[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 155, LOWER BRULE AND CROW CREEK TRIBAL COMPENSATION ACT; H.R.
5511, LEADVILLE MINE DRAINAGE TUNNEL REMEDIATION ACT OF 2008; AND H.R.
5710, EASTERN NEW MEXICO RURAL WATER SYSTEM AUTHORIZATION ACT.
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
Thursday, May 8, 2008
__________
Serial No. 110-69
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
42-298 PDF WASHINGTON : 2008
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Ranking Republican Member
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan Jim Saxton, New Jersey
Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Elton Gallegly, California
Samoa John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee
Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland
Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas Chris Cannon, Utah
Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado
Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Jeff Flake, Arizona
Islands Stevan Pearce, New Mexico
Grace F. Napolitano, California Henry E. Brown, Jr., South
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Carolina
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Luis G. Fortuno, Puerto Rico
Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
Jim Costa, California Louie Gohmert, Texas
Dan Boren, Oklahoma Tom Cole, Oklahoma
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Rob Bishop, Utah
George Miller, California Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania
Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts Bill Sali, Idaho
Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon Doug Lamborn, Colorado
Maurice D. Hinchey, New York Mary Fallin, Oklahoma
Patrick J. Kennedy, Rhode Island Adrian Smith, Nebraska
Ron Kind, Wisconsin Robert J. Wittman, Virginia
Lois Capps, California
Jay Inslee, Washington
Mark Udall, Colorado
Joe Baca, California
Hilda L. Solis, California
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South
Dakota
Heath Shuler, North Carolina
James H. Zoia, Chief of Staff
Rick Healy, Chief Counsel
Christopher N. Fluhr, Republican Staff Director
Lisa Pittman, Republican Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California, Chairwoman
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington, Ranking Republican Member
Jim Costa, California Ken Calvert, California
George Miller, California Doug Lamborn, Colorado
Mark Udall, Colorado Mary Fallin, Oklahoma
Joe Baca, California Adrian Smith, Nebraska
Nick J. Rahall, II, West Virginia, Don Young, Alaska, ex officio
ex officio
Vacancy
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Thursday, May 8, 2008............................ 1
Statement of Members:
Herseth Sandlin, Hon. Stephanie, a Representative in Congress
from the State of South Dakota............................. 36
Prepared statement on H.R. 155........................... 38
Lamborn, Hon. Doug, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Colorado.......................................... 3
Prepared statement on H.R. 155, H.R. 5511 and H.R. 5710.. 4
Napolitano, Hon. Grace F., a Representative in Congress from
the State of California.................................... 2
Prepared statement on H.R. 155, H.R. 5511 and H.R. 5710.. 3
Udall. Hon. Mark, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Colorado................................................ 7
Udall. Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the State
of New Mexico.............................................. 5
Prepared statement on H.R. 5710.......................... 6
Statement of Witnesses:
Hickman, Hon. Michael J., Chairman, Lake County Colorado
Board of County Commissioners, Leadville, Colorado......... 19
Prepared statement on H.R. 5511.......................... 20
Jandreau, Hon. Michael, Chairman, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe,
Lower Brule, South Dakota.................................. 12
Prepared statement on H.R. 155........................... 13
Lansford, David M., Chairman, Eastern New Mexico Rural Water
Authority, and Former Mayor, Clovis, New Mexico............ 22
Prepared statement on H.R. 5710.......................... 24
Quint, Robert, Director of Operations, Bureau of Reclamation,
U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C........... 7
Prepared statement on H.R. 155........................... 9
Prepared statement on H.R. 5511.......................... 9
Prepared statement on H.R. 5710.......................... 11
Rudolph, Martha, Director of Environmental Programs, Colorado
Department of Public Health and Environment, Denver,
Colorado................................................... 15
Prepared statement on H.R. 5511.......................... 17
Additional materials supplied:
Brumfield, Hon. Gayla, Mayor of Clovis, New Mexico, Statement
submitted for the record on H.R. 5710...................... 27
Sazue, Hon. Brandon, Chairman, Crow Creek Sioux Tribe,
Statement submitted for the record on H.R. 155............. 37
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 155, TO PROVIDE COMPENSATION TO THE LOWER
BRULE AND CROW CREEK SIOUX TRIBES OF SOUTH DAKOTA FOR DAMAGE TO TRIBAL
LAND CAUSED BY PICK-SLOAN PROJECTS ALONG THE MISSOURI RIVER (LOWER
BRULE AND CROW CREEK TRIBAL COMPENSATION ACT); H.R. 5511, TO DIRECT THE
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, ACTING THROUGH THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, TO
REMEDY PROBLEMS CAUSED BY A COLLAPSED DRAINAGE TUNNEL IN LEADVILLE,
COLORADO, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES (LEADVILLE MINE DRAINAGE TUNNEL
REMEDIATION ACT OF 2008); AND H.R. 5710, TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF
THE INTERIOR TO PROVIDE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO THE EASTERN NEW MEXICO
RURAL WATER AUTHORITY FOR THE PLANNING, DESIGN, AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE
EASTERN NEW MEXICO RURAL WATER SYSTEM, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES (EASTERN
NEW MEXICO RURAL WATER SYSTEM AUTHORIZATION ACT).
----------
Thursday, May 8, 2008
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Water and Power
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m. in
Room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Grace F.
Napolitano [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Napolitano, Udall, Lamborn, and
Herseth Sandlin.
Ms. Napolitano. The Subcommittee on Water and Power will
come to order.
The purpose of today's meeting is to hold legislative
hearings on H.R. 155, the Lower Brule and Crow Creek Tribal
Compensation Act, introduced by our colleague, Congresswoman
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin of Brookings, South Dakota; and H.R.
5511, the Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel Remediation Act of
2008--and while I am at it, this Committee has consented to
have that posted so that there is a better understanding of the
issue--introduced by a colleague and member of the
Subcommittee, Congressman Doug Lamborn of Colorado Springs,
Colorado; and H.R. 5710, the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water
System Authorization Act, introduced by our colleague
Congressman Tom Udall of Santa Fe, New Mexico.
We welcome our Congress Members, and they should be coming
in off and on. Today our acting Ranking Member will be
Congressman Doug Lamborn. We welcome our guests, expecting
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, current member of the National
Resources Committee, and Congressman Steve Pearce, Ranking
Member of Energy and Minerals Subcommittee, and Congressman Tom
Udall, a former member of the Natural Resources Committee.
I ask unanimous consent that Congresswoman Stephanie
Herseth Sandlin, Congressman Steve Pearce, and Congressman Tom
Udall be allowed to sit on the dais and participate in
Subcommittee proceedings today. And without objection, Mr.
Lamborn, so ordered.
After my statement, I will recognize all members of the
Subcommittee for any statement they may have. Any Member who
decides to be heard will be heard. Any additional material from
witnesses or anybody in the audience may be submitted for the
record, or by any other interested party, you will have 10
business days following today's hearing.
The five-minute rule with our timer will be enforced, and
you can see it right there. Green is go, yellow start winding
it out, and red, I will gavel you softly.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Ms. Napolitano. Today's hearing continues our series of
legislative briefings dedicated to the many issues that face
the West. H.R. 155, sponsored by Stephanie Herseth Sandlin,
deals with the reassessment of tribal compensation due to land
inundation.
H.R. 5511 is sponsored by Subcommittee member Doug Lamborn,
would provide the Secretary of the Interior with the authority
to address serious water contamination programs associated with
the Bureau-owned Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel.
Last, H.R. 5710, the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water Project
Act, introduced by Congressman Tom Udall of New Mexico, would
authorize the Secretary to help in the design and construction
of the Eastern New Mexico pipeline. This pipeline, when
constructed, would provide a sustainable water supply to nine
communities that currently rely on dwindling groundwater
resources.
We look forward to hearing from all our witnesses. Thank
you for being here. And I am pleased to yield to my acting
Ranking Member, Congressman Doug Lamborn, for his statement.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Napolitano follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Grace F. Napolitano,
Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Water and Power
Today's hearing continues our series of legislative briefings
dedicated to the many issues that face the west. H.R. 155 sponsored by
Rep. Herseth Sandlin deals with the reassessment of tribal compensation
due to land inundation. H.R. 5511, as sponsored by subcommittee member
Doug Lamborn, would provide the Secretary of the Interior with the
authority to address water contamination problems associated with the
Bureau owned Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel. Lastly we will hear a bill
introduced by Congressman Tom Udall of New Mexico. H.R. 5710, the
Eastern New Mexico Rural Water Project Act would authorize the
Secretary to help in the design and construction of the Eastern New
Mexico Pipeline. This pipeline when constructed would provide a
sustainable water supply to nine communities that currently rely on
dwindling groundwater resources.
We look forward to hearing from all witnesses. Thank you all for
being here today. I am pleased to now yield to my colleague and friend
from Spokane, Washington, Ranking Member Congresswoman Cathy McMorris
Rodgers for her statement.
______
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DOUG LAMBORN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Madame Chairwoman, and I appreciate
your holding this hearing today. It is a pleasure to serve as
the acting Ranking Member for today.
This is an important day for the citizens of Lake County,
Colorado, and for all those who are downstream on the Arkansas
River. They deserve to hear how the Federal government intends
to correct problems with the Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel.
The Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel was originally
constructed by the Federal Bureau of Mines in the 1940s and
1950s to facilitate the extraction of lead and zinc ore for the
World War II and the Korean War efforts. The Bureau of
Reclamation acquired the tunnel in 1959, hoping to use it as a
source of water for the Frying Pan Arkansas Project.
Although the tunnel was never used for this project, water
that flows out of the tunnel is considered part of the natural
flow of the Arkansas River.
With the passage and consequent signing into law of H.R.
429 during the 102nd Congress in 1992, the Bureau constructed
and continues to operate a water treatment plant at the mouth
of the tunnel. Groundwater levels at the tunnel have fluctuated
in recent years. In addition, a collapse in the tunnel has
increased the tunnel's mine pool significantly, leading to new
seeps and springs in the area.
Current estimates suggest that up to one billion gallons of
water may have built up within the mine pool. This is water
that is contaminated by heavy metals.
In November 2007, the EPA sent a letter to the Bureau
expressing concerns over a catastrophic blowout. And in
February of this year, the Lake County Commissioners declared a
state of emergency. One of the commissioners, Mr. Mike Hickman,
is with us today as a witness.
Another leader in this effort, State Senator Tom Wiens, was
unable to be here today, although he wanted to. He has been a
tireless worker in helping solve the problem addressed by this
bill.
With your permission, Madame Chairwoman, I would like to
submit a copy of a letter I received from the Lake County
Commissioners dated November 15, 2007, for the record.
Ms. Napolitano. So ordered, without objection.
[NOTE: The information submitted for the record has been
retained in the Committee's official files.]
Mr. Lamborn. We know that the Bureau of Reclamation is
completing a task, a risk assessment in this area, and we look
forward to reviewing that report when it is done. But many of
the problems reported at this site are not new. Legislation
addressing this matter and authorizing the Secretary of the
Interior to rehabilitate this tunnel dates back to at least
1976.
In response to the request for action from the local
community, I worked together with Congressman Mark Udall from
Colorado, who is also here today, and we introduced H.R. 5511.
This bill would direct the Bureau of Reclamation to relieve
water pressure behind certain blockages in the tunnel,
permanently manage the mine pool behind any blockage to prevent
releases of contaminated water, and eliminate the potential for
tunnel failure.
I also note, Madame Chairwoman, that we have two other
bills before us today. Mr. Tom Udall of New Mexico has
introduced a bill that authorizes Federal participation in the
Eastern New Mexico rural water supply system, and Mrs. Herseth
Sandlin's bill provides a third round of compensation to two
tribes in South Dakota.
I look forward to the testimony on all of these bills
before us today, and I thank you again for holding this
hearing. And I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lamborn follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Doug Lamborn, Acting Ranking Republican,
Subcommittee on Water and Power, on H.R. 5710
Thank you, Madame Chairwoman, for holding this hearing. It's a
pleasure to serve as the Acting Ranking Republican for today.
Today is an important day for the citizens of Lake County,
Colorado. They deserve to hear what the federal government intends to
do to correct problems with the Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel. The
Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel was originally constructed by the
federal Bureau of Mines in the 1940's and 1950's to facilitate the
extraction of lead and zinc ore for the World War II and the Korean War
efforts.
The Bureau of Reclamation acquired the Tunnel in 1959 hoping to use
the tunnel as a source of water for the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project.
Although the tunnel was never used for the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project,
water that flows out of the tunnel is considered part of the natural
flow of the Arkansas River. With the passage and subsequent signing
into law of H.R. 429 during the 102nd Congress (1992), the Bureau
constructed and continues to operate a water treatment plant at the
mouth of the Tunnel.
Groundwater levels at the tunnel have fluctuated in recent years.
In addition, a collapse in the tunnel has increased the tunnel's mine
pool significantly, leading to new seeps and springs in the area.
Current estimates suggest that up to 1 billion gallons of water may
have built up within the mine pool. In November 2007, the EPA sent a
letter to the Bureau expressing concerns over a catastrophic blowout,
and in February 2008, the Lake County Commissioners declared a state of
emergency. With your permission Madame Chairwoman, I would like to
submit a copy of a letter I received from the Lake County Commissioners
dated November 15, 2007 for the record.
We know that the Bureau of Reclamation is completing a risk
assessment in the area, and we look forward to reviewing that report.
But many of the problems reported at this site are not new. Legislation
addressing this matter and authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to
rehabilitate this tunnel dates back to at least 1976. In response to
the request for action from the local community, I worked together with
Congressman Mark Udall from Colorado and introduced H.R. 5511. This
bill would direct the Bureau of Reclamation to relieve water pressure
behind certain blockages in the tunnel, permanently manage the mine
pool behind any blockage to prevent releases of contaminated water, and
eliminate the potential for tunnel failure.
I also note, Madame Chairwoman, that we have two other bills before
us today. Mr. Udall of New Mexico has introduced a bill that authorizes
federal participation in the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water Supply
system and Mrs. Herseth-Sandlin's bill provides a third round of
compensation to two tribes in South Dakota. I look forward to the
testimony on all of the bills before us today. I thank you again for
holding this hearing.
______
Ms. Napolitano. Thank you. And I would like to call upon
Mr. Tom Udall. He was here first, so, Tom was here first.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. TOM UDALL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Mr. Udall. Well, thank you. Thank you very much, Chairwoman
Napolitano and Ranking Member McMorris Rodgers, who isn't here,
and also the acting Representative Lamborn. Thank you for
holding this hearing on H.R. 5710, the Eastern New Mexico Rural
Water System Authorization Act.
There has long been a recognized need for a reliable and
safe supply of potable water for Eastern New Mexico. After
years of drought and ever-increasing population growth, this
water supply project is now absolutely critical for the
continued economic well-being of Curry, Roosevelt, and Quay
Counties in Eastern New Mexico.
The Ogallala Aquifer currently provides 100 percent of the
municipal and industrial water supplies, and the vast majority
of agriculture water for communities in East Central New
Mexico. However, both the quantity and quality of this
groundwater reserve have declined severely in recent decades.
It is estimated that these groundwater supplies will not be
able to sustain current use in the next decade, and may be
functionally depleted within 25 years.
For 45 years water users in Eastern New Mexico have worked
to develop an alternative source of municipal water that will
be sustainable into the future. The Eastern New Mexico Rural
Water System Authorization Act is the result of years of
research, of consultation, of planning, and of negotiation, the
legislation supported by the communities involved, the State of
New Mexico, and by the entire New Mexico delegation.
I applaud the efforts of the authority of the state, and of
the counties and cities involved in this project. They have
worked expeditiously and effectively to finalize the studies,
and plan how to move forward with this project.
The establishment of the Eastern New Mexico rural water
system is essential to the socioeconomic survival of
communities in Eastern New Mexico. H.R. 5710 echoes the ongoing
efforts of the eight cities and counties participating in the
project. These communities are working to establish innovative
approaches to conserving water, both agriculturally and
domestically. They are part of a movement in the West to
recognize the limitations of this precious resource, and to
work within these limitations to build strong communities.
Again, I thank Chairwoman Napolitano and Ranking Member
McMorris Rodgers and acting Ranking Representative Lamborn for
holding this important hearing, and also welcome David
Lansford, who is the former Mayor of Clovis. He is on the panel
here. He is also, David is the Chairman of the Eastern New
Mexico Rural Water Authority, and he has been a real leader in
this process, and has worked in, tirelessly, I think, in his
years of public service to see that this is accomplished.
And I think we also have the current mayor in the audience
here, Gayla Brumfield, who is in the back there, that just
waved. And she also, we are having a seamless hand-off here
between former mayor and the current mayor, and all the
community working together. So it is wonderful to have both of
you here today.
And thank you again, Chairwoman Napolitano.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tom Udall follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Tom Udall, a Representative in Congress from
the State of New Mexico
Chairwoman Napolitano, Ranking Member McMorris-Rodgers, and members
of the Subcommittee,
Thank you for holding this hearing on H.R. 5710 the Eastern New
Mexico Rural Water System Authorization Act.
There has long been a recognized need for a reliable and safe
supply of potable water for eastern New Mexico. After years of drought
and ever-increasing population growth, this water supply project is now
absolutely critical for the continued economic well-being of Curry,
Roosevelt and Quay counties in eastern New Mexico.
The Ogallala aquifer currently provides 100 percent of the
municipal and industrial water supplies and the vast majority of
agricultural water for communities in east-central New Mexico. However,
both the quantity and quality of this groundwater reserve have declined
severely in recent decades. It is estimated that these groundwater
supplies will not be able to sustain current use into the next decade,
and may be functionally depleted within 25 years.
For 45 years, water users in eastern New Mexico have worked to
develop an alternative source of municipal water that will be
sustainable into the future. The Eastern New Mexico Rural Water System
Authorization Act is the result of years of research, of consultation,
of planning, and of negotiation. The legislation supported by the
communities involved, the state of New Mexico, and by the entire New
Mexico Delegation.
I applaud the efforts of the Authority, of the state, and of the
counties and cities involved in this project. They have worked
expeditiously and effectively to finalize the studies and planning
necessary to move forward with this project.
The establishment of the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water System is
essential to the socio-economic survival of communities in eastern New
Mexico. While vital to New Mexico, H.R. 5710 is just one piece in the
larger puzzle of water resources in the arid west. States and
communities must work to address water scarcity with conservation
efforts, with new technology, and with negotiation of water rights.
H.R. 5710 echoes the ongoing efforts of the 8 cities and counties
participating in the project. These communities are working to
establish innovative approaches to conserving water both agriculturally
and domestically. They are part of a movement in the west to recognize
the limitations of this precious resource and to work within these
limitations to build strong communities.
Again, I thank you Chairwoman Napolitano, Ranking Member McMorris-
Rodgers, for holding a hearing on this important piece of legislation.
______
Ms. Napolitano. You are very welcome, sir. Mr. Mark Udall.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. MARK UDALL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Mr. Udall. Thank you, Madame Chairwoman. I will be brief. I
wanted to thank you for holding this important hearing. This is
of real interest to not only Lake County and Leadville, but
anybody who lives along the Arkansas River.
I want to also welcome the two Coloradans that are here
with us today, Martha Rudolph and Commissioner Hickman. Thank
you for traveling a long way to be with us.
My colleague, Congressman Lamborn, has really explained the
reason for our legislation. I want to fully associate myself
with his remarks. And we intend to find a solution. We intend
to find a solution as quickly as possible.
I look forward to your testimony. I will have some
questions when you finish. Thanks again for being here.
I yield back, Madame Chairwoman.
Ms. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Udall. We will proceed to
hear from our witnesses. We only have one panel for all the
three bills, and the witnesses will be introduced before they
testify. And after we hear from the panel, we will begin
questions.
I would like to tell you, I am sorry to be the bearer of
not-so-good news, we will have votes in about maybe five or 10
minutes. And it will be almost 40 minutes before we return,
because there are a number of bills that we have to go vote on.
So we beg your indulgence, and thank you very much for your
patience.
All of your submitted prepared statements will be entered
into the record, and all witnesses are asked to kindly
summarize the highpoints of your testimony. And please limit
your remarks to five minutes. The timer will be used. And if
you hear me tapping or looking at you, you kind of know that I
am trying to have you speed it up.
It also applies to all questioning. A total of five minutes
for questions, including responses, applies to our members. If
there are any additional questions, we will have a second
round, if time permits.
And for our first panel, we have Mr. Robert Quint, Director
of Operations, the Bureau of Reclamation here in Washington,
D.C., to testify on all three bills.
Mr. Quint.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT QUINT, DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS, BUREAU OF
RECLAMATION, WASHINGTON, D.C., ACCOMPANIED BY ELIZABETH
SUTHERLAND, DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSMENT AND REMEDIATION
DIVISION, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, WASHINGTON,
D.C.
Mr. Quint. Good morning, Madame Chairwoman, members of the
Subcommittee. I am pleased to provide the Department of
Interior's views on the three bills before the Subcommittee
today.
I would also like to add that I am accompanied by Elizabeth
Sutherland, Director of EPA's Assessment Remediation Division.
First, H.R. 155 would increase the compensation for the
Lower Brule and Crow Creek Indian Tribes for their loss of
lands and cultural resources as a result of the Pick-Sloan
Missouri Basin Project. The intent of the bill is to put the
compensation provided to the tribes on par with the
compensation provided to similarly situated tribes that
received compensations for losses of the Pick-Sloan Project
along the Missouri River.
The Department does not support H.R. 155. However, we agree
with the General Accounting Office's 1991 and 2006 opinions
stating that the question of whether additional compensation
should be provided to the tribes is a policy decision for the
Congress. If the Subcommittee has detailed questions about this
bill, the Department may be best suited to respond to them for
the record.
Next, H.R. 5511 would direct Interior to implement portions
of the remedy selected by the Environmental Protection Agency
for the California Gulf Superfund Site. The Administration
cannot support H.R. 5511. However, I can report to the
Subcommittee that Reclamation and EPA are aggressively taking
action to address any immediate risk.
Public safety dictates every action Reclamation and EPA
take at the Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel, and we have an
emergency action plan for the tunnel that has been in place
since 2001. Reclamation is making every effort to make a
science-based determination regarding whether there is an
elevated public safety risk below the tunnel, and Reclamation's
ongoing risk assessment, begun in November 2007, is aimed at
understanding how the complex geology and extensive subsurface
mine passages affect the quantity and quality of the drainage
water inside. The results are expected in June of this year.
In the meantime, our agencies are committed to the
following. EPA will complete a removal action that is underway,
including construction of a relief well, pump, and pipeline to
transport water to Reclamation's treatment plant. Reclamation
will operate and maintain the treatment plant, relief wells,
pump, and pipeline, and if necessary, based on the risk
analysis, improve the treatment plant to handle increased flows
of water as a result of the EPA removal action.
In addition to these actions, Reclamation and EPA are
evaluating long-term solutions, and will have a better
understanding of the long-term safety requirements once the
risk analysis is completed.
We are working to develop a permanent solution, and we will
submit proposed legislation if any legislative authority is
needed to implement it.
And finally, H.R. 5710, the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water
Project Act, would authorize the rural water project for
several Eastern New Mexico municipalities. Reclamation is
working with the State of New Mexico and the local parties on
studies for this evolving project over the years. Since 1998,
Congress has provided $1.76 million for the planning and
technical assistance, of which more than $1.2 million has been
transferred directly to the City of Clovis for the work on this
project.
Reclamation has previously expressed concerns with the
adequacy of the conceptual design report, and posed some
critical questions that needed to be considered before
construction should proceed. Much progress has occurred, and
Reclamation continues to work with the local entities to
develop answers to those concerns.
The Administration is concerned about this project's high
Federal cost of $327 million, and for this reason cannot
support this bill at this time.
This concludes my statement. I will be pleased to answer
any of your questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statements of Mr. Quint follow:]
Statement of Robert Quint, Director of Operations, Bureau of
Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 155
Good morning Madam Chairwoman and members of the Subcommittee. I am
pleased to be here today to present the views of the Administration on
H.R. 155, the ``Lower Brule and Crow Creek Tribal Compensation Act.''
For the reasons I will discuss today, the Administration does not
support this bill.
H.R. 155, if enacted, would increase the compensation for the Lower
Brule and Crow Creek Tribes for their loss of lands and cultural
resources as a result of the Pick-Sloan Project. The intent of the
legislation is to put the compensation provided to the Lower Brule and
Crow Creek tribes (Tribes) on par with the compensation provided to
similarly situated tribes in the region that received compensation for
losses resulting from the Pick-Sloan water project along the Missouri
River. The Lower Brule and Crow Creek Tribes received compensation for
these losses under legislation enacted in 1996 and 1997 discussed later
in this testimony. Without further analysis, it is not clear why the
compensation already provided should not be considered adequate.
However, we will be happy to work with the sponsor of the bill and the
Tribes to determine if in fact there was an inequitable calculation
regarding the original size of the trust funds that have been
established.
The original statutes providing compensation for these two Tribes
were the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe Infrastructure Development Trust Fund
Act (Public Law 105-132), and the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe Infrastructure
Development Trust Fund Act (Public Law 104-223). Pursuant to these
bills, two funds, the Crow Creek Fund and the Lower Brule Fund, were
created in the U.S. Treasury. The interest from these funds is used to
compensate the Crow Creek and Lower Brule Sioux tribes for damages to
their reservations and economies as a result of water infrastructure
development. The original authorized sizes for the Lower Brule Fund and
the Crow Creek Fund were $39,300,000 and $27,500,000, respectively.
Enactment of H.R. 155 would increase the maximum size of each fund,
with additional deposits to be derived from the sale of electric power
from the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin program. If this bill is enacted,
the size of the Lower Brule Fund and the Crow Creek Fund would be
increased to $129,822,085 and $69,222,084, respectively.
When the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) scored a similar bill,
S. 374, in 2006, it estimated that there would be an increase in direct
spending of $169 million over a ten year period if the bill had been
enacted. This direct spending would result from the increase in the
size of the funds provided for under this legislation and also the
likely reclassification of the funds from budgetary to non-budgetary
because the bill would extinguish any future claims by the Tribes
against the federal government related to the Pick-Sloan Missouri River
Basin Program upon full funding of the trust funds.
This concludes my testimony. I will be happy to respond to any
questions you may have.
Thank you.
______
Statement of Robert Quint, Director of Operations, Bureau of
Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 5511
Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Bob Quint,
Director of Operations for the Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased to
be here today to present the Administration's views on H.R. 5511, the
``Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel Remediation Act of 2008.'' We
recognize the intense public interest in the Leadville Mine Drainage
Tunnel issues addressed by this bill, and support the goals of this
bill of ensuring public safety and accomplishing the expeditious and
efficient cleanup of the California Gulch Superfund site. The
Administration cannot support H.R. 5511 at present because we have not
yet determined what further actions are needed to provide a long-term
solution.
That being said, I can report to the Subcommittee that Reclamation
and EPA are aggressively taking action to address any immediate risk.
In view of the recent concerns of rising groundwater and mine pool
levels, EPA and the Bureau of Reclamation, in coordination with the
State of Colorado, are now conducting removal actions. This work
commenced in February 2008 and includes two major activities. First,
EPA installed a pumping system in the Gaw mine shaft and has been
pumping at a rate of 450 gallons per minute since late February. This
action may lower water levels in the mine pool. In addition, it appears
to have diminished seeps and springs that had recently appeared in the
lower California Gulch. Second, EPA is taking steps to drill a relief
well into the LMDT to lower the level of water in the LMDT and mine
pool. EPA plans to have the relief well, pump and pipe to the LMDT
installed and ready to operate in Summer of 2008.
Both the Department of the Interior and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) have a long history in this area. The Leadville
Mine Drainage Tunnel (LMDT) is located in central Colorado, and was
originally constructed by the Bureau of Mines from 1943 to 1952. It was
intended to de-water portions of the Leadville Mining District to
facilitate the extraction of lead and zinc ore for the WWII and Korean
War efforts. Reclamation acquired the LMDT in 1959 with the intention
of using the tunnel as a source of water for the Fryingpan-Arkansas
project, though water rights issues precluded using the tunnel effluent
as a water source. Water that flows out of the tunnel is considered
part of the natural flow of the river.
In 1975, EPA issued a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit to Reclamation because the LMDT effluent contains
heavy metals. In 1991 Reclamation completed construction of a water
treatment facility at the LMDT portal--the plant treats the effluent
flowing from the LMDT to the standards in the NPDES permit.
EPA listed the California Gulch Site on the National Priority List
(NPL) in 1983. The 18-square-mile area was divided into 12 areas
designated Operable Units (OU). The Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel
(LMDT) is located beneath OU6, which covers approximately 3.4 square
miles in the northeastern quadrant of the Site. The Bureau of
Reclamation owns the LMDT, which is hydrologically connected to OU6.
Reclamation does not own or operate any sources of contamination on the
surface of OU6 (i.e., waste rock or tailings) or any portion of the
surface itself. The objective of OU6 is to control surface sources of
contamination. Specifically, the objectives are to control erosion of
mine waste rock and deposition into local water courses; control
leaching and migration of metals from mine waste rock into surface
water; control leaching of metals from mine waste rock into
groundwater; and prevent direct unacceptable exposures to elevated
concentrations of contaminants in the soil and waste rock. EPA is the
lead agency to address hazardous substances at the California Gulch NPL
Site, including OU6 in particular.
As part of the implementation of the OU6 remedy, EPA collects
surface runoff from mine waste piles and discharges that surface runoff
into the Marion Shaft, where it moves through the mine workings to the
Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel. This water is seasonal and totals
approximately 3 to 5 million gallons a year. However, the volume of
surface water diverted by EPA to the LMDT is less than 1% of the 550
million to 750 million gallons of water Reclamation treats annually.
EPA pays Reclamation for the treatment of that water at the Reclamation
Treatment Plant. The chemistry of the water draining from the LMDT to
the Reclamation treatment plant is very different from the chemistry of
the water found on the surface of OU6. It has proven to be possible,
however, for the Reclamation plant to treat limited amounts of waters
from OU6 under agreements with EPA.
Currently, groundwater levels have continued to fluctuate near the
LMDT. Reclamation is working to assess the threat level to public
safety through a detailed risk analysis. Reclamation has already
increased the rate at which water from the LMDT is pumped, treated, and
discharged into the Arkansas River. Since February 15, Reclamation has
established capability to increase water treatment at the treatment
facility by over 80% and today is able to process water at a rate of
nearly 2,100 gallons per minute (gpm) from the LMDT (or 4.8 cubic feet
per second). The natural rate of drainage from the tunnel is 1,487 gpm,
or 3.4 cfs, which amounts to 2,500 acre feet annually.
Public safety dictates every action Reclamation takes at the LMDT,
and Reclamation has had an Emergency Action Plan for the LMDT and water
treatment facility since 2001. Water level indicators and other warning
systems near the LMDT are tied into the water treatment plant's auto-
dialer for employees, and an audible warning system was installed in
2002 to alert the Village at East Fork residents in the event of an
emergency. The system plays an alert message in Spanish and English.
Reclamation is making every effort to make a science-based
determination regarding whether there is an elevated public safety risk
below the LMDT. Reclamation's ongoing risk assessment, begun in
November 2007, is aimed at understanding how the complex geology and
extensive subsurface mine passages affect the quantity and quality of
drainage water inside. The results are expected in June of this year.
Interior and EPA, at the highest levels, are committed to the
following:
EPA will complete the removal action that is underway,
including the construction of a relief well, the pump and pipeline to
transport water to Reclamation's treatment plant.
Reclamation will operate and maintain the treatment
plant, relief wells, pump and pipeline, and if necessary based on the
risk analysis, improve the treatment plant to handle increased flows of
water as a result of the EPA removal action.
In addition to these actions, Reclamation and EPA are evaluating
long-term solutions and will have a better understanding of long-term
safety requirements once the risk analysis is completed. We are working
to develop a permanent solution to any safety problem and we will
submit proposed legislation if any legislative authority is needed to
implement this solution on a long-term basis.
The Administration cannot support the specific language in H.R.
5511 at present because we do not yet know what additional specific
safety measures and funding requirements may be needed. Once the EPA
relief well is completed in June and water can be pumped from the LMDT,
any immediate risk should be alleviated and more information about the
needs for ensuring the safety of the tunnel and long-term water
treatment options can be assessed. It is possible that the particular
solution provided for in section 1(b)(2) of H.R. 5511, which requires
implementation of the OU6 remedy selected by the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency in 2003, may turn out not to be
necessary. Further, maintenance and/or repair of the LMDT as prescribed
in section 1(b)(4) of the bill may be unnecessary because of other
actions that could be taken to better ensure public safety. Reclamation
is currently conducting a risk assessment that can be used to shed more
light on what further mitigating actions may be advisable at the site.
Reclamation and EPA look forward to working with the Congress and the
State of Colorado to find the best long-term outcome for the citizens
of Leadville.
This concludes my written remarks. We would be pleased to answer
any questions from the Subcommittee.
______
Statement of Robert Quint, Director of Operations, Bureau of
Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 5710
Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Robert
Quint, and I am the Director of Operations at the Bureau of
Reclamation. I am pleased to be here to provide the Department of the
Interior's views on H.R. 5710, the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water
Project Act. The Department cannot support H.R. 5710.
Reclamation has been working with the state of New Mexico and local
parties on developing concepts for the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water
Project since Congress authorized feasibility studies in 1966.
Reclamation has participated in a number of studies on this evolving
project over the years. Since 1998, Congress has provided $1,763,000
for planning and technical assistance, of which more than $1.2 million
has been transferred directly to the City of Clovis, acting as the
fiscal agent for the local communities, for work on the project. The FY
2008 omnibus appropriation includes $246,000 for the Project.
The proposed Eastern New Mexico Rural Water Project would provide a
sustainable water supply for the eastern New Mexico municipalities of
Clovis, Elida, Grady, Melrose, Portales, and Texico, as well as Curry
and Roosevelt counties and Cannon Air Force Base. The area currently
depends entirely on a groundwater source that is diminishing in both
quantity and quality. The currently envisioned project would supply
16,400 acre-feet per year. The water would be delivered through a
pipeline from Ute Reservoir, which was built by the State of New Mexico
in 1963 as a water supply source for eastern New Mexico, and would cost
approximately $436 million to construct, with $8.2 million in annual
operations and maintenance costs.
In 2004, Reclamation testified on legislation (H.R. 4623) to
authorize construction of the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water Supply
Project. During that hearing, Reclamation cited concerns with the
adequacy of the Conceptual Design Report to support authorization and
identified some critical questions that needed to be answered before
construction should proceed, such as whether all economically viable
alternatives had been considered, whether design and construction costs
were consistent with comparable projects, and whether the communities
that would be sharing project costs had an accurate estimate of how
much those costs might be. Reclamation also expressed concerns with the
proposed cost sharing formula, which assumed an 80% federal share for
construction of the project. The federal cost share in the new
legislation (H.R. 5710) is 75%.
In the intervening years, a Reclamation ``Oversight Committee'' has
been assisting the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water Authority (Authority)
and their consultants in developing a more complete and thorough
feasibility report.
A ``Preliminary Engineering Report'' prepared for the Authority by
their consultant that was submitted in December 2006 represents
significant progress toward a feasibility-level analysis. Reclamation
is continuing to work with the Authority as they further develop the
proposed project's design, cost estimates, financing plan, and
environmental analysis.
The Authority is working with their consultant to take the design
and associated cost estimate to the feasibility level. Feasibility-
level cost estimates are based on information and data which is
sufficient to permit the preparation of preliminary layouts and designs
used to estimate each kind, type, or class of material, equipment, and
labor necessary to complete a project. A second consultant has been
selected by the Authority to work on National Environmental Policy Act
compliance. A third consultant for the Authority is working on a
detailed plan for financing the project.
As stated above, the most recent cost estimate for construction, as
prepared last year by the Authority's consultant, is $436 million, with
an estimated annual operation and maintenance cost of $8.2 million. The
local communities would pay 100% of the operation, maintenance, and
replacement costs.
Reclamation is committed to working with its customers, States,
Tribes, and other stakeholders to find ways to balance and provide for
the mix of water resource needs in the future. The Administration is
concerned, however, about becoming the primary source of funds for
these types of projects. Because of this project's high cost, with a
federal cost share of $327 million, and because this project would
compete with ongoing work by Reclamation in New Mexico and across the
west, the Department cannot support H.R. 5710. However, we are working
with the Authority and the State to bring the project to a point where
a feasibility determination is possible.
This concludes my statement, and I am happy to answer any questions
the Subcommittee may have.
______
Ms. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Quint. I would like to move
on to H.R. 155, Herseth Sandlin, the Hon. Michael Jandreau,
Chairman of the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe from Lower Brule, South
Dakota.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. MICHAEL JANDREAU, CHAIRMAN, LOWER BRULE
SIOUX TRIBE, LOWER BRULE, SOUTH DAKOTA
Mr. Jandreau. Madam Chairman, members of the Committee,
thank you very much for the invitation to appear before you
this morning.
My name is Mike Jandreau. I have been the Chairman of the
Lower Brule Tribe for 29 years. With me today is the newly
elected Chairman of the Crow Creek Tribe, Mr. Brandon Sazue,
and also the members of my Tribal Council and some staff
members, plus our Legal Counsel in town, Mr. Marshall Marz.
I would like to express my appreciation to Rep. Herseth
Sandlin for her introduction of this bill, for the Lower Brule
and Crow Creek. As you may know, this legislation has been
developed over many years. The bill passed three times before
the Senate. It was again reported by the Senate Indian Affairs
Committee, and the 109th Congress, after the bill was reported
in the 109th Congress. However, Chairman McCain of the Indian
Affairs Committee asked GAO for a report on the legislation. A
mathematical error was discovered. The amount of the
compensation was reduced; and the bill was reduced from $186
million to $129 million, or by $57 million. The Crow Creek
amount was reduced by $36 million, from $105 million to $69
million.
A new Section 5 was added, making it clear as to the Lower
Brule and Crow Creek legislation, that this bill would be full
and final compensation for those River claims. In addition, it
stated that if any other further compensation was for the rest
of the tribes along the Missouri, then Lower Brule and Crow
Creek would not participate. It also made certain that Section
5 of H.R. 155 would not be a precedent beyond the Missouri
River Basin Program.
Further, I believe in addressing the request that we are
here for the third time, I do not believe that the concept of
the final asking price that was used by GAO is appropriate to
our situation. While normally it is an indication of good will,
we find that there was no appeal; that it was a take-it-or-
leave-it situation that we found ourselves in. And that the
legislation that was initially passed, there was no process
allowed to the tribes to adequately determine the true extent
of our loss.
Consequently, we have went forward on these two occasions,
both Crow Creek and Lower Brule, to seek compensation for the
ongoing use of our water right for the development of
electricity, for the ongoing inundation and what is suffered by
the tribes as a result of that.
In 1996 and 1997, when the trust funds were enacted, the
capitalization was considered an inter-governmental transfer of
funds. As a result, the capitalization was not scored as a cost
to the United States. Specifically, the report said the deposit
to trust funds would be an inter-governmental transfer, and
there would be no net outlays associated with it.
Since Senate Report 105-46 at 18, H.R. 155 would amend the
enacted trust funds, and should therefore use the same CBO
methodology.
And so thank you very much for the opportunity.
Ms. Napolitano. You have time to wrap up, sir.
Mr. Jandreau. I would like to say, in wrapping up, that
this legislation is vitally important to the Lower Brule and
the Crow Creek Tribes to regain a quality of life that was so
severely taken away from the tribes in the 1950s and 1960s.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jandreau follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Michael Jandreau,
Chairman, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe
Chairwoman Napolitano, Members of the Committee, thank you very
much for the invitation to appear before you this morning. I am
Chairman Michael Jandreau of the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe. I have been
Chairman at Lower Brule for 29 years. With me today is Chairman Brandon
Sazue of the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe, members of our Tribal Council, and
our Legal Counsel, Marshall Matz. Chairman Sazue was just installed in
his new position two days ago, on May 6th.
I would like to express my appreciation to Representative Herseth
Sandlin for introducing the Lower Brule and Crow Creek Compensation
Act, H.R.155. We are well served in South Dakota by Ms. Herseth
Sandlin. Senators Thune and Johnson have introduced a companion bill in
the Senate.
As you may know, the legislation before you today has been
developed over the course of many years. An earlier version of the bill
passed the Senate three times in the 108th Congress and was again
reported by the Senate Indian Affairs Committee in the 109th Congress.
After the bill was reported in the 109th Congress, however, Chairman
McCain then asked the GAO for a report on the legislation. A
mathematical error was discovered and the legislation before you was
modified in several important ways:
The amount of compensation was reduced. For Lower Brule
the amount in the bill was reduced from $186 million to $129 million,
or by $57 million. The Crow Creek amount was reduced by $36 million,
from $105 million to $69 million.
A new Section 5 was added to the bill making it clear
that as to Lower Brule and Crow Creek this legislation would be full
and final compensation. If additional legislation were enacted for all
other Missouri River Tribes it would not include any additional amount
for our two Tribes.
Section 5 also makes it clear that H.R. 155 would not be
a precedent beyond the Missouri River Basin Program.
Madam Chairwoman, the Flood Control Act of 1944 may have been good
for the United States, but it has been devastating for Missouri River
Tribes. The Tribes of the Northern Great Plains are, by and large, the
poorest Tribes in the Unites States. We have gaming but we are located
so far from any population center that gaming it is not a major profit
center for our Tribes. Farming is much more important to the economy of
Lower Brule than gaming. Several of our farm products are then sold
nation wide under our Tribal brand name. Our popcorn is marketed under
the brand name ``Lakota Popcorn''.
Several years ago, in partial compensation for the damage caused by
Pick-Sloan, the Congress did enact two Infrastructure Development Trust
Funds, one for Lower Brule (Public Law 105-132) and one for Crow Creek
(104-223). We have used these funds to the best advantage of our
Tribes. Meetings were held with our elders and other Tribal members to
establish priorities and many critical projects have been undertaken.
But we have only scratched the surface of what needs to be done to
bring Tribal life and our Tribal economies into the mainstream of
American life.
It was very painful for me to read the popular book, The World is
Flat, and realize that the United States is outsourcing jobs to China
and India when many American Indian reservations have an unemployment
rate over 80% and a third world standard of living. Our health
statistics do not exist anywhere else in the United States of America.
The Lower Brule and Crow Creek Compensation Act would enable our
two Tribes to move forward with health care, justice programs,
education, transportation, broadband, and our many other needs. It is
for this reason that we are prepared to accept H.R. 155 as full and
final compensation.
Finally, let me address the issue of cost. There is a modest cost
to the bill; the exact cost will depend on the prevailing interest
rate. My best estimate is that the bill will cost approximately $6
million per year, $30 million over five years or $60 million over ten
years. Lower Brule would have its trust fund increased by $90.5 million
and Crow Creek would have its trust fund increased by $41.7 million for
a total of $132.2. At five per cent interest (5%) it would cost the
federal government approximately $6 million per year.
In 1996 and 1997, when the trust funds were enacted, the
capitalization was considered an inter-governmental transfer of funds.
As a result the capitalization was NOT scored as a cost to the United
States. Specifically, the Senate Report said: ``the deposit to the
trust fund would be an intragovernmental transfer and there would be no
net outlays associated with it''. Senate Report 105-146, at 18. H.R.
155 would amend the enacted trust funds and should therefore use the
same CBO methodology.
Further, we ask that the Committee consider the modest cost of this
legislation in the context of history and the revenue that is being
generated each year by Pick-Sloan Program for the United States.
The Missouri River Valley, the longest in the country, drains one-
sixth of the United States. The Flood Control Act of 1944, creating the
Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basis Program included the construction of
six dams, four of which are in South Dakota. (Gavins Point runs between
South Dakota and Nebraska.) Two of these dams, Fort Randall and Big
Bend flooded the Lower Brule and Crow Creek Reservations.
According to the Bureau of Reclamation, the Program was ``designed
to benefit the entirety of the Missouri River Basin'' by providing
hydroelectric power, flood control measures, navigational improvement,
irrigation and recreational opportunities. ``The Pick-Sloan Missouri
River Project has provided an accumulated $2.3 billion in flood control
benefits from 1950 to 1999'' declares their web site.
The power plants at the dams have a total capacity of producing 2.5
million kilowatts of electricity. The sale of this electricity produced
$437 million in 2006. Over ten years, that is $4.4 billion in direct
revenue to the federal government (over and above the flood control
benefits). We are asking for $60 million, or less than a 1.5% of the
revenue.
The Tribes that had their land taken to build the dams and their
water used to produce the electricity do not share in these proceeds.
The legislation before you today is intended to compensate our two
Tribes and finally provide some degree of fairness to what has
happened. We believe that the Congress should look at the modest cost
of our bill, $6 million per year, in this context.
In short, the United States took our best land and our water (under
the Winters doctrine) to produce electricity. The United States then
sells the electricity. None of the proceeds from the sale of the
electricity generated with our water on the lands that were Tribal
lands goes to the Tribes. There is no division or splitting of the
proceeds. Adding insult to injury, the Tribes are then charged for the
electricity that we use. The Pick Sloan project may have been good for
the country but it was not good for Lower Brule or Crow Creek.
This is fundamentally wrong! Further, we are not talking about
injustices that were committed against Indian people in the 1860's. We
are talking about this year, 2008. It is time to correct the record and
enact legislation that compensates our Tribes fully and fairly for the
land that has been lost and the resources taken.
Thank you very much for your consideration. I would be pleased to
answer any questions.
______
Ms. Napolitano. Thank you very much for your testimony. We
have probably about 10 minutes, so we will go on to our next
witness, if you don't mind. Do you want to go ahead and
introduce?
Mr. Lamborn. Yes. I am pleased to introduce from Colorado,
Martha Rudolph, who is the Director for Environmental Programs
with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
out of Denver.
Welcome.
STATEMENT OF MARTHA RUDOLPH, DIRECTOR FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
PROGRAMS, COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT,
DENVER, COLORADO
Ms. Rudolph. Thank you. Chairwoman Napolitano and members
of the Subcommittee, I would like to thank you today for the
opportunity to express Colorado's support for H.R. 5511, the
Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel Remediation Act of 2008.
For many years, Colorado has urged the Bureau of
Reclamation to take responsibility for the repair and
maintenance of the Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel, and to
participate in the implementation of the selected remedy for
the California Gulch Superfund Site to protect the Arkansas
River.
The Bureau has steadfastly declined to take on this
responsibility. H.R. 5511 would change this, and would require
the Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau of
Reclamation, to repair and maintain the structural integrity of
the LMDT, the tunnel, and to participate in the California
Gulch Superfund Remedy.
During World War II and Korean War, strategic metals mined
in the Leadville area were needed for the war effort. To
support this effort, the Bureau of Mines constructed the
Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel to provide continuous drainage
of the mines in the Leadville mining district.
In 1959 the Bureau of Reclamation acquired ownership of the
tunnel, hoping to acquire water rights associated with the mine
drainage, but not wanting to take on any responsibility for the
repair or maintenance of the tunnel. Despite its stated
preference that it not be responsible for the tunnel, the
Bureau constructed a water treatment plant at the mouth of the
tunnel, and began to treat the mine drainage in 1979, pursuant
to a national pollutant discharge elimination system permit
issued to the Bureau by the EPA.
An unfortunate legacy of the intense mining in the
Leadville area is its impact on another valuable resource: the
Arkansas River. The headwaters of the Arkansas River originate
near Leadville. The Arkansas is home to abundant aquatic life,
and it serves as a valuable source of drinking water for a
number of communities, and is a critical source of water for
agricultural uses. It is one of the more popular rivers for
rafting and recreational uses.
Protecting the Arkansas River and its ecosystem is of
paramount importance to the local residents of Lake County, and
to all the people of Colorado. Improving and protecting this
river led to the decision to add the California Gulch area to
the National Priorities List in 1983, after a surge event from
another drainage tunnel near Leadville, the Yak Tunnel, turned
the Arkansas River red for 20 miles.
Much work has been done to clean up this area, and the
quality of water in the Arkansas River has improved. However,
the remedy for the area of the site known as Stray Horse Gulch,
also known as Operable Unit No. 6, has not been fully
implemented, because it requires the participation by the
Bureau, and the treatment of contaminated water at the Bureau's
water treatment plant at the mouth of the tunnel.
Despite efforts at minimizing the impacts on the Bureau to
treat this water, the Bureau has refused to assist in this
remedy. What gains have been made in cleaning up the Arkansas
may be lost, however, because of the condition of the tunnel.
Over the years the tunnel has fallen into disrepair, largely
due to poor maintenance. Many collapses first occurred in the
1960s.
Of greatest concern to the residents of Lake County and to
the people of Colorado is the most recent collapse. Within the
last year, the level of the water in the mine pool that feeds
into the tunnel has increased to the highest ever seen,
resulting in many new seeps and springs in the area.
The fear is that if the tunnel suffers a blowout, millions
of gallons of contaminated water can surge down the Arkansas,
resulting in significant property damage, and devastating many
miles of aquatic life, and reversing years of work to clean the
Arkansas.
In November 2007, EPA sent a letter expressing its concern
regarding the potential for a catastrophic blowout of the
tunnel, to the Bureau of Reclamation. And in February, the Lake
County Commissioners declared a state of emergency. Governor
Bill Ritter sent letters to both President Bush and Secretary
Kempthorne urging them to take action, to treat the water
behind the collapse to reduce the mine pool.
Colorado believes action is needed now to direct the Bureau
of Reclamation to take responsibility to repair and maintain
the structural integrity of the tunnel, and to participate in
the implementation of the remedy for the California Gulch
Superfund Site to avoid any tragic impacts to the people of
Lake County and the Arkansas River.
H.R. 5511 would provide such direction. We believe this
bill addresses an important issue to the people of Colorado,
and its passage is critical to the long-term protection of
local residents in Lake County, and to the long-term protection
of the Arkansas River ecosystem. Thank you for the opportunity
to testify before this Subcommittee today. I would be happy to
answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Rudolph follows:]
Statement of Martha Rudolph, Director of Environmental Programs,
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
Chairwoman Napolitano and members of the Subcommittee, I would like
to thank you today for the opportunity to present Colorado's views on
H.R. 5511, The Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel Remediation Act of 2008.
This bill makes clear that the Secretary of the Interior, through the
Bureau of Reclamation, has both the authority and the responsibility to
repair and maintain the structural integrity of the Leadville Mine
Drainage Tunnel (LMDT), and this bill requires the Bureau of
Reclamation to participate in the implementation of the remedy for the
California Gulch Superfund Site in accordance with the Record of
Decision agreed to by the Environmental Protection Agency and the State
of Colorado. Colorado has long urged the Bureau of Reclamation to take
on the responsibilities outlined in H.R. 5511, therefore Colorado
supports this bill.
The LMDT is located in Lake County, just outside the City of
Leadville. Located at an elevation of 10,152 feet, Leadville is the
highest incorporated city in the United States. Leadville's history
centers around mining. During World War II, miners in Leadville were
given exemptions from the draft in order to support the war effort by
producing strategic metals. To facilitate the mining of these metals,
the U.S. Bureau of Mines began construction of the LMDT in 1943 to
provide continuous drainage of the mines in the surrounding Leadville
Mining District. The LMDT was completed in 1952 to a length of
approximately 12,000 feet. In 1959 the Bureau of Mines declared the
LMDT excess real property, and the Bureau of Reclamation acquired
ownership of the LMDT hoping to obtain water rights to the mine
drainage. Following the passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972, the EPA
issued the first National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit for the LMDT in 1975. After several years of attempting
to meet the limitations in this permit, the Bureau of Reclamation
eventually constructed a water treatment plant at the mouth of the LMDT
and began to treat the mine drainage in 1979.
An unfortunate legacy of the intense mining in the Leadville Mining
District is its impact on another valuable resource, the Arkansas
River. The headwaters of the Arkansas River are located near Leadville.
As it flows through the high mountain valleys and down through the
eastern plains of Colorado, the Arkansas River supports a wide variety
of uses. Throughout its length it serves as a precious resource to
sustain a diversity of aquatic life and wildlife. It is a valuable
source of drinking water for a number of communities, and is a critical
source of water for agriculture uses. Notably, it is one of the more
popular rivers for rafting and recreational uses. Protecting the
Arkansas River and its ecosystem is of paramount importance to the
local residents of Lake County and to all the people of Colorado.
The significance of protecting the Arkansas River was highlighted
in the early 1980s when another mine drainage tunnel near Leadville,
the Yak Tunnel, had what was called a ``surge event'' discharging
enough tainted water to turn the Arkansas River red for 20 miles. In
response to this event the site was added to the National Priorities
List in 1983. The listed elements of the Superfund site were the Yak
Tunnel, mine waste piles in California Gulch and its tributaries, the
waters in California Gulch that empty into the Arkansas River, and 11
miles of the Arkansas River directly below the confluence with
California Gulch. EPA specifically excluded the Leadville Mine Drainage
Tunnel from the Superfund site based on the Bureau of Reclamation's
then existing responsibilities to treat the LMDT discharge under the
Clean Water Act.
Even though the LMDT is not part of the California Gulch Superfund
site, EPA and Colorado selected a remedy that would require both the
use of the LMDT and the commitment by the Bureau of Reclamation to
treat contaminated surface water from the Stray Horse Gulch area of the
Superfund site before its discharge into the Arkansas River. The Stray
Horse Gulch area of the site (called Operable Unit 6) includes many
mine waste piles. Surface water flowing over these waste piles, unless
diverted, contributes contaminated surface runoff into California
Gulch. EPA and Colorado identified different remedies to handle this
surface runoff, and ultimately selected the remedy that would collect
contaminated water from the area and direct it down a mine shaft
connected to the LMDT. Because the Bureau of Reclamation is not
required under the Superfund law to treat this contaminated water at
its treatment plant, EPA and Colorado have attempted for several years
to negotiate with the Bureau to obtain its cooperation to fully
implement this remedy.
In an effort to gain this cooperation, EPA incorporated the
following design aspects into the remedy to minimize the additional
impact on the Bureau of Reclamation caused by treating this additional
contaminated surface water:
Construction of a bulkhead in the LMDT to isolate the
contaminated mine water naturally draining into the LMDT from clean
alluvial groundwater;
Installation of wells behind the bulkhead and
construction of a pipeline to convey the contaminated water to the
Bureau of Reclamation's treatment plant;
Backfilling the LMDT's lower portions to prevent clean
ground water from entering and flowing to the treatment plant, and to
protect against collapse and failure (since the Bureau of Reclamation
currently treats water that is significantly diluted by clean
groundwater, this would decrease the volume of water to be treated and
therefore decrease the Bureau of Reclamation's overall treatment
costs); and,
Routing contaminated surface water from the Stray Horse
Gulch area during spring runoff into the mine workings connected to the
upper reaches LMDT where it would be conveyed through the pipeline to
the Bureau of Reclamation's treatment plant.
Ultimately this remedy would treat contaminated mine pool water
including spring run-off (thereby protecting the Arkansas River),
reduce the amount of water treated by the Bureau of Reclamation
(thereby decreasing its operating costs), and provide protection
against structural failure of the LMDT.
Despite many attempts by Colorado and EPA to convince the Bureau of
Reclamation to participate in this proposed remedy for Operable Unit 6,
the Bureau contends that it lacks the statutory authority or mandate to
treat this additional contaminated surface water from the Stray Horse
Gulch area. This long-standing position of the Bureau of Reclamation
has stymied Colorado's and EPA's efforts to implement the selected
remedy for Operable Unit 6. H.R. 5511 would break this log-jam by
directing the Bureau of Reclamation to take responsibility for the
LMDT, and to participate in the selected remedy for Operable Unit 6.
Congressional action has become more critical now than ever before.
Since the Bureau of Reclamation assumed ownership of the LMDT in 1959,
there have been many concerns regarding tunnel safety and potential
environmental threats. Due to a lack of maintenance, the condition of
the LMDT has deteriorated over time. There have been many collapses
within the LMDT beginning in the 1960's. Although the Bureau of
Reclamation took some steps in response to these early collapses, the
Bureau has continued to assert that it is not responsible for the
maintenance or repair of the LMDT. Most recently, the mine pool that
feeds into the LMDT has increased to a level never before seen,
resulting in many new seeps and springs in the area, likely due to a
recent collapse within the LMDT. In November, 2007 EPA sent a letter
expressing its concerns regarding the potential for a catastrophic
blowout of the LMDT to the Bureau of Reclamation, and on February 13,
2008 the Lake County Commissioners declared a state of emergency.
Colorado Governor Bill Ritter sent a letter to President Bush asking
him to request Secretary Kempthorne to direct the Bureau of Reclamation
to treat the water accumulating behind the blockage in the LMDT at its
water treatment plant to help reduce the build up of water draining
into the LMDT. Governor Ritter made the same request directly to
Secretary Kempthorne.
Fortunately, to address the immediate concerns of the high levels
of the mine pool and the pressure within the LMDT, EPA has begun
pumping water from the Gaw shaft located near the LMDT, and in June EPA
is scheduled to commence drilling directly into the LMDT to pump water
from the upper reaches of the LMDT and to transfer the water through a
pipeline to the Bureau of Reclamation's treatment facility where the
Bureau has agreed to treat this water before it is discharged into the
Arkansas. While this action responds to the immediate concerns of a
LMDT blowout, it will not address the long-term need for LMDT
maintenance and repair, and the commitment to reduce the mine pool and
to treat contaminated mine and surface water discharging from the LMDT
in perpetuity. Unfortunately, the Bureau of Reclamation is continuing
to stall, and is refusing to take necessary action to address the
condition of the LMDT, preferring to take the time to study the risks
associated with the increasing severity of the tunnel failures, and
declining now to affirmatively accept any responsibility to repair or
maintain the LMDT, or to treat the contaminated water, regardless of
the outcome of the study. Ultimately the Bureau of Reclamation must
take responsibility for the LMDT regardless of the study conclusions.
H.R. 5511 would make it clear that the Bureau of Reclamation is
responsible for the repair and maintenance of the LMDT and must
participate in the Operable Unit 6 remedy. Congressional action is
needed now for the long-term protection of the local residents of Lake
County, and for the long-term protection of the Arkansas River
ecosystem.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before this Subcommittee
today. I would be happy to answer any questions you might have.
______
Ms. Napolitano. Thank you for your testimony. We do have
eight minutes to get to the Floor, so at this point we will
call recess, and we will take up where we left off.
Thank you for your testimony, and we will be back.
[Recess.]
Ms. Napolitano. The hearing of the Subcommittee on Water
and Power resumes, with the questioning of the panel. I
apologize; I told you it was going to be long, I didn't realize
it was going to be this long.
But I would like to begin to go on with the witness of,
Martha Rudolph, you already have been our witness, and we move
on to the Hon. Mike Hickman, Chairman of the Lake County
Commissioners in Leadville.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. MIKE HICKMAN, CHAIRMAN,
LAKE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, LEADVILLE, COLORADO
Mr. Hickman. Madame Chair and other Committee members, my
name is Michael J. Hickman. I am the Chair of the Lake County
Board of County Commissioners in Lake County, Colorado.
I would like to thank you for the opportunity to present
Lake County's views on H.R. 5511, the Leadville Mine Drainage
Tunnel Remediation Act of 2008.
I am here to testify in support of this bill on behalf of
Lake County and its citizens. I also wish to impress upon you
today the importance of a comprehensive Federal solution to
reduce the threat posed by the growing mine pool associated
with the blockage behind the Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel.
Such a solution is critical to protect the local residents of
Lake County as well as the ecosystem of the Arkansas Valley
Watershed.
In 1959 the Bureau of Mines transferred to the LMDT the
Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel. Since that time, the Bureau of
Reclamation has declined to take responsibility for the upkeep
and repair of the tunnel. It has only accepted responsibility
for treating contaminated water flowing out of the tunnel.
The lack of repair and upkeep of the tunnel has led to a
series of what appears to be collapses deep within the LMDT
over time that have brought us to the situation we face today.
Groundwater levels in the mining district are now at historical
highs, and blockage in the tunnel have contributed to the
elevated mine pool estimated to be over one billion gallons.
Lake County has experienced snow-pack levels this winter of
more than 150 percent of normal. With spring runoff set to
break loose at any moment, a large volume of water is about to
be added to the mine pool, already busting at its seams.
This historic buildup of water behind the blockage in the
tunnel presents a serious threat to the citizens of Lake
County, public and private property, local domestic water
supply, and the water quality of the Arkansas River, water
quality for their drinking water source.
Based upon this threat, Lake County Board of County
Commissioners declared a state of emergency on February 13,
2008. Since the emergency declaration, both the EPA and the BOR
have quickly moved toward acting to begin dewatering the mining
pool by pumping water at the Gaw Shaft. A pipeline is under
construction by the EPA to bypass the blockage in the LMDT to
reconnect the mine pool with the treatment plant.
However, this is only a temporary solution to the needed--a
temporary solution is needed to solve this problem once and for
all.
The solution is a multi-pronged approach that includes
preventing clean surface water from infiltrating the mine pool
and implementing of the California Gulch Superfund Site
Operable Unit Six Remedy. Today, both the EPA and the Bureau of
Reclamation will not take responsibility for a long-term fix of
the mine pool problem.
For decades, Lake County has experienced frustration with
the inability of these agencies to look at long-term fixes.
Both say this is not my job. In fact, we still basically--in
fact, we still, basically in the same place we were in, 1976.
And I have a copy of the 1976 hearing that I have presented
into the record.
At that time, the Bureau of Reclamation was saying the
exact same things they are saying today. We basically are not
taking action, and we need them to take action.
During the same hearing, we had the Colorado Department of
Natural Resources submit testimony regarding the funding of the
tunnel. Finally there is present danger of loose blockage
material breaching, that possibly could be breaching from
water, is pushing against the pressure of more than two tons
per square foot.
H.R. 5511 presents an opportunity for Congress to finally
tell the Bureau of Reclamation that it is their job to maintain
the tunnel and implement the remedy of OU-6. If Congress does
not tell the Bureau of Reclamation that they must do this, past
history clearly tells us they won't.
H.R. 5511 directs the Bureau of Reclamation to participate
in the implementation of Operable Unit 6 remedy by testing
water behind the blockage. It also directs the BOR to take
necessary steps to prevent tunnel failure, and preclude
uncontrolled releases of water.
Lake County and its citizens support the intent of this
bill. We have high hopes that finally the question of which
agency bears the responsibility to address the rising mine pool
in Lake County will be answered by Congress, by directing the
BOR to take responsibility.
Thank you, Madame Chair.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hickman follows:]
Statement of Michael J. Hickman, Chair,
Lake County Colorado Board of County Commissioners
My name is Michael Hickman. I am Chair of the Lake County Board of
County Commissioners in Lake County, Colorado. I would like to thank
you for the opportunity to present Lake County's views on H.R. 5511
``The Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel Remediation Act of 2008.''
I am here to testify in support of this bill on behalf of Lake
County and its citizens. I also wish to impress upon you today the
importance of a comprehensive federal solution to reduce the threat
posed by the growing mine pool associated with blockages behind the
Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel. Such a solution is critical to protect
the local residents of Lake County as well as the eco-system of the
Arkansas River and the drinking water supply of the Arkansas Valley
Watershed.
I'd like to start by giving you some background. Leadville and its
historic mining district sit in the highest valley of the Arkansas
River in the heart of the Rocky Mountains. Leadville is the site of
mining activities that have produced gold, silver, lead and zinc.
Mining began in the Leadville area in 1859 when prospectors working the
channels of the Arkansas River tributaries discovered gold at the mouth
of California Gulch.
Later, miners tunneled deep into the mountains resulting in
extensive development of underground mines in the mining district.
Eventually most of these mines were abandoned. The U.S. Bureau of Mines
began driving the Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel in 1943 to facilitate
mine drainage in order for metals such as lead, zinc and manganese to
be extracted for the World War II effort.
In 1959, the Bureau of Mines transferred the LMDT to the Bureau of
Reclamation. Since that time, the Bureau of Reclamation has declined to
take responsibility for the upkeep and repair of the tunnel. It has
only accepted responsibility for treating the contaminated water
flowing out of the mine pool and into the blocked tunnel through
construction of a water treatment plant in the late 1970's, built after
a Sierra Club lawsuit.
The lack of repair and upkeep of the tunnel have lead to a series
of what appear to be collapses deep within the LMDT over time that have
brought us to the situation we face today. Groundwater levels in the
mining district are now at historic highs and blockages in the tunnel
have contributed to the elevated mine pool water estimated to be over
one billion gallons.
Lake County has experienced snow pack levels this winter of more
than 150% of normal. With spring run off set to break loose at any
moment, a large volume of water is about to be added to a mine pool
already bursting at the seams. This historic build up of water behind
the blockages in the tunnel presents a serious threat to the citizens
of Lake County, public and private property, local domestic water
supply, and the water quality of the Arkansas River Basin.
Approximately one million citizens in Colorado rely on the Arkansas
River water quality for their drinking water supply.
Based upon this threat, the Lake County Board of County
Commissioners declared a State of Emergency on February 13, 2008. Since
the Emergency Declaration, both the Environmental Protection Agency and
the Bureau of Reclamation have quickly moved toward actions to begin
dewatering the mine pool by pumping water at the Gaw Shaft. A pipeline
is under construction by the EPA to by-pass the blockages in the LMDT
and reconnect the mine pool to the LMDT treatment plant. However, this
is only a temporary solution to the mine pool problem. A comprehensive
long-term solution is needed to solve this problem once and for all.
The solution is a multi-pronged approach that includes, preventing
clean surface water from infiltrating the mine pool and implementation
of the California Gulch Superfund Site Operable Unit 6 remedy. To date,
however, both EPA and the Bureau of Reclamation will not take
responsibility for the long-term fix of the mine pool problem. For
decades, Lake County has experienced frustration with the inability of
these agencies to sort out responsibilities. Both agencies continue to
say to the long-term fix, ``This is not my job!''
In fact, we are still basically in the same place we were when
previous hearings were held on Capitol Hill in June 1976 to discuss a
bill to authorize stabilization and rehabilitation of the Leadville
Mine Drainage Tunnel. I refer you to the transcript of the Hearing
Before the Subcommittee on Energy Research and Water Resources of the
Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs United States Senate on S.
3394, June 7, 1976. I am providing you with a copy of the transcript
from those hearings as a supplement to my testimony today.
At that time, the Assistant Commissioner of the Bureau of
Reclamation, Department of the Interior, testified that ``As stated in
the Department's letter of June 7, 1976 to the committee, the
Department recommends that the committee defer action on the bill at
this time pending further review by the Department...of various
alternative solutions.'' The Assistant Commissioner went on to say,
``Appropriate action needs to be taken with respect to the public
safety and water quality problems associated with the tunnel. As
already indicated, the administration has not completed its review of
the available data, and, therefore, does not yet have a position as to
what action should be taken.''
During these same hearings in 1976, the Colorado Department of
Natural Resources submitted testimony regarding the tunnel, ``Finally,
there is the ever present danger of the loose blockage material being
breached by water which is pushing against it at a pressure of more
than two tons per square foot. This is a serious threat to property and
human life, particularly because of the mobile home park adjacent to
the tunnel portal.'' Yet, here we are today still facing the same
threat as we were in 1976 and the Bureau of Reclamation is still
wanting to study the problem.
H.R. 5511 presents an opportunity for Congress to finally tell the
Bureau of Reclamation that it is their job to maintain the tunnel and
to implement the remedy for Operable Unit 6. If Congress does not tell
the Bureau of Reclamation that they must do this, past history clearly
tells us they won't.
H.R. 5511 directs the Bureau of Reclamation to participate in the
implementation of the Operable Unit 6 remedy by treating water behind
the blockage. It also directs the Bureau of Reclamation to take
necessary steps to prevent tunnel failure and preclude uncontrolled
release of water.
Lake County and its citizens support the intent of this bill. We
have high hopes that, finally, the question of which agency bears the
responsibility to address the rising mine pool problem in Lake County
will be answered by Congress. By directing the Bureau of Reclamation to
take responsibility and action, the people of Lake County and the
downstream Arkansas River basin water users will not have to bear a
terrible price for the inability of federal government agencies to take
responsibility to fix this serious problem.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today from the local
community perspective about this very important matter. I'm happy to
answer any questions you may have.
[NOTE: Attachments and supplemental testimony submitted for the
record have been retained in the Committee's official files.]
______
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Mr. Commissioner, for that
testimony.
And I would like to now introduce the last witness on our
panel, David Lansford, Chairman of the Eastern New Mexico Rural
Water Authority, and also the former Mayor of Clovis, New
Mexico. Thank you for being here, Your Honor.
STATEMENT OF DAVID M. LANSFORD, CHAIRMAN OF THE EASTERN NEW
MEXICO RURAL WATER AUTHORITY, AND FORMER MAYOR, CLOVIS, NEW
MEXICO
Mr. Lansford. Thank you, Congressman Lamborn and Chairwoman
Napolitano.
My name is David Lansford, and I serve as the Chairman of
the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water Authority. And I am here to
present testimony in strong support of H.R. 5710, a bill
sponsored by Congressman Tom Udall, which would authorize the
Bureau of Reclamation to assist in the construction of the
Eastern New Mexico Rural Water System, commonly referred to as
the Ute Water Pipeline Project.
Joining me today is my successor as Mayor of the City of
Clovis, New Mexico, Mayor Gayla Brumfield. The City of Clovis
serves as the physical agent for the project, and residents in
Curry County represent over 50 percent of the population that
will be served by the proposed Ute Water Pipeline Project.
The authority was created in 2001 for the purposes of
building and operating the Ute Water Pipeline Project to serve
the communities of Clovis, Portales, Melrose, Texico, Grady,
Elida, and throughout Curry and Roosevelt Counties.
I would like to express my deep appreciation to Congressman
Tom Udall for sponsoring H.R. 5710, and the entire New Mexico
delegation for supporting our efforts to establish a
sustainable supply of water, and preserving the socioeconomic
future of Eastern New Mexico. The sustainable supply of water
is critical to the future of our region, which supports a
number of industries, including dairy, large-scale food
production and processing, ethanol refining, a critical
military presence, and colleges and universities, among others.
Providing a sustainable water supply for Eastern New Mexico
is our most significant challenge. Our communities rely solely
on water reserves located in the Ogallala Aquifer. Over the
last 40 years numerous studies have clearly demonstrated that
this aquifer is being depleted, and that the Ute Water Pipeline
Project is the most efficient, cost-effective, and dependable
solution for these water challenges.
Anticipating the potential water needs in Eastern New
Mexico in the interest of maximizing New Mexico's use of water
from the Canadian River system, the New Mexico Interstate
Stream Commission completed construction of Ute Dam and
Reservoir in 1962, at a present-day cost of over $140 million.
Significant progress has been made on this project. Working
together with the New Mexico Legislature and Gov. Bill
Richardson, we have invested millions of dollars in the Water
Trust Fund, which seeks to provide funding for water projects
across New Mexico. Since 2002, the State of New Mexico has
provided direct funding to the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water
System Project, in excess of $12 million.
The Authority is prepared to undertake the local financing,
operation, and maintenance of this project. Over the years, the
individual communities have contributed financial resources and
in-kind resources to the project. Portales, Texico, and Melrose
have increased water and wastewater rates in order to generate
new revenue for the project, and the City of Clovis has enacted
a gross receipts tax increment, and dedicated the revenue to
the project.
These actions are solid evidence of a high level of
commitment from the local governments to provide a portion of
the non-Federal funding of the project. In summary, the
Authority is finalizing the adoption of a formal financial
plan.
We have been studying the efficacy of the Ute Water
Pipeline Project for a number of years, with over 30 volumes of
technical memorandum on the project that examines groundwater
conditions, population growth and water demand, conservation
and reuse, existing water systems, evaluation of alternatives,
environmental issues, Ute Reservoir operations, water treatment
needs, power service and wind power potential, cost estimating,
and hydraulic optimization.
In short, our plans for the Ute Water Pipeline Project have
been thorough and comprehensive. Just last year, the United
States Bureau of Reclamation commented in a letter to the
Authority that the project is the least costly and most
sustainable way to meet long-term water needs in the area. They
also agree with our design consultant's preliminary design
level of completeness, cost estimates, and that no special
environmental issues have been identified.
We are at a critical point in the development of the
project, and appear before you today to urge Congress to
expeditiously pass H.R. 5710, which would authorize the
financing, planning, design, and construction of the Ute Water
Pipeline Project. This pipeline project authorization meets
much of the same criteria, and is similar to projects that were
authorized in the Rural Water Supply Act of 2006.
We cannot emphasize strongly enough how important this
project is to our member entities and for the citizens and
businesses of Eastern New Mexico. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Lansford follows:]
Statement of David M. Lansford, Chairman, Eastern New Mexico Rural
Water Authority, on H.R. 5710
Eight cities and counties on the eastern side of New Mexico make up
the Eastern NM Rural Water Authority (ENMRWA), including: Clovis, Curry
County, Elida, Grady, Melrose, Portales, Roosevelt County and Texico
(please refer to the map on the last page of this document).
Presently, municipal and commercial water supply to the region is
provided entirely by groundwater from the Ogallala formation of the
High Plains Aquifer.
Groundwater levels in the region are declining at an average rate
of between 2.6 and 4 ft/yr and water well production is dropping at an
alarming rate. For example, in the Clovis area, hard evidence supports
that in 2008 it takes 53 wells to provide 9500 gallons per minute of
production compared to 28 wells providing 10,500 gallons per minute in
2000.
ENMRWA members are saddled with ongoing expensive and unsustainable
development of existing groundwater resources while actively pursuing
conservation and wastewater reuse projects. The member communities have
collectively incurred costs of approximately $22 million since 2000 in
purchasing groundwater water rights, converting existing wells and
completing new wells.
The Eastern New Mexico Water Supply Project, Feasibility Report,
May 1972 (rev. August 1972) by the Bureau of Reclamation stated:
``There is a definite need for the Eastern New Mexico
Water Supply Project...''
``Although the investigations presented herein are in
sufficient detail to establish engineering feasibility and economic
justification of the project, additional investigations will be
required prior to construction to insure that the final plan provides
the most economical and desirable project in the interest of the state,
the public, and the water users.''
``It is recommended that: 1. The Eastern New Mexico Water
Supply Project be authorized to be constructed...''
The project envisioned at the time the 1972 Feasibility
Report was prepared was larger and more complex in size and scope than
that currently proposed.
The NE New Mexico Regional Water Plan (June 2006), covering five
eastern NM counties, specifically identifies the ENMRWS as a priority
strategy for long term sustainable water supply to the region.
There is no viable or more cost effective alternative to the
project as proposed. Other than the surface water from Ute Reservoir
available to New Mexico through the three state Canadian River Compact,
there is not a sustainable water supply available to the citizens of
eastern New Mexico.
A standalone brackish water supply project using aquifers located
below the Ogallala is not viable economically nor is it sustainable.
The only potential alternative for making the fresh groundwater supply
sustainable is rapid, large-scale buyout and retirement of irrigated
agriculture at massive cost and an undesirable (some say catastrophic)
socio-economic impact.
A sustainable supply of municipal and industrial water is critical
to the socio-economic future of eastern New Mexico and is in the
national interest. There is a history of federal support for similar
regional rural projects nationally. The area supports large scale food
production (peanuts, cheese, milk and milk products), an expanding
ethanol industry, a regional education complex (Eastern NM University),
extensive railway commerce, a critical military presence at Cannon AFB,
and regional large scale wind power development.
The City of Clovis' Comprehensive Plan (2007) identifies the
development of a long-term sustainable water supply for the region as
its #1 Infrastructure Goal, with five main components:
Implement the ENMRWS as quickly as possible.
Protect the quality of existing water supplies in Ute
Reservoir and the Ogallala aquifer.
Implement an effective water conservation program.
Implement an effective wastewater reuse program.
Continue to identify, evaluate and plan for new long-
range water sources.
Stringent conservation and reuse programs, coupled with retirement
of much agricultural pumping could prolong the present groundwater
supply in the Ogallala, but probably for only a decade or two based on
simulations made with several groundwater models.
Failure to use the supply of New Mexico water available in Ute
Reservoir for municipal and industrial purposes could lead to it being
lost to NM users under provisions of the Canadian River Compact.
A large body of work has been completed over the past two years by
the ENMRWA consultant team in close coordination with Reclamation, the
NM Environment Department, the Office of the State Engineer, the NM
Interstate Stream Commission and member communities. Engineering work
completed, in progress, or programmed for the near term includes:
Executive Summary
Planning Memoranda
ENMRWA Member Existing Water System Facilities
Fresh and Brackish Groundwater Resource Assessment
Conservation and Reuse Assessment
Member Needs for Project
Conceptual Cost Estimating Guide
Dynamic Simulation Hydraulic Modeling
Treatability Testing and Water Treatment Plant
Alternatives Evaluation
Alternatives Evaluation Summary
Alternative Pipeline Route Analysis
Wind Energy Feasibility Study
Environmental Issues
Benefit Cost Comparison
Reservoir Operations
Financial Analysis
Best Technical Alternative (BTA) Preliminary Engineering
(10%) Technical Memoranda
Raw and Finished Water Pipelines Process/Mechanical
Raw and Finished Water Pump Stations Process/Mechanical
Water Treatment Plant Process/Mechanical
Structural Preliminary Engineering
Architectural
Civil/Site Preliminary Engineering
Building Mechanical/Plumbing
Electrical Preliminary Engineering
Instrumentation and Controls
Corrosion Protection
Cost Opinion
Best Technical Alternative Preliminary Engineering
Drawings (10% design)
Surveying and Mapping
Survey Control Map
Land Ownership Maps
Utility Mapping
Geophysical Test Sites Map
Survey Report
Topographic, planimetric and digital orthophoto mapping
Geohazard and Geotechnical
Geologic Hazards Report
Schematic Level Geotechnical Investigation Report
Schematic Level Design (30%)
Pipeline Design Criteria Technical Memorandum (TM)
Pipeline Hydraulics TM
Draft and Final Pipeline Alignment Selection TM
Pipelines Plan and Profile Schematic Design
Pressure Control, Metering, and Member Interconnections
Updated Cost Opinion
Pipeline Standard Details
Pipeline Master Specifications
Pump Stations
Water Treatment Plant
* Process Schematic Design TM's
* Engineering Disciplines Schematic Design TM's
* Cost Opinion
SCADA System
Environmental Assessment (EA) activities began in mid-2007.
Scoping, the first step in the NEPA process, was initiated in September
2007. Three public meetings were held in Logan, Clovis and Portales
from September 18 through 20, 2007. The public provided feedback on the
project and asked questions about the process. Meetings were held with
area experts in hydrology, cultural resources, and socio-economic
resources to elicit information. Agency meetings have been ongoing
since September 2007. A meeting was held in Santa Fe with State
Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) representatives to commence early
communication about the project. Coordination with New Mexico
Department of Transportation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, and other agencies is ongoing. Reclamation is
preparing to initiate contracts necessary to complete U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service Coordination Act requirements. A report summarizing
scoping activities is now available on the project website.
Three ``methods of analysis'' technical memos for hydrology,
cultural resources, and socioeconomics have been prepared and approved
by Reclamation. Work is continuing on the first two chapters of the EA;
Purpose and Need (Chapter 1) and Alternatives (Chapter 2). Compilation
of current and project water supply, demand, conservation, and
background information, as well as a summary of required project
permits, is included in Chapter 1. A meeting among Reclamation, NMISC,
and ENMRWA to discuss the alternatives and options available to meet
the purpose and need for the project was held on April 28, 2008. In
addition, information collection for resource studies is underway.
Detailed field studies will commence in the spring, following
finalization of proposed infrastructure locations. At this time, a
public review for the EA is anticipated by September 2008, and an EA/
FONSI is anticipated by February 2009.
The consultant team has proposed and members of the ENMRWA have
adopted a conceptual Finance Plan for the project utilizing federal,
state and local funding. Federal funding (75%) is assumed over a 10
year period with State contributions (15%) over six years. Local cash
contributions (10%) will begin in FY 2009 at approximately $1,000,000
per year with debt issuance in FY 2015 and FY 2017. Water rates will be
phased in and adjusted up to the initial water rate that will be
sufficient to pay all operation, maintenance, renewal and replacement,
and debt service costs of the system. The ENMRWA will need to issue
bonds in order to provide the local portion of the non-Federal match.
These bonds will be issued by the ENMRWA and are expected to be fixed
rate utility revenue bonds payable from the net revenue of the water
supply system. The bonds will be issued in two installments to be
amortized over 25 years at an estimated interest rate of 5.25%. The
draft finance plan proposes an initial pre-construction (FY 2009)
wholesale water rate of $0.19 per 1000 gallons of water reserved on the
system. This will be followed by a construction period wholesale water
rate of $0.28 per 1000 gallons reserved. An initial fully adjusted
water rate of $2.05 per 1000 gallons is proposed with the system in
operation.
Most of the ENMRWA members have enacted one or more programs to
begin to generate capital for the local cost share of the project such
as water rate increases and gross receipts increments.
The financial resources for the efforts described above have been
provided by NM's Congressional Delegation, the State of New Mexico
through the Water Trust Board, and ENMRWA member agencies. At the end
of the day, all of the recent study efforts and those going back over
the past 44 years conclude that the ENMRWS project is the most cost
effective long range solution.
The layout and capacity of the presently proposed Best Technical
Alternative (BTA) water supply project has been optimized in the latest
engineering work by design consultants to be the most hydraulically
efficient, cost effective project possible. The latest engineering work
validates the work of at least three previous studies done by various
agencies and consultants--each of which recommended a project with a
configuration and route similar to that now proposed.
The current cost estimate is $436 million (2006$) and the project
is expected to incur an $8 to 9 million annual operation and
maintenance (O&M) cost. O&M will be entirely borne by the users and
these costs are included in the projected wholesale water rates.
To date, the State of New Mexico has provided significant
investment in the project having authorized or appropriated
approximately $12 million (including $4.5 million in April 2008) to
advance the planning and design of the project and to prepare
associated environmental investigations and documentation (NEPA). This
does not include the major investment the State made in the 1950's and
1960's (approximately $140 million in 2008$) to construct Ute Dam
creating the water supply storage reservoir. Out of hundreds of
projects submitting applications for funding through the NM Water Trust
Board since its inception, the ENMRWS has consistently ranked in the
very top tier of projects.
The recent steep escalation in construction costs indicates that
postponing the project may lead to greatly increased costs--escalation
of construction costs is outpacing general economic inflation by 2-3%
per year.
Unlike many other water projects in New Mexico and the southwest,
the proposed ENMRWS project has no known or anticipated significant
environmental issues, no associated Native American settlement, and no
water rights disputes. The water in Ute Reservoir is owned by the State
and administered by the NM Interstate Stream Commission (ISC). The ISC
and the members of the Ute Reservoir Water Commission, which includes
the eight ENMRWA members, have a relatively straightforward water
purchase agreement in effect.
On behalf of the eight member entities of the ENMRWA and our
citizens and businesses we sincerely appreciate your consideration of
this critical project and for holding this hearing. Collectively, we
have made major investments in this project in time, energy, resources
and funds with the full recognition that the cost and consequences of
inaction will be much greater down the road without it.
______
Statement of Gayla Brumfield, Mayor of Clovis, New Mexico
Chairwoman Napolitano and Members of the Committee, my name is
Gayla Brumfield and I am Mayor of the City of Clovis, New Mexico. The
City of Clovis with a population of 32,667 is a member of the Eastern
New Mexico Rural Water Authority and serves as the fiscal agent for the
project.
I want to thank Congressman Tom Udall for introducing H.R. 5710,
and the entire New Mexico delegation for supporting our efforts to meet
eastern New Mexico's future water needs. H.R. 5710 will authorize the
federal government to help build the Ute Water Pipeline Project
carrying water to communities in Curry and Roosevelt counties. I cannot
emphasize enough how important this legislation is to the future of
Clovis and eastern New Mexico.
The Eastern NM Rural Water System (ENMRWS) is critical to our
ongoing efforts to strengthen and diversify our economic base in the
region. In addition to being a state leader in agricultural production,
Clovis and Curry County are host to a number of growing industries,
including ethanol refining, food processing and railway commerce. We
are proud to be the home of Cannon Air Force Base, which plays a vital
role in protecting our nation's interests at home and abroad.
Groundwater resources currently supply municipal water in eastern
New Mexico, and long-term water supply availability and sustainability
are concerns for many communities. These concerns stem from the fact
that our groundwater source, the Ogallala aquifer, is rapidly
approaching its limited supply of available water. The ENMRWS will
address our future water shortage issues by providing a much-needed
mechanism for sustainable surface water delivery to Curry and Roosevelt
counties.
We have been able to attract a great deal of new business to our
area, though some companies have recently expressed concerns about the
sustainability and availability of our water supply. It is becoming
evident that bold steps will be required on the water issue to ensure
our region's standing as a potential site for business relocation and
growth. The ENMRWS is the type of bold step that is needed. While the
cost of its construction will be considerable, its projected delivery
of potable surface water to Curry and Roosevelt counties will
undoubtedly provide the resources necessary for our region to remain
economically viable and prosperous. All of the alternatives available
to us are more expensive than the ENMRWS and are not sustainable.
The Clovis community always unites to support programs that are
vital to the well-being and future of the area. The Project represents
the best alternative for providing a sustainable water supply well into
the next century.
After 45+ years of research, planning and design, we are now ready
to take the next big step towards making the Project a reality. If we
fail to act, the result could mean significant losses to our existing
economic base and lost opportunities for future economic development.
H.R. 5710 represents the important next step toward addressing the
overarching issue of water in the arid West and we look forward to
working with Congress and the United States Bureau of Reclamation to
secure its passage.
Thank you again for the opportunity to present our request at this
important hearing.
For more information contact: Scott A. Verhines, PE, ENMRWA Program
Manager, 10010 Indian School Rd NE, Albuquerque, NM 87112, (505) 275-
0022, pm@enmrwa.com
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Napolitano. Thank you very much, Chairman Lansford. We
will now move to the questioning. And my colleagues are not
here; they will be in and out, apparently. They have votes in
other committees, so they will be coming in and out.
I would like to start off with Ms. Rudolph, since
apparently you do have to make a flight.
Since the Administration doesn't support this bill, are you
concerned that both Federal agencies are now stalling to
permanently fix this problem that is a disaster waiting to
happen?
Ms. Rudolph. Thank you. I am making arrangements to take a
later flight, so I am not so critical.
Ms. Napolitano. OK.
Ms. Rudolph. Thank you, though. We are concerned about the
Bureau of Reclamation in particular. We have negotiated with
the Bureau and with EPA for some time now to try to resolve the
impasse relative to the Operable Unit 6 for the California
Gulch Superfund Site. And we have really not made much headway
in trying to achieve an agreement that works for everyone here.
Ms. Napolitano. Why?
Ms. Rudolph. What we are told is that the Bureau of
Reclamation doesn't believe it has the authority or the
responsibility to take on the maintenance and repair of the
tunnel, nor to treat the extra contaminated water that would be
part of the Superfund Site.
Ms. Napolitano. What about, then, if the Bureau says they
can't, what about EPA? In fact, before I go any further, I want
to introduce into the record a letter from U.S. EPA Region 8
Regional Administration, Robert E. Roberts, dated November 8,
2007, directed to Michael Ryan, Regional Director of Great
Plains of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, indicating that at
that time, they considered this to be a very critical area to
be addressed, and waited to see how they could work out, not
only with the EPA, but also with the State of Colorado.
Without objection, so ordered.
[NOTE: The letter from EPA to the Bureau of Reclamaction
submitted for the record has been retained in the Committee's
official files.]
Ms. Napolitano. Mr. Quint, what say you? What is the hang-
up?
Mr. Quint. Everyone here is aware this is a very complex
issue out there. I know there has been a number of years and a
number of people, and a whole lot of starts and stops on this
issue.
We continue to work with the State of Colorado, with Lake
County, with EPA to try to find the best solutions here. We
feel currently that the risk assessment that we have underway
will give us a lot of data that can be used to try to come up
with both short-term and long-term solutions to this problem.
Ms. Napolitano. Ms. Sutherland, I just read off the letter
I am introducing into the record, ``Due to the unknown
condition of the tunnel blockages and the large volume of water
behind the blockages, we are concerned that an uncontrolled
potential catastrophic release of water to the Arkansas River
from the LMDT is likely at some point.''
This is a very alarming statement to this Committee. And I
have entered the letter into the record.
If EPA said the situation is potentially catastrophic, how
can it support the Bureau's request for more time and more
money, since they have had that?
Ms. Sutherland. Well, we are not waiting for anybody to do
anything. We are actually moving out. We have already installed
a relief well in the Gaw Shaft, and we have pumped out 28
million gallons of water already.
Ms. Napolitano. Is that being treated?
Ms. Sutherland. Yes, that is being treated, and treated by
the Bureau of Reclamation's treatment plant.
We already have evidence that that 28-million-gallon relief
is drawing down somewhat the mine pool. It looks like it is
also diminishing the seeps and springs that are occurring in
the Lower California Gulf. So that is already effective. We
started work on that in February.
And now we are just about in the process of putting in a
big relief well in the mine pool itself, to pump that out and
to pipe that water also to the Bureau of Rec treatment plant.
That should be operational this summer.
Ms. Napolitano. But why is EPA opposing this bill? When the
Bureau of Reclamation gives clear authority to participate in
the solution, and chose the preferred remedy for Operable 6
Unit?
Ms. Sutherland. Well, the remedy that we selected, we
selected that back in 2003. And at that time, we certainly
thought there were certain actions that needed to be taken,
such as a plug in the tunnel itself.
However, we are perfectly happy to wait for the safety risk
assessment to be done by the Bureau of Reclamation, and see if
that requires us to make any changes in what we thought was
necessary as a remedy for OU-6. And waiting for that safety
risk assessment is not delaying any of the removal actions we
are taking. We are moving out on those right away.
So we are happy to wait to see if the safety assessment
needs any change in our remedy.
Ms. Napolitano. But then you would be saying that EPA can
solve the problem entirely on your own, and do not need
Reclamation help. Is that what I am hearing?
Ms. Sutherland. Well, we are in negotiations right now with
Reclamation on how we can work jointly on a long-term solution.
We are ourselves, though, constructing the short-term solution,
which is this relief well and pipeline to the treatment plant.
We are doing that under our removal authority on our own.
Ms. Napolitano. And I am assuming you are working with the
parties that are affected from Colorado?
Ms. Sutherland. Yes, absolutely.
Ms. Napolitano. Am I hearing correctly?
Ms. Sutherland. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Hickman. Madame Chair, I would like to make one point
of correction. The water that is coming out of the Gaw Shaft is
not being treated. The BOR has not received any water yet from
the EPA from the drilling that is to be started, has not
started yet. A pipeline has been installed.
The speed with which the EPA and the Bureau of Reclamation
have gotten on the short-term fix has been unbelievable, and we
greatly appreciate that, and the citizens of Lake County
greatly appreciate that.
We are here to get the long-term fix. And 32 years ago we
were here to get the long-term fix. And we need Congress to
tell the BOR to fix the tunnel.
Ms. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Hickman. Mr. Quint and Ms.
Sutherland, it seems that there is a little bit of a difference
of opinion, one. And two, these residents have been waiting a
long time for the fix. And is it going to be a long-term or a
temporary fix?
Mr. Quint. I will try to address that. We are right now
finishing this risk analysis, this risk assessment, to
determine what the appropriate fixes are for this, short-term,
as Mr. Sutherland mentioned.
Ms. Napolitano. Do you have a draft of that you can submit
to the Committee? I was talking to Mr. Lamborn about that, that
you might be able to share with the Subcommittee.
Mr. Quint. We intend to have that done by the end of June.
So it should be done in about six weeks.
Ms. Napolitano. By the end of----
Mr. Quint. June, of this year. June.
Ms. Napolitano. June. You say the report was going to be
done in June. I am assuming you have some draft that you are
working on.
Mr. Quint. It is in progress right now, and it will be
available to share with the Committee by the end of June.
Ms. Napolitano. And may I request that if you do have a
draft, I am certain that Mr. Lamborn and I would like to see
that, and the rest of the Committee members might be interested
in seeing a draft?
Mr. Quint. Absolutely. And one of the features of this
development of this assessment is that we had, we have set it
up that if we find anything in the development of this report
that is alarming or needs to be dealt with right away, that we
are going to do that. And to date, none of those issues have
come up.
Ms. Napolitano. OK. Then to the question about the short-
versus-long-term fix. And of course, the other issues, whether
or not the water is being treated and whether there is water
being diverted that might contaminate another area. And who
will be the PRPs?
Mr. Quint. I am being told that the water out of the Gaw
Shaft is not being treated, but it does not exceed the limits
of discharge into the river. So right now that is not an issue.
Ms. Napolitano. I beg your pardon. It is also an issue when
there is contaminated water into rivers and other bodies of
water.
Mr. Quint. But it is below the limits. It is clean water.
Ms. Napolitano. Mr. Hickman.
Mr. Hickman. Madame Chair, the water that is going into the
Arkansas River from the Gaw Shaft is considered to be clean
water by standards. It is much more contaminated than the water
that comes out of the Leadville Mine Drainage Treatment Plant,
though. But it is considered, under Colorado rules, to be clean
water.
One item that I would like to bring to your attention. I am
looking 32 years ago, the Bureau of Reclamation said that they
would have their studies done in two months, and we are hearing
the same thing today.
Ms. Napolitano. Well, I don't want to--it took over 12
years to get one report that had been paid for by some
agencies, and I won't bring that up again.
Yes. Before I finish, let us see. Mr. Lamborn
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you, Madame Chairwoman. For you, Ms.
Rudolph, and you, Mr. Hickman. Briefly describe to us what
would happen if there were to be a catastrophic blowout, either
to the environment or to the people who are living below that
tunnel mouth.
Mr. Hickman. Specifically where the plant, the treatment
plant is in Leadville, Colorado, is right above a 300-person,
about 80-unit trailer park. Right below the trailer park is the
Arkansas River.
If the portal was to blow, it would probably destroy at
least immediately three homes, and it would immediately run
into the Arkansas River. Depending upon how catastrophic that
blowout would be, it could take with it the entire trailer
park.
Last summer, prior to our declaration of an emergency, we
had a chance, the other two County Commissioners and myself had
a chance to tour the plant, and to tour part of the east side.
The things that we were noting was the saturation in the
ground. And with a number of years' accumulation of water, it
is continuing to grow bigger and bigger and bigger.
If we had a glass of water sitting here and we poured water
into it, you could see that the water would eventually seek the
lowest point, which is what has caused possibly the Gaw Shaft,
which is on the other side of town, to artesianing, which is
why the EPA has put a pump on it.
Approximately three years ago the EPA brought to the Gaw
Shaft electricity, concrete pad, a pump; and ran out of money,
so they quit.
So the possibility of how dangerous it is, it is polluting
the Arkansas River.
Mr. Lamborn. OK. And Ms. Rudolph? And thank you for
staying. I know that you are pushing your flight back to
Denver.
Ms. Rudolph. That is quite all right. I am happy to stay.
This is important.
I would add to that that of great concern to us is the
actual contamination of the Arkansas River itself. We have been
working for many years to clean up the California Gulch
Superfund Site, and there has been a great deal of improvement
in the river. But there continues to be a need to improve that.
If there is a blowout in the Leadville Mine Drainage
Tunnel, we fear that the improvements that we have made over
the last 25 years or so in the Arkansas River would be for
naught; and that we would end up with heavily contaminated
metals, with metals going down the Arkansas River and
destroying much, if not most, of the aquatic life for many
miles downstream. And it would be a real problem, and we would
have to basically start over again to try to clean up this
river, which really is a national treasure
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you both so much, and for being here as
well.
Mr. Quint, earlier this year Mr. Johnson of the Bureau was
in this very room--well, down the hall--and I asked him several
questions. I said, are you aware of the blockage in the
Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel in my district, and he said yes.
And I said, does the Bureau of Reclamation have a duty to
maintain the facilities they own. And he said yes. I said, will
you commit to my constituents that you will work with me to
solve this problem, and he said yes.
How can the Bureau today be against H.R. 5511, in view of
these yes answers?
Mr. Quint. My answer to that is we feel this bill is
premature. Until we get this risk assessment completed, and
work with a lot of the people you see at this table and their
staff to figure out the long-term solutions, this bill is
premature
Mr. Lamborn. Mr. Quint, all this bill does is say that the
Bureau has the responsibility that is admittedly belonging to
the Bureau. The Bureau owns the tunnel.
Mr. Quint. Absolutely.
Mr. Lamborn. Then how can you be, the Bureau be against the
bill?
Mr. Quint. The bill talks about, about maintaining and
doing a lot to the tunnel that may or may not be part of the
long-term solution of the situation out there
Mr. Lamborn. For Ms. Rudolph or Mr. Hickman, what is your
response to that same question? I know that you don't speak for
the Bureau, but from your perspective.
Ms. Rudolph. From our perspective, from Colorado's
perspective, we are troubled by this response. Because we see
the bill as exactly what you were just saying: it provides the
necessary authority and direction to the Bureau to take on the
responsibility, whatever that may be, to repair and maintain
the tunnel. And then also to participate in that part of the
California Gulch Superfund remedy.
From our perspective, this would be like if you stalled
your car on the highway, and you decided to wait and study the
backup behind you before you agreed that it was your
responsibility to move the car. That is kind of what we are
hearing here, is what are the risks of there being damage or a
blowout; we have to evaluate that before we can agree that we
are responsible for maintenance and repair of the tunnel.
We think this bill is necessary to establish that
authority. The risk, the analysis of the risks may follow, but
let us get the authority, the direction on the books now, so
that it is clear who is ultimately responsible for whatever
maintenance and repair is necessary
Mr. Lamborn. And Mr. Hickman?
Mr. Hickman. We are also troubled by the delay that the
Bureau of Reclamation has wanted to get into the specific long-
term fix with regards to the Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel.
Thirty-two years ago Congress was sold on the idea that in
two months, we would have a study done. Another risk assessment
is not going to fix the tunnel. This particular bill
specifically puts the Bureau of Reclamation in line to fix the
problem, not study it
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you all for your testimony. Mr. Hickman,
in Leadville we have the highest incorporated city in the
United States, if I am not mistaken?
Mr. Hickman. That is correct, sir
Mr. Lamborn. So all the water flows downhill from there.
And it is not just the Arkansas River in Colorado, but a number
of other states are affected as well. Thank you so much for
being here today.
Mr. Hickman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lamborn. And I yield back, Madame Chairwoman.
Ms. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Lamborn. Mr. Udall.
Mr. Udall. Thank you, Madame Chair. I would like to turn my
questions to Mr. Quint, and follow up on some of the very
important questions that my colleague, Congressman Lamborn,
asked.
Mr. Quint, you say the Administration supports the bill's
goals, but it doesn't support the bill, because you aren't sure
it is necessary to do what it requires. Well, the bill requires
Reclamation to do three things, so let me ask you about each
one of them in turn.
The first is to treat water, find any blockage in the
tunnel, including surface water diverted there as a part of the
Superfund Cleanup Plan. Are you saying you don't know whether
that water should be treated?
Mr. Quint. Absolutely not. We feel that is our----
Mr. Udall. All right. The second requirement is to manage
and maintain the water in the tunnel to prevent surface runoff
and minimize the chance of tunnel failure.
Are you saying that you don't know whether you should have
to do that?
Mr. Quint. No.
Mr. Udall. And the bill says that Reclamation has to repair
and maintain the tunnel to prevent an uncontrolled release of
water. Are you saying you don't know whether you should have to
do that, either?
Mr. Quint. The issue I would take with that is whether this
is the best way to deal with that situation.
Mr. Udall. Well, let me carry on here. If the problem with
doing them, even if they aren't absolutely necessary, is it a
question of cost? And if so, do you have any estimates of that
cost?
Mr. Quint. We do not have the estimates for that cost at
this point in time. And that of course is always an issue as
far as our budget.
Mr. Udall. I would note that earlier this year there were
some estimates that seemed to be well within hand, and easily
appropriated, or actually available to the Bureau of
Reclamation. Let me keep moving on.
If your assessment showed that these things were necessary,
would you then support the legislation?
Mr. Quint. If the appropriate solution was, was such that
you have written, I am not sure that the bill----
Mr. Udall. Can you give me a yes or a no on that?
Mr. Quint. I can give you a maybe on that, because I don't
know the specifics of what the long-term solution will be.
Mr. Udall. If you said it was necessary, would you support
the legislation?
Mr. Quint. Yes.
Mr. Udall. Thank you. In her testimony, Ms. Rudolph says
that Reclamation has stymied Colorado and EPA's efforts to
implement the cleanup plan for this part of the Superfund Site,
and is continuing to stall. What is your reaction to that?
Mr. Quint. I believe Reclamation has been a responsible
party here, and will continue to be in the future.
Mr. Udall. Ms. Sutherland, does the EPA agree with--Ms.
Rudolph. I am sorry, Ms. Rudolph on this point. It is for Ms.
Sutherland, not for Ms. Rudolph.
Do you agree with Ms. Rudolph on the points that I just
outlined, that were in Ms. Rudolph's testimony?
Ms. Sutherland. Well, I think we are working very well with
Bureau of Reclamation now. And I think we are really in
partnership, and trying to again get to the long-term solution,
while EPA really focuses their removal authority on the short-
term solution.
Mr. Udall. Could I ask, I think those are well-made points,
but yes or no. Because she said, let me read it, she said that
Reclamation has stymied Colorado and EPA's efforts to implement
the cleanup plan, and is continuing to stall. Would you agree
or disagree with that analysis?
Ms. Sutherland. There has been no delay in our short-term
actions caused by BOR. We have moved out very quickly, and are
continuing to do so.
Mr. Udall. So your answer is no.
Ms. Sutherland. No.
Mr. Udall. In her testimony, Ms. Rudolph says that
Reclamation has continued to assert that it is not responsible
for the maintenance or repair of the tunnel. Is that true, Mr.
Quint?
Mr. Quint. Say that again, please?
Mr. Udall. In her testimony, Ms. Rudolph says Reclamation
has continued to assert that it is not responsible for the
maintenance or repair of the tunnel. Is that true?
Mr. Quint. We are responsible for treating the wastewater
that comes out of the tunnel. Whatever we need to do to
maintain that tunnel to continue to be able to do that, that is
our limits of responsibility.
Mr. Udall. So if Reclamation isn't responsible for
repairing and maintaining the tunnel, who is then? If not, who
is responsible?
Mr. Quint. I am not sure I understand the question.
Mr. Udall. If Reclamation--yes. If you are not responsible,
who is responsible for repairing and maintaining the tunnel?
Mr. Quint. We own the tunnel. We are responsible for
operating and maintaining the tunnel in order to continue to
treat the water that comes out of the tunnel. And that is the
main purpose of the tunnel.
Mr. Udall. I see the yellow light is on, but so what is
your objection to, if you own it, what is your objection to the
bill then, which flat-out states, clarifies if you will, that
you are responsible for repairing and maintaining the tunnel
since you own it?
Mr. Quint. Our objection is that this bill is premature.
Until we get the risk assessment done, and we also have to
reevaluate the ROD that we have in place out there for Operable
Unit 6, there may be a different long-term solution that may
not include the long-term stability of the tunnel.
Mr. Udall. One comment and final question, Madame
Chairwoman. As Congressman Lamborn aptly put it, powerfully put
it, this has been going on for 30 years. Commissioner Hickman,
you are aware of this. We have been hearing about studies all
the way back to Senator Haskell's era. What steps have you
taken, the county taken, to respond to the threat that has
caused you to declare a state of emergency?
Mr. Quint. The first thing we did was the location of where
the EPA is drilling up on the east side. There was between 15
to 25 feet of snow above the area, and if you think of a loader
trying to move and pick up snow, and placing it 25 feet in the
air, it took us approximately a week from the time we declared
the state of emergency to when the EPA could start their
process. And they started it immediately. They cleared a pad.
They have now since partially completed the pipe going in.
Also, with the declaration of the state of emergency, all
local emergency services were put on notice. The Bureau of
Reclamation, who had installed sirens at their plant, but had
never tested them, we finally were able to test the emergency.
We got the Fire Department out there, we got emergency
services, FEMA, and the Red Cross has now supplied us with
cots, emergency medical. The hospital is on alert. And everyone
is waiting for the first drop to come out of the east side of
Leadville.
So the county has been instrumental in providing any and
all support that the EPA, and/or the Bureau--I don't think we
have done anything for the Bureau, because they are still
waiting for the water. But maintenance of trucks, a parking
area for EPA's trucks. So the county is cooperating any way and
every way we possibly can in case we have an emergency, and/or
if the contractors that are on the job need chains, welding,
we, our road and bridge shop is well versed in what they need.
So we are participating very well with them.
Mr. Udall. Thank you for that summary. Madame Chairwoman,
thank you for indulging me with a little extra time. This is
important, and thank you for your interest and concern as well.
Ms. Napolitano. I would be more than happy to hear one more
question. You are fine, OK. I know you have a markup, so thank
you very much for coming to the Subcommittee and staying with
us.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you. I want to thank you,
Chairwoman Napolitano, for having this important hearing today
and considering a very important bill, H.R. 155, to provide
compensation to the Lower Brule and Crow Creek Sioux Tribes of
South Dakota for damage to tribal land caused by the Pick-Sloan
projects along the Missouri River. I appreciate our working
relationship, your interest in these bills, learning more about
the impact of the Pick-Sloan project on the tribes in question,
what they would do with the additional monies for which
compensation would be granted under H.R. 155.
And thank you for inviting my good friend, Chairman Michael
Jandreau, to testify today. I commend his testimony as well as
the written testimony of a newly elected tribal leader for the
Crow Creek Sioux Tribe, Brandon Sazue, who is here today, and
has submitted written testimony for the hearing record.
[The statement submitted for the record by Brandon Sazue
follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Brandon Sazue,
Chairman, Crow Creek Sioux Tribe
Thank you very much for the opportunity to submit testimony on H.R.
155, the Lower Brule and Crow Creek Compensation Act. I am Brandon
Sazue Chairman of the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe. It is an honor for me to
support Chairman Mike Jandreau. Chairman Jandreau is the most senior
Chairman in our State and in the Great Sioux Nation. I am the most
junior Chairman in the Sioux Nation, having been sworn in just two days
ago on May 6th.
The legislation before you is of extraordinary importance to our
Tribe. Crow Creek has the dubious distinction of being the poorest
Tribe in the country, located in Buffalo County, South Dakota.
The Crow Creek Sioux Tribe consists of 225,000 acres located in
Central South Dakota. Our Western boundary is the Missouri River. In
1944, when the Congress enacted the Flood Control Act and authorized
implementation of the Missouri River Basin Pick-Sloan Plan for water
control, two of the dams, Fort Randall and Big Bend, flooded over
16,000 acres of our best and most productive bottomland. It was also
the very land where a majority of our people lived. The cost to Crow
Creek in human terms, and economically, was astronomical.
We lost:
Our hospital;
Housing units;
Tribal Buildings and other structures;
Schools;
Businesses;
Roads;
Acres of waterbed and timberland, and domestic and ranch
water systems;
Food sources, such as fishing, hunting, and subsistence
farming; and
Ceremonial grounds and traditional medicines.
Our way of life was altered irreparably. Before the dams, the
lifestyle was simple. The people worked in a community garden. In the
evenings, the people would gather to share that day's catch of fish and
the food gathered. They would meet to visit, pray, sing, and dance
where the Bureau officials could not observe. The children attended
boarding school within walking distance of their homes and family. The
way of life, the social interactions, the camaraderie and sense of
being one people--one Tribe, was destroyed by the environmental changes
and forced relocation. The hospital and school were never replaced. The
traditional medicine that grew solely in the waterbed and the
Ceremonial Grounds are irreplaceable.
The elders observed that this is when the change occurred. People
started to watch each other, argue with each other, begrudge each
other, and become disgruntled. With the loss our school, the next
option was the Immaculate Conception Boarding School, 13 miles away.
The students were no longer able to walk to their homes and families on
a daily basis, and those teaching were not people who believed in the
heritage, culture, and customs of the students. Abuses that occurred in
Catholic Boarding Schools are well documented historically, and I will
not expand, except to say that the loss of our school negatively
impacted our people on a much larger scale. This impact on the social
development of our people has rippled down through generations.
Chairman Jandreau has spoken eloquently regarding the desire to
join the global market and seeking economic parity with the rest of
America. I strongly agree and support those goals. At Crow Creek we
must first achieve parity with Chamberlain, South Dakota just twenty-
five miles away. A small town of just 2,000 people, Chamberlain's
unemployment rate is approximately the state average--5 percent, while
the rate at Crow Creek is over 80 percent.
For us to move forward, we must improve our infrastructure and
create an environment that is conducive to human and economic progress.
The Crow Creek Sioux Tribe Infrastructure Development Trust Fund Act
enacted in 1996 (P.L. 104-223) awarded $27.5 million to the Crow Creek
Sioux Tribe. Of the $27.5 million, the Tribe is allowed to utilize the
interest. The Tribal Parity Act would greatly enhance the trust fund,
thus increasing our available monies and allowing us to leverage with
the private sector. The first year of the trust fund, we received
slightly over a million dollars. Due to fluctuating interest rates, the
yield is now much less.
We have utilized the interest to do a number of things to improve
the situation of our people, including the following:
Purchase a small school with a gymnasium in the Big Bend
District--the furthest outlying district. We are able to provide
Kindergarten through 6th grade education to students in that area,
preventing the necessity of an hour-long bus ride each way to and from
school;
Construct a Community Building in the Crow Creek
District, providing a place to gather for socializing, celebrations,
and funerals;
Construct a Community Building in the Fort Thompson
District, utilized for community events, program presentations, wakes,
weddings, dance, meetings, and as a polling place;
Set a higher education program to assist students in
college;
Purchase land to increase the land base; and
Improve damaged roads and upgrade our water plant.
These initiatives just begin to scratch the surface. The
legislation we are discussing today, H.R. 155, is intended to
supplement our existing trust fund. The expanded trust fund would
enable the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe to make significant strides in growth
and development. Economic development and environmental improvements
would change the lives of our people, our children, and all future
generations of Crow Creek Sioux. It would assist in putting
Reservations on parallel ground, enabling us to compete economically,
with Chamberlain and the rest of the United States, as opposed to
remaining in our current state, operating below the standards of most
Third World Countries.
It is important to point out, however, that while the need is very
great this legislation is justified based upon the merits of the bill.
When our existing trust fund was enacted it was not intended or
considered full and final compensation. The legislation before you
would be the full and final compensation to Crow Creek Sioux Tribe for
the damages we have suffered by the building of the dams.
For the men, women, and children of the Crow Creek and Lower Brule
Sioux Tribes, there is nothing more important right now than moving
forward with the this Act. The new Tribal Council, including myself as
Chairman, understands the challenges that lie ahead. Our reason for
running for office and our daily motivation is to improve the situation
and make a positive difference for the people of the Crow Creek Sioux
Tribe. This legislation is an essential step in our efforts to reverse
the downward trend and move forward.
We would appreciate our testimony being made a part of the hearing
record. Thank you.
______
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Madame Chairman, I would ask you now
to submit my opening statement for the record, and go through
to questions.
Ms. Napolitano. Without objection.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Herseth Sandlin follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, a Representative
in Congress from the State of South Dakota, on H.R. 155
Thank you Chairwoman Napolitano and Ranking Member McMorris Rodgers
for including H.R. 155: the Lower Brule and Crow Creek Tribal
Compensation Act in today's Water and Power Subcommittee hearing.
This bill would fully compensate the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe and
the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe in South Dakota for the lands that they lost
as a result of the federal government's construction of massive dams on
the main stem of the Missouri River. The Lower Brule Sioux Tribe and
the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe are both constituent bands of the Great
Sioux Nation. Both border on the Missouri River in central South
Dakota.
The 1944 Flood Control Act was designed to mitigate flooding and to
develop hydroelectric power production, among other purposes. As part
of the Flood Control Act, the Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin project
was authorized. This joint venture by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
and the Bureau of Reclamation led to the construction of five dams on
the Missouri River, four of which were constructed in South Dakota.
As part of the Pick-Sloan project, the construction of the Fort
Randal Dam caused the flooding of 17,415 acres of Crow Creek and Lower
Brule land. It is important to note that the federal government began
construction of the Fort Randal dam prior to reaching a settlement with
the tribes. In 1959, the Corps began construction of the Big Bend Dam.
This project subsequently flooded an additional 20,478 acres of tribal
land. In addition to the land and the natural resources that were lost,
over one hundred native families were displaced.
The loss of land has meant a loss of grazing and farming acreage,
destruction of timber and wildlife habitat, and upheaval in the lives
of the families forced from their lands to make way for the dams.
Unquestionably, the Pick-Sloan projects exacted an enormous toll on the
people of both tribes and their economies. It is important that we seek
to fully reimburse these tribes for the lands they lost and recognize
that the permanent flooding and displacement undermined the economic
and cultural fabric of the tribe.
Congress created a trust fund for the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe in
1996, and a separate trust fund for the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe in
1997. These trust funds sought to compensate the tribes for the value
of their land that is now permanently inundated as a result of the
construction of the Fort Randall and Big Bend Dams.
Regrettably, the amounts of compensation between different but
similarly situated tribes varied greatly along the Missouri River. The
result was unfair and inadequate compensation trust funds for Lower
Brule and Crow Creek. This act is intended to create consistency among
the affected tribes and to bring some long-overdue closure to two
tribes whose best lands were inundated decades ago.
This legislation already has a history that spans multiple
Congresses. An earlier version of this bill was reported by the Senate
Committee on Indian Affairs in the 108th Congress and ultimately passed
the Senate. In the 109th Congress it was amended in the Senate after
further hearings and then reported.
Unlike earlier versions of this bill, Section 5 of H.R. 155 states
that ``this act shall be considered...full and final compensation...for
damages caused by construction of the Fort Randall Dam and the Big Bend
Dam.'' It is my hope that the 110th Congress will act on this
legislation.
Compensation for these tribes would mean an ability to actively
work for the betterment of their communities. It would mean adequate
roads and improved community facilities. It would mean better health
care and newer schools. It would mean attracting commercial business
and improving the local economy. Most importantly, it would mean a real
chance for these tribes to provide future generations with the tools
that so many of us take for granted.
Today, this subcommittee will hear testimony from Chairman Michael
Jandreau of the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe. Mr. Jandreau has served as
chairman of the tribe for over 29 years. He will explain the impacts
that the Pick-Sloan projects had on his community and why just
compensation is necessary in order for the community to continue their
efforts to rebuild their economy and their way of life.
I would also like to acknowledge Mr. Brandon Sazue, the Chairman of
the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe. Mr. Sazue was sworn in as tribal chairman
on Tuesday of this week. I thank him for traveling to Washington, DC
for this hearing as well as for the written testimony he provided for
the record.
In closing, I once again thank the Chairwoman, the Ranking Member,
and the Members of this subcommittee for holding today's hearing. I
appreciate your willingness to work with me to enact legislation that
would fairly and appropriately compensate members of the Lower Brule
and Crow Creek Sioux Tribes. I ask you to do it because of the
tremendous positive difference it would make in the lives of those
affected--and because it is the right and fair thing to do.
______
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Chairman Jandreau, thank you for
traveling to Washington, D.C. today. I see some other members
of the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe who have traveled here with you,
and we appreciate your testimony, and your time, and your
willingness to share your perspective on this invaluable
legislation.
I would like, if you could, to elaborate, for the
Chairwoman and myself and Committee staff, on how the Lower
Brule Sioux Tribe has used the compensation funds that the
tribe has received in the past from the current trust fund; and
perhaps provide any examples of how Lower Brule would use the
additional compensation monies, should H.R. 155 become law.
Mr. Jandreau. Currently we have used the infrastructure
dollars primarily to build much-needed facilities on the
reservation: a travel headquarters, a community center, a
detention facility, a wildlife department, partially for the
ambulance department and for the water department.
Also those dollars were used because of the reduction in
funding, for employment coming to the reservation, a portion of
these dollars are used every year to help create employment on
the reservation. We also use them to fund, to a great extent,
our day-care center, our eyeglass program for the youth. We
have used our dollars to really try to build not only hard
facilities but human beings.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. And can you elaborate as well for us
the studies that you have undertaken? The analysis as it
relates to just compensation for this taking?
Mr. Jandreau. We have done a number of studies in regard to
that, which we submitted to Congress, to the Senate, some of
which we submitted to you, that talked about the dollars, and
the real lack of full, just compensation that had been afforded
our tribe, and the Crow Creek Tribe. That these takings were by
condemnation, under which there was no negotiation whatsoever.
I also listened with a great deal of interest the
discussions about contamination in other areas of the country,
which this Committee is concerned with. And I find that in the
Missouri River, which is the longest river in the United
States, the contamination has been building consistently in
that river. And the concern that is being reflected is not at
the level that it is in other parts of the country. So the work
being done is being done with cooperation of our own people,
and we fund a lot of their activities.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Chairman Jandreau.
Mr. Quint, I understand--I can't see you very well, but I
understand that the Bureau of Reclamation operates the dams in
question but isn't directly involved in questions regarding
compensation. However, that being said, in review of your
written testimony, I think it conveys the Administration's
opposition to H.R. 155.
And so you can either take these questions now, or submit
answers in writing. But Madame Chairwoman, I would like to
submit the following questions to Mr. Quint and the
Administration.
One, has the Administration conducted its own analysis of
the various tribal compensation bills related to the Pick-Sloan
project? And if so, what are the findings?
Two, is the Administration's position that all impacted
tribes have been justly compensated?
And three, is the Administration's position that Lower
Brule and Crow Creek Sioux Tribes have been justly compensated
for their losses?
Mr. Quint. We would be happy to submit the answers to those
for the record.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. I appreciate that. Madame Chairwoman--
--
Ms. Napolitano. One more question. I am willing to concede
the time.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Well, I don't have any further
questions. Again, I appreciate you working closely with us to
address this matter.
The fact of the matter is the compensation amounts
following the Pick-Sloan projects between different, but
similarly situated, tribes vary greatly along the Missouri
River. The result was unfair and inadequate compensation trust
funds for the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe and the Crow Creek Sioux
Tribe. And this Act is intended to create consistency among the
affected tribes, and to bring some long overdue closure to two
tribes whose best lands were inundated and taken away from them
decades ago.
The legislation we have introduced already has a history
that spans multiple Congresses. And we look forward to working
with you to advance this legislation, 110th Congress, and
hopefully find resolution for the equitable compensation to
these two tribes that I am honored to represent.
Thank you, Madame Chairman. Thank you for allowing me to
participate in today's hearing.
Ms. Napolitano. You are very welcome. And your questions
will be submitted for the record, and we expect them to be
answered promptly, please. I am sorry, I have to do that,
because if I don't, I end up having to wait, and I don't like
to wait that long.
Talking in regard to 155, Chairman Jandreau, the current
trust funds for the economic development, what has been done
with them? And apparently the tribe's analysis was different
from the GAO reports, not using the tribe's final asking prices
as the starting point of the analysis, and second not providing
a range of additional compensation.
Mr. Jandreau. I guess I don't truly understand, except to
say that our consultant's starting point that the tribes
determined over time to be fair market value for the damage,
and the historical evidence, shows that the tribe's final
asking prices were offered on the conditions of extreme duress.
And it was a take-it-or-leave-it situation.
In response to GAO's criticism, our consultant calculated
four alternative ranges of additional compensation. These
alternatives ranged from $20.6 million to $432.5 million for
Lower Brule, and from $11.5 million to $93.8 million for Crow
Creek.
And also because of the criticism received, Section 5 of
the bill tells that we would consider this final compensation
for Crow Creek and Lower Brule, as far as the claim for the
Missouri River.
Ms. Napolitano. There are five other tribes that apparently
have received compensation, and they have not come back for a
third request. Do you feel it has been unfair to you?
Mr. Jandreau. Yes, I do feel it has been unfair. You know--
--
Ms. Napolitano. In what way, sir?
Mr. Jandreau. If additional compensation is not provided
for Lower Brule and Crow Creek, then equitable settlement will
not have been achieved. And these tribes have received most
equitable treatment.
Ms. Napolitano. You mean the other five tribes?
Mr. Jandreau. No, these two tribes, Lower Brule and Crow
Creek, than Cheyenne River, two affiliated, Santee Oryenta,
because of the variance and the costs that were afforded these
four tribes, versus Lower Brule and Crow Creek.
Ms. Napolitano. OK, sir. Because I have a summary of what
each tribe in that area had been, the acreage lost, the
payments, et cetera. And I haven't done the math, but I am
going to be looking at it a little more closely to see what the
percentages were.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin indicated it was some of your best
land.
Mr. Jandreau. Yes, it was.
Ms. Napolitano. Have you used a lot of your trust funds for
economic development?
Mr. Jandreau. Yes, we do, to the degree that we can. Our
present trust fund is used primarily for survival income,
ma'am. We don't have a huge casino. Our casino is very small.
And the population served by it is very small. Consequently,
the returns are very small in comparison to other casinos
throughout the country.
Our land base is used primarily by our members and by our
agricultural activities. Our efforts are to create self-
efficiency based on the assets that we have. One of the assets,
of course, we have expanded into value-added agricultural
production, and we have started another business for that
purpose.
Crow Creek likely is the same way, where they use their
land base to the greatest extent possible to generate income
for the people.
However, the dollars that we receive are not anything but
the interest that we receive, all from the trust funds. And as
you know, the interest rates on government paper has been very,
very low. And that is what we are subjected to. We based our
return and our capacity on a 6 percent interest rate. We have
found our interest rate to be at .08 of 1 percent for
overnighters, up to 3.8 on bills that we were able to purchase
through the process that we have to utilize. Our income over
the last two years has been 4.8 percent of our trust fund.
Ms. Napolitano. Chairman, would you be so kind as to put
that in writing, so we can introduce it into the record? I
would like to see it further, if you wouldn't mind.
Mr. Jandreau. Yes, I would.
Ms. Napolitano. Thank you. I will move on to the next one,
because we have to keep moving.
But to Mr. Lansford, let us see. I am losing my place here.
Mr. Lansford, Chairman Lansford, what are the eight cities and
counties involved in the Ute Pipeline Project doing to prepare
financially for this project?
Mr. Lansford. Madame Chairwoman, that is a good question.
We have, for the last several years, looked at various
financing plans. And currently we are in the process now of
finalizing the adoption of a finance plan which involves
several communities increasing their wastewater rates, or their
water rates. And the City of Clovis, being the largest member
of the Authority, actually has implemented a gross receipts
tax, which a portion of that has been dedicated as a revenue
stream to service a debt on the local share.
Ms. Napolitano. And in all of the authorities' research and
consultations, what kind of evidence have you collected
relating to the decline of the aquifer?
Mr. Lansford. Well, most recently and most troubling has
been some data that has been accumulated by the City of
Portales and the private water company that is associated with
the City of Clovis.
And to summarize that would be to say that in the last
eight years, the water provider for Clovis, New Mexico has
doubled the number of wells in production. Yet the amount of
water being produced is about 5 percent to 10 percent less than
it was eight years ago, with again twice as many wells
producing.
Ms. Napolitano. Are your wells declining, then?
Mr. Lansford. Very dramatically. And of course, the Energy
Bill is kind of a mixed blessing for us. We are an
agricultural-based community, and there are corn growers in the
area, and sorghum producers, and feed producers for dairies.
And of course, they run their wells very, very often and very
long. So the demand for water has increased in the area as
well.
Ms. Napolitano. My concern while sitting in this
Subcommittee is that we continue to look for and try to help
out wherever we can to assure the water delivery, clean water
delivery, and clean up the contaminated aquifers. That is why I
continue to bring that up.
We may be needing every single drop from every well and
from every river and from every resource that we can, every
source. So that is why I would like to have any information
that you have submitted for the record, so that we may be able
to take that into consideration also.
Mr. Quint and Mr. Lansford, Cannon Air Force Base will be
the major recipient of this rural water project, apparently.
Yet there is no cross-share for the military as there have been
in other bills, such as Camp Pendleton, their license water
bill. And how is the Air Force going to pay for the water? Or
are they going to be paid for the water? Or are they going to
made to pay for the water?
Mr. Quint. I do not have that information in front of me
now. I will look into that and get back to you for the record.
Ms. Napolitano. I would really appreciate it, because if it
is free water, I take objection to that.
Mr. Quint. I understand.
Ms. Napolitano. I think everybody has been made to pick
water; as these people have indicated, it is not easy and it is
not cheap.
Mr. Lansford.
[Pause.]
Ms. Napolitano. I am all right. I had a shot for pneumonia,
and it is giving me fits. My left arm is bugging me, so you
will have to forgive me, please. Yes, Mr. Lansford.
Mr. Lansford. Madame Chairwoman, that is a very good
question, and I will assure you that the Department of Defense
will not get free water from this project.
Currently the Cannon Air Force Base facility is not a
member of the Water Authority, but they do have water reserved
through the City of Clovis. There is a memorandum of
understanding that has been in place for a number of years
whereby they would actually purchase the water from the Water
Authority through an agreement with the City of Clovis. And so
ultimately, when water is delivered, they would become a
customer of the Water Authority, and would pay market price for
the water.
Ms. Napolitano. So they are, they are going to be paying
for that water.
Mr. Lansford. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Napolitano. OK. To Mr. Hickman, what effect has all the
publicity over this environmental threat had on the citizens of
Lake County and your economy?
Mr. Hickman. It has had, at the very initial start it had a
dramatic impact in that we had cancellation of reservations. We
have had restaurants, sales down.
Since that time, we have done our own publicity saying that
the drinking water is fine, please come to Leadville. We
believe that the two Federal agencies are working as hard as
they possibly can to solve the short-term problem.
Since that time, we also had some real estate sales that
were not consummated. Since that time, we are now approximately
three months down the road, and those real estate transactions
have happened. Our sales tax is actually up from what it was
before. We, our immediate disaster declaration was picked up by
the press, and picked up hard by the press. But it has brought
us to this table today, and I would do it again.
But I think Leadville and its economy is back on line, and
we hope that--our tourist season is actually the summer. And we
can point to a particular area on the east side and say this is
what the EPA is doing right now to solve our short-term
problem.
Ms. Napolitano. Thank you. Have you had any contact, been
contacted by or been involved in what impact it might have on
your fishing industry, if you have fishing? Or on the wildlife,
on estuaries, if there are any? What impact? Because it says
the runoff is not bad. But certainly some of these animals are
susceptible, and that could cause a problem for some of the
economy you might be banking on.
Mr. Hickman. I think if we had the environmental
catastrophe that has been outlined in the EPA's letter, that we
would not have a fishery, period. And it would have a dramatic
impact upon our community. It not only would have an impact on
our community; it would be all the way down to Pueblo, Colorado
Springs, and other places that use that water not only for
drinking, but for recreation.
So it immediately--whitewater rafting has become extremely
big in Lake County and Chaffee County. Would you want to
whitewater raft in polluted water? This coming from Leadville.
And the answer is absolutely, positively not.
So we are real concerned that if we have this environmental
catastrophe that the EPA has outlined, that our economic
development, our tourism would be devastated.
Ms. Napolitano. Then the effect on fish and wildlife,
though.
Mr. Hickman. Absolutely, absolutely. I think Ms. Rudolph
referred to a blowout of the Yak treatment plant, which is just
above the Gaw Shaft, about 1982. And it affected the fisheries
all the way down to Canyon City. The water was basically turned
gold, and we lost our fishery. We do not want to see that
happen again.
Ms. Napolitano. Thank you. And I will move that that map,
probably in a smaller, condensed form, be accepted into the
record. It is a little big.
And thank you, all the witnesses. This concludes the
Subcommittee's hearing on H.R. 155--I apologize for the
lateness--the Lower Brule and Crow Creek Tribal Compensation
Act by Ms. Herseth Sandlin. H.R. 5511, the Leadville Mine
Drainage Tunnel Remediation Act of 2008 by Mr. Lamborn. And
H.R. 5710, the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water System
Authorization by Mr. Tom Udall.
Our thanks to all of you again for appearing before the
Subcommittee, and for being so honest and candid. And I hope to
see that draft, how would I say, forthwith?
Mr. Quint. We are working really, really hard on that.
Ms. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Quint. Your testimonies and
expertise have been very enlightening and very helpful. And we
will, of course, include it in the record.
Under Committee Rule 4[h], additional material for the
record should be submitted within 10 business days after this
hearing. The cooperation of all the witnesses in replying
promptly to the questions submitted to you in writing will be
greatly appreciated. And I was informed by Mr. Lamborn's staff
that there will be questions submitted for the record.
This hearing is now adjourned. And again, thank you.
[Whereupon, at 1:26 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]