[Senate Hearing 109-273]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 109-273
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. 1025 S. 1498
S. 1529 S. 1578
S. 1760
__________
OCTOBER 6, 2005
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
25-997 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
Allard, Hon. Wayne, U.S. Senator From Colorado................... 2
Blain, Gerald, Water Supply Projects Administrator, City of
Wichita, Kansas, Water and Sewer Department.................... 15
Blickensderfer, Tom, Endangered Species Program Director,
Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Denver, CO........... 24
Johnson, Hon. Tim, U.S. Senator From South Dakota................ 11
Kyl, Hon. Jon, U.S. Senator From Arizona......................... 1
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator From Alaska................... 1
Nelson, Lawrence K., Mayor, City of Yuma, AZ..................... 22
Rinne, William E., Deputy Commissioner of the Bureau of
Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior................... 5
Salazar, Hon. Ken, U.S. Senator From Colorado.................... 10
Smith, Hon. Gordon, U.S. Senator From Oregon..................... 4
Witwer, James S., Counsel for the Northern Colorado Water
Conservancy District, Berthoud, CO............................. 18
APPENDIXES
Appendix I
Responses to additional questions................................ 31
Appendix II
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 41
MISCELLANEOUS WATER BILLS
----------
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 6, 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 HON. LISA MURKOWSKI,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
Senator Murkowski. Good afternoon, and welcome to the Water
and Power Subcommittee. We've got five bills before the
subcommittee this afternoon. We have first S. 1025, sponsored
by Senator Roberts, which authorizes a water recharge project
in Kansas; S. 1498, sponsored by Senators Allard and Salazar,
conveys certain water distribution facilities in Colorado to a
local water district; S. 1529, sponsored by Senators Kyl and
McCain, is a land swap between the Bureau and the city of Yuma,
Arizona; S. 1578 is sponsored by Senators Allard, Salazar,
Bennett and Hatch, and reauthorizes an Endangered Fish Recovery
Program; and S. 1760, sponsored by Senators Smith and Wyden,
authorizes the early repayment of contract obligations for two
water districts in Oregon.
I'd like to welcome you, Senator Allard, to the
subcommittee today. You have a couple of bills here on the
agenda, and I know that you would like to take an opportunity
to make a couple of comments. Why don't we go ahead and ask you
for your comments--I know you have other matters that you have
to attend to--and then we can hear from any other Senators that
may wish to comment.
Senator Allard.
[The prepared statement of Senator Kyl follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jon Kyl, U.S. Senator From Arizona, on S.
1529
Madam Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing on S. 1529, the
City of Yuma Improvement Act of 2005. This bill, which I am sponsoring,
would consolidate state and federal land ownership in a 22-acre area
along Yuma's downtown riverfront to implement the City Council approved
Riverfront Master Redevelopment Plan.
Located at one of the few good crossings along the Colorado River,
Yuma has a long, rich river heritage that includes the traditional
crossing by the Quechan Tribe and the 49ers seeking California gold in
the 1800s. Once a bustling and vibrant commercial hub, Yuma seeks to
recapture this past by revitalizing the downtown riverfront. The city
intends to build a hotel/conference center, visitors center,
residential, and retail development.
City authorities believe that to accomplish this revitalization,
the land ownership in the riverfront downtown must be consolidated.
Currently, it is a checker boarded ownership common in the West, dating
back to the 1905 Yuma Project. The primary land owners are the City and
the Bureau of Reclamation. In 2003, the parties agreed in principle to
a land exchange. Essentially, the city would convey to the Bureau title
to the land over which the Bureau rail line runs in exchange for
several administrative parcels within the redevelopment area. The only
thing holding back the consummation of the deal is the authority to
accomplish it. This legislation provides that authority and the
mechanism for transfer.
There is broad support in Yuma for this legislated land swap given
its public purpose objectives, thorough planning, and the economic
opportunity it brings. I hope the Committee will work with me to secure
swift Senate passage.
STATEMENT OF HON. WAYNE ALLARD, U.S. SENATOR
FROM COLORADO
Senator Allard. Madam Chairman, I'm not as pressed as I was
going to be, we had a vote scheduled at 3 o'clock and that has
been changed. So fortunately----
Senator Murkowski. It's changed for now.
Senator Allard. That's right. And Madam Chairman, I
appreciate the opportunity to appear before you and your
committee and also recognize the presence of Senator Smith, and
I'm glad that you're both here to take an interest in some
legislation that's important to my State of Colorado. In fact,
it's important to many of the States on the Colorado River
drainage system.
Madam Chairman, I'm here to testify in favor of two pieces
of legislation that I have sponsored along with my colleague
Senator Salazar, S. 1498, and S. 1578. I'd like to thank you
for including them as a part of this hearing and for giving
them your full consideration.
S. 1498 would authorize the transfer of title of three
Colorado-Big Thompson water conveyance facilities from the
jurisdiction of the United States to the Northern Colorado
Water Conservancy District. The three facilities involved in
the transfer of the title are the St. Vrain Supply Canal, the
South Platte Supply Canal and the Boulder Creek Supply Canal,
which extends from the St. Vrain River to Boulder Creek,
including the portion of the canal that extends from the St.
Vrain River to Boulder Reservoir, which is also known as the
Boulder Feeder Canal. This proposed title transfer is
beneficial to all parties involved. It's a win-win situation.
Following the completion of the title transfer the Federal
Government will be relieved of liability associated with these
facilities. But the Government and the water users can be
assured that the transferred facilities will continue to be
operated as they have been, and will continue to meet the needs
of the District's water users.
The district will gain efficiency in its water operations
and administration of these facilities by eliminating
duplicative Federal oversight and administering of duties. This
will save the district and its water users unnecessary costs.
Similar legislation was passed in 2000 that allowed the
district to obtain full control or other portions of the water
delivery system. This transfer, and the maintenance and
operation of the transferred facilities have been very
successful, and I'm confident that the district will achieve
similar success with these facilities.
The second bill I'd like to comment on today is S. 1578,
the Upper Colorado and San Juan River Basin Endangered Fish
Recovery Implementation Programs Reauthorization. The bill
would extend authorization for two very successful programs
which are based in Colorado, but that affect the States of New
Mexico, Wyoming, Utah, and in fact the entire West.
The goal of the Upper Colorado and San Juan River Basin
Endangered Fish Recovery Implementation Programs is to provide
the means to carry out necessary water use and development
while recovering four endangered species of fish.
As my colleague and good friend Senator Salazar can also
tell you water is the lifeblood of the West. Without access to
this precious resource communities cannot sustain themselves.
This program is necessary to recover endangered fish and vital
to provide water to the communities of the Colorado and San
Juan River Basins in the West.
I can think of few things as contentious right now as the
Endangered Species Act. I, myself, have been outspoken on how
we can make improvements to the Act. However, there are few
programs which show how the Endangered Species Act could work.
The Upper Colorado and San Juan River Basins Endangered Fish
Recovery Implementation Program is one of them. They have
established species recovery goals approved by the Fish and
Wildlife Service, and have taken action toward these goals
producing positive results. Their work on fish recovery has
been both innovative and fruitful.
I am grateful to the bill's co-sponsors, Senators Salazar,
Hatch, and Bennett. Their support of this bill speaks to its
laudable qualities. Senators from Utah, New Mexico, and
Colorado, have supported these programs since I offered the
original Senate authorization in the year 2000. I'm as thankful
for their support now as I was then.
These programs have tackled the impossible task of allowing
access to water while actually recovering species. I'm pleased
to go on the record stating that they are producing good
results and should be reauthorized.
Madam Chairman, I again send my thanks and those of my
constituents for your consideration of these two important
bills. I would ask that you allow me to include several letters
of support that my office has received for each of these bills.
I would also like to extend a warm welcome to Mr. Jim Witwer,
who is testifying on behalf of S. 1498, and to Mr. Tom
Blickensderfer, who is here to testify on behalf of S. 1578.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Allard follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Wayne Allard, U.S. Senator From Colorado
As a founding member and current co-chairman of the Senate
Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus it is a pleasure to be
here to help open the second Solar Decathlon.
The Senate Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus is a
bipartisan caucus. The Caucus has 36 members, over 1/3 of the Senate;
but we are always recruiting new members, so participants, encourage
your Senators to join if they are not already members.
I am proud to say that the University of Colorado team was the
winner of the first Solar Decathlon--held in 2002. I'd like this year's
team to know that I expect them to uphold CU's bragging rights.
Nationally and internationally more attention is being given to
clean energy technologies, by both industry and consumers.
Great opportunities exist for solar, wind, geothermal, biomass,
fuel cells and hydro to make significant contributions. But we should
also focus on increasing energy efficiency. It is faster, cleaner and
more effective to save a megawatt of power than to produce one. The
Decathlon focuses on both clean production and conservation.
However, there is another very important aspect of this
competition: livability. Part of the competition is to make the houses
not only efficient and self-sufficient, but to ensure that a normal
household can function in them.
I think that it is very important for people to see that homes can
be both highly energy efficient and functional.
Having this competition on the National Mall also helps to raise
its profile. Each of the homes is open for the public to tour and
enjoy.
In closing I'd like to reemphasize the importance of the work that
each of the teams is doing, welcome you all to Washington, and wish all
of the teams good luck in the competition.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Allard. The letters
that you've requested will be included as part of the record.
Senator Allard. Thank you.
Senator Murkowski. I appreciate your time here this
afternoon.
I would like to welcome Mr. Wayne Rinne, who's the Deputy
Commissioner of Reclamation, who's going to be presenting the
administration's testimony on all five of these bills. Before
we hear from him though, I will turn to my colleague here,
Senator Smith, for any opening comments that he may have on the
legislation. I will also include and note for the record that
we have received a number of letters in support of the various
bills that we have on the calendar here this afternoon. Those
will be included in the record as well.
So with that, Senator Smith, if you would like to make any
comments.
STATEMENT OF HON. GORDON SMITH, U.S. SENATOR
FROM OREGON
Senator Smith. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Do you have among
your letters this one from the Harry & David Corporation? I
would like to include it in the record.
Senator Murkowski. I don't believe that we do. It will be
included, if it's not in there already.
Senator Smith. I appreciate very much your convening this
legislative hearing to receive testimony on several pending
water bills. I know from experience that all these site-
specific bills are important to the local entities involved. I
believe that we must seek to resolve these water issues in ways
that support local communities wherever possible.
That's why I'm sponsoring one of the bills before us today,
which is co-sponsored by my colleague from Oregon, Ron Wyden.
S. 1760 would authorize an early repayment of obligations to
the Bureau of Reclamation within the Rogue Valley River
Irrigation District for the Medford Irrigation District in
Southern Oregon. This bill will resolve issues raised by the
Bureau's current rules for reporting requirements under the
Reclamation Reform Act. These rules are inhibiting a major
employer in southern Oregon from accessing certain financial
tools. Legislation is needed in this case because the RRA
prohibits the early repayment of outstanding obligations to the
Bureau, unless payment was explicitly provided for in contracts
in force at the time of their enactment.
By authorizing the prepayment of outstanding obligations in
these districts, we'll provide a vehicle for a corporate
landowner to move forward with its efforts to strengthen and
expand its business.
This legislation will resolve a paperwork reporting
requirement for this corporation, while not modifying the
amount of the project water that the landowner receives.
I'm pleased that the Bureau of Reclamation will testify in
support of the bill today. S. 1760 will not enable this
landowner to irrigate lands in excess of the acreage
limitations set in law. In addition, this bill will not alter,
amend, or modify the contractual rights that exist between the
irrigation districts and the United States. We will not open or
amend existing contracts. Thank you, Madam Chairman, I look
forward to hearing the testimony today.
And I also want to join in welcoming Deputy Commissioner
William Rinne, who will testify on behalf of the Bureau.
Senator Murkowski. With that, let's go to you, Mr. Rinne.
Welcome to the subcommittee this afternoon. We appreciate your
time and your testimony.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM E. RINNE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Rinne. Thank you Madam Chairman. I would request also
that my written testimony be made part of the record.
Senator Murkowski. The entire testimony will be included.
Mr. Rinne. Madam Chairman, I'm Bill Rinne, Deputy
Commissioner for the Bureau of Reclamation and I'm pleased to
present the Department of the Interior's views on the five
bills before the subcommittee today: S. 1578, S. 1760, S. 1498,
S. 1025 and S. 1529.
First, the administration strongly supports S. 1578 to
reauthorize the Upper Colorado River and San Juan Railroad
Basin Endangered Fish Recovery Implementation Program. The
goals of the programs are to recover four endangered fish
species and allow continued operation of over 800 water
projects. The program involves management of endangered fish by
providing water acquiring and restoring habitat, and stocking
and monitoring endangered fish population and habitat. The
programs also build and operate fish hatcheries, grow-out
ponds, fish screens, water diversion canals and fish passage
structures.
Congress has appropriated $46 million for these programs,
with cost sharing provided by the States, power users and water
users.
S. 1578 would increase the federally-authorized ceiling,
recognize additional non-Federal cost sharing and extend the
construction authorization from 2008 to 2010.
S. 1578 will continue a unique partnership to meet water
needs in local communities while recovering endangered species.
We urge passage of S. 1578.
Madam Chairman, the administration is also pleased to
support S. 1760, a bill to authorize early repayment of
obligation to Reclamation within the Rogue River Valley
Irrigation District and the Medford Irrigation District. All
three districts in our Rogue River Project are subject to
acreage limitation provisions of Federal reclamation law. A
district may not make early repayment of constructions costs,
unless its contract allowed this before the Reclamation Reform
Act of 1983 became law. One of the three districts, the Talent
District, in the Rogue River Project has such a contract today.
As a result, a landowner who may own land in that district and
one or more of the other two districts in the Rogue River
Project and would like to pay out early will find that early
repayment is allowed only in the Talent District.
We support S. 1760's approach to treat all landowners in
these districts equally. S. 1760 will not affect the district's
contracts with Reclamation. However, early payout will
accelerate repayment of these project costs to the Treasury.
Let's turn to S. 1498, to transfer title to certain
facilities of the Colorado-Big Thompson Project to the Northern
Colorado Water Conservancy District. We're working diligently
with the district to accomplish this title transfer, because we
feel it will provide efficiencies and other benefits to all
parties. We're in the early stages of the transfer of Northern
Colorado. We hope to work out a memorandum of understanding
with Northern this month. Then you can sort out the remaining
issues and make certain that no amendments to the legislation
are needed in the future.
Madam Chairman, Northern Colorado is one of our most valued
partners, and we look forward to working with you and with
Northern to complete this title transfer efficiently and cost
effectively.
S. 1025 would authorize the Equus Beds Division of the
Wichita Project. The project would recharge the groundwater in
the Equus Beds Aquifer, adding storage underground for Wichita
without inundating more surface area, thus reducing evaporation
and loss of land. The Equus Beds Division is consistent with
Reclamation's current mission. S. 1025 caps the ultimate
Federal cost share at 25 percent or $30 million, whichever is
less. This limits our uncertainty as to the ultimate Federal
share. However, our tight budget prevents us at this time from
supporting the project to a long list of currently unfunded
projects.
The last bill, Madam Chairman, is S. 1529, the City of Yuma
Improvement Act. And I have, Madam Chairman, a map to the right
that I asked someone to point out a few things. The Department
supports the intent of S. 1529, but it could also be
accomplished through existing land transfer processes provided
by the General Service Administration's authority.
Both Reclamation and the city of Yuma stand to benefit from
S. 1529. As part of this transfer, Reclamation will obtain
clear title to a railroad right-of-way for Reclamation's Yuma
Desalting Plant. Meanwhile, the city of Yuma would obtain
several parcels currently owned, but not needed by Reclamation.
And the city will use these to further city development. We
have no objection to transfer of these specific lands from
Reclamation ownership.
While none of the parcels to be exchanged have been
appraised, we estimate that the worth of the parcel being
conveyed to the city would not exceed $500,000.
S. 1529 would have our unqualified support if it included a
role for GSA in confirming that the exchange meets GSA's
criteria for transfer without compensation to the Federal
Government.
This concludes my remarks. I'd be happy to try to answer
any questions, Madam Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rinne follows:]
Prepared Statement of William E. Rinne, Deputy Commissioner of the
Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior
ON S. 1025
Madam Chairman, I am William E. Rinne, Deputy Commissioner of the
Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased to present the Administration's
views on S. 1025, Senator Roberts's bill to authorize the Equus Beds
Division of the Wichita Project. Although the project has merit,
budgetary constraints prevent the Administration from supporting the
bill at this time.
For water management purposes, S. 1025 would authorize this project
as a division of the existing Wichita Project. The Equus Beds Division
would recharge the groundwater in the Equus Beds Aquifer and would
provide significant new underground water storage capacity for
municipal and industrial water customers in the city of Wichita, Kansas
without inundating large surface areas. This project would enhance the
storage and supply capability of the Wichita Project, an above-ground
reservoir built and owned by the Bureau of Reclamation.
As a supplement to the existing Reclamation project, the Equus Beds
Division is consistent with Reclamation's current mission. The fact
that S. 1025 caps the ultimate Federal cost at 25 percent, or $30
million whichever is less, limits uncertainty as to the ultimate
federal share of the costs.
Having partnered with the City of Wichita on an earlier groundwater
recharge demonstration, Reclamation is familiar with the current
proposal to recharge the groundwater in the Equus Beds Aquifer.
Recharging the Equus Beds Aquifer has the potential to efficiently
expand the effective amount of stored water that is ultimately
available, because it significantly reduces losses due to surface
evaporation.
S. 1025 would require the city to pay 75 percent of the cost of
development and 100 percent of operations and maintenance costs. The
Federal government would not hold title to the facilities.
Water rights for this project have been resolved. In 1998, the
State issued the City of Wichita a conjunctive use water rights permit
that replaced and combined two previous city permits, one for the
Wichita Project, the other for the Equus Beds Groundwater Aquifer. By
combining the permits for these two resources into a single, integrated
operation, the city can more effectively and economically deliver water
to municipal and industrial customers.
Madam Chairman, throughout the city's planning process, including
extensive public involvement with input from State and Federal
agencies, no significant opposition to Equus Beds surfaced. However,
given Reclamation's already tight budget, we are not in a position to
support the addition of this project to the list of unfunded projects
already authorized and awaiting Federal funding.
Madam Chairman, this concludes my testimony and I am pleased to
answer any questions the Committee may have.
ON S. 1498
Good morning, I am William E. Rinne, Deputy Commissioner of the
Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased to appear before this Subcommittee
to provide Reclamation's views on S. 1498, legislation to transfer
title to certain water distribution facilities of the Colorado-Big
Thompson Project (C-BT) located in Colorado, to the Northern Colorado
Water Conservancy District. Mr. Chairman, we are working diligently
with the District to accomplish this title transfer because we are
convinced it has the potential to provide operations efficiencies and
other benefits. However, we are concerned that the legislation may be
premature because we have not yet worked out the details of the title
transfer with the District.
To date, our most successful transfers have relied on a simple
plan--identify issues and obstacles at the local level and address them
prior to the introduction of legislation authorizing the title
transfer. Toward this end, Reclamation has a clear and collaborative
process for title transfers. Not only has the preferred approach helped
entities identify and address concerns of other interested parties
early on in the process, but it has also enabled Reclamation and the
districts to accurately predict and assign costs, and resolve other
issues during the more flexible period preceding legislation. This
process has been quite successful and we strongly encourage the
District to continue to work through it with us before legislation
advances.
The transfer contemplated by S. 1498 has only just begun. On
January 24 of this year, Reclamation wrote to the District,
acknowledging its interest in title transfer and urging it to follow
the title transfer process described above. On July 26, 2005, H.R. 3443
was introduced in the House. On September 7, 2005, the District wrote
Reclamation requesting that an MOU be entered into by October 7, 2005.
We have begun working with the District on that MOU, and if no
unexpected issues arise, we anticipate executing the MOU by October 7.
Subsequent to the completion of that MOU, Reclamation and the District
need to thoroughly discuss the remaining issues associated with the
transfer of these facilities.
Mr. Chairman, we look forward to working with you and the District
to complete this title transfer is the most efficient and cost-
effective manner possible.
That concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer any
questions.
ON S. 1529
Madam Chairman, I am William E. Rinne, Deputy Commissioner of the
Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased to provide the Administration's
views of S. 1529, which provides for the transfer of certain Federal
lands managed by the Bureau of Reclamation to the City of Yuma,
Arizona, and the receipt by the Bureau of Reclamation of clear title to
certain parcels of land, known as the ``railroad parcels,'' which are
used by Reclamation for its Yuma Desalting Plant. The Department
supports the intent of this legislation, but we believe that this can
be accomplished through existing land transfer processes provided by
the General Service Administration's authorities.
There would be benefits to both Reclamation and the City of Yuma
from this land transfer. Reclamation will obtain clear title to
portions of a railroad right-of-way required for the delivery of
chemicals to the Yuma Desalting Plant managed by Reclamation's Yuma
Area Office. The title to the rail property has been clouded for many
years due to its sale by Southern Pacific Transportation Company to
both the City of Yuma and Reclamation.
In exchange for giving up its claim to the railroad parcels, this
legislation provides that the City of Yuma would obtain title to seven
parcels currently owned by Reclamation located within the City. These
parcels total approximately 7 acres but are scattered throughout the
City. The parcels slated for transfer are difficult for Reclamation to
manage and are not usable for project purposes. Previously, three of
the Federal parcels were used by the Yuma County Water Users
Association for ditch rider residences. These residences have been
moved to more convenient locations, and Reclamation has no further need
for these properties or any of the other parcels listed in this
exchange. The City of Yuma will use these properties in order to
further the City's development plans.
As a matter of policy, we support working with states and local
governments to resolve land tenure and land transfer issues that
advance worthwhile public policy objectives, and we have no objection
to the transfer of these specific lands from Reclamation ownership.
While none of the parcels to be exchanged has been appraised,
Reclamation's rough estimate is that the parcels being conveyed to the
City are not worth more than $500,000. We view this as a directed
exchange by Congress, not an equal value exchange.
We think that the end goal of transferring the lands in question to
the City is laudable, but we note that this legislation provides for a
directed exchange that avoids the normal procedures followed for
Federal land disposal. The value to the United States of clear title to
the railroad parcels is uncertain. The lack of established value from
the railroad parcels does not compel opposition to the proposed
transfer, however, because in the absence of legislation, an
administrative process exists through which the General Services
Administration (GSA) can accomplish the intended purpose of this
legislation. The Administrator of GSA can make government-owned land
available at no cost to cities such as Yuma for a variety of public use
purposes, such as public health, public education, for historic
monuments, airports, parks and recreation, emergency rescue, fire
fighting, law enforcement, and many other public uses. We could support
this legislation if it included a role for GSA in ensuring that the
lands to be transferred meet GSA's criteria for transfer to the City
without compensation to the Federal government.
This concludes my statement. I am pleased to answer any questions.
ON S. 1578
Madam Chairman and members of the Committee. Thank you for the
opportunity to appear today on behalf of the Administration in support
of S. 1578, a bill to reauthorize the Upper Colorado River and San Juan
River Basin endangered fish recovery implementation programs. The
Administration commends Senator Wayne Allard for introducing the bill
and Senators Bennett, Hatch, and Salazar for cosponsoring this measure.
The Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the
San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Programs were established
in 1988 and 1992, respectively. The goals of the programs are to
recover four endangered fish species in a manner consistent with state
and tribal laws, interstate compacts, the Endangered Species Act, other
federal laws, and Indian trust responsibilities while water development
proceeds. Participants in these two programs include the States of
Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming; federal agencies, including
the Bureau of Reclamation, Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Area
Power Administration, National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management,
and Bureau of Indian Affairs; American Indian tribes including the
Navajo Nation, Jicarilla Apache Nation, Southern Ute Tribe, and Ute
Mountain Ute Tribe; water users; power users; and environmental
organizations.
Actions taken by the Programs to recover the Colorado pikeminnow,
humpback chub, razorback sucker, and bonytail meet Endangered Species
Act (ESA) requirements for operation of federal multi-purpose projects,
water projects benefiting the tribes, and non-federal water projects.
Activities and accomplishments of these programs provide ESA compliance
for more than 800 federal and non-federal water projects depleting
approximately 2.5 million acre-feet per year in the Upper Colorado
River and San Juan River Basins.
Recovery Implementation Program actions include providing water for
endangered fish, managing nonnative fish species, restoring habitat,
stocking endangered fish, and researching and monitoring fish
populations and habitat. The Recovery Implementation Programs'
construction elements include construction and operation of fish
hatcheries and grow-out ponds, fish screens in water diversion canals,
fish passage structures around migration barriers, and restoration and
maintenance of floodplain habitats.
Congress authorized federal expenditures for these programs in
Public Law 106-392, recognizing cost sharing provided by the states,
power users, and water users. A total of $100 million for construction
was authorized for the two programs. Congressional appropriations are
providing $46 million; Western Area Power Administration is providing
$17 million from power sales revenue (this is considered a contribution
by local power users); the states of Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and New
Mexico are providing $17 million; plus an additional $20 million in
benefits foregone from power users and water users.
With indexing for inflation, the authorized Federal amount for
construction of projects in the Upper Colorado River Basin is now $64.5
million. Current total estimated costs are $77 million, indicating an
estimated shortfall in authorization of approximately $12.5 million.
The estimated additional costs and time to complete Upper Colorado
River Basin construction elements result from:
increasing construction costs, energy costs, and the world
market demand for steel;
delayed construction due to property acquisition issues; and
additional components and design features as identified
necessary from previous construction of fish passages and
screens.
This bill would amend Public Law 106-392 (as amended by Public Law
107-375) by:
increasing the Federal authorized ceiling by $15 million for
capital construction for the Upper Colorado River Recovery
Program, for a total of $61 million;
recognizing an additional $11 million in non-federal cost
sharing from water users and power revenue losses over the
original $20 million from these sources, bringing the non-
Federal share to $65 million; and
extending the construction authorization period of both
Recovery Implementation Programs from 2008 to September 30,
2010.
Enactment of this bill will allow these Recovery Implementation
Programs to complete construction projects critical to the recovery of
the four endangered fishes and ensure continued successful water
management for multiple uses. S. 1578 provides a unique opportunity to
sustain a partnership combining federal and non-federal funding in an
ongoing effort to recover endangered species while fully recognizing
and meeting the water needs of local communities. We urge passage of S.
1578.
This concludes my testimony. I am happy to answer any questions.
ON S. 1760
Madam Chairman, I am William E. Rinne, Deputy Commissioner of the
Bureau of Reclamation. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in
support of S. 1760, a bill to authorize early repayment of obligations
to the Bureau of Reclamation within the Rogue River Valley Irrigation
District or within the Medford Irrigation District.
I am pleased to present the Department's views in support of S.
1760. There are three districts in our Rogue River Project that are
subject to the acreage limitation provisions of Federal reclamation
law. Under section 213 of the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 (RRA),
early repayment of a district's construction costs is prohibited unless
the district's repayment contract with Reclamation included a provision
allowing for early repayment when the RRA was enacted.
One of the three districts in the Rogue River Project has such a
provision (specifically, the contract with Talent Irrigation District).
As a result, a landowner who may own land in Talent Irrigation District
and one or both of the other two districts in the Rogue River Project
and would like to payout early would find that early repayment is
allowed in only one of the districts. We support S. 1760's approach to
allow early repayment in all three districts within this particular
project. This legislation would accomplish such by providing early
repayment authority to landowners in the Rogue River Valley Irrigation
District and the Medford Irrigation District. Early payout would
accelerate the repayment of these project costs to the United States
Treasury.
This concludes my written statement. I am pleased to answer any
questions.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Rinne, and I apologize
for mispronouncing your name there.
Senator Salazar has joined us. Senator, if you would care
to make a couple of comments, particular for those issues that
you have an interest in, and then we can move to the questions.
And Senator Johnson, the invitation is open to you as well.
Welcome.
Senator Salazar.
STATEMENT OF HON. KEN SALAZAR, U.S. SENATOR
FROM COLORADO
Senator Salazar. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman, for
agreeing to hold this hearing. There are a number of important
bills before us today. I'm proud to be a co-sponsor of two of
these bills with Senator Allard, S. 1498 and S. 1578.
I would like to welcome to the U.S. Senate my good friend
Tom Blickensderfer, and my good friend Jim Witwer, who is
counsel for the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District.
S. 1498 would direct the Secretary of the Interior to
transfer title to certain water distribution facilities in the
Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. The district has
fulfilled its obligation to repay the capital costs of these
facilities under a three payment contract. Transfer of these
facilities would lead to greater flexibility, Federal water
efficiencies, and certainty for the district as it meets the
demanding future needs of water users in northern Colorado.
The district, under the direction of the U.S. Congress,
received title to similar facilities on the northern end of the
system under Public Law 106-376. The successful title transfer
has greatly benefited water users in northern Colorado and has
led to more efficient uses of water and assists in system
flexibility of water delivery.
Our bill is drafted similarly to Public Law 106-376, which
provides a useful model for this legislation.
S. 1578, would reauthorize the Upper Colorado and San Juan
River Basin Endangered Fish Recovery Implementation Programs. I
am pleased that Senator Bingaman has agreed to co-sponsor this
bill, and I thank him for that effort. This recovery program,
first established in 1988, continues to be a great success for
the States of water permit Colorado River. It is a national
model for cost-effective public and private partnerships
working to recover endangered species, while allowing much
needed water development to occur. As a result of concerted
efforts to manage northern pike and small mouth bass in certain
river reaches--the program will help ensure that the humpback
chub, bonytail, Colorado pikeminnow, and the razorback sucker
remain the heritage of the West.
Thank you Madam Chairman, I look forward to today's
testimony.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
Senator Johnson, would you care to add any opening
comments?
STATEMENT OF HON. TIM JOHNSON, U.S. SENATOR
FROM SOUTH DAKOTA
Senator Johnson. I have some comments that I'd submit for
the record, and I think we'll leave it at that. Thank you,
Madam Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Tim Johnson, U.S. Senator From South Dakota
Thank you, Madame Chairman. I would like to extend a welcome to
Deputy Commissioner Rinne of the Bureau of Reclamation, and to the
other witnesses who have traveled here to provide us with their views
on the bills before the sub-committee.
I'd just like to quickly point out that the full Committee held a
mark-up last week in which we approved 6 bills out of the Water & Power
sub-committee. All were non-controversial which is a testament to how
well things can work when the Administration, the staff, and the
parties involved all work together. I hope that continues to be the
case so that the sub-committee remains productive and continues to move
legislation important to our constituents.
Thank you for your leadership in that effort Madame Chairman. I
look forward to today's testimony.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you. We'll include those.
Let's start the questioning with Mr. Rinne.
Senator Salazar just spoke to S. 1498, and made reference
to Public Law 106-376, and that referenced a similar model. Was
the title transfer accomplished under the direction of that
Public Law considered by the Bureau to be successful? And then
along these same lines, what are the differences between the
title of the transfer of the facilities involved in what we're
dealing with here under S. 1498, as opposed to what we saw in
Public Law 106-376?
Mr. Rinne. I assume you're talking about the earlier title
transfer with Northern? Madam Chairman, we do consider that the
first one was successful. I think if I talk about differences I
would say I'm not sure there's lots of differences in terms of
process, at least that we would prefer to use, which is to try
to get together and work with Northern now and try to identify
any issues that we have to address, and move into evidence in a
memorandum of understanding. So we kind of know who's going to
do what and where there are costs associated with it, and who
will be paying those, and then move ahead.
I think the way we always prefer it to be would be is if we
could work out as many of those things in the front end--the
checklist and MOU of the process--and then try to minimize the
work at the end of it, when we get through legislation. I mean
that's when things work best from our end. I recognize that
that particular process does not go in that order. I think in
fact we actually may have had legislation in before we were
able to move on through with the checklist. But yes, we thought
it was a successful process and I think other than that, we
would look forward to this moving forward as quickly as we
could.
Senator Murkowski. Has the Bureau calculated the amount
owed under the ``aid-to-irrigation'' repayment obligation?
Mr. Rinne. There's nothing to my knowledge. It's fully paid
out on these facilities, so there is no repayment obligation
that's owed from the district at this time.
Senator Murkowski. Let's go up to S. 1025, the Wichita
Project. Does the Bureau have an estimate of the total cost of
this proposed project? I thought I heard you say $30 million.
Mr. Rinne. A good $30 million is right. I will look. If
it's important, I'll be glad to----
Senator Murkowski. I wrote 30 down and I wasn't sure if
that was the total cost. Now I understand that the Bureau was
involved in the Water Recharge Demonstration Project within the
city of Wichita, that became the basis for this project
proposal. Can you describe the Bureau's involvement in that
particular project, and whether, again, that was a successful
project?
Mr. Rinne. Madam Chairman, I think it was very successful.
And, again, it was a project where several alternatives were
looked at. In other words, this one that we're talking about
would involve underground storage, but at the same time there
were some alternatives, things such as--it's part of the
Wichita Project--things like increasing the size of the
existing storage reservoir, and other ways to augment the water
supply. So there were several public meetings, there were
Federal and non-Federal parties that were involved in this
process, and we think it went well to kind of narrow down and
focus on what we really knew would make a good project in this
case. So, yes, we think it was real successful.
Senator Murkowski. Good. With regard to the City of Yuma
Improvement Act, how long has the Bureau worked with the city
on this proposed land swap?
Mr. Rinne. This particular one, to actually do this
transfer at this time, this has come up and moved to the
forefront, rapidly, more recently. The purchase, for example,
of the railroads that you saw, that's where some of the
involvement is. There's some city land, some reclamation land
in there. That dates back several years in there, and it's been
a--it continues to be kind of a cloudy title situation. It's
one that I think, if we can clear it up, it will help both the
city and the Bureau of Reclamation in purposes needed.
Senator Murkowski. And as far as the parcels to be conveyed
here, the Federal and non Federal parcels are they same fair
market value, in equal exchange.
Mr. Rinne. The one thing we don't have--we do not have a
value today as to what the railroad right-of-way property would
be. The other property--and I use the word rough, I don't know
if I even want to say an appraisal, but the initial estimate is
around less than probably $500,000. I think they're fairly
close, but I think I'd want to check on that one, rather than
say that without knowing for sure.
Senator Murkowski. And if you could let us know on that
we'd appreciate it.
Mr. Rinne. We can do that.
Senator Murkowski. I think at this time I will go to
Senator Smith, and see if there are additional questions. Do
you object? Okay.
Senator Salazar.
Senator Salazar. I have no questions.
Senator Murkowski. Senator Johnson? You guys must really
like your legislation. And that's a good thing.
Senator Johnson. Let me follow up just a bit on the city of
Yuma issue again. Is it the administration's position that it
already owns fee title to the railroad process?
Mr. Rinne. Senator, some parts of it. My understanding on
this issue is that, if you look at the parcel, the part that we
were looking for, to transfer it, it's in the blue up on the
map, we currently would own that. That would clear that up.
Other parts of it. That's a spur, it kind of goes on out in the
valley and goes to the base of where this--plants. So some of
it we know--this we do not have. We do not have clear title to
that.
Senator Johnson. Is there any chance that either the city
or Reclamation could recover on a claim against the Southern
Pacific Transportation Company, which allegedly sold the
parcels to each party?
Mr. Rinne. I don't know the answer to that. I can follow up
with you and ask some of the people about that, but I don't
know the answer to that.
Senator Johnson. Given your testimony that S. 1529 does not
represent an equal value exchange, is it correct then to state
that Reclamation does not believe clear title to the railroad
parcels has significant value?
Mr. Rinne. Clearing title to the railroad parcel does have
significant value to us as far as getting the title cleared in
that, yes.
And the reason again would be so that we're sure we can
operate that. Should we ever operate that plant, we'd want to
have that cleared.
Senator Johnson. You made reference to GSA's criteria for
land transfers that provide no compensation to the Federal
Government, I wonder if you can give us an idea as to what
those criteria are.
Mr. Rinne. In the transfer we would look at things such as
value of the transfer of the property that's being transferred.
I think they would also look at the public use end of it. We'd
be talking about that on some of the Federal lands. And they
would--you know the value thing of course would come in to make
sure that there wasn't a loss to the Federal interest on it.
Senator Johnson. Relative to S. 1760, you indicated that
only one of the three irrigation districts involved in the
Rogue River Project had a repayment contract that allowed for
early retainment. Was there any policy reason at the time the
contracts were developed to quit treating the districts
differently?
Mr. Rinne. Senator, I don't know that. I did look. Before I
came over I was kind of digging. In fact, I went back and
looked at the project history a little bit to see if I could
pick that out, and I couldn't. I can follow up on it. Although
the other two were kind of handled together, it just looks like
they went forward together and it may have just been the nature
of the contract. We run into that sometimes in our different
contracts, in different projects, even though this one's the
same way, you'll look at them and they'll be a provision in
there that was negotiated and there wasn't in others.
Senator Johnson. Very good. Madam Chairman, I have some
other obligations that I'm going to have to excuse myself for,
but if I may, I have some written questions that I'd like to
leave with the committee and have the panel members respond to.
Senator Murkowski. We will certainly do that. I appreciate
you being here this afternoon, Senator Johnson.
Just a couple of follow-ups here, Mr. Rinne. Going back to
the city of Yuma, you had stated that the intent of S. 1529
could be accomplished administratively through existing GSA
processes; can you describe how that would work?
Mr. Rinne. I can't give you all the steps, but I can tell
you it would be an administrative process that would require,
among other things, noticing. There may or may not be a public
meeting part. There's certainly noticing of this that's going
on. There would probably be a search of the title records. You
know, there's a little longer-term process that would have to
go on here with a GSA process to run it through. And they would
run that through and at the end of that time--and I suppose the
other thing is, it would have to get onto their agenda, if you
would. You know their timeline. There's a lot of--I'm sure they
have a lot of things in front of them, so it would depend on
when that actually was put in front of them.
Senator Murkowski. Okay. Thank you. S. 1760, the
authorization of early repayment to the Bureau of Reclamation
repayment, what are the outstanding capital obligations that
are owed to the Bureau by the two irrigation districts?
Mr. Rinne. I will get back to you on that.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you. And one final question,
regarding S. 1578, which extends the authorization for the
Capital Construction Projects through the year 2010, is the
current authorization not adequate to make construction
schedules, and that's why we've pushed it out?
Mr. Rinne. That's correct, Senator, there are a couple of
reasons I can think of in just doing the construction.
Sometimes we found that there are some other prerequisites, and
its taken a little longer. That would be one of the reasons
that I understand. Another thing is sometimes we found out as
we--I'll just take an example, it may not be a good one, but
like a fish pass, if we're trying to design something, we've
learned as we went along in this program and we find out that
there's more to the construction of it than we thought, there's
a longer construction period, or a longer design period. It's
that type of thing I think that's moved this a little bit. I
think there's real progress, I just think that there's more
left to be done.
Senator Murkowski. Okay. All right. So thank you, I
appreciate your testimony here this afternoon, and your work
that you do on behalf of the Bureau. Thank you.
Mr. Rinne. Okay. Thank you very much, Senator. Thank you.
Senator Murkowski. With that, we will move to the second
panel. All right. We welcome to the second panel. Mr. Jerry
Blain, the water supply projects administrator for the city of
Wichita Water and Sewer Department, in Wichita, Kansas,
welcome. We also have the Honorable Larry Nelson. Mayor Nelson
is from the city of Yuma, Arizona. Welcome, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Jim
Witwer, the counsel for the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy
District located in Berthoud, Colorado. And Mr. Tom
Blickensderfer, endangered species program director for the
Colorado Department of Natural Resources out of Denver. Welcome
to you this afternoon.
Why don't we go from my left, beginning here with you. Mr.
Blain, if you would give us your testimony. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF GERALD T. BLAIN, WATER SUPPLY PROJECTS
ADMINISTRATOR, CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS, WATER AND SEWER
DEPARTMENT
Mr. Blain. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Murkowski. And thank you all for traveling this
distance, we appreciate.
Mr. Blain. Thank you, Madam Chairman, members of the
committee, I appreciate the opportunity to talk to you this
afternoon. The city of Wichita, Kansas has had water supply
wells in the Equus Beds Aquifer for over 60 years, and has been
a major source of the city's drinking water. However, because
of excess pumping from the aquifer by municipal and
agricultural users, by 1992, water levels in the aquifer had
declined up to 40 feet from their pre-development levels.
Because of this overdevelopment, the Equus Beds Aquifer is
threatened by saltwater contamination from two sources. One
source is natural saltwater from the Arkansas River this is
located along the southwest border of the city's wellfield. The
other source is oilfield brine contamination left over from the
development of oil wells in the Burton area in the 1930's,
which is located northwest of the wellfield.
Groundwater modeling by the Bureau of Reclamation indicates
that the chloride levels, which are an indicator of salinity,
could exceed the standard for drinking water in much of the
wellfield by the year 2050. In order to protect the water
quality of the area, steps must be taken to retard the movement
of the salt-water plumes.
In 1993, the city of Wichita began implementation of a
unique integrated local water supply plan that is intended to
meet the city's water supply needs through the year 2050. The
city's plan uses a variety of local water resources to meet
water needs. Rather than requiring the city to transfer water
from a remote reservoir in Northeast Kansas, a key component of
the plan includes an Aquifer Storage and Recovery, or ASR,
project to recharge the city's existing wellfield in the Equus
Beds.
The excess pumping from the aquifer, and the resulting
water level decline, has created a storage volume of almost 65
billion gallons that can be used to store water. The basic
concept of the city's ASR project is to capture water from the
Little Arkansas River and use it to recharge the aquifer.
Computer modeling, and past experience at other sites
throughout the country, has found that recharging the aquifer
can help turn the hydraulic barrier to retard the movement of
the salt-water plumes. In addition, the 65 billion gallons that
could be stored in the dewatered portion of the aquifer could
be used as a component of the city's water supply.
Because all of the ``conventional'' water rights in the
river have already been allocated, the city will only be able
to use excess flows in the river, which occur only after it
rains or snows. These events occur often enough to capture
enough water to recharge the aquifer and become a valuable
component of the city's water supply. Now this project can only
capture a fraction of the water flowing down the river, and it
would not have a negative impacts on the river.
The city recognized that some of the concepts included in
the proposed ASR project have not been done before, so to prove
the feasibility of those concepts the city completed a 5-year
demonstration project. During the demonstration project, which
was done in partnership with the Bureau of Reclamation and the
U.S. Geological Survey, the city constructed a full-scale well
adjacent to the Little Arkansas River, a river intake and a
water treatment plant, as well as a number of recharge
facilities.
To prove that the recharge project was safe, over 4,000
water samples were collected and analyzed for up to 400
different contaminates. During the demonstration project, over
one billion gallons of water were successfully recharged into
the aquifer, and the city was able to prove that excess flows
in the Little Arkansas River could be captured and recharged,
and that it can be done without harming the aquifer.
The full-scale ASR project, which will be constructed in
phases, will capture and recharge up to 100 million gallons per
day of water, and will cost approximately $137 million. All of
the water that will be recharged into the aquifer must meet
drinking water standards.
The city of Wichita and others believe that the ASR project
is a win-win project, because it appears that all of the
stakeholders receive benefits from the project. As a result of
this project, the city develops a water supply source that will
allow it to meet its water supply needs through the year 2050;
the water quality of the wellfield is protected from salt-water
contamination; there is no requirement to curtail irrigation to
restore water levels and protect water quality; irrigators will
have lower pumping costs, because water levels will be higher;
low flows in the Little Arkansas River will improve, because
additional water will ``leak'' from the equus beds back into
the river; and the project uses less land than any other
surface water development project.
Phase I of the ASR Project, which is currently being
designed, will have the capacity to recharge up to 10 million
gallons per day of water from the river. The location of the
first recharge facilities is intended to begin the formation of
a hydraulic barrier to the movement of the salt-water plume
from the Burton area. It will take almost 10 years to construct
all of the components of the full-scale project.
The city believes that this project represents a new
approach to developing water resources, while at the same time
protecting an existing water resource from contamination. The
city of Wichita therefore urges support for Federal assistance
for this unique project.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Blain follows:]
Prepared Statement of Gerald T. Blain, P.E., Water Supply Projects
Administrator, City of Wichita, Kansas, Water and Sewer Department, on
S. 1025
The City of Wichita, Kansas has had water supply wells in the Equus
Beds Aquifer for over 65 years, and the aquifer has been a major source
of the City's drinking water. However, because of excess pumping from
the aquifer by municipal and agricultural users, by 1992 water levels
in the aquifer had declined up to 40 feet from their pre-development
levels. Because of this over development, the Equus Beds aquifer is
threatened by saltwater contamination from two sources. One source is
natural saltwater from the Arkansas River located along the southwest
border of the City's wellfield. The other source is oilfield brine
contamination left over from the development of oil wells in the
Burrton area in the 1930's, located northwest of the wellfield.
Groundwater modeling by the Bureau of Reclamation indicates that the
chloride levels, which are an indicator of salinity, could exceed 300
mg/l in much of the wellfield by the year 2050. This would be above the
250 mg/1 standard for drinking water. In order to protect the water
quality of the area, steps must be taken to retard the movement of the
salt-water plumes.
In 1993 the City of Wichita began implementation of a unique
Integrated Local Water Supply Plan that is intended to meet the City's
water supply needs through the year 2050. By the year 2050 it is
projected that the City's water supply needs will almost double what
they are now. The City's Plan uses a variety of local water resources
to meet water needs, rather than requiring the City to transfer water
from a remote reservoir in Northeast Kansas. A key component of the
Plan includes an Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) project to recharge
the City's existing wellfield in the Equus Beds Aquifer.
The excess pumping from the aquifer, and the resulting water level
decline, has created a storage volume of almost 65 billion gallons that
can be used to store water. The basic concept of the City's ASR project
is to capture water from the Little Arkansas River and use it to
recharge the aquifer. Computer modeling, and past experience at other
sites throughout the country, has found that by recharging the aquifer
a hydraulic barrier can be created that would retard the movement of
the salt-water plumes. In addition, the 65 billion gallons that could
be stored in the dewatered portion of the aquifer could be used as a
component of the City's water supply.
Unfortunately, all of the ``conventional'' water rights in the
Little Arkansas River have already been allocated. However, excess
flows in the river, which occur only after it rains or snows, have not
been allocated. Computer modeling has predicted that excess flow events
occur with enough frequency to allow enough water to be captured and
recharged to become a valuable component of the City's water supply.
The modeling predicts that if the City builds an ASR system with the
capacity to capture up to 100 million gallons per day, that it would
still capture only a fraction of the water flowing down the river, and
it would not have a negative impact on the river.
The City intends to capture water from the river using two
techniques, either by using ``bank storage'' wells or by pumping
directly from the river. ``Bank Storage'' wells take advantage of a
unique geological condition that occurs along the river. As the river
rises above the base flow, water is temporarily stored in the river's
banks, but as the flow in the river declines, the water in the banks
discharges back into the river. The City intends to drill wells
adjacent to the river that will capture ``bank storage'' water and
induce river water to replace the water pumped.
The City recognized that some of the concepts included in the
proposed ASR project have not been done before, so to prove the
feasibility of those concepts the City completed a five-year
Demonstration Project. During the Demonstration Project, which was done
in partnership with the Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Geological
Survey, the City constructed a full-scale well adjacent to the Little
Arkansas River, a river intake and a water treatment plant, and a
variety of recharge facilities. To prove that the recharge project was
safe, over 4,000 water samples were collected and analyzed for up to
400 different potential contaminates. During the Demonstration Project
over one billion gallons of water were successfully recharged into the
aquifer, and the City was able to prove that excess flows in the Little
Arkansas River could be captured and recharged, and that it can be done
without harming the aquifer.
The full-scale ASR project, which will be constructed in phases,
will capture and recharge up to 100 million gallons per day, and will
cost approximately $137 million. All of the water that will be
recharged into the aquifer must meet drinking water standards, and will
be monitored and regulated by the Kansas Department of Health and
Environment and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Normally, when surface water is developed for a water resource, it
requires the construction of a reservoir. A reservoir that would
provide the same storage as this ASR project would probably consume
around 25,000 to 30,000 acres of prime farmland. It is projected that
the ASR project will use less than 400 acres of farmland.
The City of Wichita and others believe that the ASR project is a
Win-Win project, because it appears that all of the stakeholders
receive benefits from the project. As a result of this project:
The City develops a water supply source that will allow it
to meet its water supply needs through the year 2050.
The water quality of the wellfield is protected from salt-
water contamination.
There is no requirement to curtail irrigation to restore
water levels and protect water quality.
Irrigators will have lower pumping costs because water
levels will be higher.
Low flows in the Little Arkansas River will improve, because
additional water will ``leak'' from the Equus Beds back into
the river.
The project uses less land than any other surface water
development project.
The City has already implemented some components of the Integrated
Local Water Supply Plan, including implementation of a water rate
structure designed to reduce water consumption, and a greater emphasis
on using water from Cheney Reservoir, and a corresponding reduction in
water pumped from the Equus Beds. That alteration in water use has
already allowed water levels in the Equus Beds to rise over 20 feet in
some areas.
Phase I of the ASR Project, which is currently being designed, will
have the capacity to capture and recharge up to 10 million gallons per
day of water from the Little Arkansas River by using Bank Storage
wells. The location of the first recharge facilities is intended to
begin the formation of a hydraulic barrier to the movement of the salt-
water plume from the Burrton area. It will take almost 10 years to
construct the entire full-scale project.
The City believes that this project represents a new approach to
developing water resources, while at the same time protecting an
existing water resource from contamination. The City of Wichita
therefore urges support for federal assistance for this unique project.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Blain.
Next is Mr. Witwer. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF JIM WITWER, COUNSEL FOR THE NORTHERN COLORADO
WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT, BERTHOUD, CO
Mr. Witwer. Thank you and good afternoon, Madam Chair, and
members of the committee. My name is Jim Witwer. Our law firm--
Trout, Raley, Witwer and Freeman--is general counsel for the
Northern Colorado Water Conversancy District. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify before the subcommittee today on a
proposed transfer of title of three single-purpose water
conveyance facilities of the Colorado-Big Thompson Project from
the United States to the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy
District, as proposed in S. 1498.
The district is the local sponsor and contract beneficiary
of the Colorado-Big Thompson Project, the largest transmountain
diversion project in the State of Colorado. The district
entered into a repayment contract with Reclamation in 1938,
which defines the contractual obligations of both the district
and Reclamation associated with the design, construction,
operation, maintenance, administration and repayment of the
project, and grants to the district the perpetual right to the
water yielded from the project. Construction of the project
began in 1938 and was completed in 1957, when the project was
placed into full operation.
The three facilities involved in this transfer of title, in
this legislation include the St. Vrain Supply Canal, the
Boulder Creek Supply Canal, and the South Platte Supply Canal.
The location of these facilities are shown on the map,
which is an enlargement of the map in exhibit A, accompanying
my written testimony to my right.
The C-BT Project diverts water from the headwaters of the
Colorado River and conveys the water under the Continental
Divide to the eastern slope of Colorado. Once on the eastern
slope, the water flows through five hydroelectric generating
plants to two eastern slope terminal storage reservoirs, the
Horsetooth and Carter Lake Reservoirs.
From these terminal storage reservoirs, the project's water
supply is delivered to water users within district boundaries
through the project's single-purpose water conveyance
facilities.
Since completion of the project in 1957, the district has
been solely responsible for performing and paying for the
operation, maintenance, and administration of all the project's
single-purpose water conveyance facilities. These activities
have been carried out under the oversight, but without the
extensive involvement, of Reclamation.
In 2000, the title to the four single-purpose water
conveyance facilities located downstream of Horsetooth
Reservoir was transferred from the United States to the
district under the authority of Public Law 106-376.
S. 1498 is very similar to Public Law 106-376. It would
authorize the transfer of title of the C-BT project's three
remaining single-purpose water conveyance facilities, which are
located downstream of Carter Lake Reservoir.
The provisions of these two pieces of legislation are
nearly identical. We simply ask that Congress once again
support a successful transfer of title as it did in 2000 with
the passage of Public Law 106-376.
The function and operation of the proposed transferred
facilities will not be altered or modified as a result of the
passage of this legislation, and the facilities will continue
to be operated to meet the needs of the water users within the
district boundaries by C-BT project water supplies.
A special provision of S. 1498 addresses the South Platte
Supply Canal. During project development, an agreement was
reached with two local ditch companies which allowed the United
States to enlarge the companies' canal to accommodate the
diversion and conveyance of C-BT Project water from Boulder
Creek to the South Platte River, and to allow the continuing
diversion, conveyance, and delivery of the companies' water
supplies. S. 1498 would allow the companies' use of the South
Platte Supply Canal to continue and be unaffected by the
transfer of title for this facility.
All financial obligations associated with these facilities
were met. The ``aid-to-irrigation'' financial component
associated with these facilities is an obligation of the C-BT
project power beneficiaries, and is addressed in the proposed
legislation. Further, all Federal liability associated with the
operations of these facilities will be eliminated as a result
of the transfer of title.
S. 1498 will improve the efficiency of these facilities by
eliminating the redundant and unnecessary oversight role now
being performed by Reclamation. This will save the district and
its water users unnecessary costs.
This legislation is actively supported by local water
interests. Letters supporting the introduction of this
legislation are included as exhibit D to my written testimony.
We respectively urge this legislation be moved forward to
accomplish this transfer of title as soon as possible.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Witwer follows:]
Prepared Statement of James S. Witwer, Counsel for the Northern
Colorado Water Conservancy District, on S. 1498
I. INTRODUCTION
S. 1498 would authorize the transfer of title of three Colorado-Big
Thompson (C-BT) Project single-purpose water conveyance facilities from
the United States to the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District
(District). The District is the contract beneficiary of the C-BT
Project. The three facilities involved in this transfer of title
include:
1. The St. Vrain Supply Canal;
2. The Boulder Creek Supply Canal that extends from the St.
Vrain River to Boulder Creek. This facility also includes that
portion of the canal that extends from the St. Vrain River to
Boulder Reservoir, which is also known as the Boulder Feeder
Canal; and
3. The South Platte Supply Canal.
The locations of these facilities are shown on the map in Exhibit A
accompanying this testimony. The physical dimensions and description of
each of the facilities are shown on Exhibit B.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Exhibits A-C have been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed title transfer is beneficial to all parties involved.
Operational efficiencies are realized by both the federal government
and the District, outstanding financial obligations of the C-BT
Project's power beneficiaries are satisfied, and the federal government
is relieved of any liability associated with these facilities following
the completion of the title transfer. The District gains efficiency in
its water operations and administration of these facilities by
eliminating unnecessary federal oversight and administrative
redundancy.
II. BACKGROUND
The C-BT Project is a multi-purpose project. Its primary purpose is
to provide a supplemental water supply. Its secondary purpose is power
generation. The C-BT Project was built by the United States Bureau of
Reclamation (Reclamation) with the District acting as the project
sponsor and as the local repayment entity for the Project. The District
and Reclamation entered into a Repayment Contract on July 5, 1938. The
Repayment Contract defines the contractual obligations of both the
District and Reclamation associated with the repayment obligation,
operation, maintenance, and administration of the C-BT Project, and
grants to the District the perpetual right to the water yielded from
the C-BT Project. Construction on the C-BT Project began in 1938 and
was completed in 1957 when the Project was placed into full operation.
As stated earlier, the C-BT Project provides a supplemental water
supply for beneficial use within the boundaries of the District, an
area that includes approximately 1.6 million acres as depicted on the
map attached as Exhibit C. The area served by the C-BT Project includes
approximately 693,000 acres of irrigated farmland. A portion of this
farmland receives water directly from the C-BT Project through
deliveries from the Project to approximately 120 ditch and reservoir
companies which distribute Project water for irrigation purposes.
Further, the C-BT Project provides water supplies to 32 towns and
cities and many domestic water purveyors that, when combined, serves
water to more than 750,000 people.
The C-BT Project diverts water from the headwaters of the Colorado
River into the collection facilities of the C-BT Project. These
facilities include Grand Lake, Shadow Mountain Reservoir, Lake Granby,
and Willow Creek Reservoir. Utilizing these storage reservoirs, as well
as the Willow Creek Pumping Plant and the Fan Pumping Plant, water
captured by the collection system is eventually diverted to the eastern
slope of the Continental Divide through the 13.1-mile long Alva B.
Adams tunnel. This tunnel runs under the Continental Divide and beneath
Rocky Mountain National Park, delivering water into the Big Thompson
River watershed. Once on the eastern slope, C-BT Project water flows
through five hydroelectric generating plants as the water drops more
than 2,600 vertical feet to two eastern slope terminal storage
reservoirs, Horsetooth Reservoir and Carter Lake Reservoir.
From these terminal storage reservoirs, the Project's water supply
is delivered to water users within District boundaries through the
Project's distribution facilities. These distribution facilities
consist of single-purpose water conveyance facilities located
downstream of the C-BT Project's two East Slope terminal storage
reservoirs.
Since the C-BT Project was placed into full operation in 1957, the
District has been solely responsible for: the operation, maintenance,
and administration of the single-purpose water conveyance facilities;
the administration and protection of the lands and easements associated
with these facilities, including issuance of licenses and crossing
permits for entities seeking to utilize portions of the canal lands and
easements for various purposes; and the payment of the full costs of
operation, maintenance, and administration of these facilities. These
activities have been carried out under the oversight, but without the
extensive involvement, of Reclamation.
In 2000, the title to the four single-purpose water conveyance
facilities located downstream of Horsetooth Reservoir was transferred
from the United States to the District under the authority of Public
Law 106-376. Facilities transferred by Public law 106-376 included:
1. Charles Hansen Supply Canal;
2. Windsor Extension Canal;
3. North Poudre Supply Canal (also known as the Monroe
Gravity Canal); and
4. Dixon Feeder Canal.
III. PROPOSED LEGISLATION
S. 1498 would authorize the transfer of title of the C-BT Project's
single-purpose water conveyance facilities located downstream of Carter
Lake Reservoir in the southern portion of the C-BT Project. The passage
of S. 1498, when combined with Public Law 106-376, would complete the
transfer of title of all single-purpose water conveyance facilities
within the C-BT Project from the United States to the District. The
current legislation is very similar to that contained in Public Law
106-376.
The function and operation of the proposed transferred facilities
will not be altered or modified as a result of the passage of this
legislation. The transferred facilities will continue to be operated to
meet the needs of the water users within the District boundaries for
the supplemental water supplies provided by the C-BT Project.
The South Platte Supply Canal originally became a facility of the
C-BT Project during Project construction when an agreement was reached
with the Consolidated Lower Boulder Reservoir and Ditch and the Coal
Ridge Ditch companies (the Companies). Under the agreement, the United
States acquired the existing ditch easements, purchased additional
easements, and enlarged the Companies' existing canal to accommodate:
a) the diversion and conveyance of C-BT Project water from Boulder
Creek at a point downstream of the City of Boulder for delivery to the
South Platte River at a point near the Town of Fort Lupton; and b) the
continuing diversion, conveyance, and delivery of water yielded from
water rights owned by Companies. Of note is that the senior water right
associated with the original canal is the oldest, most senior
adjudicated water right in the South Platte Basin within Colorado,
dating back to 1859. The operation of the Companies' canal and the
exercise of the associated water rights were not affected because of
the enlargement of the original canal as part of the C-BT Project's
construction. This remains true today as the Companies continue to
divert and beneficially use their own water rights through this canal
as they would have had the canal never been enlarged to accommodate C-
BT Project water.
Further, in July 1954, the District entered into operating
agreements with the Companies for the operation and maintenance of the
South Platte Supply Canal. As part of that operating agreement, the
District is responsible for paying between two-thirds and three-fourths
of the operating costs associated with various segments of the South
Platte Supply Canal.
The proposed legislation will improve the efficiency and operation
of these facilities by eliminating the redundant and unnecessary
oversight role now being performed by Reclamation. Operation,
maintenance, and administration of these facilities and their
associated easements have historically been carried out by the District
without significant oversight or involvement by Reclamation. The level
of maintenance performed on these facilities by the District, and by
the Companies on the South Platte Supply Canal, has never been found to
be in any way deficient during the periodic inspections performed by
Reclamation. Elimination of the federal redundancy in the
administration of these facilities will save the District and its water
users unnecessary costs.
All financial obligations of the District associated with these
facilities were met under the terms of the Repayment Contract with
final payment made by the District to Reclamation in December 2001. The
``aid-to-irrigation'' financial component associated with these
facilities is an obligation of the C-BT Project power beneficiaries.
The repayment of that financial obligation is addressed in the proposed
legislation and will be paid by the Project's power beneficiaries.
Lastly, all federal liability associated with the operations of these
facilities will be eliminated as a result of the transfer of title.
This legislation is actively supported by local water interests.
Letters supporting the introduction of this legislation are included as
Exhibit D. These include letters from the City of Boulder, the Town of
Erie, the Lefthand Water District, the City of Longmont, the New Coal
Ridge Ditch Company, and the New Consolidated Lower Boulder Reservoir
and Ditch Company.
IV. CONCLUSION
Transfer of title of these three single-purpose C-BT Project water
conveyance facilities from the United States to the District: a) will
improve the efficiency of government, both on the federal and local
levels, by eliminating redundancy in the operation, maintenance, and
administration of these facilities; b) will eliminate all federal
liability associated with the transferred facilities; c) will not
change the operation of the facilities; and d) will complete the
transfer of all single-purpose water conveyance facilities within the
C-BT Project. We urge this legislation be moved forward to accomplish
this transfer of title as soon as practical.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Witwer.
Mayor Nelson, welcome.
STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE K. NELSON, MAYOR,
CITY OF YUMA, AZ
Mr. Nelson. Madam Chairman, committee members, it is an
honor and privilege to be here representing the wonderful city
of Yuma, Arizona. My name is Lawrence K. Nelson, the mayor of
the city of Yuma, Arizona. I appreciate this opportunity to
testify in support of S. 1529, the city of Yuma Improvement Act
of 2005, and would like to thank Senators Jon Kyl and John
McCain for their leadership on this issue.
Like many American cities in the 20th century, Yuma had
neglected its river heritage. For the past decade, however, the
Yuma community has worked to reconnect with the original
crossings of the Colorado River in three important ways.
First, with the support of the Federal and State
governments, we have undertaken an ambitious wetlands
restoration and conservation project, called the Yuma East
Wetlands.
Second, we are developing riverfront parks, which give the
public better river access and recreational opportunities.
And third, the city has worked to redevelop 22 acres along
Yuma's downtown riverfront with significant private sector
commitments for investment.
The city recognized that this commercial redevelopment
project was primarily a local responsibility. The challenge was
that the State and Federal Governments owned small portions of
the 22-acre site. Over the past 6 years, we have assisted in
the relocation of the National Guard facility and the Border
Patrol Sector headquarters. The city has spent considerable
local sums to assemble these properties.
At the same time, the city has been working with a private
sector development partner to implement an $80 million
redevelopment project, which includes a riverfront hotel and
conference center, visitor's center, office buildings, 60-80
residential condominiums, and retail shops. In November 2004,
Yuma City Council approved a development agreement, which
requires construction to begin by July 2006.
As planning for this project got underway in 2000, it
became apparent that along the riverfront there was a patchwork
quilt of ownership dating from the inception of the Yuma
project in 1905 undertaken by the U.S. Reclamation Service. For
the past 5 years, city and Reclamation staff have worked
together to try to make sense of the property situation. As
early as 2003, both staffs agreed in principle that there could
be a fair exchange. The Bureau of Reclamation would receive
title to city-owned land over which their railroad tracks run
to the desalinization plant. The city would receive title to
``orphan'' parcels which served no purpose to the Bureau of
Reclamation. In addition, the city agreed, at its own cost, to
relocate functions of the Yuma County Water Users' Association,
which would then free up land for important public uses like a
visitor's center and an ancillary water treatment facility.
For the past 2 years, the city has proceeded with all
required environmental compliance and has paid for the
relocation of the Yuma County Water Users Association
functions. All that remains is for Congress to provide
authorization for this exchange.
Passage of this legislation will facilitate phase 1 of the
riverfront development, including the hotel and conference
center construction. For future phases, we continue to work
with other Federal partners, such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, to assist in relocating their Kofa National Wildlife
Refuge headquarters.
Our downtown riverfront is the heart of our community. It
is the site of the historic crossing of the Colorado River by
60,000 people during the 1849 Gold Rush. The Yuma Crossing was
established as a National Historic Landmark in 1967. We look
forward, however, to the day when the Yuma Crossing will once
again be a bustling commercial riverfront.
With the assistance of Congress, Yuma will be able to
regain control and ownership of this land and return it to
productive use.
Thank you again for the opportunity to speak in support of
S. 1529.
Senator Murkowski. Senator Kyl.
Senator Kyl. Thank you. With the permission of the last
witness, I just want to interject one thing about this, because
I'll have to go. Mayor Nelson and the city council of Yuma have
been working on this now for several years. I've seen the
project as it has unfolded and it is a good project. The only
thing that impedes this particular part of it is that the
Bureau of Reclamation and the city of Yuma have interlocking
land right along the river. Very low value. And there's orphan
parcels. But the Bureau of Reclamation has the railroad right-
of-way, and the city would like to have those orphan parcels
that the Bureau owns right now, and the easiest, simplest, and
least expensive way to do this is with legislative action.
OMB has given the usual ``We could also do it
administratively'' testimony, and there's nothing wrong with
that, except that it makes it more expensive, it takes a lot
longer, and I'm not sure that the Bureau then would get the
right-of-way for the railroad that it would like. So what Mayor
Nelson proposes is exactly the right way to solve this. Senator
McCain and I certainly agree with that, and we hope the
committee will be able to adopt this legislation expeditiously.
Mayor Nelson, thank you very much for all the hard work
that you and the folks in Yuma have done on this. And thank
you, Madam Chairman and Senator Salazar, for my brief
intercession here.
Mr. Nelson. Thank you very much, Senator.
Senator Murkowski. Senator Kyl, I appreciate your comments
and your support of this, and for the Bureau.
With that, let's go to our final witness on this panel, Mr.
Blickensderfer.
STATEMENT OF TOM BLICKENSDERFER, ENDANGERED SPECIES PROGRAM
DIRECTOR, COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, DENVER, CO
Mr. Blickensderfer. Thank you, Madam Chair and committee
members. I am Tom Blickensderfer, I'm the endangered species
program director for the Colorado Department of Natural
Resources. I'd like to thank Senator Wayne Allard for his
introduction of S. 1578. Senator Allard introduced the
legislation which enacted Public Law 106-392, which authorized
the capital construction projects for the two programs: the
Upper Colorado and San Juan Fish Recovery Programs. I'd also
like to thank Senator Ken Salazar for his co-sponsorship and
for his support of these programs, which dates back to his
service as executive director of the Colorado Department of
Natural Resources in the 1990's, when he sat on the
Implementation Committee for the Upper Colorado Program. We
appreciate also the co-sponsorship of Senators Bennett and
Hatch.
Wyoming, Utah and New Mexico joined Colorado in support of
the passage of S. 1578. We are committed to recovering these
four endangered fish--the humpback chub, the Colorado
pikeminnow, the bonytail and the razorback sucker. These
programs attempted to accomplish our dual objectives of
recovery of the fish while we accommodate additional water
storage and development. Actions toward recovery are driven by
the recovery goals developed and approved by U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service in 2002, which provide the biological
mileposts and timeframes against which we measure our success.
The work done includes restoring floodplain and wetland
habitat, providing flows in accordance with the State water law
for the fish, throughout our various reaches of stream in the
programs; construction of fish passageways to greatly expand
fish habitat; installing fish screens to prevent endangered
fish from being trapped in diversion canals; managing
detrimental non-native species; propagation and stocking of the
endangered fish; and finally, research, monitoring and data
management to teach us what the endangered fish need to
survive, grow and reproduce in the wild.
The ability of these two programs to accomplish these
simultaneous goals of fish recovery and water development is
nothing short of extraordinary. These programs serve as the
means for Endangered Species Act compliance for 800 water
projects diverting over 2.5 million acre-feet of water per
year, serving millions of citizens in all four States. The
programs provide ESA compliance for large and small tribal
water projects in the two basins, and allows the United States
to fulfill its trust responsibilities in compliance with the
Endangered Species Act.
In all of this, not one lawsuit has been filed under the
ESA on any one of these 800 projects during the entire
existence of both programs.
While program partners have been judicious and careful in
the expenditure of dollars in these programs, we face
circumstances beyond our control which bring us before you
today to advocate for S. 1578. Construction costs are on the
rise in a dramatic fashion, driven much by the increase in
energy costs and the worldwide increase in the demand for
steel. Our construction schedules on different projects have
been delayed due to access and property acquisition issues.
Finally, we have had to redesign fish screens to accommodate
site-specific conditions in the Colorado River, including
changing design criteria to accomplish debris removal from
these fish screens.
The estimated additional costs above the present
authorization to complete the programs' construction projects
total $12.5 million. We are requesting an additional $2.5
million for contingencies, to be appropriated only if needed,
resulting in our request for a $15 million increase in our
appropriation authorization.
In addition, we are asking the subcommittee to acknowledge
$11 million in additional non-Federal cost share. This
additional cost share is attributed to loss of Colorado River
Storage Project power revenues from project reoperation to
benefit endangered fish at a level of $7.1 million and also
attributed to capital costs for water users who provide water
for the endangered fish from Elkhead Reservoir in Colorado at a
level of $3.9 million.
Finally, the programs ask that we seek a time extension for
capital project completion from 2008 to September 30, 2010,
which will allow for full implementation of all construction
projects while avoiding any real increase in Reclamation's
annual appropriations requests for the programs.
This increase in authorized expenditures is needed this
year so Reclamation can factor it into its 3-year advanced
budget planning, thus ensuring that the capital construction
program can be completed by 2010.
Again, we offer our thanks to Senators Allard, Salazar,
Bennett and Hatch for sponsoring this legislation.
I would request my testimony be included in the record, and
I would be happy to answer any questions of the subcommittee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Blickensderfer follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tom Blickensderfer, Endangered Species Program
Director, Colorado Department of Natural Resources, on S. 1578
Thank you, Madam Chair and Committee members, for this opportunity
to appear before you today and to speak about two Programs which have
become known as national models for endangered species recovery
efforts. I'd like to thank Senator Wayne Allard for his introduction of
S. 1578, and his ongoing support for the Upper Colorado and San Juan
Programs. Senator Allard introduced the legislation which enacted
Public Law 106-392, which authorized the capital construction projects
for these Programs. Thank you, also, to Senator Ken Salazar for his co-
sponsorship and for his support of these Programs, which dates back to
his service as Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Natural
Resources in the 1990's when he had a seat on the Implementation
Committee for the Upper Colorado Program. We appreciate also the co-
sponsorship of Senators Bennett and Hatch.
The State of Colorado joins with the States of Wyoming and Utah as
partners in the Upper Colorado River Fish Endangered Fish Recovery
Program and with the State of New Mexico as partner in the San Juan
River Basin Recovery Implementation Program in requesting passage of S.
1578. We are deliberate and comprehensive in our commitment as states
to recovering these four endangered fish--the humpback chub, the
Colorado pikeminnow, the bonytail and the razorback sucker. These
Programs combine the unique expertise of water engineers, biologists,
and policy administrators to accomplish our dual objectives of recovery
of the fish while we accommodate additional water storage and
development. Actions towards recovery are driven by the recovery goals
developed and approved by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 2002, which
provide the biological mileposts and timeframes against which we
measure our success. The work done to proceed towards recovery of these
species to date has been extensive. It includes restoring floodplain
and wetland habitat, providing flows in accordance with the state water
law in cooperation with water users, constructing fish passageways to
greatly expand access to the rivers for the fish, installing fish
screens to prevent endangered fish from being trapped in diversion
canals, managing detrimental non-native species, propagation and
stocking of the endangered fish and conducting the necessary research,
monitoring and data management to provide critically important
information about what the endangered fish need to survive, grow and
reproduce in the wild and to monitor progress towards reestablishment
of self-sustaining populations needed to delist these species from the
ESA endangered species list.
From Colorado's perspective, both the Upper Colorado River and the
San Juan River Recovery Programs provide the means for our citizens to
carry on with necessary water use and development activities while at
the same time accomplishing species conservation and ultimately
recovery of the four endangered fishes. This ability of these two
Programs to accomplish these simultaneous goals is nothing short of
extraordinary. The Programs serve as the means for Endangered Species
Act compliance for 800 water projects diverting over 2.5 million acre-
feet per year of water, serving millions of citizens in all four
states. The programs provide ESA compliance for large and small tribal
water projects in the two basins, and allow the United States to
fulfill its trust responsibilities in compliance with the Endangered
Species Act. In all of this, not one lawsuit under the ESA has occurred
on any one of these 800 projects during the entire existence of both
Programs. Since their inception, the Programs have annually achieved
sufficient progress toward the recovery of the four fish necessary to
ensure ESA compliance for water depletions, as independently determined
by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
All four states have undertaken their cost-share obligations
seriously, and have received strong support from their various
Legislatures to fund their respective portions of this enormous
undertaking in species recovery. The Colorado General Assembly passed
legislation in 1998 and in 2000 to establish and fund the Native
Species Conservation Trust Fund, from which Colorado will draw its full
cost-share for both programs of $9.146 million. The Utah Legislature
created a restricted Species Protection Account in 1997, and the
Wyoming Legislature appropriated its funding share during their 1998
and 1999 legislative sessions. The New Mexico Legislature has chosen to
appropriate funds into the State's ``operating reserve,'' thus making
them available at any time and not tied to a specific calendar year.
Colorado has chosen to fulfill the bulk of its cost-share
obligation for the Upper Colorado River Program by committing funding
to the enlargement of Elkhead Reservoir in Northwest Colorado, which
will ultimately provide 5000 acre-feet per year of additional water in
Colorado's Yampa River to enhance habitat for the fish in months when
water flows are the lowest, and allow the Program to lease an
additional 2000 acre-feet per year.
While Program partners have been judicious and careful in the
expenditure of dollars in these Programs, we face circumstances beyond
our control which bring us before you today to advocate for S. 1578.
Construction costs are on the rise in a dramatic fashion, driven much
by the increase in energy costs and the worldwide increase in the
demand and resulting cost of steel. Our construction schedules on
different projects have been delayed due to access and property
acquisition issues. Finally, we have had to redesign fish screens to
accommodate site-specific conditions in the Colorado River, including
changing design criteria to accomplish debris removal from these fish
screens. The estimated additional costs above the present authorization
to complete the Programs' construction projects total $12.5 million; we
are requesting an additional $2.5 million for contingencies to be
appropriated only if needed, resulting in our request for a $15 million
increase in our appropriation authorization. In addition, we are asking
this Subcommittee to acknowledge $11 million in additional non-federal
cost share. This additional cost share is attributed to loss of
Colorado River Storage Project power revenues from project reoperation
to benefit endangered fish ($7.1 million) and also attributed to
capital costs for water users who provide water for the endangered fish
from Elkhead Reservoir ($3.9 million) in Colorado. (A detailed
explanation of the additional cost share is attached to my testimony.)
Congress recognized these types of cost sharing in Public Law 106-392.
The bill would increase the total authorization for the Programs to
$126 million; with $65 million attributed to the non-federal cost-share
and $61 million to the federal share.
The Programs also seek a time extension for capital project
completion from 2008 to September 30, 2010, which will allow for full
implementation of all construction projects while avoiding any real
increase in Reclamation's annual appropriations requests for the
Programs.
This increase in authorized expenditures is needed this year so
Reclamation can factor it into its three year advanced budget planning,
thus ensuring that the capital construction program can be completed by
2010.
Colorado joins with its sister states in requesting your passage of
S. 1578. This will allow the Programs to fully implement the recovery
goals so as to accomplish delisting and hence recovery of these
endangered fish species.
Again, we offer our thanks to Senators Allard, Salazar, Bennett and
Hatch for sponsoring this legislation.
I would be happy to answer any questions of the Subcommittee.
ATTACHMENT TO TOM BLICKENSDERFER'S TESTIMONY:
ADDITIONAL $11.0 MILLION NON-FEDERAL COST SHARE
POWER REVENUE NON-FEDERAL COST SHARE: During the development and
passage of P.L. 106-392, it was anticipated that the value of ``lost''
CRSP power revenues due to changed operations at Flaming Gorge Dam to
meet endangered fish needs was approximately $15 million. Congress
recognized this as a non-federal cost share in P.L. 106-392. However,
this expectation has been far exceeded. The estimated cost of this lost
revenue to the Western Area Power Administration is $22.1 million, $7.1
million more than was originally estimated. Congress is asked to
recognize the additional $7.1 million in lost power revenues as non-
federal cost share, as in the original authorizing legislation (P.L.
106-392).
WATER USERS NON-FEDERAL COST SHARE: The enlargement of the Elkhead
Project will provide an additional 5,000 acre-feet of water for use on
a permanent basis by the Recovery Program to provide flows for
endangered species. In addition, the Program will lease up to 2,000
acre-feet/year from the Colorado River Water Conservation District at a
rate of $50/acre-foot, paying only for the water actually leased in a
given year. On average, the lease is expected to be 500 acre-feet/year
at a cost of $25,000. The amortized cost of providing 2,000 acre-feet
of storage in Elkhead Reservoir is $110/acre-foot/year, or $220,000/
year, resulting in a non-federal cost share to the Program of $195,000/
year for 20 years, for a total of $3.9 million. This is in addition to
the $5.0 million that was recognized in P.L. 106-392 as a water user
cost share as a result of releases from Wolford Mountain Reservoir.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you. Your testimony will be
included, as will the testimony from all those who have
appeared before us this afternoon.
Mr. Blain, I believe that I heard you indicate that the
total cost of the project would be $137 million and that the
estimated time to complete it is 10 years.
Mr. Blain. Ten years, yes.
Senator Murkowski. Mr. Witwer, can you tell me why the
district chose to come to the Congress for another title
transfer, as opposed to utilizing the Bureau's administrative
process for this?
Mr. Witwer. Yes, thank you. Thank you, Senator. The process
that was really precedent-setting in this regard was Public Law
106-376, which took four single-purpose project facilities and
transferred title from the United States to the Northern
District in a very efficient and cost-effective manner. This
project, like that--this set of facilities is virtually
identical to that, it's just on the other end of the--sort of
the downstream end of the terminal storage, from Carter Lake--
or rather Horsetooth Reservoir. And we believe that that
legislation coins an effective model for how to transfer the
title successfully.
Senator Murkowski. We can do it, cost effective and
efficient. I like to hear that. I understand that there might
be a possible title issue of the South Platte Supply Canal; can
you address that?
Mr. Witwer. Sure, I'd be happy to. As I stated earlier,
there were two existing ditch companies using a canal at the
time of our project construction, and rather than build a
stand-alone facility, the Bureau negotiated with those two
companies for basically a right to enlarge and carry project
water through those facilities, while continuing to preserve
the right of those owners to convey their water. This
legislation would convey the districts--excuse me, the Bureau's
interest only in those facilities and both of those companies
would retain all rights that they have in the past and their
operations would be unaffected. And I note that in the letters
of support which are attached as exhibit D to my testimony,
both of those companies involved have submitted letters of
support.
Senator Murkowski. Mayor Nelson, can you give me the
estimated cost for this land swap? I believe I heard you say
that the city would be responsible for the cost; is that
correct?
Mr. Nelson. Yes, that's correct.
Senator Murkowski. And what is the estimated cost?
Mr. Nelson. The city's already paid $300,000 to swap the
land with the Yuma County Water Users. And I don't know if
we've got a total dollar figure. It is probably a half a
million dollars total.
Senator Murkowski. Okay, thank you. Now, the administration
has testified that this conveyance will clear title on the rail
line. Can you address that?
Mr. Nelson. Yes, I will. That rail line--and there's a lot
of history in that waterfront area--used to be the first
crossing across the Colorado River that there was to get from
East to West, when the railroad bridge went in. And then, later
on, the railroad went on down to Mexico. Unfortunately, it now
goes down to the desalinization plant. And the property in the
early years was owned by the city, and indeed in numerous
transactions, it ended up partially in the city's hands,
partially in the Bureau's hands, with a lot of the orphan
parcels in there as well. But it dates all the way back from
the 1900's.
Senator Murkowski. Now, it's been stated here by Mr. Rinne
that this process could be handled administratively. Senator
Kyl had mentioned that as well, and that he thinks that the
route that you are taking, the legislative route, is the
preferable one for the city of Yuma. I'm assuming that is
correct, because you're here.
Mr. Nelson. That is absolutely correct. Because we have
found that the JSA route is not only more time consuming, but
also more costly to both parties.
Senator Murkowski. And Mr. Blickensderfer, in S. 1578,
there's an increased appropriations ceiling for the Upper
Colorado Basin Recovery Program, but not for the San Juan River
Recovery Program. Can you explain why additional appropriations
are not necessary for the San Juan River Recovery Program?
Mr. Blickensderfer. Madam Chairman, we have in the San Juan
Program problems that are similar to our problem in the Upper
Colorado Program, which are merely construction delays in
coordination with the various tribal governments that are
affected by the San Juan Program. So I'm not sure that I could
at this point give you a delineation of the dollars between the
two programs. But we do have, at least as far as delays go,
similar expense, run-ups there, and that is what's driving the
costs in the San Juan.
Senator Murkowski. So you're suggesting that there may be a
need for additional funds for the San Juan Recovery then?
Mr. Blickensderfer. Yes, Madam Chair, I am. But once again,
we haven't--because we were bringing these both together in one
package--we haven't really split them out between the two
programs, we're taking them as a whole in this legislation.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
Senator Salazar.
Senator Salazar. Thank you, Madam Chair. First, with
respect to S. 1578, the recovery programs on the Colorado River
and the San Juan River, I remember when those programs were
started and I sat on the negotiating teams and the
implementation committees and, Mr. Blickensderfer, I would just
say that I think they're good role models for how you can
effectively implement the Endangered Species Act requirements,
while at the same time not keeping it in the way of water
development or affecting water users and water rights within
Colorado. So I applaud you and your leadership and that of the
Department of Natural Resources, as well as all the
organizations that are part of it. And I will note that it is a
program that has huge and broad support--unlike lots of other
things that we deal with here in this Congress--when you think
that the letters of support that I believe have all been
included in the record, including letters of support from
Governor Dave Freudenthal of Wyoming, Governor Bill Richardson
of New Mexico, random organizations like The Nature
Conservancy, the Western Resource Advocates, and a whole host
of other organizations. So I just applaud you for your work and
ask you to continue to update us on the progress of the
recovery efforts under both programs.
A question, Mr. Witwer, concerning S. 1498. And let me just
say at the outset that your organization, the leadership of
Eric Wilkinson and your board, I think are a well model for how
we manage and distribute water supply in the West and so I
often ask other water conservancy organizations, Madam
Chairperson, to go to the Northern Water Conservancy District
to learn how to do it right.
So I congratulate you for what you guys do. I have a
question that was asked earlier about the processes for the
conveyance. Looking back at the way that Public Law 106-376 was
implemented, was it in fact the most effective and efficient
way to achieve the desired transfer?
Mr. Witwer. Well, thank you, Senator Salazar, for your
original co-sponsorship and support of this legislation and for
your kind words, which I will convey to Mr. Wilkinson upon my
return. Yes, we do think that the Public Law 106-376 was the
effective model for how to transfer single purpose conveyance
facilities connected with this project. That was done
effectively, and as you know, with the removal of many costs
and other liability for the Federal Government and also
significant cost reduction for the district and its water
users.
Senator Salazar. Thank you very much.
Mr. Witwer. Thank you.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Salazar. I have no
further questions. As you heard from Senator Johnson, he did
have some questions that we will be submitting to you for your
written response. I appreciate the time that you've taken to
join us, the effort that you have made to travel the distances
that you have, and for your testimony and for all that you're
doing within your respective communities. Thank you. And with
that, we stand adjourned.
[Whereupon at 4:10 p.m. the hearing was adjourned]
APPENDIXES
----------
Appendix I
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
State of Colorado Department of Natural Resources,
Office of the Executive Director,
Denver, CO, October 19, 2005.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Water and Power, Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Re: Responses to Questions for the Record posed by Senators Domenici
and Johnson regarding S. 1578, a Bill to Reauthorize the Upper Colorado
and San Juan River Basin endangered fish recovery programs.
Dear Senator Murkowski: Attached please find my responses to the
questions posed by Senators Domenici and Johnson regarding S. 1578. I
hope the Subcommittee members find my answers to be substantive and
complete. If there are additional questions, I would be happy to answer
them.
Thank you, once again, for the consideration and kindness you and
your fellow Subcommittee members extended to me during my testimony on
Thursday, October 6th
Sincerely,
Tom Blickensderfer,
Endangered Species Program Director.
[Enclosure.]
Response to Question From Senator Domenici
Question 1. Senate Bill S. 1578, titled ``A Bill to reauthorize the
Upper Colorado and San Juan River Basin endangered fish recovery
implementation programs'', seeks authority to expend an additional $15
million of Federal appropriated funds for the Upper Colorado Program
and extend the deadline for completing construction of capital projects
from 2008 to 2010 for both Programs. Why does the Bill not seek
additional funds for the San Juan Program while asking for an extension
of time to complete capital construction projects?
Answer. P.L. 106-392, as amended, authorized the expenditure of $18
million for the San Juan Program with a 2008 deadline for completion of
capital projects. The federal share of this authorization is indexed
based on the Consumer Price Index. With indexing the current
authorization is $19 million. By 2010, based on a CPI increase of three
percent per year, the available authorization will be approximately $20
million.
Through fiscal year 2005 the San Juan Program has expended
approximately $7,032,000 for capital projects identified as necessary
to recover the razorback sucker and Colorado pikeminnow. These funds
have provided for the construction of facilities to restore fish
passage at the Hogback, Cuedi and Public Service Company of New Mexico
diversion dams in New Mexico, and construction of propagation
facilities in New Mexico required to support fish stocking efforts.
The San Juan Program has recently identified the need to construct
a fish screen at the Hogback diversion dam to prevent the entrainment
of native fish and reduce fish mortality. The estimated cost of this
facility is approximately $1.4 million. It is scheduled for completion
in 2008.
The Program is currently evaluating the need for fish passage at
the Arizona Public Service Company diversion dam and the Fruitland
Project diversion dam near Farmington. The estimated cost of the
passage at Arizona Public Service Company passage is estimated at $2.2
million, if needed. The estimated cost of the Fruitland passage is $2.3
million, if needed.
The Program is also evaluating the need for backwater habitat
restoration on the San Juan River. Four million dollars has been
reserved within the authorized ceiling for this purpose. It is very
likely that the amount needed will be much less.
Improvements to the current hatchery facilities are estimated at
approximately $200,000. No other major hatchery facilities are
anticipated in order to meet recovery goals.
The total additional capital expenditures described above are
estimated at a maximum of $10.1 million. If all of these expenditures
are made, which appears very unlikely, the total cost of capital
projects would be $17.132 million, against a currently authorized
ceiling of $19 million. With indexing the ceiling is expected to grow
to $20 million by 2010.
Based on current identified needs and a management assessment of
required funding, it does not appear that capital projects funds above
the current authorization will be required to achieve the recovery
goals.
The additional time to construct capital projects is being
requested to accommodate ongoing field monitoring and evaluation of the
need for additional facilities, and to plan, design, and construct
those facilities. In addition, the additional two years of
authorization through 2010 will allow appropriation requests to remain
at about the same levels as previous appropriations to Reclamation to
the Program, and avoid a significant increase in requests in 2008.
Responses to Questions From Senator Johnson
Question 1. Have the Upper Colorado and San Juan Recovery Programs
been successful in improving the status of the species involved in the
programs?
Answer. Yes. Both Programs are successfully undertaking management
actions to increase the numbers and enhance the survival of the four
fish species (humpback chub, Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker and
bonytail). These actions include managing nonnative fish, stocking
endangered fish, restoring floodplain habitats, providing beneficial
flow conditions, and constructing fish passages and screens at
diversion dams and canals. These management actions are consistent with
the August 1, 2002, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recovery goals.
These actions are yielding positive results.
Management of nonnative species, particularly northern pike and
smallmouth bass, has successfully reduced the within-year abundance of
nonnative fishes in some stretches of the Yampa and Green rivers.
Removal of catfish in the San Juan River has had a substantial impact
on the presence of large predators. There are encouraging signs that
these nonnative fish management actions will reduce the long-term
abundance of problematic nonnative fishes while bringing about positive
responses in populations of endangered fishes.
Razorback sucker were near extinction and bonytail were
functionally extinct in the Upper Basin. Populations of razorback
sucker and bonytail are being reestablished through stocking of
hatchery-reared fish. Stocked razorback suckers are surviving and
reproducing, and stocked bonytails are being recaptured at several
locations.
Nursery habitats for young razorback suckers are being provided
through acquisition and restoration of floodplain wetlands in the Green
River and Colorado River systems. Both Programs are working
cooperatively with local, State, Federal, and tribal agencies to
provide river flows to meet the needs of endangered fish. Fish passages
constructed at diversion dams restore access to reaches of critical
habitat. Fish screens constructed at diversion canals prevent
endangered fish from becoming trapped.
Question 2. Can you provide some specifics regarding any such
improvement--for example, population increases?
Answer. Colorado pikeminnow: Today, there are two self-sustaining
populations in the Upper Colorado River Basin. Estimates of adult
abundance in the Colorado River have steadily increased and range from
450 in 1992 to about 780 in 2003. Estimates of adult abundance in the
middle and lower Green River declined during the recent record-setting
severe drought from 3,100 in 2001 to 2,300 in 2003. A positive sign is
that estimates for young Colorado pikeminnow in 2004 were the highest
they have been since 1996 in the middle Green River and since 2000 in
the lower Green River. This suggests that populations are rebounding as
wetter hydrologic conditions return.
About 20 wild adults were estimated in the San Juan River in the
early to mid 1990's. Reestablishment of fish in the San Juan River is
being accomplished through an aggressive stocking effort. Over 668,000
juveniles were stocked in 2002-2004, and survival of stocked fish has
been documented.
Humpback chub: Today, there are five self-sustaining populations in
the Upper Colorado River Basin. Estimates of adult fish vary
considerably by location, and efforts are underway to improve and
better understand these population estimates. Similar to Colorado
pikeminnow, some populations showed apparent declines during the recent
drought. Yampa Canyon supports a small population, consisting of about
400 adults. Recent estimates of adults in Desolation and Gray Canyons
vary considerably from year to year, ranging from 1,000 to 2,200 during
2001-2003. In the Black Rocks-Westwater Canyon complex, estimates of
adults were steady at about 3,000 fish during 1999-2003. Cataract
Canyon supports a small population, consisting of about 150 adults.
Razorback sucker: The number of wild fish had declined to only a
few hundred adults in the middle Green River by the early to mid
1990's. Populations are now being reestablished through stocking of
hatchery-reared fish. Stocked fish are surviving and reproducing. In
the middle Green River, stocked fish in reproductive condition have
been captured at spawning sites, and captures of larvae confirm that
these fish are successfully reproducing. Larvae were collected for the
first time on record in the Gunnison River in 2002 and 2003, indicating
reproduction by stocked fish. In the San Juan River, reproduction by
stocked fish at separate locations has been documented through
collection of larvae every year since 1998, and juveniles have been
found in 2002 and 2003.
Bonytail: The number of wild fish had declined to only a few
individuals in the Upper Colorado River Basin by the early 1980's.
Populations are now being reestablished through stocking of hatchery-
reared fish. Stocked fish are being recaptured at several locations
throughout the Upper Colorado River Basin one or more years after
stocking.
______
Department of the Interior,
Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs,
Washington, DC, November 15, 2005.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Water and Power, Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Madam Chairwoman: Enclosed are responses prepared by the
Bureau of Reclamation to the questions submitted following the October
6, 2005, hearing regarding the following bills: S. 1025, S. 1498, S.
1529, S. 1578, and S. 1760.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this material to the
Committee.
Sincerely,
Jane M. Lyder,
Legislative Counsel.
[Enclosure.]
Response to Question From Senator Murkowski on S. 1025
Question 1. I understand that the Bureau was involved in the water
recharge demonstration project with the City of Wichita that became the
basis for this Project proposal. Please describe the Bureau's
involvement in that demonstration project. Was the demo project a
success?
Answer. Reclamation and the City of Wichita signed an agreement in
1995 to initiate a process to demonstrate seasonal water storage and
recovery to supplement the Equus Beds Aquifer. Reclamation's
involvement included cost sharing, reviewing the water quality data,
partnering in the NEPA process, reviewing all engineering data, and
issuing the final report. The final report, completed in April 2000,
concluded it was feasible and suitable for full-scale implementation.
Responses to Questions From Senator Murkowski on S. 1498
Question 1. How does the title transfer of the facilities involved
in S. 1498 differ from those transferred as part of Public Law 106-376?
Answer. Facilities previously transferred under P.L. 106-376 were
located near Horsetooth Reservoir and were water supply facilities for
the northern part of the District. Facilities proposed for transfer
under S. 1498 are located at Carter Lake Reservoir and are water supply
facilities for the southern portion of the District.
The facilities that were successfully transferred pursuant to
Public Law 106-376 were the North Poudre Supply Canal and Diversion
Works, the Charles Hansen (Supply) Canal and Windsor Extension, and the
Dixon Feeder Canal. The facilities proposed to be transferred pursuant
to S. 1498 are the St. Vrain Supply Canal, the Boulder Creek Supply
Canal (including the Boulder Feeder Canal) and the South Platte Supply
Canal. These facilities distribute water from Carter Lake Reservoir to
the southern portion of the C-BT Project.
The primary differences include the sequence of events, and overall
approach, in pursuing the transfer. P.L. 106-376 was the result of
considerable coordination between Reclamation and the District well in
advance of the legislative introduction and extending throughout the
process. Reclamation and the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy
District had little interaction prior to the introduction of S. 1498.
Prior to the earlier transfer, Reclamation and the District
executed an MOU identifying roles and responsibilities for the transfer
process, along with the reimbursement of associated costs. A draft MOU
is currently under review by the District.
Question 2. At the hearing you stated that no ``aid to irrigation''
is due for a repayment obligation. Is that correct or were you just
referring to the fact that the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy
District does not owe any ``aid to irrigation obligation''? Isn't there
still a federal ``aid to irrigation'' obligation on this transfer?
Answer. To clarify, the District has fulfilled its repayment
obligation, as specified by contract, for irrigation costs allocated to
the project. The remaining portion of the cost to construct the
irrigation features are being paid by the power customers as ``aid to
irrigation.'' As part of the title transfer process, a valuation of the
facilities to be transferred will include an analysis, to be conducted
in cooperation with the Western Area Power Administration, of the
payments necessary to fulfill the aid-to-irrigation obligation to the
United States associated with the facilities proposed for transfer.
Section 2(a)(2) appears to envision the need for this valuation to be
completed, but because of the premature nature of this bill, that
process was not initiated prior to the legislation being introduced.
It has always been the Administration's position that the entity
requesting title transfer should either arrange payment of the power
assistance costs with the power customers before the legislation is
passed or should pay those costs themselves.
Responses to Questions From Senator Murkowski on S. 1529
Question 1. Who has title to the railroad parcels included in this
bill and depicted on the map titled ``City of Yuma Proposed Property
Ownership'' and dated July 25, 2005?
Answer. Reclamation (United States of America) purchased the Yuma
Trackage from Southern Pacific Transportation Company (SPTC) in 1989
for the purpose of providing transportation of chemicals required for
operation of the Yuma Desalting Plant. Prior to that purchase (1974),
SPTC had sold parcels to the City of Yuma without exempting the track
from those sales. Therefore, Reclamation and the City of Yuma both hold
an interest in portions of the track as shown on the above-referenced
map.
Question 2. How long would it take to complete the land exchange in
S. 1529?
Answer. The passage of S. 1529 would expedite the transfer of
titles to both the City of Yuma and Reclamation. Allowing for the
drafting of the appropriate title documents and review and acceptance
by government legal staff, the process could be consummated in six
months to one year.
Question 3. How long would it take to complete the GSA
administrative process referenced in your testimony to transfer the
federal parcels to the city?
Answer. GSA has already contacted and offered assistance to the
Department of Interior regarding the conveyance of Bureau of
Reclamation property in Yuma. GSA has broad discretion in the
development of a disposal plan and has linked its budget to performance
for measuring disposal cycle time. It is possible that the
administrative process could be faster at this time without the
legislation. Public benefit conveyances are generally concluded within
12 months time.
Question 4. What does that process entail?
Answer. GSA's process under the Federal Property Act ensures that
the Federal government recycles its real property assets with other
executive agencies to minimize the cost outlay for new land
acquisitions. After this federal screening to determine whether another
Federal agency needs the property in question, GSA conducts a public
body screening whereby the property is made available to public bodies
for public use. Real property can be conveyed for public education,
public health, law enforcement, fire and rescue, homeless, park and
recreational use among others uses. These types of conveyances require
an application showing the intended program of use and are available
with discounts in value up to 100%.
Question 5. What role would the Bureau of Reclamation have in a GSA
administrative land transfer?
Answer. Once Reclamation makes a determination that the lands are
excess to its project needs and turns the lands over to GSA, we have no
more direct involvement with the transfer.
Question 6. Does S. 1529 accomplish the same purpose as the GSA
process you described without having to go through all this red tape?
Answer. Yes.
Question 7. The legislation would also go a step further and allow
the Bureau to have clear title to the railroad line-is that correct?
Answer. That is correct. Reclamation requires clear title to the
track in order to be able to maintain and operate the track for the
purpose of delivering chemicals to the Yuma Desalting Plant.
Response to Question From Senator Murkowski on S. 1760
Question 1. What are the outstanding capital obligations owed to
the Bureau by the two Irrigation Districts at issue?
Answer. The remaining construction obligation for the Medford
Irrigation District is $589,760.32. The remaining construction
obligation for the Rogue River Valley Irrigation District is
$436,920.00.
Responses to Questions From Senator Johnson on S. 1025
Question 1. If I understand your testimony, Reclamation has
participated in a demonstration project associated with the Equus Beds
Division.
Has the overall project been the subject of a feasibility
assessment? If so, what was the result?
Answer. Yes, a feasibility assessment by the city of Wichita was
completed in April 2000. It was concluded the project was feasible and
suitable for full scale implementation.
Question 2. Is it Reclamation's position that the project is a good
one--but there are simply no federal dollars to support it?
Answer. Although the project has merit, given Reclamation's already
tight budget, we are not in a position to support the addition of this
project to the list of unfunded projects already authorized and
awaiting Federal funding.
Responses to Questions From Senator Johnson on S. 1498
Question 1. Your testimony indicates that Reclamation is close to
executing an MOU with the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District,
and will then need to thoroughly discuss issues associated with the
transfer. Do you anticipate some difficult issues arising?
Answer. While we have not yet identified all of the issues, we do
not anticipate any at this point that cannot be resolved. A partial
list of potential issues to address includes access to remaining
project facilities for operation and maintenance, and the completion of
a valuation of the facilities. This valuation would also include an
analysis, to be conducted in cooperation with the Western Area Power
Administration, of the payments necessary to fulfill the aid-to
irrigation obligation associated with the facilities proposed to be
transferred. While the District has fulfilled its contractually-
required repayment obligation, remaining costs for construction of the
irrigation features that were considered beyond the District's ability-
to-pay are being paid by the power customers as ``aid to irrigation.''
Further, we need to determine the potential impacts of this transfer
with, and on, other C-BT contractors and stakeholders to make sure that
we protect their interests and ensure that there are no unintended
consequences of this proposed transfer. While we have no indications
that this will be a complicated effort, we believe it is important to
complete this process before the transfer legislation is enacted.
In addition, there has been a long-standing issue regarding
ownership of the South Platte Supply Canal, one of the features
proposed for transfer. While we are not aware of any formal opposition
to the legislation from affected ditch companies, Reclamation has only
had the opportunity to briefly discuss the legislation with one of the
ditch companies.
Question 2. The bill directs the Secretary of Treasury to transfer
an unspecified amount of money from the Reclamation Fund to the
Secretary of the Interior. What is the purpose of this transfer and how
will that funding be utilized?
Answer. We believe the intent of this section is to address payment
of the remaining costs for construction of the irrigation features from
power revenues (aid to irrigation) in the Pick Sloan Missouri Basin
Program that were considered beyond the ability-to-pay of the District.
The current language is unclear. In its place we suggest language
similar to what was included in P.L. 106-376 addressing this issue.
Question 3. Section 2 of the bill states: ``The Secretary shall, as
soon as practicable after the date of the enactment of this Act and in
accordance with all applicable law, convey to the District all right,
title, and interest in and to the transferred water distribution
facilities.'' Pursuant to this language, would Reclamation perform any
NEPA analysis or ESA consultation as part of the title transfer
process? If not, would there be any opportunity to identify any
environmental issues that may arise as a result of the transfer?
Answer. The language quoted is the same language as in Public Law
106-376, which directed the transfer of certain other single
distribution features of the Colorado-Big Thompson Project. Based on
advice from the Office of the Solicitor, Reclamation determined that
the transfer of title to the facilities pursuant to P.L. 106-376 was a
non-discretionary Federal action and consequently NEPA and ESA
requirements were not triggered. One of the reasons that we believe
this transfer is premature is that we have had no opportunity to
identify any environmental issues that could arise as part of the
transfer. More time to work on this proposed transfer would enable us
to identify environmental issues and work towards a solution in advance
of or as part of the legislative process.
Responses to Questions From Senator Johnson on S. 1529
Question 1. Has there ever been any attempt by the City of Yuma or
Reclamation to clear title to the railroad parcels? Is it the
Administration's position that it already owns fee title to the
railroad parcels? Is there any chance that either the City or
Reclamation could recover on a claim against the Southern Pacific
Transportation Co., which allegedly sold the parcels to each party?
Answer. Railroad parcels were sold to the City of Yuma in 1974 by
SPTC with no exemptions for the actual railroad track. In 1989 SPTC
quit claimed the railroad track in its entirety to Reclamation (United
States of America). Discussions have been held between the City of Yuma
and Reclamation regarding title to the railroad track parcels. No
agreements were reached. The Southern Pacific Transportation Co. (SPTC)
also attempted to reconcile the error in approximately 1990. However,
all of SPTC's interests were sold to Union Pacific Railroad prior to
completion of any correction to the title. Reclamation could clear
title to the railroad parcels through a judicial quiet title process.
This would result in either a finding that the United States has title
to the parcels at issue or a finding that the City has a valid claim
and obtaining clear title would require the use of the United States'
eminent domain powers and compensation for the City. There is a chance
that the City or Reclamation could recover against SPTC but without
more development of the underlying facts it is hard to predict the
outcome of such a case, especially given that SPTC no longer exists.
Question 2. Given your testimony that S. 1529 does not represent an
equal value exchange, is it a correct to state that Reclamation does
not believe clearing title to the railroad parcels has significant
value?
Answer. Having the ability to maintain and operate the railroad
track is critical to the delivery of materials to the Yuma Desalting
Plant. Because of the disputed title it is difficult to determine the
monetary value of the railroad track parcels to Reclamation. However,
Reclamation will need to clear title in order to protect the integrity
of the track and guarantee our ability to deliver chemicals to the Yuma
Desalting Plant.
Question 3. You refer to GSA's criteria for land transfers that
provide no compensation to the federal government. Can you give us an
idea as to what those criteria are?
Answer. GSA has prepared a brochure on this subject, available in
pdf format at http://rc.gsa.gov/resourcecenter/PublicPages/
default.asp?type=3&page=2 Generally, Federal properties that are no
longer needed by the Federal Government may be made available for
public uses to state and local governments, regional agencies, and non-
profit organizations. Public uses for properties are those that are
accessible to and can be shared by all members of a community, and
include community centers, schools and colleges, parks, municipal
buildings, and many other public uses. As explained in the GSA
brochure, there are many different classes of public benefit
conveyances, each sponsored by a designated Federal agency which is
responsible for reviewing the application for the public benefit
conveyance, educating the grantee of the conditions of the conveyance
and deeding the property to the new owner where appropriate. Types of
public benefit conveyances that may apply to the lands in Yuma include
conveyance for the protection of public health, a program administered
by the Department of Health and Human Services, and conveyance for a
public park or recreation area, administered by the National Park
Service. These types of conveyances allow a discount of up to 100% of
the value of the property. If the City of Yuma's intended uses of the
properties did not qualify for these programs, they might qualify for a
negotiated sale, a transaction in which the Federal Government offers
state and local governments the right to purchase property at appraised
fair market value before it is offered to the general public.
Negotiated sales must be conveyed with a public use in mind, such as a
city municipal or administrative building, or redevelopment of the
parcel of land.
Response to Question From Senator Johnson on S. 1578
Question 1. Your support for this legislation seems to indicate
that the Administration views the programs as successful in improving
the status of the endangered species involved.
Is that indeed the case? Are these programs a good model for
addressing endangered species requirements?
Answer. The Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program
and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program are
national models of cost-effective, collaborative efforts to recover
endangered fish while managing water to serve human needs. The ongoing
progress toward these programs' success has been recognized by State
and Federal leaders throughout the country.
Recovery is defined as an ``improvement in the status of listed
species to the point at which listing is no longer appropriate under
the criteria set out in Sec. 4(a)(1) of the Endangered Species Act.''
50 C.F.R. Sec. 402.02. Whether a species should be downlisted or
delisted is based upon a 5 factor analysis of such threats as habitat
destruction, disease or predation, overutilization for commercial or
recreational purposes, inadequate regulatory mechanisms, and other
natural or manmade factors. 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1533(a). Management actions
implemented by the recovery programs to reduce or remove the threats to
the survival of the endangered fish species show success.
There are five populations of humpback chub and two populations of
Colorado pikeminnow in the Upper Colorado River Basin. Stocked Colorado
pikeminnow are surviving, stocked razorback sucker are reproducing, and
recaptures of stocked bonytail indicate good growth and survival.
Other species conservation or recovery partnerships have consulted
with the Upper Colorado River and San Juan River programs for guidance
to structure and implement similar programs for (as examples) the
Klamath River Basin, June sucker, Virgin River, and Rio Grande.
The Department of the Interior fully supports these recovery
programs, as illustrated by the following quotes by Secretary of the
Interior Gale Norton:
``Meeting the needs of endangered species while respecting
the legal rights of water users has been a priority of the
Department of the Interior under this Administration. In the
Upper Basin, we have had success building multi-stakeholder
programs to address the needs of listed species. The Upper
Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program [is an example]
of how a broad group of stakeholders--including federal, state,
tribal, and private interests--can work together to improve
water management on the Colorado [River].'' (Excerpted)
Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton, December 11, 2003
Colorado River Water Users Association Annual Meeting, Las
Vegas, Nevada
______
``The programs [San Juan River Basin and Upper Colorado
River] are engaged in the hard, day to day work of recovering
endangered species. They provide Endangered Species Act
compliance for more than 800 water projects. Amazingly, no
lawsuits have been filed on ESA compliance on any of those
water projects. The Upper Colorado program has become a
national model for recovering endangered species while
addressing the demand for water development to support growing
western communities.''
Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton, January 28, 2005
Colorado Water Congress 47th Annual Convention, Denver,
Colorado
Response to Question From Senator Johnson on S. 1760
Question 1. You indicate that only one of the three irrigation
districts involved in the Rogue River project had a repayment contracts
that allowed for early repayment.
Was there any policy reason at the time the contracts were
developed for treating the districts differently?
Answer. Nothing could be found within Reclamation's records that
indicated a policy decision was made to treat the districts
differently. Because contracts are in fact individually negotiated
agreements, it is not uncommon to have contracts in the same project
area with different contract language.
______
Response of Jerry Blain to Question From Senator Johnson
Question 1. S. 1025 Calls for a 25% federal investment, up to $30
million, in support of the project. Is the project viable if that
funding is not available?
Answer. Wichita, KS and the surrounding region of nearly 500,000
citizens must clearly have a reliable supply of water. Current
projections indicate that water demands will exceed available supplies
in the Wichita area in approximately 10 years. Therefore, the City will
proceed with the project with or without federal investment.
Nonetheless, federal investment in the project is appropriate for a
number of reasons:
The project is innovative and breaks new ground in Kansas
for developing a sustainable water supply. The information
gained from this project will have water supply implications
beyond Kansas.
The project serves more than a regional water supply
interest. Without this project, water resources for a
significant agricultural area will be negatively impacted both
in terms of water quality and water quantity. Those parties are
not being asked to participate in the cost.
______
[Responses to the following questions were not received at
the time the hearing went to press:]
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC, October 11, 2005.
Hon. Larry Nelson,
Mayor, City of Yuma, Arizona.
Dear Mayor Nelson: I would like to take this opportunity to thank
you for appearing before the Senate Subcommittee on Water and Power of
the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on Thursday, October 6,
2005, to give testimony regarding S. 1529, to provide for the
conveyance of certain Federal land in the city of Yuma, Arizona.
Enclosed herewith please find a list of questions which have been
submitted for the record. If possible, I would like to have your
response to these questions by Friday, October 28, 2005.
Thank you in advance for your prompt consideration.
Sincerely,
Lisa Murkowski,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Water and Power.
[Enclosure.]
Question for Lawrence K. Nelson From Senator Murkowski
Question 1. I assume the City would prefer to accomplish this
conveyance via the legislative route-is that correct?
Questions for Lawrence K. Nelson From Senator Johnson
Question 1. Does the City of Yuma believe that it presently holds
fee title to the railroad parcels?
Question 2. Reclamation has proposed language that would
incorporate GSA criteria for the exchange. Is that language acceptable
to the City?
______
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC, October 11, 2005.
Hon. Jim Witwer,
Northern Colorado Water Conservancy.
Dear Mr. Witwer: I would like to take this opportunity to thank you
for appearing before the Senate Subcommittee on Water and Power of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on Thursday, October 6, 2005,
to give testimony regarding S. 1498, to direct the Secretary of the
Interior to convey certain water distribution facilities to the
Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District.
Enclosed herewith please find a list of questions which have been
submitted for the record. If possible, I would like to have your
response to these questions by Friday, October 28, 2005.
Thank you in advance for your prompt consideration.
Sincerely,
Lisa Murkowski,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Water and Power.
[Enclosure.]
Question for James S. Witwer From Senator Johnson
Question 1. The bill directs the Secretary of Treasury to transfer
an unspecified amount of money from the Reclamation Fund to the
Secretary of the Interior. What is the purpose of this transfer and how
is it anticipated that the funding will be utilized?
Appendix II
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
Left Hand Water District,
Niwot, CO, July 21, 2005.
Hon. Wayne Allard, Ken Salazar, Marilyn Musgrave, and Mark Udall,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Allard and Salazar and Representatives Musgrave and
Udall: I am writing on behalf of the Left Hand Water District to voice
our support for the proposed title transfer of single-purpose water
conveyance facilities within the Colorado-Big Thompson (C-BT) Project.
These facilities include the St. Vrain Supply Canal the Boulder Creek
Feeder Canal, the Boulder Creek Supply Canal, and the South Platte
Supply Canal.
As a C-BT Project water user and dependent upon the St. Vrain
Supply Canal and Boulder Feeder Canal for a portion of our water
supply, we feel this title transfer is in the best interests of our
constituents. We have benefited from the Northern Colorado Water
Conservancy District's operations of the facilities over the past 48
years. Their high standard of facilities maintenance and their ability
to work progressively with water users if and when issues arise have
enhanced the reliability of the supplies we receive from the C-BT
Project.
We wholeheartedly support the title transfer of these single-
purpose water conveyance facilities from the United States to the
Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District.
Sincerely,
Kathy Peterson,
General Manager.
______
New Consolidated Lower Boulder Reservoir & Ditch Company,
Longmont, CO, July 22, 2005.
Hon. Wayne Allard, Ken Salazar, Marilyn Musgrave, and Mark Udall,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Allard and Salazar and Representatives Musgrave and
Udall: I am writing on behalf of the New Consolidated Lower Boulder
Reservoir and Ditch Company to voice our support for the proposed title
transfer of single-purpose water conveyance facilities within the
Colorado-Big Thompson (C-BT) Project. These facilities include the St.
Vrain Supply Canal the Boulder Creek Feeder Canal, the Boulder Creek
Supply Canal, and the South Platte Supply Canal.
As a C-BT Project water user and dependent upon the St. Vrain
Supply Canal and (Boulder Supply/Boulder Feeder and/or South Platte
Supply) Canal for a portion of our water supply, we feel this title
transfer is in the best interests of our constituents. We have
benefited from the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District's
operations of the facilities over the past 48 years. Their high
standard of canal maintenance and their ability to work with water
users if and when issues arise have enhanced the reliability of the
supplies we receive from the C-BT Project.
We wholeheartedly support the title transfer of these single-
purpose water conveyance facilities from the United States to the
Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District.
Sincerely,
David J. Yardley,
Secretary.
______
City of Longmont, Colorado,
Water/Wastewater Utilities Department,
Longmont, CO, July 22, 2005.
Hon. Wayne Allard,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Allard: I am writing on behalf of the City of Longmont
Water/Wastewater Utilities to voice our support for the proposed title
transfer of single-purpose water conveyance facilities within the
Colorado-Big Thompson (C-BT) Project. These facilities include the St.
Vrain Supply Canal, the Boulder Creek Feeder Canal, the Boulder Creek
Supply Canal, and the South Platte Supply Canal.
As a C-BT Project water user, Longmont has and will continue to
rely on the St. Vrain Supply Canal for delivery of a critical portion
of our water supply. I feel this title transfer is in the best
interests of our customers by placing both the ownership as well as the
responsibility to maintain the Canal with the Northern Colorado Water
Conservancy District. This action will assist in ensuring that the St.
Vrain Supply Canal continues to reliably deliver water to Longmont as
well as many other water users in the St. Vrain Valley.
Longmont's water customers have benefited from the Northern
Colorado Water Conservancy District's operations of the facilities over
the past 48 years. Their local presence, along with their high standard
of canal maintenance and ability to work with water users if and when
issues arise, has enhanced the reliability of the supplies we receive
from the C-BT Project.
I wholeheartedly support the title transfer of these single-purpose
water conveyance facilities from the United States to the Northern
Colorado Water Conservancy District.
Sincerely,
Dale F. Rademacher,
Director.
______
Vranesh and Raisch, LLP,
Attorneys at Law,
Boulder, CO, July 22, 2005.
Hon. Wayne Allard, Ken Salazar, Marilyn Musgrave, and Mark Udall,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Allard and Salazar and Representatives Musgrave and
Udall: I am writing on behalf of the Town of Erie to voice its support
for the proposed title transfer of single-purpose water conveyance
facilities within the Colorado-Big Thompson (C-BT) Project. These
facilities include the St. Vrain Supply Canal, the Boulder Creek Feeder
Canal, the Boulder Creek Supply Canal, and the South Platte Supply
Canal.
CBT water comprises an important component of the Town's water
portfolio. As a C-BT Project water user and one which will rely upon
the St. Vrain Supply Canal and the Boulder Supply/Boulder Feeder Canals
for a portion of the Town's water supply, Erie feels this title
transfer is in the best interests of its constituents. The Northern
Colorado Water Conservancy District's high standard of canal
maintenance and their ability to work with water users if and when
issues arise have enhanced the reliability of the supplies the Town
receives from the C-BT Project.
The Town of Erie wholeheartedly supports the title transfer of
these single-purpose water conveyance facilities from the United States
to the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. Please feel free
to contact me with any questions.
Sincerely,
Paul K. Zilis.
______
New Coal Ridge Ditch Company,
Longmont, CO, July 25, 2005.
Hon. Wayne Allard, Ken Salazar, Marilyn Musgrave, and Mark Udall,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Allard and Salazar and Representatives Musgrave and
Udall: I am writing on behalf of the New Coal Ridge Ditch Company
(``Company'') to voice our support for the proposed title transfer of
single-purpose water conveyance facilities within the Colorado-Big
Thompson (C-BT) Project. The Company depends upon the Saint Vrain
Supply Canal, the Boulder Creek Supply Canal and the South Platte
Supply Canal for a portion of its water supply. The Company believes
this title transfer is in the best interests of its shareholders. The
Company has benefited from the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy
District's operations of the facilities over the past 48 years, their
high standard of canal maintenance and their ability to work with water
users if and when issues arise have enhanced the reliability of the
supplies the Company receives from the C-BT Project.
The Company supports the title transfer of facilities from the
United States to the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District.
Sincerely,
Alfred Sater,
President.
______
City of Boulder, Colorado,
City Council Office,
Boulder, CO, July 27, 2005.
Hon. Wayne Allard, Ken Salazar, Marilyn Musgrave, and Mark Udall,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Allard and Salazar and Representatives Musgrave and
Udall: I am writing on behalf of the City of Boulder to voice the
City's support for the proposed title transfer of single-purpose water
conveyance facilities within the southern portion of the Colorado-Big
Thompson (CBT) Project. These facilities include the St. Vrain Supply
Canal, the Boulder Creek Feeder Canal, the Boulder Creek Supply Canal,
and the South Platte Supply Canal.
The City of Boulder is a CBT Project allottee and a Windy Gap
Project allottee. These water supplies are delivered to Boulder through
the St. Vrain Supply Canal and Boulder Feeder Canal into Boulder
Reservoir. The City obtains half of its municipal water supply from CBT
water either used directly at the Boulder Reservoir Water Treatment
Plant or exchanged to diversion points on Boulder Creek tributaries
through the Boulder Supply Canal. Due to the City's great reliance on
these facilities, we believe this title transfer is beneficial to our
citizens. The Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District has done a
superior job of maintaining and operating these facilities since 1957
when the facilities first went into operation. The District has adhered
to a very high standard of canal maintenance and has operated in a
cost-efficient manner. Based on the District's proven record of working
closely with water users to be responsive to their needs, we are
confident that the title transfer of these facilities will continue and
enhance the reliability of the water supplies we receive from the CBT
Project.
The City of Boulder strongly supports the title transfer of these
single-purpose water conveyance facilities from the United States to
the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District.
Thank you for your consideration of this proposal.
Sincerely,
Mark Ruzzin,
Mayor.
______
State of New Mexico,
Office of the Governor,
Santa Fe, NM, September 8, 2005.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Chairman, Water and Power Subcommittee, Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Re: Support for Enactment of S. 1578, the Upper Colorado and San Juan
Basin Endangered Fish Recovery Implementation Programs Reauthorization
Act of 2005
Dear Chairman Murkowski: On July 29, 2005, Senator Allard, along
with co-sponsors from the States of Colorado and Utah, introduced S.
1578, the Upper Colorado and San Juan Basin Endangered Fish Recovery
Implementation Programs Reauthorization Act of 2005. I am writing to
express my strong support for this bill and to urge its enactment into
law as soon as possible.
This bill is needed for completion of the capital construction
projects associated with the San Juan River Basin Recovery
Implementation Program and the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish
Recovery Program. Successful completion of these programs is necessary
to provide Endangered Species Act compliance for the states to develop
and use their compact-apportioned waters. Enactment of S. 1578 will
amend Public Law 106-392 by extending the construction authorization
period for both the Upper Colorado and San Juan River recovery programs
from 2008 to September 30, 2010. In addition, the bill increases the
authorized ceiling by $15.0 million for capital construction for the
Upper Colorado River Program to address a recognized shortfall of
measures to recover endangered fish species.
The goals of these two successful programs are to recover the
Colorado River endangered fish species and to allow water development
in the Upper Colorado and San Juan river basins to proceed in
compliance with state laws, interstate compacts, the Endangered Species
Act, other federal laws, and Indian trust responsibilities.
New Mexico is most appreciative of the Subcommittee's past support
of the authorizing legislation for the capital construction activities
of the two recovery programs and again seeks your assistance in
accomplishing the necessary extension of time period and increase in
authorization ceiling. Thank you for your consideration of this
request.
Sincerely,
Bill Richardson,
Governor.
______
State of Colorado,
Executive Chambers,
Denver, CO, September 20, 2005.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Chairman, Water and Power Subcommittee, Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Murkowski: On July 29th, Senator Allard,, along with
his colleagues from the States of Colorado and Utah. introduced S.
1578, the Upper Colorado and San Juan Basin Endangered Fish Recovery
Implementation Programs Reauthorization Act of 2005. I am writing to
express my strong support for this bill and to urge its enactment into
law as soon as possible.
This bill is needed to allow completion of the capital construction
projects associated with the Upper Colorado River and San Juan River
Basin Recovery Implementation Programs. Its enactment will amend Public
Law 106-392 by increasing the authorized ceiling by $15.0 Million for
capital construction for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish
Recovery Program. In addition, the measure extends the construction
authorization period for both the Upper Colorado and San Juan River
recovery programs from 2008 to September 30, 2010.
The goal of these two successful programs is to recover the
Colorado River endangered fish species in a manner that is consistent
with state and tribal laws, interstate compacts, the Endangered Species
Act, other federal laws, and Indian trust responsibilities.
Thank you for your consideration of this request. Sincerely,
Sincerely,
Bill Owens,
Governor.
______
Central Utah Water Conservancy District,
Orem UT, September 28, 2005.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Chairman, Water and Power Subcommittee, Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Tim Johnson,
Ranking Member, Water and Power Subcommittee, Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Re: Support for S. 1578: To Reauthorize the Upper Colorado and San Juan
River Endangered Fish Recovery Implementation Programs--October 6, 2005
Hearing
Dear Senator Murkowski and Senator Johnson: We are requesting that
the Subcommittee on Water and Power approve S. 1578, the bill to
reauthorize the Upper Colorado River and San Juan River basins
endangered fish recovery programs. These programs are recovering
endangered fish species in a manner that is compatible with state
wildlife and water law. The programs provide ESA compliance for more
than 800 water projects, including federal Reclamation projects and
tribal projects in the Upper Colorado River and San Juan River basins.
The programs have enjoyed bipartisan support both in Congress and
through several administrations since 1988.
We would appreciate your continued support of these two vital
programs with approval of S. 1578.
Sincerely,
Don A. Christiansen,
General Manager.
______
Tri-County Water Conservancy District,
Montrose, CO, September 28, 2005.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Chairman, Water and Power Subcommittee, Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Tim Johnson,
Ranking Member, Water and Power Subcommittee, Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Re: Support for S. 1578: To Reauthorize the Upper Colorado and San Juan
River Endangered Fish Recovery Implementation Programs--October 6, 2005
Hearing
Dear Senator Murkowski and Senator Johnson: We are requesting that
the Subcommittee on Water and Power approve S. 1578. the bill to
reauthorize the Upper Colorado River and San Juan River basins
endangered fish recovery programs. These programs are recovering
endangered fish species in a manner that is compatible with state
wildlife and water law. The programs provide ESA compliance for more
than 800 water projects, including federal Reclamation projects and
tribal projects in the Upper Colorado River and San Juan River basins.
The programs have enjoyed bipartisan support both in Congress and
through several administrations since 1988.
We would appreciate your continued support of these two vital
programs with approval of S. 1578.
Sincerely,
Mike Berry,
Manager.
______
Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District,
Gunnison, CO, September 28, 2005.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Chairman, Water and Power Subcommittee, Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Tim Johnson,
Ranking Member, Water and Power Subcommittee, Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Re: Support for S. 1578: To Reauthorize the Upper Colorado and San Juan
River Endangered Fish Recovery Implementation Programs--October 6, 2005
Hearing
Dear Senator Murkowski and Senator Johnson: We are requesting that
the Subcommittee on Water and Power approve S. 1578, the bill to
reauthorize the Upper Colorado River and San Juan River basins
endangered fish recovery programs. These programs are recovering
endangered fish species in a manner that is compatible with state
wildlife and water law. The programs provide ESA compliance for more
than 800 water projects, including federal Reclamation projects and
tribal projects in the Upper Colorado River and San Juan River basins.
The program is very important to water users through out the Upper
Colorado River and San Juan River Basins.
The programs have enjoyed bipartisan support both in Congress and
through several administrations since 1988. We would appreciate your
continued support of these two vital programs with approval of S. 1578.
Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions or
comments.
Sincerely,
Karen H. Shirley,
District Manager.
______
Colorado Water Congress,
Denver, CO, September 28, 2005.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Chairman, Water and Power Subcommittee, Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Tim Johnson,
Ranking Member, Water and Power Subcommittee, Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Re: Support for S. 1578: To Reauthorize the Upper Colorado and San Juan
River Endangered Fish Recovery Implementation Programs--October 6, 2005
Hearing
Dear Senator Murkowski and Senator Johnson: The Colorado Water
Congress is a statewide organization of municipal, agricultural,
industrial, and recreational water users. The Colorado Water Congress
joins the governors of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming in
requesting that the Subcommittee on Water and Power approve S. 1578,
the bill to reauthorize the Upper Colorado River and San Juan River
basins endangered fish recovery programs. These programs are recovering
endangered fish species in a manner that is compatible with state
wildlife and water law. The programs provide ESA compliance for more
than 800 water projects, including federal Reclamation projects and
tribal projects in the Upper Colorado River and San Juan River basins.
The requested increase in authorization ceiling of $15 million is
needed to complete the capital construction program in the Upper
Colorado River Basin. The increase is justified based on increased
energy costs, increased price of construction materials, including
steel and cement, and some unanticipated construction difficulties
resulting from site-specific design considerations. The requested two
year time extension is needed to keep appropriations requests at levels
similar to previous year.
An additional $11 million in non-federal cost sharing is being
provided, bringing the total requested authorization to $126 million.
Of this amount, $65 million is being provided in non-federal cost share
from the states, water users, and power users, and $61 million in
federal appropriations.
The programs have enjoyed bipartisan support both in Congress and
through several administrations since 1988. They have been cited by
various administrations as ``success stories'' and as a ``model of how
the Endangered Species Act should be implemented.''
We would appreciate your continued support of these two vital
programs with approval of S. 1578.
Sincerely,
Tom Pitts,
Project Coordinator,
Special Project on Threatened and Endangered Species.
______
San Juan Water Commission,
Farmington, NM, September 29, 2005.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Chairman, Water and Power Subcommittee, Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Re: Support for S. 1578: To Reauthorize the Upper Colorado and San Juan
River Endangered Fish Recovery Implementation Programs--October 6, 2005
Hearing
Dear Senator Murkowski: We are requesting that the Subcommittee on
Water and Power approve S. 1578, the bill to reauthorize the Upper
Colorado River and San Juan River basins endangered fish recovery
programs. These programs are recovering endangered fish species in a
manner that is compatible with state wildlife and water law. The
programs provide ESA compliance for more than 800 water projects,
including federal Reclamation projects and tribal projects in the Upper
Colorado River and San Juan River basins.
The programs have enjoyed bipartisan support both in Congress and
through several administrations since 1988.
We would appreciate your continued support of these two vital
programs with approval of S. 1578.
Sincerely,
L. Randy Kirkpatrick,
Executive Director.
______
APS, a Subsidiary of Pinnale West Capital
Corporation,
Four Corners Power Plant,
Fruitland, NM, September 30, 2005.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Chairman, Water and Power Subcommittee, Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Tim Johnson,
Ranking Member, Water and Power Subcommittee, Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Re: Support for S. 1578: To Reauthorize the Upper Colorado and San Juan
River Endangered Fish Recovery Implementation Programs--October 6, 2005
Hearing
Dear Senator Murkowski and Senator Johnson: We are requesting that
the Subcommittee on Water and Power approve S. 1578, the bill to
reauthorize the Upper Colorado River and San Juan River basins
endangered fish recovery programs. These programs are recovering
endangered fish species in a manner that is compatible with state
wildlife and water law. The programs provide ESA compliance for more
than 800 water projects, including federal Reclamation projects and
tribal projects in the Upper Colorado River and San Juan River basins.
The programs have enjoyed bipartisan support both in Congress and
through several administrations since 1988. We would appreciate your
continued support of these two vital programs with approval of S. 1578.
Sincerely,
David L. Saliba,
Plant Manager.
______
Colorado River Energy Distributors Association,
Tempe, AZ, September 30, 2005.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Chairman, Water and Power Subcommittee, Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Tim Johnson,
Ranking Member, Water and Power Subcommittee, Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Re: Support for S. 1578: To Reauthorize the Upper Colorado and San Juan
River Endangered Fish Recovery Implementation Programs--October 6, 2005
Hearing
Dear Senator Murkowski and Senator Johnson: The Colorado River
Energy Distributors Association (CREDA) is a non-profit organization
comprised of 155 electric systems in the states of Arizona, Colorado,
New Mexico, Nevada, Wyoming and Utah, who are firm power customers of
the Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP). CREDA is also an active
participant in the technical and policy committees of the Upper Basin
Endangered Fish Recovery Implementation Program (RIP), and CRSP power
revenues have funded both capital ($17 million) and o&m (up to $6
million annually) aspects of the RIP.
CREDA testified in support of the RIP at the time of original
authorization, and supports passage of S. 1578. The bill requests a $15
million increase in the authorization ceiling, as well as a two-year
time extension. Further, the bill provides an additional $11 million in
non-federal cost sharing. This increase results in a total program
authorization of $126 million, $61 million of which is provided by
federal appropriations. The increase in funding and time extension is
necessary for the program to complete construction of the capital
features and to keep appropriations requests at levels similar to the
previous year.
CREDA would appreciate your support of the program through passage
of S. 1578.
Sincerely,
Leslie James,
Executive Director.
______
Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District,
Tempe, AZ, September 30, 2005.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Chairman, Water and Power Subcommittee, Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Tim Johnson,
Ranking Member, Water and Power Subcommittee, Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Re: Support for S. 1578: To Reauthorize the Upper Colorado and San Juan
River Endangered Fish Recovery Implementation Programs--October 6, 2005
Hearing
Dear Senator Murkowski and Senator Johnson: On behalf of the Board
of Directors of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, I am
requesting that the Subcommittee on Water and Power approve S. 1578,
the bill to reauthorize the Upper Colorado River Basin and San Juan
River Basin endangered fish recovery programs. These programs are
recovering endangered fish species in a manner that is compatible with
state law. The programs provide ESA compliance for more than 800 water
projects, including federal Reclamation projects and tribal projects in
the Upper Colorado River and San Juan River basins.
The programs have enjoyed bipartisan support both in Congress and
through several administrations since 1988.
We would appreciate your continued support of these two vital
programs with approval of S. 1578.
Sincerely,
Eric W. Wilkinson,
General Manager.
______
City of Aurora, CO,
Water Department Administration,
Aurora, CO, October 2, 2005.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Chairman, Water and Power Subcommittee, Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Tim Johnson,
Ranking Member, Water and Power Subcommittee, Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Re: Support for S. 1578: To Reauthorize the Upper Colorado and San Juan
River Endangered Fish Recovery Implementation Programs--October 6, 2005
Hearing
Dear Senator Murkowski and Senator Johnson: We are requesting that
the Subcommittee on Water and Power approve S. 1578, the bill to
reauthorize the Upper Colorado River and San Juan River basins
endangered fish recovery programs. These programs are recovering
endangered fish species in a manner that is compatible with state
wildlife and water law. The programs provide ESA compliance for more
than 800 water projects, including federal Reclamation projects and
tribal projects in the Upper Colorado River and San Juan River basins.
The programs have enjoyed bipartisan support both in Congress and
through several administrations since 1988.
We would appreciate your continued support of these two vital
programs with approval of S. 1578.
Sincerely,
Peter D. Binney,
Director.
______
Denver Water,
Denver, CO, October 3, 2005.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Chairman, Water and Power Subcommittee, Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Tim Johnson,
Ranking Member, Water and Power Subcommittee, Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Re: Support for S. 1578: To Reauthorize the Upper Colorado and San Juan
River Endangered Fish Recovery Implementation Programs--October 6, 2005
Hearing
Dear Senator Murkowski and Senator Johnson: Denver Water is
requesting that the Subcommittee on Water and Power approve S. 1578,
the bill to reauthorize the Upper Colorado River and San Juan River
basins endangered fish recovery programs. These programs are recovering
endangered fish species in a manner that is compatible with state
wildlife and water law. The programs provide ESA compliance for more
than 800 water projects, including federal Reclamation projects and
tribal projects in the Upper Colorado River and San Juan River basins.
The programs have enjoyed bipartisan support both in Congress and
through several administrations since 1988.
We would appreciate your continued support of these two vital
programs with approval of S. 1578. Sincerely,
Sincerely,
H.J. Barry,
Manager.
______
Harry & David Holdings, Inc.,
Medford, OR, October 3, 2005.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Chairman, Water and Power Subcommittee, Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Murkowski: As President and CEO of Harry & David
Holdings, Inc., I ask the Committee's support for S. 1760. You may know
our Company through our holiday gift baskets or our signature products,
Harry and David's Royal Riviera' pears and Jackson &
Perkins' roses. Harry & David Holdings, Inc. is
headquartered in Medford, Oregon. In addition to our extensive fruit
growing, production and customer service operations in Oregon, we have
rose growing operations in California, a call center and distribution
facility in Ohio, and Harry and David stores in 34 states. The
thousands of employees that will benefit from the continued strength
and growth of our enterprise also ask the Committee's support for S.
1760.
Harry & David Holdings, Inc. is seeking an early-repayment option
of its financial obligations to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation so it
will have flexibility in financing the continued growth and development
of its businesses. This legislation will allow landowners in the Rogue
River Valley Irrigation District and the Medford Irrigation District to
make an EARLY repayment of their financial obligations. The only other
irrigation district in Southern Oregon, Talent Irrigation District, has
an early-repayment option in its contract. As you know, other water
districts and irrigation districts across the Reclamation West have
9(d) repayment contracts that include an early repayment option.
If Harry & David were to make an early repayment of its obligation
to the Bureau of Reclamation in all three Southern Oregon water
districts today, the income to the Bureau is estimated to be
$240,000.00.
This legislation is as important to us for what it will do, as it
is important to others in the Districts for what it will not do. It
will not modify the contractual rights that may exist between the
Districts and the United States under their respective Reclamation
contracts, or amend or reopen those contracts; nor does it modify any
rights, obligations or relationships that may exist between the
districts and their landowners as may be provided or governed by Oregon
state law.
This legislation was developed in collaboration with the Department
of the Interior, our Congressional delegation and the Southern Oregon
irrigation districts. We wish to extend our thanks to Senators Wyden
and Smith and Congressman Walden, and the Department of the Interior
for their assistance and the tremendous effort they have made in
helping us find a win/win solution.
We would appreciate the Committee's support for S. 1760's passage
and ultimate enactment into law.
Thank you for your consideration of S. 1760.
Sincerely,
William H. Williams,
President and CEO.
______
State of Wyoming,
Office of the Governor,
Cheyenne, WY, October 3, 2005.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Chairman, Water and Power Subcommittee, Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Re: Support for S. 1578, the Upper Colorado and San Juan River
Endangered Fish Recovery Implementation Programs Reauthorization Act of
2005
Dear Chairman Murkowski: On July 29th, Senator Allard, along with
his colleagues from the States of Colorado and Utah, introduced S.
1578, the Upper Colorado and San Juan Basin Endangered Fish Recovery
Implementation Programs Reauthorization Act of 2005: I am writing to
express my strong support for this bill and to urge its enactment into
law as soon as possible.
This bill is needed to allow completion of the capital construction
projects associated with the Upper Colorado River and San Juan River
Basin Recovery Implementation Programs. Its enactment will amend Public
Law 106-392 by increasing the authorized ceiling by $15.0 Million for
capital construction for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish
Recovery Program. In addition, the measure extends the construction
authorization period for both the Upper Colorado and San Juan River
recovery programs from 2008 to September 30, 2010.
The goal of these two successful programs is to recover the
Colorado River endangered fish species in a manner that is consistent
with state and tribal laws, interstate compacts, the Endangered Species
Act, other federal laws, and Indian trust responsibilities.
We are most appreciative of the Subcommittee's past support of the
authorizing legislation for the capital construction activities of the
two recovery programs and we again seek your assistance in
accomplishing the necessary extension of time period and increase in
authorization ceiling. Thank you for your consideration of this
request.
With best regards,
Dave Freudenthal,
Governor.
______
Southwestern Water Conservation District,
Durango, CO, October 4, 2005.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Chairman, Water and Power Subcommittee, Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Tim Johnson,
Ranking Member, Water and Power Subcommittee, Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Re: Support for S. 1578: To Reauthorize the Upper Colorado and San Juan
River Endangered Fish Recovery Implementation Programs--October 6, 2005
Hearing
Dear Senator Murkowski and Senator Johnson: We are requesting that
the Subcommittee on Water and Power approve S. 1578, the bill to
reauthorize the Upper Colorado River and San Juan River basins
endangered fish recovery programs. These programs are recovering
endangered fish species in a manner that is compatible with state
wildlife and water law. The programs provide ESA compliance for more
than 800 water projects, including federal Reclamation projects and
tribal projects in the Upper Colorado River and San Juan River basins.
The programs have enjoyed bipartisan support both in Congress and
through several administrations since 1988.
We would appreciate your continued support of these two vital
programs with approval of S. 1578.
Sincerely,
Fred V. Kroeger,
President.
______
Colorado River Water Conservation District,
Glenwood Springs, CO, October 4, 2005.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Chairman, Water and Power Subcommittee, Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Tim Johnson,
Ranking Member, Water and Power Subcommittee, Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Re: Support for S. 1578--October 6, 2005 Hearing
Dear Senator Murkowski and Senator Johnson: On behalf of my board
and Western Colorado, I respectfully urge the Sub-committee's approval
S. 1578, reauthorizing the Upper Colorado River and San Juan River
basins endangered fish recovery programs. Western Colorado water users
have been active partners in these two exemplary programs. These
programs are successfully recovering the listed fish species consistent
with state wildlife and water law. These two programs have been
heralded as how the current ESA can and should be administered in
cooperation with states, affected interests, and the general public.
These two programs provide ESA compliance for more than 800 water
projects, including federal Reclamation projects and tribal projects in
the Upper Colorado River and San Juan River basins.
The programs have enjoyed broad bipartisan support both in Congress
and through several administrations since 1988. We would appreciate
your continued support of these two vital programs with approval of S.
1578.
Sincerely,
R. Eric Kuhn,
General Manager.
______
Wyoming Water Association,
Cheyenne, WY, October 6, 2005.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Chairman, Water and Power Subcommittee, Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Tim Johnson,
Ranking Member, Water and Power Subcommittee, Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Re: Support for S. 1578: To Reauthorize the Upper Colorado and San Juan
River Endangered Fish Recovery Implementation Programs--October 6, 2005
Hearing
Dear Senator Murkowski and Senator Johnson: The Wyoming Water
Association supports the passage of S. 1578, a bill to reauthorize the
Upper Colorado and San Juan River Endangered Fish Recovery
Implementation Programs. The objectives of the state-wide Wyoming Water
Association are to promote the development, conservation, and
utilization of the water resources of Wyoming for the benefit of
Wyoming people. The Wyoming Water Association adopted a resolution
supporting the Upper Colorado Recovery Implementation Program at the
time the Program was initiated in January 1988 and is a participating
entity in the Upper Colorado Recovery Program. We are represented on
the Upper Colorado Recovery Program's Biology, Management and
Implementation Committees by Mr. Tom Pitts, of Water Consult, Inc. We
join our Program partners, including the States of Colorado, New
Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming and power and conservation community
interests in requesting that the Subcommittee on Water and Power
approve S. 1578.
The Upper Colorado and San Juan recovery programs are recovering
endangered fish species in a manner that is compatible with state
wildlife and water law. The programs provide ESA compliance for more
than 800 water projects, including federal Reclamation projects and
tribal projects in the Upper Colorado River and San Juan River basins.
S. 1578 has been introduced to provide an increase in the
appropriations authorization ceiling needed for the recovery programs'
capital construction projects. The bill authorizes an increase of $15
million and is both needed and justified based on increased fuel and
energy costs, increased price of construction materials (including
steel and cement) and some unanticipated construction difficulties
resulting from site-specific design considerations. The requested two-
year time extension is needed to keep appropriations requests at levels
similar to previous year's appropriations to the Bureau of Reclamation
for these necessary construction activities.
An additional $11 million in non-federal cost sharing is being
provided, bringing the total requested authorization to $126 million.
Of this amount, $65 million is being provided in non-federal cost share
from the states, water users, and power users, and $61 million in
federal appropriations.
These programs have enjoyed continued support in Congress and
involve multiple federal agency participation in their ongoing
implementation. The Wyoming Water Association is pleased to note that
these programs have been touted and held up as national models for how
resources use and development can continue in concert with Endangered
Species Act compliance under the current law.
The members of the Wyoming Water Association again request and will
greatly appreciate your continued support of these two vital programs
through approval of S. 1578.
Sincerely yours,
John W. Shields,
Executive Secretary.
______
PNM,
Albuquerque, NM, October 31, 2005.
Hon. George Radanovich,
Chair, Subcommittee on Water and Power, Resources Committee, U.S. House
of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Hon. Grace Napolitano,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water and Power, Resources Committee,
U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Support for H.R. 3153: To Reauthorize the Upper Colorado and San Juan
River Endangered Fish Recovery Implementation Programs--November 3,
2005 Hearing
Dear Chairman Radanovich and Representative Napolitano: We are
requesting that the Subcommittee on Water and Power approve H.R. 3153,
the bill to reauthorize the Upper Colorado River and San Juan River
basins endangered fish recovery programs. These programs are recovering
endangered fish species in a manner that is compatible with state
wildlife and water law. The states of Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, and New
Mexico, environmentalists, tribes, and water users are working
collaboratively with federal agencies to achieve recovery of four
endangered fish species. The programs provide ESA compliance for more
than 800 water projects, including federal Reclamation projects and
tribal projects in the Upper Colorado River and San Juan River basins.
The programs have enjoyed bipartisan support both in Congress and
through several administrations since 1988.
Please include this letter in the hearing record.
We would appreciate your continued support of these two vital
programs with approval of H.R. 3153.
Sincerely,
John Myers,
Vice President, Power Production.
______
The Nature Conservancy,
Western Resource Advocates,
October 6, 2005.
Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Chairman, Water and Power Subcommittee, Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Tim Johnson,
Ranking Member, Water and Power Subcommittee, Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Re: Support for S. 1578: To Reauthorize the Upper Colorado and San Juan
River Endangered Fish Recovery Implementation Programs--October 6, 2005
Hearing
Dear Senator Murkowski and Senator Johnson: The Nature Conservancy
and Western Resource Advocates are long-time participants as
conservation representatives to the Upper Colorado River Endangered
Fish Recovery Program. As such, we join the governors of Colorado, New
Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, and other program participants in requesting
that the Subcommittee on Water and Power approve S. 1578, the bill to
reauthorize the Upper Colorado River and San Juan River basins
endangered fish recovery programs. The Upper Colorado River Program, in
which we participate, takes a collaborative approach to endangered fish
recovery, seeking to recover species while providing for continued
human uses of water. It has been cited by various observers as a model
for implementation of the Endangered Species Act, and has enjoyed
bipartisan support both in Congress and through several administrations
since 1988.
At the same time, we would like to take this opportunity to
emphasize two additional aspects of the Upper Colorado Program, because
the continued success of this Program depends not only on the
completion of its capital components which would be made possible by
the passage of S. 1578, but also on the rigorous application of
adaptive management and on stable, long-term base funding.
Adaptive Management Framework: The Upper Colorado Program
has recently adopted a rigorous, science-based framework for
evaluating the connection between program activities and
recovery of the species. We believe this framework is necessary
to improve recovery actions over time, to ensure wise
allocation of program resources, and ultimately, to achieve
lasting recovery of the species.
Long-term Base Funding: This capital expenditure
authorization will ensure completion of important, on-the-
ground facilities that protect and enhance native endangered
fish. Equally important to capital construction, though, is the
long-term annual funding for this Program. The recovery
objective is not assured with completion of capital projects in
2010; rather, we will continue to work for years to come to
control threats to the species like predatory non-native fish,
to rear and stock the rarer species, to manage flows throughout
the basin, and to monitor the status of the species for
progress towards recovery. Stable long-term funding for on-
going recovery activities will be essential to realizing the
benefits of the capital projects and achieving self-sustaining
populations of native fish.
We are therefore pleased to express our support for the Upper
Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and would appreciate
your continued support of this vital Program by enactment of S. 1578.
Sincerely,
Dan Luecke,
Bart Miller,
Western Resource Advocates,
Robert Wigington,
Tom Iseman,
The Nature Conservancy.
______
Statement of Dave Freudenthal, Governor, State of Wyoming, on S. 1578
Madame Chairman and Members of the Water and Power Subcommittee, I
am pleased to submit this statement urging this Committee to favorably
consider, and report without amendments, S. 1578. This bill is needed
to allow completion of the capital construction projects associated
with the Upper Colorado River and San Juan River Basin Recovery
Implementation Programs, as authorized by Public Law 106-392 (and
subsequently amended by Public Law 107-395), That public law authorized
federal expenditures for the capital construction projects and
recognized cost sharing being provided by the states, power users, and
water users. This bill increases the authorized appropriations ceiling
by $26 Million: $15 Million in additional federal appropriations and
$11 Million in non-federal cost sharing; and extends the time allowed
for completion of the Programs' capital construction projects from the
end of fiscal year 2008 to September 30, 2010,
Enactment of this legislation is Important to the interests of the
State of Wyoming. Completion of the Programs' construction projects is
critical to the recovery of the Colorado River Basin endangered fish
species. The ongoing and successful Upper Colorado and San Juan every
programs have, since their initiation in 1988 and 1992, respectively,
provided a cooperative, workable and effective mechanism for continued
compliance with the Federal Endangered Species Act for hundreds of
federal and non-federal water projects in the Upper Colorado River
basin and the San Juan River basin, including projects that provide
water to meet tribal needs and that fulfill the federal government's
trust responsibility to tribes in compliance with the Endangered
Species Act. Accordingly, continuation of the implementation of these
recovery program, including the completion of the programs' capital
construction projects directly benefiting the endangered fish species
is imperative to our States' ability to continue to develop our
compact-apportioned water resources.
S. 1578 does not amend the Federal Endangered Species Act. The
measure maintains a cap and time-period sunset provision on capital
construction expenditures as established in the original authorization.
The impact on the annual federal budget of the increased appropriations
authorized by S. 1578 is not significant. From 1999 through fiscal year
2004, Congressional appropriations to the Recovery Programs averaged
$4.8 Million. Continued appropriations by Congress to the Bureau of
Reclamation at this level during fiscal years 2008 through 2010 will
provide the needed funding to complete the capital construction
projects. The time-period extension (from 2008 to 2010) authorized by
this legislation is necessary to avoid large annual increases in
Reclamation's budget--and will allow the Recovery Programs'
construction program to continue as presently staffed to complete
ongoing and planned construction projects.
The current appropriations ceiling authorized by Public Law 106-392
is $100 Million, of which $46 Million is from appropriations by
Congress, $17 Million provided by power users, $17 Million provided by
the four Upper Basin states and $20 Million in additional non-federal
funding for the cost of replacement power purchased due to modifying
the operation of the Colorado River Storage Project and the capital
cost of water dedicated to the benefit of the endangered fish and their
habitat from Wolford Mountain Reservoir in Colorado. With indexing for
inflation, the current authorized amount for projects construction in
the Upper Basin is $64.7 Million. The current total estimated cost to
complete the Recovery Programs' capital construction projects is $77.2
Million, revealing an authorization shortfall of $12.5 Million.
Accordingly, S. 1578 would authorize the expenditure of an additional
$2.5 Million, to be expended only if needed, to cover unforeseeable
increases in construction costs through 2010.
The $12.5 Million shortfall for completing the needed construction
projects arose for several reasons. The original authorization for
these Recovery Programs was enacted into law in October 2000. The cost
estimates for construction projects needed to achieve recovery of the
endangered species incorporated into Public Law 106-392 were developed
in the years prior to that enactment, e.g., in the late 1990s. While
the project list has remained materially the same since that time,
construction costs have increased faster than the consumer price index
for the last several years due to the improved economy, increased
energy costs, and increased world market demand for steel. In addition,
some unanticipated costs have been experienced with property
acquisition and access, delays in construction, and unanticipated
components of fish passages and screens specific to the Colorado River.
As noted above, Public Law 106-392 recognized as part of the non-
federal cost share a total of $20 Million for the cost of replacement
power purchased due to modifying the operation of the Colorado River
Storage Project and the capital cost of water from Wolford Mountain
Reservoir in Colorado. Revised estimates of power revenue losses due to
Colorado River Storage Project re-operation to benefit endangered
species indicate that the loss will be $7.1 million over the original
$15 million estimated. In addition, water users are providing
additional cost sharing of $3.9 million for the Elkhead reservoir
Enlargement Project, bringing the total non-federal cost sharing from
power losses and water users to $31 million, rather than $20 million
originally estimated from these sources in P.L. 106-392. This
legislation, S. 1578, recognizes and includes these additional non-
federal expenditures in its upward adjustment of the capital
construction appropriations ceiling to a total authorization of $126
Million. The non-federal share will be $65 Million and the federal
share, as adjusted upon enactment of this bill, will be $61 Million.
The Recovery Programs' dual objectives of recovery while
accommodating additional water resources development in the Basin
represent the best approach yet devised to resolving the conflict
between the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and water development
needs. State and federal agencies, Indian tribes and private
organizations are cooperating through these two recovery programs to
achieve recovery of endangered fish while meeting continuing demands
for water in the arid West. The recovery programs are serving as
national models for how willing partners can use effective,
collaborative partnerships to meet important needs.
Application of the ESA in Wyoming's portion of the Upper Colorado
River Basin has not impeded our ability to develop our water resources
since the Upper Colorado Recovery Program's initiation in 1988. This
is, in my view, a critical and key measure of the Program's success in
meeting its commitment to allowing needed water development to proceed
in compliance with the ESA. Further, the programs' participants are
making substantial progress towards recovery of the four endangered
fish species. After completing the Programs' capital construction
projects--once these facilities are ``on the ground'' and operating--we
will have taken those steps that our Program's biologists believe are
necessary for the four endangered fish species to reach self-sustaining
population levels needed for downlisitng and recovery.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony. I request,
in addition to your consideration of its contents, that you make it a
part of the formal hearing record concerning this important legislation
needed to complete the capital construction projects associated with
the Upper Colorado River and San Juan River Basin Endangered Fish
Recovery Implementation Programs.