaniels.
STATEMENT OF ELMER MCDANIELS, MANAGER,
TUMALO IRRIGATION DISTRICT, BEND, OR
Mr. McDaniels. Madam Chairman, members of the subcommittee,
I'm Elmer McDaniels, and I'm from the Tumalo Irrigation
District in Bend, Oregon. The Tumalo Irrigation District, or
TID, was founded in 1914 and currently serves about 45 square
miles with 8,100 irrigated acres between Bend and Sisters,
Oregon, on the east slope of the Cascade Mountains.
I would like to state at the outset our thanks to Senator
Smith and Senator Wyden for introducing S. 247, a bill to
authorize the Secretary of the Interior to assist the Tumalo
Irrigation District in the planning, design and construction of
the Water Conservation Project in Deschutes County, the process
we have successfully used with the recently dedicated Bend Feed
Canal Project.
The project involved the piping of approximately 6 miles of
open canals, and returning 20 cfs of conserved water to in-
stream flows under the Oregon State Water Conservation Statute,
which represents $5.4 million of public benefit. I'd like to
also say that the 30 second feet that has been mentioned
before, that Senator Smith mentioned, is not a water right in-
stream, it's a gentlemen's agreement between all of the
Districts, and could go away at any time with drastic droughts,
worse than what we have now. We would put 20 second feet of
water in-stream, plus the 5.6 that we've already put in the
Bend Feed Canal Project we just finished, and that water right
was transferred to the State permanently to be in-stream.
I'd like to submit for the record four letters of support,
two from our State's Department of Water Resources, and two
from the Department of Fish and Wildlife. Under this bill, the
State of Oregon will hold and conserve the in-stream water
right resulting from the project. It's not a gentlemen's
agreement or something that will go away.
Senator Murkowski. Those letters will be included in the
record.
Mr. McDaniels. Thank you.
The benefits of this particular water conservation project
are to eliminate water loss, enhance public safety, and
conserve energy along the project's 6-mile length. This project
will provide significant in-stream flow benefits to both Tumalo
Creek and the Deschutes River, a major tributary to the
Columbia River, draining much of central Oregon. The Federal
and State interest in constructing this project is apparent,
pending the need for solutions in the Deschutes Basin for in-
stream flow, anadromous fish, and environmental issue. We view
that the work that would be undertaken with this project is a
partnership model that the Bureau should consider for their own
projects, consistent with Water 2025.
The total expected Federal share for this project is $14
million, and that can be spread over 3 to 5 years, the same as
the estimated project planning, design and construction costs.
Although TID isn't putting up the traditional cash portion of
this project cost-share, we propose to count the value of the
20 second feet of conserved water generated by the project and
transferred back in-stream, a $5.4 million value, which is
explained in our written testimony, which is the equivalent of
the traditional local match. That, along with our in-kind
service of existing project-related features, constitute a
total of $7.4 million of local match value.
The precedent for this method of water-return cost-share
accounting is from Nebraska, where the value of the conserved
water and returned water is used as a part of the cost-sharing
portion in the Platte River Basin Endangered Species Recovery
Implementation Program. I would also like to submit materials
for the record on that program's cost-sharing as well.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Murkowski. They will be included.
Mr. McDaniels. We believe this bill offers a district such
as ours the opportunity to undertake a project having so many
positive benefits in terms of water conservation savings, water
enhancement, protection of listed species and reliable water
supply to our service area customers during the drought and to
increase public safety in our communities.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this important
legislation to our District. I'd be pleased to try to answer
any questions that you have, and I look forward to favorable
action by the Subcommittee on Water and Power. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McDaniels follows:]
Prepared Statement of Elmer McDaniels, Manager,
Tumalo Irrigation District, Bend, OR
Madam Chairwoman, Members of the Subcommittee, I am Elmer
McDaniels, Manager of the Tumalo Irrigation District in Bend, Oregon.
The Tumalo Irrigation District--or TID--was founded in 1914 and
currently serves about 45 square miles with 8,100 irrigated acres
between Bend and Sisters, Oregon, on the east slope of the Cascade
Mountains.
I would like to state at the outset our thanks to Senator Smith and
Senator Wyden for introducing S. 247--a bill to authorize the Secretary
of the Interior to assist in the planning, design, and construction of
the Tumalo Irrigation District Water Conservation Project in Deschutes
County, Oregon--a piece of legislation the District strongly supports.
It is vital to us as we undergo the rapid urbanization and growth that
is occurring throughout our part of the state during a period of
continuing drought. The project involves the piping of approximately
six miles of open canals, and returning 20 cfs of conserved water to
in-stream flows under the Oregon State Water Conservation Statute,
which represents $5.4 million of public benefit. Under this Bill, the
State of Oregon will hold the conserved in-stream water right resulting
from the project.
The benefits of this particular water conservation project are to
eliminate water loss, enhance public safety, and conserve energy along
the project's six-mile length. The completed project, including other
work by TID, will deliver pressurized water to TID irrigators during
drought years, whereas they now receive an inadequate water supply in 8
out of 10 years. From a watershed enhancement perspective, this project
is to provide significant in-stream flow benefits to both Tumalo Creek
and the Deschutes River, a major tributary to the Columbia River,
draining much of central Oregon. Recently, the Middle Deschutes River
has been reduced to seasonal flows as low as 30 cfs, and the goal for
this project is to enhance that flow to eventually achieve 250 cfs for
the Middle Deschutes basin, a river reach that is significantly
productive for trout and anadromous fisheries.
The TID Water Conservation Project will provide a 20 cfs water
savings to transfer to in-stream, in the Tumalo Creek and the Deschutes
River. Together with previous 111) water conservation efforts, this
represents 10.4% of the 250 cfs basin goal for restoring the Deschutes
River, which will greatly impact stream ecosystem and habitat for
listed species as well as provide flow stability for both anadromous
fisheries and residents. The completed project will eliminate or reduce
farm pumping systems thereby saving energy, realize pressurization
throughout the irrigation system, and reduce the risk of injury and
drowning to small children growing up in our District around open
canals.
The Tumalo Irrigation District, even though it's a non-Reclamation
District, has a history of working with the Bureau on solutions. The
Federal and State interest in constructing this project is apparent
given the need for solutions in the Deschutes basin for in-stream flow,
anadromous fish, and environmental issues; we view the work that would
be undertaken with this project as a model that the Bureau should
consider for their own projects, consistent with Water 2025.
The total expected Federal share for this project is $14 million,
the same as the estimated project planning, design, and construction
costs. Although TID isn't putting up the traditional cash portion of
this project cost-share, we propose to count the value of the 20 cfs of
conserved water generated by the project and transferred back in-
stream--a $5.4 million value--towards our equivalent local match along
with our in-kind services. We appreciate the fact there may be some
confusion regarding the cost-share requirements. Section 3, Subsection
(b), part (2) of S. 247--Credit Toward Non-Federal Share states:
``The Secretary shall credit toward the non-Federal share of
the Project----
(B) an amount equal to----
(i) the value of any water converted by the
Project to instream water rights, as determined
in accordance with State law . . .''
The precedent for this method of water-return cost-share accounting
is from Nebraska, where the value of the conserved and returned water
is used as part of that State's cost-sharing portion in the Platte
River basin Endangered Species Recovery Implementation Program.
The $5.4 million dollar value of the water is calculated as
follows:
A single cubic foot per second will irrigate approximately
60 acres.
The 20 cfs of conserved water is equivalent to the amount of
water needed to irrigate 1,200 acres of land in the TID. (20
cfs is equal to approx. 10,000 gallons per minute.)
The current market price of 1 acre of TID water rights is
$4,500.
1,200 acres $4,500 = $5.4 million in value of
water
I would also like to submit for the Record three letters: one from
the State of Oregon, one from the State's Department of Water
Resources, and one from the State's Fish and Wildlife Department.
We believe this Bill offers a District such as ours the opportunity
to undertake a project having so many positive benefits; in terms of
water conservation savings, watershed enhancement, protection of listed
species, for reliable water supply to our service area customers during
the drought, and to increase public safety in our communities.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this important
legislation to our District. I am pleased to answer any questions that
you may have, and we look forward to favorable action by the
Subcommittee on Water and Power.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, both of you gentlemen. I
appreciate your testimony here this afternoon, and your efforts
in getting here.
Commissioner Blatchford, you spoke to the importance of the
coordinated effort, and I think this is one of the real
advantages that we see with S. 49 is the coordinated Federal-
State effort. How important is it--and from the State of
Alaska's perspective, how important is it--that we have some
kind of a standardized policy to deal with the coastal erosion
and the flooding problem statewide?
Mr. Blatchford. Senator Murkowski and Senator Smith, the
importance of standardization is growing, because we see a
growing problem in Alaska with erosion. It's along the Yukon,
the Kuskokwim, and the Bering Sea. And we, the standards would
allow, Madam Chair, for us to make the sometimes--I believe
will be--difficult and hard decisions on where to place
infrastructure, whether it means placing the infrastructure
further away from where the community is now located. But a
standardized approach is extremely important, Madam Chair, even
though, Madam Chair, each community is very, very unique.
Senator Murkowski. With the mapping that is being
undertaken and a recognition that if we can better anticipate
what the years of erosion may bring, we can be smarter in our
decisions as to where we place the school or the community
center.
Do we have any real estimates on the amount of funding that
we currently need to address the coastal erosion and the river
erosion around the State?
Mr. Blatchford. I have not seen any universal or State-wide
estimate of how much it would cost to deal with the problem,
the growing problem, but I believe it would be in the hundreds
of millions of dollars. Just looking at one community, Madam
Chair, and that is the community of Shishmaref, a community
that has massive erosion problems caused by the Bering Sea,
I've been there several times, starting back in the early
1990's, and it's a community that I'm familiar with because my
grandmother was from that area, but we're talking about the
cost of moving homes, schools, the National Guard Armory, the
entire infrastructure in the community, and it's a growing
community. So my approach would be to look for good, solid
ground upon which to build a new community, but that would be
very, very expensive.
Senator Murkowski. How are we doing in terms of identifying
those areas and those communities that are subject to the
flooding and erosion?
Mr. Blatchford. Madam Chair, members of the subcommittee,
that's easy to do, because the communities contact us whenever
the water starts to rise or the banks start to fall in, and
then we have to move into a crisis mode to try to move the
infrastructure, whether it's the school, or the homes or the
washeteria. And this is a recurring problem in some cases. It
happens on an annual basis in the spring of the year. For the
past couple of decades, we have made, the State of Alaska has
made efforts in trying to place the infrastructure on higher
ground, in safer locations. But the Yukon and the Kuskokwim
River, and all of the tributaries that feed into those massive
rivers, they follow their own course, we can't tell them which
way to go. We can try to direct them, but the mighty Yukon is
the mighty Yukon.
Senator Murkowski. Do you have any suggestions for us here
in Congress? And I'm kind of smiling as I'm saying this, just
listening to your last comment--we can't tell the River where
to go. We can't deal with the forces of Mother Nature, but we
can try to anticipate. And sometimes we get lucky, and
sometimes we've guessed entirely wrong. From your perspective
as a commissioner who goes out, who's in the villages, who's
listening to the concerns from the community, what specifically
can we do? As Senator Smith mentioned in his previous comments,
it always comes down to money, but short of it just coming down
to the dollars, what can we do here?
Mr. Blatchford. What can we do? Madam Chair, that's a very
good question. The first thing I would suggest is that we not
place infrastructure where we know there's going to be an
erosion control problem. In one community, they voted to move,
but then they were told that they would not have their new
school or their new National Guard Armory if they decided to
move, the infrastructure had to be placed on that particular
site. I believe, Madam Chair, that it was a lack of
coordination within various agencies within the State and
Federal Governments. But when we look at Alaska, and how vast
the State is, and how powerful nature is in the Northern
Hemisphere, we have to appreciate local people's input, and we
listen very closely to what local people suggest to us, and we
try to take those suggestions and work through the various
agencies.
Senator Murkowski. It really does need to be a much better
coordinated effort than we've had in the past.
One very quick question on S. 1338, the Water Resources
Act, recognizing that you do come from a coastal community, you
know how important a plentiful supply of potable water is for
the fish, for the seafood processing plants, for tourism, for
all of the activity that goes on, whether it's mining, oil and
gas development, whatever is happening--do you see water supply
issues presenting themselves as a problem for the State in the
upcoming years?
Mr. Blatchford. Madam Chair, I spent most of my adult life
in the community of Seward, and Seward is a community that has
heavy rainfall----
Senator Murkowski. Lots of rain.
Mr. Blatchford. And you have one of the largest ice fields
right behind Seward, and numerous glaciers feeding off of the
ice field. And still, when the cruise ships come in, the
question is, ``Do we have enough water to supply the cruise
ships, the town, and the city of Seward?'' And it is going to
be a problem, I believe, particularly out in southwest Alaska,
western Alaska, where you have a high water table, and in many
cases you have a lack of a water and sewer system, where the
honeybucket system is still in use. The question of drinking
water will always be there, but I think, Madam Chair, that the
problem will become more severe because in many of the areas,
particularly native Alaska, you have a growing population. More
young people are becoming a larger part of the community. In
some cases, Madam Chair, you're looking at 30 to 40 percent of
the people in the community are under the age of 16. So I would
say the problem of drinking water is going to become more
severe.
Senator Murkowski. I appreciate your testimony. I've got
one question for Mr. McDaniels, but I think I'm going to defer
at this time to Senator Smith.
Senator Smith. Thank you, Madam Chair. Elmer, it's good to
see you again. We certainly appreciate you coming back all this
way. I know that flight very well. You're here on a good cause.
I wonder if, for the Senate record, Elmer, you could give
the subcommittee a quick summary of the many pressures and
competing demands on water in the Deschutes Basin.
Mr. McDaniels. Senator, Chair, environmental, fish, safety,
irrigation, agriculture, just for starters.
Senator Smith. How about local demands, city growth?
Mr. McDaniels. Local demand for the cities, tremendous
growth in Redmond/Bend, Madras is beginning to feel it,
Prineville is beginning to feel it, just tremendous demands for
a watershed that is just not producing what it needs. We have
taken the lead, I feel, in trying to pipe, eliminate seepage
loss to help the in-stream, to help our water users. We've
already, as you are well aware, completed one project, this is
the second phase.
Senator Smith. Is it fair to say that the residential
demand for water has never been higher, and that Californians
are certainly welcome in Oregon, and they're coming there in
droves, not just to vacation, but to live permanently?
Mr. McDaniels. Well, as an example of what you're asking,
when I came to Bend in 1992, July 1992, the population was just
under 19,000. Today, it's 62,500.
Senator Smith. And it's a very arid part of Oregon. We're
often thought of as sort of a rainforest, but that's the other
side of the mountains.
Mr. McDaniels. That's the other side of the mountains.
Senator Smith. Elmer, if you were to market the water that
we propose to conserve, rather than put it back into the
stream, do you think you'd have any buyer?
Mr. McDaniels. Absolutely. When one water user will buy
water from another user, they're paying about $4,500 an acre,
plus the mapping and all of the legal work that goes with it.
Now, we are not interested in going in that direction. We're
environmentalists, we want a better supply of water for our
water users. I like to fish, too. We want water in-stream for
fishing, kayaking, you name it.
Senator Smith. And there's an abundance of all of those
activities going on there. It is certainly a recreational
capital of the Northwest now, it seems.
Mr. McDaniels. It seems to be, yes, sir.
Senator Smith. Well, Elmer, as I said to Commissioner Keys,
we will continue working on S. 247 to get it in the kind of
shape that can ultimately--I think we can pass it now, but
ultimately we've got to pass it with the administration, too,
so we will work with you as well, if you've got ideas for how
to do that. It's very, very important that we accomplish this,
and the sooner the better.
Mr. McDaniels. Madam Chair, Senator Smith, we would be glad
to work with you and the subcommittee and Reclamation to fix
this up so we can get it passed.
Senator Smith. Thank you very much, great to see you.
Mr. McDaniels. Thank you.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Smith.
Mr. McDaniels, I asked Commissioner Keys a question along
the same lines in terms of the crediting issue. I asked whether
or not the administration, the Bureau would change their
position on supporting this legislation, if the project were to
be altered so that the cost-share amounts were amended to
reflect credit for the actual cost of the in-kind services, and
he didn't commit one way or another. Do you think that this
legislation--that the water district could go forward with a
proposed project, if it were to reflect credit for the actual
costs?
Mr. McDaniels. We would work with you and the subcommittee
and Mr. Keys to do what we can to get this bill approved. I
would like to qualify that answer by--the third phase of this
project will be done strictly by Tumalo Irrigation District to
pipe another 60 miles of what I call a distribution system, the
smaller naturals, from 48" diameter down to 6" diameter. And
that is going to cost us about $14 million.
Senator Murkowski. Fourteen?
Mr. McDaniels. Million dollars.
Senator Murkowski. Well, I think we've heard very clearly
here that there is an effort to work on this issue. Working
with you, Senator Smith, it sounds like the commissioner is
clearly willing to do that. And then the subcommittee will be
working with you on that, too, to see what we can do to assist.
Both gentlemen, I appreciate your time, your effort in
getting here, and the testimony that you have provided the
subcommittee this afternoon.
We'll be working on these issues. I appreciate it. And we
are concluded.
[Whereupon, at 4:20 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIXES
----------
Appendix I
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Tumalo Irrigation District,
Bend, OR, July 21, 2005.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Water and Power, Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Murkowski Thank you for the opportunity to testify
before your Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources on July 12, 2005, regarding S. 247, to authorize
the Secretary of the Interior to assist in the planning, design, and
construction of the Tumalo Irrigation District Water Conservation
Project in Deschutes County, Oregon.
The following is the question that has been submitted for the
record, and the response to be submitted for the record:
Question. You point to the Platte River Basin Endangered Species
Recovery Implementation Program as a ``precedent'' for S. 247's water-
return cost-share component. However, wasn't that part of a negotiated
settlement for the Platte River? How do you respond to Commissioner
Keys' assertion that the two are distinguishable?
Answer. We agree with Commissioner Keys that each is
distinguishable--one was put together in a regulatory setting (Platte
River), and one is put together in.a legislative setting (Tumalo). That
is not the basis for the ``precedent''. The basis is that each
recognizes that an amount of water has a dollar value. And, as such,
each example uses that as a basis for ``cost-sharing'' in a non-
traditional way. The principle has already been accepted in a
governmental setting with the same agency involved (Bureau of
Reclamation). We don't see that it makes a difference whether it is
regulatory of legislative.
We also don't see the significance behind the word ``negotiated''.
We have put forth in our testimony the ``how-we-arrived-at''
justification behind the value that we ascribe to our 20 cfs of water
for purposes of cost-sharing. We are more than willing to sit down with
the Bureau of Reclamation at their area office here in Oregon to
discuss these figures if that would be useful in moving the legislation
forward in Washington. DC.
Sincerely,
Elmer G. McDaniels,
District Manager/Secretary to the Board.
______
Department of the Interior
Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs,
Washington, DC, August 4, 2005.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Water and Power, Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Murkowski: Enclosed are responses prepared by the
U.S. Geological Survey to questions submitted following the July 12,
2005, hearing on S. 49 and S. 1338.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this material for the
record.
Sincerely,
Jane M. Lyder,
Legislative Counsel.
[Enclosure.]
Responses of Dr. Leslie Holland-Bartels to Questions
From Senator Murkowski
S. 49, the Alaskan Floodplain and Erosion Mitigation Commission Act of
2005
Question 1. Does the Department agree that some type of commission
is needed to better coordinate the development of policy on what the
federal government should be doing to combat coastal erosion and
flooding in rural Alaska?
Answer. The development of Federal policy is the responsibility
oldie Federal government. However, this process should not occur in a
vacuum. Accordingly, we support coordination with and input from the
State and from local interests and believe that sound policy would
result from such coordination without the need to establish a
commission.
It is important also to keep in mind that coastal erosion and
flooding occur naturally; they are of concern primarily where we have
developed our coastal and flood plains. The objective is not to combat
these natural forces. Instead, it is to evaluate their impacts,
identify potential solutions, and determine which options, if any, may
be appropriate to pursue.
S. 1338, Alaska Water Resources Act of 2005
Question 2. My understanding is that the Interior Department has
often conducted water resource studies, including the quantity of water
available from aquifers. In Alaska, there is very little information
available on the size and recharge capabilities of Alaska aquifers used
for potable water by many of the residents in the Mat-Su Valley and on
the Kenai Peninsula. If this bill is enacted, what will the Department
do to identify such aquifers?
Answer. If the bill is or is not enacted, the Department and the
U.S. Geological Survey will continue to work with its partners to
identify priorities in Alaska for study.
______
[Responses to the following questions were not received at
the time this hearing went to press.]
Questions for John W. Keys, III, From Senator Murkowski
questions on s. 247, the tumalo water conservation project act of 2005
Question 1. What is the difference between the method of crediting
and accounting for water proposed for the TID water conservation
project in Deschutes County, Oregon, and the Platte River Basin
Endangered Species Recovery Implementation Program?
Question 2. This sounds like a Water 2025 project. Why doesn't the
Administration support it?
QUESTIONS ON S. 819, THE PACTOLA RESERVOIR REALLOCATION
AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2005
Question 3. If this legislation is enacted, will Reclamation be
able to execute the new contracts immediately?
______
Question for Edgar Blatchford From Senator Murkowski
question on s. 1338, the alaska water resources act of 2005
Question 1. As Commissioner of Economic Development in Alaska, you
know how important a plentiful, affordable supply of potable water is
to further economic development. How important is it for Alaska's
economy to get more information on its current and future water supply
sources?
______
Questions for John W. Keys, III, From Senator Bingaman
Question 1. S. 648 (Smith)--Reclamation's budget request for
funding to support its drought relief program has not been significant
in recent times. This is surprising given the drought conditions that
have affected large parts of the West. For 2005 and 2006, the President
requested only $500,000. In the drought-plagued years of 2003 and 2004,
only $899,000 and $1.12 million were requested, respectively.
What is Reclamation's approach for addressing drought
conditions--is additional funding needed to support that
approach?
Rather than merely extending the authority for the existing
Drought Relief Act--should a different approach be taken or new
authority developed?
How much has the Bureau of Reclamation expended under the
Drought Relief Act program since its enactment?
______
Questions for John W. Keys, III, From Senator Wyden
Question 1. Isn't one of the missions of the Bureau to encourage
partnerships with local governments to meet water supply needs?
Question 2. Increasing flows in Tumalo Creek will make the stream
and the Deschutes River a better place for fish to live by giving them
more water and by cooling water temperatures. Aren't such environmental
benefits important missions of the Bureau?
Question 3. You state in your testimony that you do not support
this legislation because, based on your calculations, the non-Federal
cost share is not 50%. Basically, the Bureau doesn't think that the
water-return cost-share should be credited to the State. Mr. McDaniels
states in this testimony that a Nebraska project has gotten credit for
water-return cost-share. So why then is it okay for Nebraska to get
credit for water-return but not for Oregon?
Question 4. If the local sponsors met the 50% requirement, would
you support this legislation?
Appendix II
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
State of Oregon,
Water Resources Department,
Salem, OR, April 26, 2005.
Elmer McDaniels,
Manager, Tumalo Irrigation District, Bend, OR.
Dear Elmer: As you know the Water Resources Department has long
supported the Tumalo Feed Canal Project, and that support continues.
Tumalo Irrigation District has been a leader in water conservation, as
guidanced by your selection to receive the 2002 Oregon Water Resource
Commission's Water Conservation and Restoration award, and the 2003
Governor's Oregon Plan Certificate of Appreciation.
The Tumalo Feed Canal Project will continue this tradition of
excellence in water resource management. The piping of the canal will
eliminate seepage loss and provide for a more reliable delivery of
water to TID patrons. The project also has the potential to
significantly improve streamflows in Tumalo Creek and the middle
Deschutes River. We look forward to receiving your application for
allocation and use of conserved water.
If you have any questions, or if the Department can be of further
assistance, please contact Kyle Gonnan, SC Region Manager, at 541-388-
6669.
Sincerely,
Phil Ward,
Director.
______
State of Oregon,
Department of Fish and Wildlife,
Salem, OR, June 22, 2005.
Elmer McDaniels,
Manager, Tumalo Irrigation District, Bend, OR.
Re: Tumalo Feed Canal Piping Project
Dear Elmer: I am writing to express ODFW support for the proposed
Tumalo Feed Canal piping project. The Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife (ODFW) understands the project will result in piping of
approximately 6 miles of open canal with 100% of the conserved water
transferred in-stream at an estimated rate of 20 cubic feet per second.
Stream flows restored through this project will enhance redband
trout (an Oregon Sensitive species), brown trout, and mountain
whitefish populations and other aquatic resources in Tumalo Creek from
the point of diversion downstream to the confluence of the Deschutes
River and in the Deschutes River downstream to Lake Billy Chinook.
Benefits to fish populations will accrue through improvements in water
quality and quantity resulting in enhanced feeding, resting, and
rearing habitats and improved access to spawning areas in Tumalo Creek.
This project will also compliment other in-stream flow enhancement
projects implemented by the Tumalo Irrigation District and other basin
interests.
The combined effect of project benefits to Tumalo Irrigation
District operations and aquatic resources make this a true win-win
project. ODFW greatly appreciates the efforts of the Tumalo Irrigation
District to restore important aquatic habitats and resource values for
present and future generations of Oregonians.
Sincerely,
Steven Marx,
Acting Deputy Director.
______
State of Oregon,
Department of Fish and Wildlife,
Salem, OR, July 1, 2005.
Carl W. Hopp, Jr.,
Attorney at Law, LLC, Bend OR.
Re: Basis for Oregon Method Flow Recommendations
Dear Mr. Hopp: I am writing you at the request of Steve Marx to
answer your inquiry about what the key elements of the Oregon Method
are and how those are used to establish instream water rights.
The Oregon Method is one of the methodologies identified in Oregon
Administrative Rule (OAR 635-400-0015) to be used by the Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) to request instream water
rights. The rules require that ODFW consider the ``habitat requirements
for conservation, maintenance or enhancement of fish and wildlife
migration, spawning, nesting brooding, egg incubation, larval or
juvenile development, juvenile and adult rearing and aquatic life''
when developing an instream flow requirement.
The Oregon Method is a habitat based model for determining flow
requirements for salmonid fish and is specific to anadromous and
resident salmonids only. The method was developed specifically for this
purpose and is described in the ``Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife Guidelines for Instream Flow Methodologies (1989)'', The
method computes the percent of cross-sections or area usable for fish
life history functions. Life histories addressed by the method are:
Passage, Spawning & Incubation and Rearing.
Stream flow levels are determined by species and life functions
present during different periods of the year. The method requires field
measurements and observations at different locations in the stream
(transects) and at different flows. Measurements include water depth
and velocity at many locations along transects across the stream,
observations of the stream (wetted area), proximity to cover, relative
proportion of pools and riffles, and spot measurements of depth and
velocity.
Once the field measurements are completed the data is analyzed by
comparing it to standard criteria and determining the amount of stream
width meeting the criteria; calculating the average conditions for each
species and life function and plotting average stream conditions that
meet all or a majority of the criteria, You then chart the periods of
the year when each species and life function is present and select the
highest of the flows needed by the individual species and life
functions present during each period of the year (called optimization).
ODFW then uses this information to apply for an instream water
right for a reach of stream. ODFW is required to provide to the Water
Resource Department (WRD) an application containing:
Name and extent of the stream or lake.
Species and life stage of fish or wildlife resources.
Statement of the purpose for which the water is requested.
Amount of flow requested, by month.
Description of the technical data and methods used.
Evidence of notification of DEQ and Parks and affected local
governments.
Statement that the amount requested is the minimum amount
necessary.
If the requested amount of flow is greater than the Expected
Natural Average Flow (ENAF) (the amount of flow expected to naturally
be in the stream half of the time) then WRD limits the requested
instream water right to ENAF. In the case of the Mid Deschutes, below
Bend, the instream water right is well below ENAF.
WRD then goes through a public review process before granting the
instream water right. Once the water right granted and certificated it
is held in trust by WRD for the people of Oregon.
I hope this addresses your questions on how the Oregon Method is
used to establish instream water rights. If you have questions or need
additional clarification please give me a call at 503-947-6084.
Sincerely,
Rick Kepler,
Manager, Water Quality/Quantity.
______
State of Oregon,
Water Resources Department,
Salem, OR, July 7, 2005.
Elmer McDaniels,
Manager/Secretary, Tumalo Irrigation District, Bend, OR.
Dear Elmer: I am pleased to respond to your request for a letter
that describes Oregon's allocation of conserved water statute (ORS
537.455--537.500).
The Allocation of Conserved Water Program allows a water user who
conserves water to use a portion of the conserved water on additional
lands, lease or sell the water, or dedicate the water to instream use.
Use of this program is voluntary and provides benefits to both water
right holders and instream values.
The statutes authorizing the program were originally passed by the
Legislative Assembly in 1987. The primary intent of the law is to
promote the efficient use of water to satisfy current and future
needs--both out-of-stream and instream. The statute defines
conservation as ``the reduction of the amount of water diverted to
satisfy an existing beneficial use achieved either by improving the
technology or method for diverting, transporting, applying or
recovering the water or by implementing other approved conservation
measures.''
In the absence of Department approval of an allocation of conserved
water, water users who make the necessary investments to improve their
water use efficiency are not allowed to use the conserved water to meet
new needs; instead any unused water remains in the stream where it is
available for the next appropriator. In exchange for granting the user
the right to use a portion of the conserved water, the law requires
allocation of a portion to the state for instream use.
After mitigating the effects on any other water rights, the Water
Resources Commission allocates 25 percent of the conserved water to the
state (for an instream water right held by the State of Oregon) and 75
percent to the applicant, unless the applicant proposes a higher
allocation to the state or more than 25 percent of the project costs
come from federal or state non-reimbursable sources. A new water right
certificate is issued with the original priority date reflecting the
reduced quantity of water being used with the improved technology.
Other certificates are issued for the applicant's portion of the
conserved water and for the state's instream water right. The priority
dates for these certificates are either the same as the original right,
or one minute junior.
If you need additional information or if I can be of further
assistance, please contact me at (503) 986-0885. Many thanks for your
continued interest in this program.
Sincerely,
Bob Rice,
Field Services Division.
______
Prepared Statement of Anita Winkler, Executive Director,
Oregon Water Resources Congress
re: s. 648--drought relief
As Executive Director for the Oregon Water Resources Congress
(OWRC), I appreciate this opportunity to support your efforts to extend
the drought relief provisions included in the Reclamation States
Emergency Drought Relief Act of 1991 by introducing S. 648.
The OWRC represents organized agricultural interests in the State
of Oregon. Its members include irrigation districts, water control
districts, drainage districts, ports, cities, individual farmers, and
agribusiness associates. With our broad base of representation around
the State, OWRC has the experience and expertise to comment on this
issue.
The original Emergency Drought Relief Act was enacted in 1991, when
the effects of drought, occurring at the end of a fairly long stretch
of above-normal water years, were very significant. The authority
provided by this Act has been utilized by many Western water users,
including irrigators in Oregon, as a basis for federal assistance in
the past decade.
S. 648 would allow Oregon water users to receive drought
assistance, including loans for nonstructural and minor structural
activities for the prevention or mitigation of the adverse effects of
drought. The bill would extend the ability of the Secretary of Interior
(Secretary) to purchase water made available by Federal Reclamation
project contractors through conservation or other means with respect to
which the seller has reduced the consumption of water. The bill would
also allow the continued use of facilities at federal Reclamation
projects for the storage or conveyance of project or non-project water,
for use both within and outside an authorized project service area.
We are encouraged that Congress recognizes that regional drought
disasters in the Western United States cause serious economic and
environmental losses. As Oregon and other Western states face yet
another year of sustained drought conditions, we support Senator
Smith's effort to employ S. 648 as a vehicle to extend this authority
for another five years.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment.
______
Prepared Statement of Charles Nylander, Chairman of the Legislative and
Budget Committee for the Western Coalition of Arid States (WESTCAS), on
S. 648
The Western Coalition of Arid States (WESTCAS) is submitting this
testimony to the United States Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, Subcommittee on Water and Power regarding S. 648; introduced
by Mr. Smith of Oregon to amend the Reclamation States Emergency
Drought Relief Act of 1991, to extend the authority for drought
assistance. My name is Charlie Nylander and I represent the interests
of WESTCAS and serve as Chairman of the Legislative/Budget Committee.
Drought assistance is of particular concern for our member's
states, 6 out of 7 of which are currently experiencing drought
conditions, spanning `abnormally dry' to `extreme drought' on the U.S.
Drought Monitor scale maintained by the University of Nebraska. Direct
affects of such conditions include above average fire risks, water
restrictions resulting from widespread water shortages, crop losses and
pasture damage.
WESTCAS is a coalition of approximately 125 water and wastewater
districts, cities and towns, and professional associations focused on
water quality and water quantity issues in the States of Arizona,
California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon and Texas. Our
mission is to work with Federal, State and Regional water quality and
quantity agencies to promote scientifically-sound laws, regulations,
appropriations, and policies that protect public health and the
environment in the arid West.
The Bureau, of course, is a major architect for water storage and
research related to new water technologies that provide enormous
benefit to the economies and livelihoods of a water-dependent West.
WESTCAS urges granting an extension to Federal agencies, namely the
Bureau of Reclamation, which has existing authority to respond to
drought conditions. Authorized by the `Reclamation States Emergency
Drought Relief Act of 1991', the Bureau of Reclamation is well suited
to, and has been effectively providing vital services to drought
afflicted communities for the past 14 years. Some of the benefits
include drought and water quality research and mitigation measures. Our
organization supports granting this extension to the Bureau of
Reclamation while Congress works on a National Drought Policy.
Extending the authority of the Bureau is of importance to all 17 of
the Reclamation States which, despite having a wet winter, are now
facing a sixth year of widespread drought conditions. However,
Reclamation States are not by any means the only ones in the United
States currently afflicted by drought. Drought monitoring maps
currently show 19 additional states in various stages of drought
conditions. Along with passing this amendment to the Reclamation States
Emergency Drought Relief Act of 1991, Congress must also recognize that
there
currently exists no permanent overarching federally-coordinated
plan for drought preparedness and response. As drought is an ongoing
problem affecting more people in the United States than any other
natural hazard, Congress must also take the next step in drought policy
and implement the recommendations of the National Drought Policy
Council. By following these recommendations and taking a proactive
approach the country will be poised to reduce the amount of damage
caused by future droughts.
We thank you for the opportunity to provide this statement for the
hearing record.