[Senate Hearing 110-152]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 110-152
MISCELLANEOUS WATER AND POWER LEGISLATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
S. 300 S. 1522
S. 1258 H.R. 1025
S. 1477
__________
JULY 26, 2007
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
38-032 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2007
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800
DC area (202)512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho
RON WYDEN, Oregon LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington BOB CORKER, Tennessee
KEN SALAZAR, Colorado JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
JON TESTER, Montana MEL MARTINEZ, Florida
Robert M. Simon, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
Frank Macchiarola, Republican Staff Director
Judith K. Pensabene, Republican Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Water and Power
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota, Chairman
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota BOB CORKER, Tennessee
RON WYDEN, Oregon LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
KEN SALAZAR, Colorado JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon
JON TESTER, Montana JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
Jeff Bingaman and Pete V. Domenici are Ex Officio Members of the
Subcommittee
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Allard, Hon. Wayne, U.S. Senator from Colorado................... 5
Benemelis, Perri, on Behalf of Herbert R. Guenther, Director,
Arizona Department of Water Resources, Phoenix, AZ............. 34
Caan, George, Executive Director, Colorado River Commission of
Nevada, Las Vegas, NV on behalf of Colorado River Energy
Distributors Association (CREDA)............................... 26
Cantwell, Hon. Maria, U.S. Senator from Washington............... 3
Corker, Hon. Bob, U.S. Senator from Tennessee.................... 6
Kennedy, Gary, Superintendent, Mancos Water Conservancy District,
Mancos, CO..................................................... 30
Kyl, Hon. Jon, U.S. Senator from Arizona......................... 4
McDaniel, Shannon, Secretary/Manager, South Columbia Basin
Irrigation District, National Water Resources Association,
Pasco, WA...................................................... 24
Salazar, Hon. Ken, U.S. Senator from Colorado.................... 7
Smith, Hon. Gordon H., U.S. Senator from Oregon.................. 5
Thalacker, Marc, Manager, Three Sisters Irrigation District, on
Behalf of Oregon Water Resources Congress, Salem, OR........... 20
Todd, Larry, Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Administration and
Budget, Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior...... 8
Wilson, Everett, Deputy Assistant Director for Fisheries, Fish
and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior............... 14
Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator from Oregon........................ 1
APPENDIXES
Appendix I
Responses to additional questions................................ 41
Appendix II
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 51
MISCELLANEOUS WATER AND POWER LEGISLATION
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 26, 2007
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Water and Power,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:33 p.m., in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ken Salazar
presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON
Senator Wyden [presiding]. I call to order this hearing
before the Water and Power Subcommittee. Senator Salazar will
be chairing this subcommittee hearing, but it is a hectic day,
even by Senate standards, so he is on his way.
It's my pleasure to be able to welcome everyone to this
afternoon's hearing. The subcommittee will have two panels of
witnesses here today. A number of them have traveled from
across the country to be able to express their views, and we
thank them for their efforts.
The five bills that are before the subcommittee today are
S. 300, sponsored by Senators Kyl, Reid, Feinstein, and Ensign,
authorizing the lower Colorado River Multi-species Conservation
Program; S. 1258 sponsored by Senators Cantwell, Wyden, Smith,
Allard, and Hatch, which amends the Reclamation Safety of Dams
Act to address the repayment of costs incurred for site
security at reclamation facilities; S. 1477, a bill that
Senator Salazar is sponsoring with Senator Allard, directing
reclamation to carry out the Jackson Gulch Rehabilitation
Project in Colorado; S. 1522 that I've introduced along with
Senators Smith, Craig, Murray, Cantwell, Backus, Crapo, and
Tester--the entire Northwest delegation--which reauthorizes the
Fisheries Restoration and Irrigation Mitigation Act; and H.R.
1025, which authorizes the reclamation to study the feasibility
of a water supply and conservation project in the Republican
River Basin, in Kansas and Nebraska.
We're going to have Senator Allard make his opening
statement because it's going to be a bit hectic. If I can ask
my friend from Colorado to indulge me just for another minute
or two. I'll be able to give my statement on S. 1522 and then
we'll want to recognize our friend from Colorado.
I've been joined by the entire Northwest Senatorial
delegation in supporting S. 1522, the Fisheries Restoration and
Irrigation Mitigation Act. We're also very pleased to be able
to welcome back here, Mr. Mark Thalacker, manager of the Three
Sisters Irrigation District in Sisters who is going to be
speaking on behalf of the Oregon Water Resources Congress,
about the many benefits of the program.
This legislation extends a home-grown common-sense win-win
effort that has a proven track record in helping to restore the
salmon runs in the Pacific Northwest. Since 2001, dollar for
dollar, the fish screening and fish passage facilities funded
by this program are among the most cost-effective uses of
public and private fisheries restoration dollars. Over the past
6 years, more than $10 million in Federal funds has leveraged
nearly $20 million in private and local funding. This money has
protected more than 550 river miles of fish habitat and species
throughout the Pacific Northwest.
The program has wide support, including from Oregon
Governor Ted Kulongoski. I would ask unanimous consent to
include his letter in support of the bill in our record.
Without objection that will be so ordered.
Community leaders, fishery managers, agriculture producers,
and irrigators and environmental organizations, the National
Audubon Society, American Rivers, and Oregon trout all
recognize the benefit of this program. When he was Governor of
Idaho, our Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne also spoke
strongly in behalf of the program.
This year, for the first time, Interior included $1 million
in its fiscal year 2007 work plan to fund the program. Up until
now, every Federal dollar for the program has been added by
Congress and this is a very encouraging sign that the
administration's attitude toward the program is changing. So,
we are looking forward to passing the legislation and working
with Secretary Kempthorne on it.
I would ask unanimous consent to have the rest of my
remarks put into the record.
We have been joined by our friend from Tennessee, Senator
Corker. I think what I'd like to do, with your leave, Senator
Corker--Senator Allard was here. If he could make his
statement, we'll hear from Senator Allard and then we'll go
right to you.
[The prepared statements of Senators Wyden, Cantwell, Kyl,
and Smith follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ron Wyden, U.S. Senator From Oregon
I'm pleased to be joined by all of my friends and fellow Senators
from the Northwest--our acting Subcommittee Chairman, Senator Cantwell;
Senators Gordon Smith, Larry Craig, Patty Murray, Max Baucus, Jon
Tester, and Mike Crapo in supporting S. 1522, the Fisheries Restoration
and Irrigation Mitigation Act of 2007--a bill to reauthorize the FRIMA
(pronounced ``freema'') program, as we call it.
Let me also recognize and welcome back Mr. Marc Thalacker, Manager
of the Three Sisters Irrigation District in Sisters, Oregon, who will
be speaking today on behalf of the Oregon Water Resources Congress
about the many benefits of the FRIMA program.
Our legislation extends a homegrown, common-sense, win-win program
that has a proven track record in helping to restore Northwestern
salmon runs and protecting other fish species in Oregon, Washington,
Idaho and Western Montana.
Since 2001, dollar-for-dollar, the fish screening and fish passage
facilities funded by FRIMA are among the most cost-effective uses of
public and private fisheries restoration dollars.
Over the past six years, more than $10 million in federal funds has
leveraged nearly $20 million in private, local funding. This money has
protected more than 550 river miles of fish habitat and species
throughout the Northwest.
This program has wide support, including from Oregon Governor
Kulongowski. Community leaders, fisheries managers, agricultural
producers and irrigators, and environmental organizations--the National
Audubon Society, American Rivers, and Oregon Trout--all recognize the
benefit of this program.
While he was Governor of Idaho, Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne
said, ``. . . the FRIMA program serves as an excellent example of
government and private land owners working together to promote
conservation. The screening of irrigation diversions plays a key role
in Idaho's efforts to restore salmon populations while protecting rural
economies.'' And this year, for the first time, Interior included a
million dollars in its FY07 work plan to fund FRIMA. Up until now,
every federal dollar for FRIMA has been added by Congress, and I hope
this is sign that the Administration's attitude toward this program is
truly changing.
I look forward to working with Secretary Kempthorne and with all of
our colleagues here on the Committee to reauthorize this important
program.
Finally, I want to thank Sen. Cantwell for her leadership in
drafting S. 1258, a bill to allocate security costs at Bureau of
Reclamation dams, which I have co-sponsored.
Water and power users of these projects agree that they ought to
pay their fair share of security costs, but believe that these costs
are no different than other operations and maintenance costs and the
15% allocation should apply to security just as it does to these other
costs. And that's what this bill would do.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Maria Cantwell, U.S. Senator From Washington
site security costs at federal dams
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that the Water and Power Subcommittee is
holding this hearing on S. 1258 that is important legislation to ensure
that water and power customers across the West are afforded fairness
and certainty in paying for security costs at federal dams.
I would like to specifically welcome Shannon McDaniel from Pasco,
Washington. Mr. McDaniel is Manager of the South Columbia Basin
Irrigation District and is testifying for the National Water Resources
Association today.
Mr. Chairman, this legislation will expressly authorize the Bureau
of Reclamation's program to enhance site security at federal dams. This
legislation will also ensure appropriate Congressional oversight and
provide certainty to water and power customers in terms of a fair,
durable and equitable allocation of costs they will pay in the future.
I introduced S. 1258 with my colleagues Senators Murray, Wyden,
Hatch, Smith, and Allard to ensure that costs of enhanced security
measures in this post-9/11 world that the Bureau of Reclamation seeks
to recover from water and power customers are fairly allocated.
Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Bureau
of Reclamation undertook an aggressive program protect important
Western, multi-purpose projects, including Grand Coulee Dam in
Washington state.
As multi-purpose projects, these dams not only provide clean,
renewable energy, they also provide important flood control, water
storage for irrigation, municipal and industrial users, and recreation
and environmental mitigation benefits.
Everyone agrees that it is important for Reclamation to act to
protect our critical national infrastructure. The disagreement arises
over who should pay for these enhanced security measures.
Initially, the Commissioner of Reclamation agreed that protection
of these important federal dams is in the national interest and,
therefore, the costs of enhanced security measures should be a federal
expense.
But in 2005, Reclamation abruptly changed its position, probably
because OMB forced the change, and decided to make water and power
customers pay all the costs of increased guards and patrols. In Western
states, this is currently about $20 million per year.
This means about $5 million to the Pacific Northwest. And water and
power customers are asked to shoulder all of these costs.
I find this unfair to federal water and power customers and an
irresponsible way to administer an important federal security program.
I believe that Reclamation's original determination that these costs
should be a federal obligation was the right decision.
Everyone agrees that these critical dams must be protected because
they are federal assets which provided benefits to entire regions of
the country. But is it unfair to force water and power customers to pay
100% of these enhanced security costs.
These costs are then passed on to the end-use customer, many of
which are farming families with limited incomes.
Some wholesale customers are willing to pay for a portion of these
costs, as long as there is transparency and certainty in the program.
They have a right to know where their hard earned money is being spent
and why.
In a similar Reclamation program for these federal projects,
authorized under the 1978 ``Safety of Dams Act'', water and power
customers pay 15% of the costs for protecting the structural safety of
federal dams.
The Safety of Dams cost share formula means that water and power
customers pay a reasonable share of the costs and have more certainty
about what they must pay for the structural safety of dams.
S. 1258 extends the same reasonable cost share allocation and
certainty to Reclamation's enhanced security costs by applying the
cost-sharing formula from the Safety of Dams Act to future capital and
operation and maintenance costs for site security.
S. 1258 also expressly authorizes the site security program and
requires Reclamation to provide annual reports to Congress on:
a) site security activities undertaken for each fiscal year;
b) a breakdown of those costs that indicates which are for
pre-9/11 activities and which are for post-9/11 measures; and
c) a five-year planning horizon that gives Congress and
customers a look at anticipated costs and expenditures.
I think the compromise contained in S. 1258 is a fair one and I
hope we can resolve this issue this year. I understand similar
legislation has been introduced in the House (H.R. 1662) and reported
favorably by the House Water and Power Subcommittee. I hope this
subcommittee can do the same.
I look forward to hearing today's testimony from our witnesses.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jon Kyl, U.S. Senator From Arizona
s. 300--the lower colorado river multi-species conservation program act
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for holding
this hearing on S. 300, the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species
Conservation Program Act. I introduced this bill, along with Senators
Ensign, Feinstein, and Reid, in January 2007, to protect and implement
the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program. This bill
is nearly identical to legislation I introduced late last year with
Senators Ensign, Feinstein, and Reid.
The Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program,
otherwise known as MSCP, is a comprehensive, joint effort among 50
federal and non-federal entities in Arizona, California, and Nevada
whose purposes are to: (1) protect fish and wildlife along the lower
Colorado River while ensuring the certainty of existing river water and
power operations; (2) protect threatened and endangered wildlife under
the Endangered Species Act; and (3) prevent the listing of additional
species on the lower Colorado River.
To accomplish these goals, the MSCP will create more than 8,100
acres of riparian, marsh, and backwater habitat and implement
additional measures to protect 26 endangered, threatened, and sensitive
species. The program covers approximately 400 miles, including the
full-pool elevations of Lake Mead to the United States-Mexico Southerly
international Boundary.
The program costs will be spread over 50 years, and split fifty-
fifty between the federal government and the non-federal entities
covered by MSCP. Arizona and Nevada will each bear 25 percent of the
non-federal costs and California will bear 50 percent of the non-
federal costs.
The Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior approved the
program on April 2, 2005, after nearly a decade of complex negotiations
and considerable planning efforts by federal, state, tribal, and local
officials, and water and power customers.
Although implementation of the program began in April 2005 under
the Department of the Interior's existing authority, legislation is
needed to protect the substantial financial commitments that the non-
federal parties are making to species protection. To that end, the bill
(1) expressly authorizes appropriations to cover the federal share of
the program costs; (2) directs the Secretary of the Interior to manage
and implement MSCP in accordance with the underlying program documents;
and (3) provides a waiver of sovereign immunity to allow the non-
federal parties to enforce, if necessary, the underlying program
documents. The waiver, however, does not allow an action to be brought
against the United States for money damages.
Late in 2006, the House Committee on Resources, Subcommittee on
Water and Power held a comprehensive field hearing in Arizona on the
MSCP Act. Unfortunately, Congress adjourned before it could take action
on the bill. Since then on July 24, 2007, the House Water and Power
Subcommittee held another hearing on the legislation. Both hearings
highlighted the vital importance of the program to Colorado River users
in Arizona, California, and Nevada, and to endangered and threatened
species along the lower Colorado River.
Given the bipartisan support for S. 300, I hope that the Committee
will work with me and the bill's cosponsors in securing its swift
passage in the 110th Congress.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Gordon H. Smith, U.S. Senator From Oregon
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your holding this legislative hearing
today on several bills pending before the subcommittee. I am a
cosponsor of two of the bills being heard today, and look forward to
working with my colleagues to get these bills enacted. I want to
welcome Marc Thalacker of the Three Sisters Irrigation District in
Sister, Oregon, who is here to testify today on behalf of the Oregon
Water Resources Congress.
The first bill that I have cosponsored is S. 1522, the Fisheries
Restoration and Irrigation Mitigation Act of 2007. This bill would
reauthorize an important program in the Pacific Northwest that has
provided federal funding, on a cost-shared basis, for the screening of
water diversions and other facilities to protect fish in our region.
There are numerous fish runs listed as either threatened or
endangered throughout the Pacific Northwest. The health of these runs
affects the commercial fisheries not only off the West Coast, but for
Canadian and Alaskan fishermen as well.
The FRIMA program was originally authorized in 2000. It has been an
important partnership that has assisted numerous Oregon irrigation
districts to construct fish screens and fish passage facilities. Funds
for Oregon projects have generally been leveraged so that the non-
federal cost share has been much larger than required under the
program. Participation in the program is strictly voluntary.
Reauthorization of the FRIMA program is supported by the Oregon
Water Resources Congress, as well as the Idaho Water Users Association
and the Washington State Water Resources Association. I am glad that
the Administration's testimony supports the goals of the program.
The second bill before the subcommittee today that I have
cosponsored is S. 1258, relating to site security costs at Bureau of
Reclamation facilities. In the post-September 11th era, the Bureau of
Reclamation has undertaken a number of site security measures at the
federal dams under its management. Reclamation has taken the position
that facility fortifications should be non-reimbursable expenditures,
but that project beneficiaries should pay for all of the increased
security operation and maintenance (O&M) costs. There are no cost
control measures on this program, which has been an on-going concern
for Reclamation's water and power customers. This bill would put the
site security program under the Reclamation Safety of Dams program,
which has well-established reimbursement and consultation requirements.
Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for convening this hearing. I look
forward to the testimony from today's witnesses.
Senator Wyden. Senator Allard.
STATEMENT OF HON. WAYNE ALLARD, U.S. SENATOR
FROM COLORADO
Senator Allard. Senator Wyden, thank you very much for
recognizing me. I am here to talk about S. 1477, which is an
effort by both Senator Salazar and myself to improve water
management in the State of Colorado.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today and
thank you, Senator Corker, also for being here and allowing me
to speak briefly on behalf of the bill to authorize the
rehabilitation of the Jackson Gulch Project, which Senator
Salazar and I are sponsoring together.
I'd like to extend a special welcome to Gary Kennedy, who
is also here to testify in support of this bill.
As I'm sure you're aware, Mr. Chairman, many federally-
owned Bureau of Reclamation projects throughout the West are
at, or past, their life expectancy and are in severe need of
rehabilitation. While the cost of rehabilitation is generally
one-half to one-third of the cost of replacing a project, this
is more than many small rural communities can afford. The
Bureau has maintained that rehabilitation equates to operations
and maintenance, which in many cases is turned over to local
operating agencies long ago.
It seems to me however, that these two things are not the
same. No matter how many oil changes or tune-ups you perform on
a car, there comes a point where it's no longer serviceable.
The same can be said of these water projects. Local entities
have worked diligently over the years to care for and make
repairs to these projects, but eventually they reach the end of
their operational life and move, and more extensive help is
needed, especially in light of ever increasing Federal water
standards and ever-diminishing water supplies. I believe that
the Federal Government should play a role in assisting local
communities in the rehabilitation of federally-built,
federally-owned projects.
The bill being discussed today is S. 1477. It would
authorize the Secretary of Interior to participate in the cost-
sharing arrangement with the local water entity, the Mancos
Water Conservancy District, to rehabilitate the canals and
other water delivery infrastructure related to the project.
Continued operation of this project is vital to the delivery of
water to residents and agricultural interests in the Mancos
Valley and to Mesa Verde National Park. It is important to
note, under the provisions of this bill, operations and
maintenance will continue to be the responsibility of the
District.
Again, thank you for holding this hearing, Mr. Chairman. I
look forward to working with you, other members of the
committee, and our colleagues in the full Senate to ensure that
this important bill is given the opportunity to advance.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Senator Allard.
Thank you for your patience as well, Senator Corker.
Senator Allard. Thank you, Senator Corker, for yielding to
me. I appreciate that very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
STATEMENT OF HON. BOB CORKER, U.S. SENATOR
FROM TENNESSEE
Senator Corker. Thank you much for being here. I know you
have other business. Senator Wyden, Mr. Chairman, I've
scratched out three times who was going to be chairman today.
I'm glad it's finally you.
Senator Wyden. We may have to go back to your original
draft.
Senator Corker. OK.
It's a pleasure to be here with you today to discuss these
five bills. I appreciate the explanation that's going to be
before us.
I would like to elaborate on two of the bills before us
today. Let me address S. 1258, regarding the safety and
security of our dams. First of all, I think all of you know
that--and I talk a little differently than most of the folks
who are going to be testifying today--I know most of these
issues affect western areas of our country.
Since 9/11 we've invested a substantial amount of time and
money to ensure protection of these critical assets. S. 1258
addresses a policy challenge of who should pay for the ongoing
cost associated with the protection and security of these
facilities.
As the witnesses discuss this bill, I'd like to ask you
provide any insight that you might have for someone like me
who's in a little different part of the country, how the costs
have been allocated by other Federal agencies. In particular,
I'd love to hear how the administration witness would compare
what's happening here, with the Bureau's program, with that
which happens at the Tennessee Valley Authority. I'd just like
to understand the differences there, if I could.
Another challenge we are faced with now, and one that will
be exacerbated in the future, is how to pay for the renovation
and rehabilitation of hundreds of reclamation facilities
through the western United States. The chairman's bill, S.
1477, begins with this debate, and now we're back to the second
chairman I thought might be here, Chairman Salazar. Good to see
you, sir.
I commend the chairman for raising this issue. It's a
serious challenge. I would like for the witnesses from the
administration to provide the committee a detailed list of all
the projects--I know you can't do that today, but if you will
after the testimony--of all the projects in need of
rehabilitation now, and in the future. Because I realize this
is going to present problems for us down the road. Please
describe the timeline for addressing their rehabilitation and
their estimated costs.
With that, let's not delay any further. I think I may turn
it over to our second chairman and see if he has any
introductory comments.
STATEMENT OF HON. KEN SALAZAR, U.S. SENATOR
FROM COLORADO
Senator Salazar [presiding]. Thank you very much, Senator
Corker.
I apologize for being late. We were in a procedural road
block, so to speak, on the Senate floor and I was trying to be
helpful in straightening that up.
Let me just take a moment before we call the witnesses up,
and say that I'd like to take a moment to speak about a bill
that's important to Colorado that's on the agenda today, and
that's S. 1477. It's a bill that authorizes the funding for the
Bureau of Reclamation to work with the Mancos Water Conservancy
District to carry out a much-needed rehabilitation project on
the Jackson Gulch canal system in Southwest Colorado.
For us in the West, we know that water is the lifeblood of
the West. We know that water is for drinking and whiskey,
whiskey is for drinking and water is for fighting. I think
that's the adage. So, when we talk about water we know its
importance in the West.
The Mancos Project, including the facilities under this
bill, provide water for irrigated agriculture. The Project
provides the municipal water supply for the Mesa Verde National
Park, the town of Mancos, and the Mancos Rural Water Supply
Company. The Jackson Gulch canal system has outlived its
expected life and is now badly in need of rehabilitation. If
the system experiences a catastrophic failure, agricultural
losses of approximately $1.5 million annually will occur. The
town of Mancos will suffer severe shortages and Mesa Verde may
be without water during its peak visitation period and fire
season.
The people of Montezuma County have shown great patience
with respect to the condition of the Mancos Project, but the
situation is turning dire. The Federal Government could not
afford to continue to ignore the need of this particular
project and I hope that we can move forward to achieve better
results in fixing this project.
So with that, unless Senator Corker has other comments,
we'll go ahead and call the administration witnesses. So we'll
call the first panel.
Before starting, I'd like to quickly note that the
subcommittee has received additional written testimony on
several bills that are before us today. That testimony, as well
as the written submission of the witnesses here today, will be
made a part of the official hearing record.
The first panel consists of the administration's
representatives. We have Larry Todd, who is the Deputy
Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. We also have Everett
Wilson, who is a Deputy Assistant Director for Fisheries at the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Both of them will be available
to answer questions about the matters that are the agenda.
Welcome to both of you.
Mr. Todd, please provide us a brief summary of your written
testimony. Following that we'll have a brief question and
answer period and then move on to the second panel.
STATEMENT OF LARRY TODD, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FOR POLICY,
ADMINISTRATION AND BUDGET, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, DEPARTMENT OF
THE INTERIOR
Mr. Todd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
subcommittee. I am Larry Todd, Deputy Commissioner for Policy
Administration and Budget at the Bureau of Reclamation. I'm
pleased to be here alongside Fish and Wildlife Service to
present the Department of the Interior's views on S. 300, S.
1258, S. 1477, S. 1522, and H.R. 1025.
The Department has submitted written statements on all five
of these bills so I'll be brief.
S. 300--the Department supports the goals of the lower
Colorado River Multi-Species Program Act and is already working
collaboratively with the States on the implementation of this
program. The MSCP provides Endangered Species Act compliance
for a list of current and future activities for six Federal
agencies and 41 non-Federal parties. Twenty-six native species
are protected by the MSCP, including six federally listed
species.
The MSCP helps ensure that the supply and delivery of water
from the lower Colorado River is not compromised, due to the
endangered species compliance issues. The administration has
concerns with the language in sections 2, 4, and 5 of the bill.
We stand ready to work with the committee to address these
concerns.
S. 1258 would amend the existing Safety of Dams Act and
reduce the collection reimbursable costs that reclamation
currently receives from customer for guards and patrols at
project facilities. The Department opposes S. 1258. The
Department opposition centers around four primary reasons.
First, because the policy considerations inherent in
amending the Safety of Dams Act. Second, because of the
legislation's grouping, improperly we believe, of guard and
patrol costs with fortification costs. Third, because S. 1258's
negative impact on Reclamation's budget and the U.S. Treasury.
Fourth, Reclamation believes S. 1258 could bring unintended
results for our water and power customers.
The change to 15 percent reimbursement for the total
security budget could work to the detriment of customers in
projects where future capital fortifications are planned. Those
security fortifications beneficiaries would be particularly
disadvantaged. Furthermore, Reclamation would be required to
collect these costs under multiple repayment contracts that
could extend as long as 50 years.
Having said this, we believe that we have a good working
relationship with the water and power users and have been
working closely with them on costs, certainty, accountability,
and transparency in our security program. Although we oppose
this bill, we did not collect full reimbursement in fiscal year
2007, but rather collected a mid-point of $14.5 million between
fiscal year 2006 levels and full reimbursement. This was
considered a step toward full reimbursement in 2008.
S. 1477 would authorize the Department to fund repairs to
the Mancos Project in Colorado, a rehabilitation effort
referred to as the Jackson Gulch Rehabilitation Project. The
Department can not support this bill because the project
rehabilitation activity authorized under S. 1477 is currently
the contractual obligation of the Mancos Water Conservancy
District to fulfill its--pursuant to its standing operation
maintenance contract.
The subcommittee has also asked the Department for its
views on S. 1522, the Fisheries Restoration and Irrigation
Mitigation Act of 2007. This would reauthorize and amend the
Fisheries Restoration and Irrigation Mitigation Act of 2000. As
noted in the statement submitted for the hearing, the
Department supports the goals of FRIMA, but has concerns with
several provisions of the bill.
Because administration of the FRIMA program is the
responsibility of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, I'm
accompanied today by Everett Wilson, Deputy Assistant Director
for Fisheries in the Fish and Wildlife Service, who's available
to answer any questions you might have on S. 1522.
Finally, H.R. 1025 would authorize a feasibility study in
the Republican River Basin between Harlan County Lake in
Nebraska and Milford Lake in Kansas. The Department can not
support H.R. 1025. Reclamation was part of a planning process
for the lower Republican River Basin Appraisal Report in
January, 2005. The Department supports the goal of the States
as project sponsors to develop a locally supported solution to
the water needs in the basin that is economical, affordable,
and environmentally sensible. However, funds have not been
allocated to carry out the provisions of H.R. 1025 in the
administration's budget for fiscal years 2007 and 2008. Given
Reclamation's need to focus its limited resources, the
Department can not support this bill.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify
today. This concludes my prepared remarks. I'm available to
answer any questions.
[The prepared statements of Mr. Todd and Mr. Wilson
follow:]
Prepared Statement of Larry Todd, Deputy Commissioner for Policy,
Administration and Budget, Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the
Interior
s. 300
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, my name is Larry Todd
and am here today to present the views of the Department of the
Interior on S. 300, a bill to authorize a habitat conservation program
on the lower Colorado River in the States of Arizona, California, and
Nevada.
S. 300 authorizes the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species
Conservation Program (LCR MSCP) and addresses issues associated with
implementation of the program, including Colorado River water use,
investment of appropriated funds, and the enforceability of program
documents. The Lower Colorado River is a critical resource to citizens
of the southwest. Maintaining compliance with the Endangered Species
Act and avoiding water supply conflicts that have been occurring in
other areas of the West is critical to the Department. The Department
supports the LCR MSCP as well as the intent of S. 300 to further this
program. However, the Department remains concerned about language in
Section 2, 4(b), 5(c), and 5(d), which I will discuss below.
The LCR MSCP was developed through a collaborative partnership with
State leaders, local stakeholders and the Administration. This
innovative program addresses the needs of threatened and endangered
fish and wildlife on the lower Colorado River while assuring greater
reliability of water deliveries and hydropower production. By meeting
the needs of fish and wildlife listed under the Endangered Species Act,
as well as preventing the need to list additional species, the plan
provides greater certainty of continued water and power supplies from
the river for Nevada, California and Arizona--and is designed to allow
future water transfers within or among water users for a 50-year
period.
Reclamation began work to develop the LCR MSCP in 1997 and the
program was formally approved and adopted by Secretary Norton in 2005.
Under existing authorities, Reclamation has been implementing
activities that are similar in nature to those described in this
program since 1997 when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a
Biological Opinion for southwestern willow flycatcher, bony tail chub,
Yuma clapper rail and razorback sucker fish. In 2001, Reclamation
adopted interim Surplus Guidelines that define when water operations
can provide surplus water to water users in the Lower Colorado River
Basin, and the Biological Opinion for that action is being implemented
through the LCR MSCP. With these and other actions, Reclamation has
been meeting the requirements of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for
over a decade.
Reclamation has spent a total of $9.5 million in FY2004 and FY2005,
and spent $13 million in FY2006 from both Federal and non-Federal
sources pursuant to the Program's Funding and Management Agreement with
non-Federal entities. The LCR MSCP Steering Committee supports a budget
of over $16 million for FY 2007. In addition to establishing over 270
acres of new habitat along the Colorado River, Reclamation has stocked
46,079 razorback suckers and 14,836 bony tail chub into the lower
Colorado River since 2004. A significant amount of money has been spent
on the research and monitoring needed to develop a sound scientific
foundation for this 50-year program. Accomplishment reports for FY2004
and FY2005 have been approved by the MSCP Steering Committee, reviewed
by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and found to be in compliance
with the LCR MSCP ESA Section 10 Permit. The FY2006 report has been
approved by the Steering Committee and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
All reports can be found on Reclamation's website at www.lcrmscp.gov.
In Reclamation's FY2008 budget, which is awaiting Congressional
approval, $7 million has been identified from Federal funding for the
program, with a $7 million match from non-Federal partners.
Since presenting testimony on HR 5180 last year, the Department is
pleased to report progress toward resolving issues surrounding section
3(b). As written, this Section would direct the Secretary to enter into
an agreement with the States of Arizona, California and Nevada
providing for the use of Colorado River water specifically for habitat
creation and maintenance purposes. The Department believes that through
existing contract terms, willing seller transactions, and current
policies, Reclamation can utilize Colorado River (and non-Colorado
River) water to implement the program. However, Reclamation has made
progress with our funding partners in the Lower Basin States to develop
an agreement acceptable to all parties on the use of Colorado River
water for program purposes. Such an agreement could facilitate program
implementation, and we look forward to continuing productive efforts
with our partners on this proposed agreement.
We do have a couple of concerns with provisions contained in S.
300. The geographic definition of the Lower Colorado River in section 2
should be clarified to match that contained in the MSCP Program
Documents. The Administration cannot support the language in section
4(b) of this bill allowing the Secretary to invest appropriated moneys
that are not required to meet current program expenditures. Investing
appropriations provides additional monies to finance a governmental
purpose outside of the normal appropriations process.
We are also concerned about section 5(c), which addresses judicial
review of program documents. We note that this provision has been
modified from the language introduced in the last session of Congress,
and that language has been added clarifying that the United States
would not be liable for claims for money damages. Nevertheless, we have
been advised by the Department of Justice and we are concerned that
this provision could expand Federal litigation exposure in significant
respects and open the door for judicial intrusion into administrative
decision making. We would appreciate the opportunity to continue to
work with the committee to address our concerns regarding section 5(c).
Section 5(d) seeks an explicit exemption from the Federal Advisory
Committee Act. The Department believes that this exemption is not
necessary as the program was determined by the Director of the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service to be an Ecosystem Recovery and
Implementation Team (ECRIT) pursuant to section 4(f)(2) of the ESA,
thereby making the LCR MSCP Steering Committee exempt. Therefore, we
believe section 5(d) is superfluous and we recommend deleting it.
The Department already has clear authorities to administer this
program under existing statutes, and Reclamation began actively
implementing the full LCR MSCP program in 2005. Through implementation
of this program, the likelihood of a water conflict on the lower
Colorado River is reduced.
The Department supports the LCR MSCP and will continue to work with
interested stakeholders that seek to enhance the program. Thank you for
the opportunity to comment on this legislation. We look forward to
working with you on the various concerns we have. I am happy to take
any questions.
s. 1258
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Larry Todd,
Deputy Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased to be
here today to present the Department of the Interior's views on S.
1258, legislation to amend the Reclamation Safety of Dams Act and
redirect reimbursable costs for dam safety activities. The Department
opposes S. 1258, as introduced.
S. 1258 would make major changes to the process and revenues used
by Reclamation to secure its facilities resulting in a loss of receipts
to the Treasury. This proposed legislation addresses two components of
Reclamation's site security program: (1.) capital investment (mainly
facility fortification) and (2.) operation and maintenance (O&M), which
consists mainly of guards and patrol functions. Currently, Reclamation
treats security-related capital investment as non-reimbursable costs,
and security-related O&M expenses as project costs subject to
reimbursement based on project cost allocation. S. 1258 would change
this methodology, eliminating the distinction between capital
investment and O&M costs so that Reclamation would be required to treat
85% of the capital investment and O&M security costs as non-
reimbursable, while the remaining 15% would be recovered from the
reimbursable project purposes.
Reclamation understands that the impetus for this legislation is
concern over increased security related costs incurred for all Federal
facilities after September 11, 2001. However, our agency has been and
remains committed to working with our customers and with Congress to
ensure fair, consistent and efficient policies related to the treatment
of these costs. The Department does not believe that the changes
instituted under S. 1258 would be a positive step in this direction.
As explained in reports submitted by Reclamation to Congress in May
2005 and February 2006, Reclamation distinguishes capital costs of
security-related fortifications from security-related O&M costs. Since
the beginning of increased security levels in fiscal year 2002,
Reclamation has treated security-related capital investment as non-
reimbursable. From fiscal year 2002 through the end of fiscal year
2007, for example, Reclamation will have funded over $66 million in
fortification costs, none of which has been passed on to customers.
Treatment of post-9/11 O&M (guard and patrol) costs has been
different, however. Early on, when security was increased at
Reclamation facilities immediately after 9/11, Reclamation took the
position that while these are clearly O&M costs, until a stable budget
pattern emerged, and until customers had sufficient time to make the
necessary adjustments to their planning and budgets, these costs should
be non-reimbursable. Therefore, from FY 2002 through FY 2004,
Reclamation's budget proposals called for post 9/11 security-related
O&M costs to be treated as nonreimbursable.
However, in its FY 2005 and all subsequent budget proposals,
Reclamation returned to the pre-9/11 practice of treating security-
related O&M costs as reimbursable by project allocation. Report
language which accompanies the FY 2005 Energy and Water Development
Appropriation, however, directed Reclamation not to begin reimbursement
in FY 2005, and additionally, provide a report to Congress on the
delineation of planned reimbursable costs. Later, Congress' FY 2006
appropriations report language limited security-related O&M
reimbursement to $10 million out of total costs of $20.9 million in FY
2006.
Reclamation's FY 2007 budget proposal anticipated total security-
related O&M guard costs of $20.9 million. Of that amount, $2 million is
allocated to non-reimbursable project purposes and requires
appropriations. Reclamation anticipated full reimbursement of the
remaining $18.9 million, of which approximately $11.6 million is in up-
front funding not requiring appropriations, and approximately $7.3
million would be repaid to the Treasury and requires appropriations.
However, because a Continuing Resolution in FY 2007 left unanswered the
reimbursement amounts for the current fiscal year, Reclamation has
moved to collect $14.5 million as a mid-point between the $10 million
cap in FY 2006 and the full $18.9 million we expect to be reimbursable
in FY 2008.
Under S. 1258, instead of the $18.9 million future annual
reimbursement Reclamation currently anticipates, Reclamation would
instead receive only 15% of roughly $33.1 million in total security-
related O&M guard and fortification costs, or at most, about $5 million
each year depending upon the structure of repayment. This would result
in an additional financial burden to the United States of about $13.9
million per year in reduced reimbursement. Up-front funding would be
reduced by approximately $9.7 million annually and Reclamation would
need additional appropriations in order to carry out planned security
activities.
Reclamation believes this legislation could bring unintended
results for Reclamation water and power customers. While the change to
15% reimbursement of security-related O&M costs would benefit some
customers, the change to 15% reimbursement of currently non-
reimbursable security-related capital costs would work to the detriment
of customers in projects where future capital fortification
expenditures are planned. Water and power customers of projects whose
security fortifications were lower in priority and therefore not
completed prior to the bill's enactment would be particularly
disadvantaged. Furthermore, Reclamation would be required to collect
these costs under multiple repayment contracts that could extend as
long as 50 years.
Indeed, what is less certain are the future costs for facility
fortifications that Reclamation's water and power customers would
absorb as reimbursable. The total cost of internally-approved
fortifications for FY 2007 and future years is $35.4 million ($78.8
million minus the $43.4 million that was spent through FY 2006), and
this figure does not include potentially significant additional
fortification activities still under study. Under S. 1258, 15% of these
fortification costs would become reimbursable by customers.
Reclamation has met with its customers frequently in the past
several years on this issue, and we understand and share our
contractors' desire for stable, predictable security assessments. We
recognize that certainty, accountability, and transparency are
important in the financing of this program. However, we believe that
the site security program is now sufficiently established, and the
benefits to contractors is sufficiently clear, so that reimbursable
costs for our customers are adequately quantified, fairly allocated and
understood in the ratepaying community.
Reclamation is interested in working with the subcommittee to
address its customers' concerns in the administration of the security
program. However, S. 1258 does not provide a workable solution to
address those concerns. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I am
pleased to answer any questions the subcommittee may have.
s. 1477
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Larry
Todd, and I am Deputy Commissioner at the Bureau of Reclamation. Thank
you for the opportunity to appear today to present the Administration's
views on S. 1477, a bill to authorize funding for repair to the Mancos
Project (Project) and referred to as the Jackson Gulch Rehabilitation
Project (Rehabilitation). This bill would require that 80% of the costs
of project rehabilitation activity that would be authorized under this
bill's provisions be borne by taxpayers. Project rehabilitation is
currently the contractual obligation of the Mancos Water Conservancy
District (District) to fulfill pursuant to its standing O&M contract.
Relieving the District of this obligation would set a precedent for
other projects across the country in need of rehabilitation. For these
reasons, the Administration opposes this bill.
The Project is located in southwestern Colorado near Mancos,
consisting of a 10,000 acre-foot reservoir, an inlet canal, and an
outlet canal. This Project provides supplemental irrigation water for
approximately 13,746 acres of irrigated farmland. Additionally, this
project provides municipal and industrial (M&I) water for the Town of
Mancos and the surrounding rural area, and to Mesa Verde National Park.
The Project was completed in 1948. During the twenty-year period
from 1942 to 1962, the District paid Reclamation in advance for O&M
costs for Project facilities. However, in 1962, responsibility for O&M
of the facilities was fully transferred to the District as provided for
in the Repayment Contract. Title to Project facilities remains with the
United States.
The proposed legislation would authorize $6,452,311 for the federal
share of the cost of rehabilitating the 59-year old Project. This
amount represents 80% of the costs of rehabilitation. Reclamation has
previously assisted the District in cost estimates for the new work and
has also assisted in reviewing their current project needs for a long
term rehabilitation plan. The District has completed a study through a
private engineering firm to assess the Project needs and to prepare a
study for the repair/replacement of facilities. The requested funds
appear sufficient to make the needed repairs and improvements, as
outlined in the District's plan.
Reclamation agrees that there is a need for rehabilitation of the
Project. Due to its age, major rehabilitation is needed on the inlet
and outlet canals and associated structures. Delivery of agricultural
and M&I water could be affected if these repairs are not completed. The
District, however, is solely responsible for the operation,
maintenance, and replacement of these facilities, pursuant to their
contract and should not be relieved of that obligation.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I am pleased to answer
any questions.
h.r. 1025
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Larry
Todd, and I am Deputy Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. I am
pleased to provide the Administration's views on H.R. 1025, legislation
authorizing a feasibility study to improve water management in the
Republican River Basin between Harlan County Lake in Nebraska, and
Milford Lake in Kansas.
Reclamation was included in the early stages of the project
planning process that resulted in completion of the Lower Republican
River Basin Appraisal Report in January 2005. We support the goal of
the States, as project sponsors, to develop a locally-supported
solution that is economical, affordable and environmentally sensible.
However, funds have not been allocated to carry out the provisions of
H.R. 1025 in the Administration's budgets for fiscal years 2007 and
2008. Given Reclamation's need to focus its limited resources on
maintaining its existing infrastructure and completing on-going
construction projects, the Administration cannot support this bill.
Background
Reclamation has been working with the States on Republican River
Compact water supply issues for many years. There is some important
background information that I would like to share with you today to
provide context for consideration of this legislation.
In 1998, Kansas filed a U.S. Supreme Court lawsuit against Nebraska
and Colorado because of their belief that Nebraska was using more than
its allocation of water under the Republican River Compact. The three
States negotiated a settlement that was approved by the United States
Supreme Court in May 2003.
In accordance with the Final Settlement Stipulations, the States
agreed to pursue in good faith, and in collaboration with the United
States, system improvements in the basin, including measures to improve
the ability to utilize the water supply below Hardy, Nebraska, on the
Republican River's mainstem. Reclamation's appraisal study analyzed a
number of alternatives recommended by the Compact Commissioners. The
results from the study indicate that the water supply in the basin is
not being fully utilized. With improvements in the existing systems and
possibly with additional storage capability, the systems could be
managed to alleviate some of the water shortage problems that exist in
the lower reaches of the basin. The Settlement provided for Compact
accounting which is indicating overuse of the allocations by Colorado
and Nebraska. Reclamation has been working with the States in an effort
to achieve and sustain Compact compliance. These efforts have included
the release of 2007 storage water at Bonny Reservoir in Colorado in
response to a ``call'' placed by the State Engineer; and approval of
temporary sales of project water in 2006 and 2007 to reduce consumptive
use in Nebraska and provide additional water supply to project lands in
Kansas. Reclamation has worked closely with project beneficiaries and
the States to find more effective and efficient ways to deliver water,
and will continue to do so in the future.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony, I would be pleased to
answer any questions.
______
Prepared Statement of Everett Wilson, Deputy Assistant Director for
Fisheries, Fish and Wildlife Service, Departemnt of the Interior
s. 1522
Chairman Johnson and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
inviting the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) to provide a
written statement on S. 1522, to reauthorize the Fisheries Restoration
and Irrigation Mitigation Act of 2000 (FRIMA) for fiscal years 2008
through 2014. The Administration supports the principles of FRIMA as
one of the tools to conserve and restore native anadromous and resident
fish populations in the Pacific Northwest.
On November 13, 2000, Congress enacted Public Law 106-502, the
Fisheries Restoration and Irrigation Mitigation Act (FRIMA). This Act
created a voluntary fish passage partnership program administered by
the Department of the Interior. The geographic scope of the FRIMA
program is the Pacific drainage area of Idaho, Oregon, Washington, and
western Montana.
For decades, state, tribal, and federal fishery agencies in the
Pacific Northwest have identified the screening of irrigation and other
water diversions, and the resultant improvements to fish passage as an
effective and important means to protect, recover, and restore native
anadromous and resident fish populations. Irrigation districts in the
Pacific Northwest also recognize that poorly-designed or unscreened
water diversions result in fish mortality. Nearly 80 percent of water
diversions in the Pacific Northwest are unscreened, and many have
passage obstructions that pose a major risk to juvenile and adult
threatened and endangered fish, including salmon, steelhead, bull
trout, cutthroat trout, and Klamath basin suckers.
The FRIMA program is carried out by the Service on behalf of the
Secretary of Interior, and the program focuses on screening water
diversions and improving fish passage. FRIMA projects can result in
nearly 100 percent survival of fish at what were often impassable and
deadly water control structures. The program promotes both sustainable
agriculture and sustainable fisheries and has strong support from both
the public and the states--it is an example of the cooperative approach
needed to restore depleted, native fish stocks.
The States of Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington, along with
tribal and local governments have worked closely with the Service to
assure projects are carefully evaluated and prioritized before being
funded. Local and state governments have shown a strong commitment to
the program, investing their own staff time and dollars to ensure
projects are well designed and properly implemented. The FRIMA Steering
Committee, made up of state, tribal, and federal representatives,
ensures a collaborative approach to program implementation. FRIMA
projects have involved the active participation and support of over 200
partners who make up the wide array of conservation districts,
counties, cities and towns, irrigation districts, tribes, resource
conservation and development councils, and environmental organizations
that support this program. One indication of the strong support for
this program is the amount of local cost share for FRIMA projects.
Although the legislation only requires a non-federal cost share of 35
percent, the local cost share for the FRIMA program has averaged 55
percent.
From fiscal years 2002 through 2006, 121 FRIMA projects have been
funded, 59 of which have been completed. In addition, there are many
more acceptable projects with partners that are willing to provide
their cost share amount. Through 2004 (the most recent year for which
summary accomplishment reports are available), FRIMA projects protected
656 miles of stream, fixed 15 fish barriers, installed 68 fish screens,
conducted nine inventories, completed five pre-design analyses, and
developed one database.
The Administration supports the principles of FRIMA and recognizes
that, in some instances, BPA funds are treated as non-federal cost
share amounts. However, more study and evaluation is needed to
determine whether Bonneville funds should be counted toward the non-
federal component of FRIMA.
In conclusion, FRIMA projects contribute to our efforts to restore
and conserve anadromous and resident fish populations in the Pacific
Northwest. The FRIMA program is cost-effective and operates in a
collaborative, partnership-driven manner with private landowners, non-
governmental organizations, community leaders, and local, state, and
tribal governments. The Administration supports the principles of FRIMA
and looks forward to working with the Committee to address concerns
with the legislation.
Senator Salazar. Thank you, Mr. Todd.
First, let's go to S. 300 by Senator Kyl. Your testimony
indicates that close to $40 million has already been expended
to implement the MSCP. You also raised several concerns about
the legislation. I note that you raised concerns about, it
seems I think, every piece of legislation that's before us
today.
On this very important program to the lower basin of the
Colorado River, I'll ask you the following questions. Would
there be any benefit to the program from enacting this
legislation?
Mr. Todd. Well, the administration believes that we do have
authority to implement the program. However, any sanction by
Congress to help support this effort, we believe is helpful.
Senator Salazar. Does Reclamation believe that it has the
adequate authority to use water from the lower Colorado River
for environmental purposes?
Mr. Todd. Well, we have authority whenever projects are
built and operated and maintained, and a requirement to comply
with the Endangered Species Act. In this collaboration effort
we are complying with the Endangered Species Act, and yes, we
do have authority to do that.
Senator Salazar. Let me ask you a question on S. 1258, the
legislation introduced by Senator Cantwell. The water and power
users' testimony describes problems that exist with
Reclamation's current approach to allocating security costs.
These problems include: the lack of transparency in determining
the level of security needed, and the claim that site security
costs are only allocated to water and power users, not to other
project beneficiaries. How do you respond to these concerns?
Mr. Todd. Well, first, Mr. Chairman, we have invited and we
do support the inclusion of the water and power managers and
boards to attend, and to get the proper clearances, so that we
can share classified information with them and other
information that we're holding that is not really for public
dissemination. I think with all security efforts, we have to
draw that line, but they do have a right to know and we
certainly invite them to do so, and we would like them to do
that.
On the allocation piece: we have allocations for all of our
projects. In joint use facilities like dams, where you can not
divide out all of the different uses in a separable way, you
allocate them. So, when we're protecting facilities like dams,
we apply these costs to the operation and maintenance
allocation of that particular facility. That gets distributed
among the functions and then out to the water and power users.
I don't believe that we are inconsistent with how we apply that
allocation across the different facilities. Every facility has
a different one, we're being very consistent.
Senator Salazar. Let me ask you this question, Mr. Todd.
Would there be other approaches that Reclamation has considered
that would provide more certainty in the allocation of the
security costs?
Mr. Todd. Well, certainly we have information about our
security program now that we've been in it since 2002. I
believe that we've had a very level and consistent security
program. Our guard costs have not been very variable at all,
they've been very consistent from year to year.
Senator Salazar. OK, I have a question on S. 1522. Both the
Oregon Water Resource Congress and your testimony hailed FRIMA
as a true success for the Pacific Northwest. Why hasn't the
administration requested any funding for the program in its
annual budgets?
Mr. Wilson.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Senator.
The administration has not requested funding for this just
due to the priorities and the amount of funding that we have to
work within. It falls at a lower priority than other things
that we do fund, simply.
Senator Salazar. Let me go back, just for a minute, on S.
1477 concerning the Jackson Gulch Project. You oppose Federal
support for the rehabilitation of this project, Mr. Todd,
according to your statement, because you believe it would set a
precedent for other projects across the country in need of
rehabilitation.
It seems that Reclamation is much more concerned about
limiting its budget, rather than protecting the condition of
Federal assets, and this is, in fact, a Federal asset. Isn't
the Jackson Gulch situation an example of a much larger problem
that we have with a number of Reclamation projects around the
country? Is Reclamation doing anything it can to address the
crisis that I anticipate is coming with an infrastructure
within the Bureau of Reclamation that is aging more and more,
year by year?
Mr. Todd. Well, certainly there is an aging infrastructure
issue that seems to be out across the West and, in particular,
for certain districts. However, Reclamation, through
Reclamation long-standing law, is directed by Congress to have
repayment and operation maintenance contracts and to transfer
these responsibilities to districts. In accordance with those
laws, we do have a contract with the Mancos Conservancy
Irrigation District to operate and maintain those facilities.
So, with that contract and with that history--procedures, this
is very common within Reclamation, for irrigation districts to
have that responsibility.
Senator Salazar. You would acknowledge, though, Mr. Todd,
that these canals do, in fact, need to be rehabilitated, that's
the point of view of the Bureau of Reclamation, correct?
Mr. Todd. On the Mancos, yes. They do. We have worked with
that District. We have had annual reviews and we've also had
formalized 6-year reviews.
Senator Salazar. So we're in agreement here that the
reclamation needs to be conducted. Have you also recognized
that the Bureau of Reclamation is the owner of this project?
Mr. Todd. Yes.
Senator Salazar. Do you acknowledge that without Federal
funding, the District in that part of our Nation, given the
economics of that part of our Nation, will not be able to
afford to make the necessary rehabilitation that is required?
Mr. Todd. Mr. Chairman, on that point, I'm not aware that
we have any economic studies that would demonstrate that. So I
don't really know the answer to that.
Senator Salazar. OK, might you have a different point of
view on this project, on the Bureau's role, and perhaps funding
of this rehabilitation project, if you were aware of the
economic factors that would make it impossible for the District
to, essentially, fund the repairs on its own?
Mr. Todd. Well certainly, that would create a situation for
the District. However, we do need to refer back to the
contracts and responsibilities that this District has had since
the 1940's. It is their responsibility, since the 1940's, to
have maintained these facilities.
Senator Salazar. Do we have examples in other parts of the
country where the Bureau of Reclamation has--notwithstanding
those operation and maintenance agreements--helped to fund the
rehabilitation of Bureau of Reclamation facilities?
Mr. Todd. Only if it's been specifically directed by
Congress.
Senator Salazar. OK, so if it's specifically directed by
Congress, then it has happened.
We have additional questions for you, but we will just ask
you to respond to those on the record unless Senator Corker has
additional questions for you.
Senator Corker.
Senator Corker. I do, Mr. Chairman, and I know you were a
few minutes late taking care of trying to solve a problem on
the floor. I just want to thank you for your continued efforts
to try to make things work on the Senate floor the way you do.
I appreciate that very much.
Senator Salazar. Thank you, Bob.
Senator Corker. Sure.
I know that, I mean it's easy to pick up the rub here,
obviously, and that is that you have local districts who have
financial issues and you've got a Bureau here that is used to
getting paid by those districts. We've reached a point in time
where, you know, the good Senator and others are trying to
figure out ways of working that out. From the standpoint of
good government, I guess I have a little bit of concern that,
as with everything here in Washington--camel nose under the
tent--once you start doing something in one area, it ends up
somehow or another migrating in every other part of the
country. All of us are entrepreneurial and once we see one area
with a different set of standards, somehow or another we
transfer that to other places. That's our role, to sort of
figure those things out and make it all work together.
But, and I asked you a question, I guess, in my opening
comments and I don't know if you would know the answer. But,
just from the standpoint of S. 1258, do you have any idea how
the Tennessee Valley Authority, for instance, handles its
security in that regard and how those costs are passed along?
Or what any other part of the country may do in that regard?
Mr. Todd. It's my understanding that--and we do have
working relationships with TVA and the Corps of Engineers on
security because we have such similar facilities--it's my
understanding that the TVA and the Corps of Engineers do
collect reimbursable funds for their security and law
enforcement programs. So, I believe it's 100 percent paid for
by the beneficiaries and not by appropriations.
Senator Corker. OK. I guess the Bureau's concerned that
unless directed by Congress and, I guess, Congress applying
those funds, this creates, obviously, futuristic financial
distress to the Bureau itself in carrying out its
responsibilities. Is that correct?
Mr. Todd. Well, it does, yes.
Senator Corker. I guess from my standpoint, one of the
things I'd be looking at if this bill actually comes to the
floor is, you know, what kind of precedent does it set? I do
understand everyone's intention to just try to solve a problem
here. But it does, in fact, set a precedent, is that correct?
Mr. Todd. Yes, it will.
Senator Corker. Let me ask, just on S. 1477. Getting to the
rehab portion of this, my assumption is that, you know, if you
look at the era when many of these projects were built, there's
going to be a lot of other things coming down the pipe that are
going to have similar types of issues, is that correct?
Mr. Todd. Yes, let's see here. Yes.
Senator Corker. I just wonder, as we look at this, and
again I know that we all here try to work toward the greater
good. I wonder if you could supply to Senator Salazar and
Senator Craig and others on this committee, to the best of your
knowledge, just the type of projects that you see coming on in
the future and the types of cost incurred. Because again, we'd
be setting precedent here and, it seems to me, we're going to
have even greater responsibilities down the road in this same
regard. Maybe I'm wrong on that?
Mr. Todd. Well, I think what we're concerned about here in
precedent is that we have a lot of irrigation districts around
the country that are in this situation, where we've transferred
works to and have these kinds of contracts. So, any kind of
rehabilitation that we would do here in this situation with
help from the Government would set a precedent for any and all
of those projects.
Senator Corker. Well, I'm sure that we're going to have
additional questions and I know there will be witnesses coming
from respective areas after this particular, this first group
of panels. I want to say to them, I was a mayor of a local area
and we had issues that we tried to deal with to benefit our
area and I understand that the panelists that are coming up are
certainly going to be focused on doing that. But, I hope that
you'll be open to further questions from our staff and other
staffs of committee members here to really look into this.
Again, I appreciate the chairman and others looking at this
serious problem, but I will have to say that it concerns me
that we would be taking one specific area and setting
precedents, I think, that could overall damage policies that we
have in other parts of the country.
I thank you for your testimony.
Senator Salazar. Senator Craig, do you have an opening
statement or would you like to query this panel?
Senator Craig. I have just found out that they are here
testifying in support of S. 1522? That's all I needed to know.
That's an important piece of legislation for my colleagues in
Oregon, Washington, and Idaho, and especially in and around the
Bonneville system. So, as long as they're on point in the
positive, I thank you, gentlemen. I'm a late-comer.
Senator Corker. I'm not sure that's exactly what they're
testimony was.
Senator Craig. Oh, well we'll rediscuss it.
[Laughter.]
Senator Craig. It wasn't? Did you qualify it some? Well, in
that case Larry, what were the qualifiers?
We're talking about the Fisheries Restoration Mitigation
Act, specifically.
Senator Salazar. I think he said they supported it, but
they had some concerns on a few of the provisions.
Senator Craig. Well, then we'll work with it.
Mr. Todd. We do support it. We do have some concerns.
Senator Craig. Yes, Everett.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, Senator Craig.
The concerns that were expressed have to do with the
Bonneville Power Administration and whether the funding that
they have is considered non-Federal match, or Federal match.
That was the major concern, I think, in the bill----
Senator Craig. OK.
Mr. Wilson [continuing]. That we had.
Senator Craig. Well, we'll work with you to try to clarify
that then. We've got to get those definitions right. Our
interest is in amplifying the value of the resources used
there.
Mr. Wilson. The other concern, I think, that may come up,
and the chairman expressed that, was that the service has never
asked, or the Department has never asked, to fund this bill.
When we rank our priorities, it falls below those that we have
resources to fund.
Senator Craig. OK. It is a critical issue for us in the
Pacific Northwest as it relates to those fisheries and the
impact they have on the whole operation of the river itself.
So, we'll work closely with you to see what we can do to make
this happen. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Salazar. Thank you, Senator Craig.
Thank you, Mr. Todd and thank you, Mr. Wilson for your
testimony. There will be other questions that we'll ask you to
respond to with respect this session.
We'll call up the second panel. The second panel will come
up. I will introduce them as they are coming up.
On the second panel we will have Marc Thalacker, who is
representing the Oregon Water Resources Congress on S. 1522. We
also will have Shannon McDaniel, who is representing the
National Water Resources Association on S. 1258. George Caan,
representing the Colorado River Energy Distributors
Association, will be speaking on S. 1258. We also have Gary
Kennedy with the Mancos Water Conservancy District on S. 1477.
Perri Benemelis is with the Arizona Department of Water
Resources, and will be testifying concerning S. 300.
We welcome each of you to the committee, and we would ask
Mr. Thalacker to start by summarizing your testimony, then
we'll proceed on down the line.
If you can keep your testimony down to 3 or 4 minutes we
would appreciate that, and that way we'll get through all of
the witnesses.
Mr. Thalacker.
STATEMENT OF MARC THALACKER, MANAGER, THREE SISTERS IRRIGATION
DISTRICT, ON BEHALF OF OREGON WATER RESOURCES CONGRESS, SALEM,
OR
Mr. Thalacker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the
subcommittee. My name is Marc Thalacker and I am manager of the
Three Sisters Irrigation District in Oregon, and I'm here today
on behalf of the Oregon Water Resources Congress.
OWRC is statewide association founded in 1912 to represent
local governments that supply water for irrigation, primarily
irrigation districts and water control districts, but also
including member ports and other special districts and local
governments. The Association represents entities that operate
water management systems, including water supply reservoirs,
canals, pipelines, and hydropower production.
OWRC strongly supports the reauthorization of the Fisheries
Restoration and Irrigation Mitigation Act along with the
amendments embodied in S. 1522. The co-sponsorship of this
legislation by all eight Senators of the States in the Pacific
Northwest serves as evidence of the importance of this program
to those States and represents the success of this vital
program for fish screening and passage. We are joined in this
support by our sister organizations in Idaho and Washington,
the Idaho Water Users Association and the Washington State
Water Resources Association, the four States and local
governments in those States.
Since this program started, we have not encountered any
opposition, only support. Currently, Judge Reddin's remand of
the 2004 Columbia Basin Biological Opinion has pushed the
Northwest Region to a new level of cooperative conservation.
For decades endangered species litigation has spent precious
funds on regulation and lawsuits that could have been spent on
conservation projects to help fish. Soon, Judge Reddin will
approve a new biological opinion for the Columbia River and its
tributaries. This new opinion will be supported by reasonable
and prudent alternatives that are likely to occur.
The reauthorization and funding of FRIMA is essential to
ensure that screening and passage RPAs will occur to help
protected listed and non-listed fish. FRIMA will play a big
role in salmon, steelhead, and bull trout recovery, which will
go a long way to helping the Biological Opinion succeed.
By the end of 2005, sub-basin planning in the Columbia
Basin was completed in 58 of the 62 sub-basins. The Northwest
Power and Conservation Council guided the planning effort, and
it was funded by Bonneville Power Administration. This locally
led watershed planning effort was a collaboration of irrigation
districts, watershed councils, soil and water conservation
districts, environmental groups, farmers, ranchers, State and
Federal, and fish and wildlife agencies, tribes, and local
planning groups. These are many of the same partners that have
collaborated on FRIMA-funded projects in the four Northwest
States. FRIMA projects have been a part of the planning and
implementation process.
Currently NOAA and State fishery agencies are coordinating
salmon and steelhead recovery planning in all areas of the
Columbia Basin, with ESA-listed fish. I personally serve as a
member of the mid-Columbia Steelhead Recovery Sounding Board.
We started the planning process in October 2005 and we're about
to release a draft for public comment. This plan for the mid-C
is over a thousand pages and quite comprehensive.
Once the recovery planning process is completed and the
hard work of project implementation and construction starts,
with the aid of the sub-basin and recovery plans, the four
States, tribes, and irrigation districts will continue to work
closely with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA fisheries
on vetting and prioritizing projects before FRIMA funds are
committed.
As is evidenced by the recent report from the Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife and the 2005 report from U.S.
Fish and Wildlife,* FRIMA has been a great success and a great
example of cooperative conservation partnerships.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Report from U.S. Fish and Wildlife has been retained in committee
files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter both these reports for
the record. Thank you, sir.
One of FRIMA's greatest achievements has been leveraging of
limited FRIMA Federal funds and the increase in non-Federal
matching funds. In Oregon, from 2002 to 2007, almost $8 million
of projects have been built or are under construction. FRIMA
has contributed $3.2 million for 42 percent average cost-share,
while matching non-Federal funding was 58 percent.
There are over a thousand unscreened diversions in the
Northwest. Without FRIMA they will remain unscreened. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife and NOAA fisheries should be pressing for funding
for this program. We thank Congress for having the wisdom for
creating FRIMA so that we can solve the problem of unscreened
diversions.
If FRIMA were reauthorized and fully funded, we could see
an increase from the 120 projects that were built over the last
5 or 6 years in the four States to 1,000 projects. This would
have a dramatic impact on the recovery of ESA-listed salmon,
steelhead, and bull trout. Twenty-five million dollars a year
is a small price to pay to help contribute to the recovery of
listed fish.
This is a win-win for the whole community. FRIMA has shown
that farmers and fish can coexist. FRIMA helps support
sustainable fisheries and sustainable agriculture. FRIMA
protects both ag and fish, which in turn contribute to our
Northwest economies and ensure a secure and stable food supply.
Senator Salazar. Thank you, Mr. Thalacker. Can you please
wrap up?
Mr. Thalacker. Yes, sir. Anyway.
Senator Salazar. Your full statement will be part of the
record.
Mr. Thalacker. OK.
Well, OWRC is requesting reauthorization of FRIMA so we can
continue from conflict to consensus to achieve ESA recovery of
listed fish.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Thalacker follows:]
Prepared Statement of Marc Thalacker, Manager, Three Sisters Irrigation
District, on Behalf of Oregon Water Resources Congress, Salem, OR
s. 1522, the fisheries restoration and irrigation mitigation act of
2007
Mister Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Marc
Thalacker and I am the manager of the Three Sisters Irrigation District
in Oregon and am here on behalf of the Oregon Water Resources Congress
(OWRC). The OWRC is a statewide association founded in 1912 to
represent local governments that supply water for irrigation, primarily
irrigation districts and water control districts, and including member
ports, other special districts and local governments. The association
represents the entities that operate water management systems,
including water supply reservoirs, canals, pipelines, and hydropower
production.
OWRC strongly supports the reauthorization of the Fisheries
Restoration and Irrigation Mitigation Act along with the amendments
embodied in S. 1522. The co-sponsorship of this legislation by all
eight Senators of the states in the Pacific Northwest serves as
evidence of the importance of this program to those states represents
the success of this vital program for fish screening and passage. We
are joined in this support by our sister organizations in Idaho and
Washington: the Idaho Water Users Association and the Washington State
Water Resources Association, the four states and local governments in
those states.
As one of the lead organizations with Congress to help create the
Fish Restoration Irrigation Mitigation Act (FRIMA) in 2000, and with
five years of experience of active involvement in the implementation of
the program, OWRC strongly believes this has been one of the most
successful programs for our members and for similar water supply
entities in Idaho, Washington and Montana.
FRIMA created a new Federal partnership fish screening and passage
program in the Pacific Ocean Drainage areas of Oregon, Idaho,
Washington and western Montana. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
administer the program in partnership with state fishery agencies.
Fish passage and fish screens have become critical to fishery
protection. There are over 200 irrigation and water control districts
in Oregon that provide water supplies to over one million acres of
cropland in the state. Almost all of these districts are affected by
either state or Federal Endangered Species Act lists of salmon and
steelhead, bull trout, or other sensitive threatened or endangered
species. This program, which is cost-shared on a 65% Federal/35% non-
Federal basis, has been overwhelmingly supported by all involved. From
a water user standpoint, it has been a success because: (1) it keeps
protected fish species out of water canals and delivery systems and
power generation facilities; (2) allows fish to be safely bypassed
around reservoirs and facility structures; and (3) provides funding to
local governments for construction of facilities to protect fish.
The FRIMA program was authorized to receive $25 million a year,
divided among the four states. We have been disappointed that the
Administration, through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, has not
requested funding for the FRIMA program in any of the five years since
it was authorized. Our members appreciate the limited funding Congress
has written into the annual Interior Appropriations bills these several
past years for the program. As you can see from the attachment to my
testimony, projects in Oregon have provided a much larger non-Federal
match than required and as a result have been able to maximize the
limited FRIMA resources. Further, much of FRIMA's success comes from
the large proportion of the Federal appropriations that is used for
projects rather than for Federal or state administrative costs.
specific comments on s. 1522
Project Eligibility
Our members' experience in defining the type of projects that
provide the most cost-effective solution to needs has demonstrated that
we no longer need to be concerned with the likelihood of very expensive
solutions to problems. Reducing the cap on the size of the project,
from $5 million to $2.5 million, is appropriate at this time.
As we understand the history of the original authorizing
legislation, this program was intended for local governmental entities
to carry out the work to mitigate the impacts of irrigation diversions
on fish rather than face loss of their water if their facilities were
not screened. With that in mind, we also believe the original intent
was to have the funding passed through to the states that would, in
turn, provide the funding to the local governments.
Cost Sharing
We greatly appreciate codifying what is already in practice with
respect to the use of Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) funding in
the Pacific Northwest part, but not all of the time. There is a lack of
consistency among Federal programs with some allowing the use of BPA
funding as local share to address fish and wildlife recovery, but not
for FRIMA. This legislation makes clear that BPA funds, coming from
ratepayers, should be considered non-Federal share money.
Administrative Expenses
We believe that S. 1522 takes an appropriate step in addressing
administrative expenses at the Federal and state level. One of the
strengths of the FRIMA program is the return on the Federal investment.
Part of this success can be attributed to the limited draw of the
funding for administrative costs in order to ensure that most of the
funding is used to build projects to protect fish.
We appreciate the changes made to this program as a result of
consultations with the state and Federal agencies responsible for
administering the program. Sharing the administrative funding with the
states recognizes the important role the states have played working
with local government project sponsors over the five years of the
program. The states do a tremendous amount of work as their part of the
partnership including project review, ranking, and selection. Their
participation has been key to the success of the program. Dividing the
funding evenly with the states helps ensure the collective effort is
never put at risk because of unforeseen circumstances at the state
level and recognizes the role the states play in the FRIMA partnership.
Reauthorization of the FRIMA Program
While the report prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in
2005 covers only the first three years of FRIMA, it provides an
excellent overview to the projects built using FRIMA funding. It also
shows the success of leveraged local match that exceeds the amount
called for in the legislation, another reason for the success of this
program. We encourage the Committee Members to look at this report with
regard to the accomplishments of the program in the four respective
states.
The importance of the legislation before you today is the need to
reauthorize the Fisheries Restoration and Irrigation Act so that local
government can complete the projects identified in the states'
inventories.
We strongly believe that the success of the FRIMA program as
evidenced by projects that have been built and the partnerships that
have developed provide the justification for the continuation of this
program through year 2014.
conclusion
OWRC is asking Congress to continue to improve conditions for
threatened and endangered fish species in Oregon and the rest of the
Pacific Northwest by passing this legislation into law and
reauthorizing the FRIMA program. We strongly support the improvements
to the program as contained in S. 1522.
oregon's frima project benefits
The following are examples of how Oregon has used some of its FRIMA
money:
Santiam Water Control District Project.--Fishscreen project on a
large 1050 cfs multipurpose water diversion project on the Santiam
River (Willamette Basin) near Stayton, Oregon. Partners are the Santiam
Water Control District, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Marion
Soil and Water Conservation District, and the City of Stayton. Approved
FRIMA funding of $400,000 leveraged a $1,200,000 project. Species
benefited include winter steelhead, spring Chinook, rainbow trout, and
cutthroat trout.
South Fork Little Butte Creek.--Fishscreen and fish passage project
on a 65 cfs irrigation water diversion in the Rogue River Basin near
Medford, Oregon. Partners are the Medford Irrigation District and
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Approved FRIMA funding is
$372,000 and leveraged a $580,000 total project cost. Species benefited
include listed summer and winter steelhead, Coho salmon, and cutthroat
trout.
Running Y (Geary Diversion) Project.--Fishscreen project on a 60
cfs irrigation water diversion in the upper Klamath Basin near Klamath
Falls, Oregon. Partners are the Wocus Drainage District, Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Jeld-Wen Ranches. Approved FRIMA
funding of $44,727 leveraged a total project cost of $149,000. Species
benefited included listed red-band trout and short-nosed sucker.
Lakeshore Gardens Project.--Fishscreen project on a 2 cfs
irrigation water diversion in the upper Klamath Basin near Klamath
Falls, Oregon. Partners are the Lakeshore Gardens Drainage District and
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Approved FRIMA funding is
$5,691, leveraged a total project cost of $18,970. Species benefited
include red-band trout, short-nosed sucker and Lost River sucker.
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Inventory Project.--An
inventory to be conducted by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife to
identify FRIMA-eligible passage and screening projects within the Rogue
and Klamath basins of southwestern Oregon. Approved FRIMA funding is
$76,000, leveraged an estimated total project cost is $125,000.
Senator Salazar. Thank you, Mr. Thalacker.
Mr. McDaniel.
STATEMENT OF SHANNON MCDANIEL, SECRETARY/MANAGER, SOUTH
COLUMBIA BASIN IRRIGATION DISTRICT, NATIONAL WATER RESOURCES
ASSOCIATION, PASCO, WA
Mr. McDaniel. My name is Shannon McDaniel. I'm the manager
of the South Columbia Basin Irrigation District, located in
Pasco, Washington. I'm here to testify in support of S. 1258.
The South Columbia Basin Irrigation District is part of the
Columbia Basin Project located in Eastern Washington. Our
primary diversion facility is Grand Coulee Dam. We irrigate
about 670,000 acres with water from Grand Coulee. Our
relationship there is the fact that the Bureau of Reclamation
administers operations at Grand Coulee Dam on what we call the
reserved works, where the primary features of the project are
Grand Coulee Dam, Banks Lake, and the main canal. We pay the
full cost of O&M at those facilities.
From 1980, when I got involved with the project, we have
what we call a diversion right process where every 5 years we
go in and negotiate a rate for the power, for the cost that we
pay at Grand Coulee Dam. Those have always included some
security costs, about $600,000 of those costs were a portion of
that rate from 1980 to 2001. Those costs, with the securities
program that the Bureau has implemented, have gone from
$600,000 a year to about $5.5 million.
The reason that we're here to testify today, is to make
sure that you understand that we do think that national
security is a big issue and the protection of Grand Coulee Dam
is a big issue, but we're looking at some way to be able to
allocate those costs equitably to our land owners and other
users of the project. We believe that the things that we have
to say, as far as our diversion rate, are important. In the
past, we've been able to work with the Bureau of Reclamation
and make sure that the diversion rate--the cost that we pay--is
equitable to the land owners within the project.
Those discussions are not one-sided. They are two-sided. We
go in, we negotiate hard on those. We get an allocation of
costs that are equitable. We're concerned that because of the
priorities of the secrecy that has to be involved in the
protection of those facilities, we will not be able to have
input into them. Nor, really, do we want to have input into
them. As managers and irrigation district directors, we feel
that more or less, we're not qualified to do that, it's
inappropriate for us to us to be involved in security. But, we
would like to have some way to be able to control those costs
and we believe that S. 1258 does that at an equitable rate by
allocating 85 percent of the costs, the Federal portion, and 15
percent of the cost to the rate-payers, whether they be power
or irrigation water.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McDaniel follows:]
Prepared Statement of Shannon McDaniel, Secretary/Manager, South
Columbia Basin Irrigation District, National Water Resources
Association, Pasco, WA
s. 1258 to amend the reclamation safety of dams act of 1978 to
authorize improvements for the security of dams and other facilities
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for the
invitation to participate in this hearing on S. 1258, ``to amend the
Reclamation Safety of Dams Act of 1978.''
I am here today to support the passage of S. 1258.
My name is Shannon McDaniel and I am the Secretary/Manager of the
South Columbia Basin Irrigation District. The South District along with
the Quincy and East Columbia Basin Irrigation Districts operate the
transferred works of the Bureau of Reclamation's Columbia Basin
Project. The three Districts and Reclamation are currently providing
irrigation water to approximately 670,000 acres in eastern Washington.
The source of water and pumping energy for the Columbia Basin
Project is Grand Coulee Dam on the Columbia River. Grand Coulee is a
CBP reserved works and is operated and maintained by Reclamation. The
three CBP Irrigation Districts advance to Reclamation the annual O&M
costs for Grand Coulee to pump water from Lake Roosevelt to Banks Lake
and to convey it through other reserved works into the major canal
systems that have been transferred to the Districts.
In 2007 the Grand Coulee Dam, Lake Roosevelt, and Banks Lake
components were $3,501,445. About 43 percent of that amount is for
electricity to lift water from Lake Roosevelt to Banks Lake. The
budgeting and accounting procedures that determine this payment are
termed the ``diversion rate.'' This diversion rate is set by
Reclamation's Regional Director after involving the three CBP
Irrigation Districts in the budgeting and accounting reviews.
All three Districts pay their apportioned share of the diversion
rate. This year Reclamation began adding a guard and patrol security
cost surcharge to the power component of this rate. The boards of
directors of all three Districts share a common view regarding the
reimbursability of these costs. I believe the comments I will present
reflect that common view.
There has always been a security component associated with this
diversion rate. However, until 9/11 these costs were for fire
protection and night watchmen. These costs were approximately $600,000
annually. The estimated costs for security guards and patrols for 2007
are estimated to be $5,500,000.
The CBP Irrigation Districts do not dispute the need to defend
important hydroelectric facilities like Grand Coulee Dam. The attacks
of September 11 confirmed that foreign terrorists would go to great
lengths to destroy targets that are national, cultural, and economic
icons. The federal government is to be commended for taking these
defensive measures.
We believe national defense is a federal responsibility, and the
cost of security of large federal assets lies with the government, not
local ratepayers. After September 11 through 2005 these defense and
security costs were considered a federal responsibility and paid for by
all Americans through Reclamation appropriations.
These costs should not be the responsibility of irrigation and
power ratepayers associated with specific federal projects that happen
to have a high target value for enemies of this country.
The Columbia Basin is the only project in the Pacific Northwest
Region that is subject to reimbursable security costs. Similar
situations exist in Reclamation's other regions. That is because Grand
Coulee Dam, Shasta Dam, Hoover Dam, and a few of Reclamation's other
larger hydroelectric projects have the most security needs. If security
costs are to be reimbursable it creates a disparity for irrigators
farming on Reclamation's projects who depend on these larger dams for
their water supply. Because of the large hydroelectric facility, these
farmers will pay extra charges for water compared to other farmers who
do not have these security concerns but are using Reclamation water on
the rest of the 10 million Reclamation irrigated acres.
Beginning in 2006, Reclamation and Congress determined that guard
and patrol costs should become reimbursable. For 2006 this
reimbursability was capped at $10 million, Reclamation-wide. The 2006
decision contemplated the cap for 2006 only, with full reimbursement
beginning in 2007. In fact, the CBP Districts were charged a security
component on their 2007 billings from Reclamation. The CBP Irrigation
Districts respectfully recognize that Congress is the final decision
maker in this matter and realize there are many competing pressures on
the federal budget. For this reason we are in support of S. 1258 to
amend the Safety of Dams Act to control the Districts' costs in support
of the security of Grand Coulee Dam and the associated works related to
water and power.
The CBP Irrigation Districts believe we have a positive
relationship with Reclamation regarding our payment of the irrigation
diversion rate at Grand Coulee Dam. We believe one source of this good
relationship has been Reclamation's willingness to allow the Districts
to review the documentation of the budgeting and accounting procedures
relevant to the diversion rate. These reviews often lead to frank
discussions and correspondence between the Districts and Reclamation
about some of the diversion rate decisions but, in the end, result in a
good relationship and adequately funded operation, maintenance and
replacement budgets for the irrigation function at Grand Coulee.
However, the Districts firmly believe that without this interaction
inappropriate costs may be charged against Grand Coulee's irrigation
diversion rate.
This type of review and interaction by the Districts is not
possible or appropriate for post-9/11 security costs at Grand Coulee.
Those costs, at least in part, result from federal decisions based on
classified intelligence related to national security. Irrigation
District boards of directors and management are not qualified or
authorized to audit or interact in that type of budgeting and
accounting. S. 1258 limits the financial responsibility in security
costs to a manageable share of the total security obligation without
input from the Districts.
I would like to emphasize that as Reclamation contractors the CBP
Irrigation Districts work on annual budgets, and those budgets are
funded by annual assessments to the farmers we serve. Irrigation
Districts share many of the same challenges in the budgeting process as
the federal government. We need to have stability and predictability
from year to year in our Reclamation payments. S. 1258 would
essentially allocate the costs at a level to all ratepayers that would
be manageable.
S. 1258 would, for the most part, distribute the annual costs of
security to the federal government by the allocation of 85 percent of
those costs to appropriated dollars.
I would reiterate that the CBP Irrigation Districts are supportive
of S. 1258 and the allocation of security costs to the federal
government--where we believe the responsibility for national security
lies--to the maximum extent possible.
Thank you for your consideration.
Senator Salazar. Thank you, Mr. McDaniel.
Welcome, Mr. Caan.
STATEMENT OF GEORGE CAAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COLORADO RIVER
COMMISSION OF NEVADA, LAS VEGAS, NV, ON BEHALF OF COLORADO
RIVER ENERGY DISTRIBUTORS ASSOCIATION (CREDA)
Mr. Caan. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Senator Craig,
members of the committee, subcommittee. My name is George Caan.
I'm the Executive Director of the Colorado River Commission of
Nevada. I want to thank you for the invitation today to talk to
you on, in support of S. 1258.
The CRC is the Nevada State agency responsible for, among
other things, the acquisition and delivery of Federal
hydropower from the Colorado River. Today, I speak to you on
behalf of the Colorado River Energy Distributors Association,
known as CREDA, of which the Colorado River Commission is a
member. CREDA is a nonprofit organization representing
consumer-owned utilities in Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, Utah,
Wyoming, and New Mexico that purchases Federal power from the
Colorado River Storage Project.
I'm pleased today to testify before you in support of S.
1258, a bill to amend the reclamation of Dams Act to include
express authorization, oversight, and cost-sharing by water and
power customers of the cost of sight security. I'd like to
express my appreciation to Senator Cantwell for taking a lead
on this bill, and to Senators Wyden, Smith, Hatch, and Allard
for co-sponsoring it.
Mr. Chairman, the safety and security of facilities
operated by Reclamation are critical to millions of Americans.
That issue is not in question today. What is in question today,
is how to pay for the cost of post-9/11 security measures at
multi-purpose dams owned and operated by Reclamation.
Beginning in fiscal year 2005, the administration began to
assign a significant portion of the cost of enhanced security
to water and power customers, contrary to that position--
immediately following the attacks on 9/11--which was that the
security costs were a Federal obligation.
CREDA and virtually all other water and power customers
objected to this change in policy on several grounds, including
the lack of cost controls, the lack of transparency, and the
fact that Reclamation assigned reimbursable costs only to water
and power users. It is important to point out that CREDA and
the power customers of Hoover, Parker, and Davis Dams on the
Colorado River, including the CRC, have a good solid working
relationship with the Bureau of Reclamation and Federal
agencies on issues involving the operation and upkeep of these
projects. The security cost program, however, has challenged
this relationship due to its lack of transparency and lack of
oversight.
CREDA and other Federal power and water interests have
worked to develop a consensus on legislation that will be
clear, fair, and consistent with existing Reclamation policy.
We have worked with almost a dozen other organizations
representing water and power to reach consensus on the
legislation before you. Although we discussed other
alternatives, we feel that the amendment to the Reclamation
Safety of Dams Act is an appropriate vehicle to provide for the
cost certainty and surety of this cost. The approach embodied
in this bill and the principles on which the legislation is
based, are supported by organizations representing over 80
million Americans.
The Reclamation Safety of Dams Program was introduced in
1978 following the Teton Dam failure. It authorized
modifications needed as a result of new hydrologic or seismic
information or change in the state-of-the-art dam technology.
The bill we are discussing today authorizes structural
modifications and changes to the systems of guards and patrols
at Reclamation-owned dams.
Senator Corker mentioned a precedent. The site security is
a perfect fit to the reclamation of dams. It adds another
component on the protection of dams. The legislation has
already been passed by Congress and, therefore, we feel that it
is a precedent that's been set and any site security would be a
perfect fit. We also think the 15 percent cost share that has
been identified in the Safety of Dams Programs in 1984, is also
a precedent that's worth expanding to the site security
program. It's been reaffirmed by Congress and it's a
reasonable, appropriate, and we believe, fair allocation of
these costs. The remaining site security cost would continue to
remain a non-reimbursable Federal obligation.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, CREDA endorses S. 1258 because
it contains the following: an express authorization of the site
security program that's part of the Safety of Dams Program,
application to the existing safety of dams 15 percent cost-
share for water and power users for these high security costs,
and a requirement that Reclamation report annual to Congress
onsite security activities.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony. I
have submitted written comments to the committee and I look
forward to your questions and comments. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Caan follows:]
Prepared Statement of George Caan, Executive Director, Colorado River
Commission of Nevada, Las Vegas, NV, on Behalf of Colorado River Energy
Distributors Association (CREDA)
s. 1258
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, I am George Caan, the
Executive Director of the Colorado River Commission of Nevada. I am
appearing here today on behalf of the Colorado River Energy
Distributors Association (CREDA), of which the Colorado River
Commission is a member. CREDA is one of the members of the coalition of
water and power users who are actively supporting this legislation.
I am pleased to appear before you today to testify in support of S.
1258, a bill to amend the Reclamation Safety of Dams Act to include
express authorization, oversight and cost sharing by water and power
customers of the costs of site security. I would also like to express
my appreciation to Senator Cantwell for taking the lead on this
important, bi-partisan legislation and to Senators Wyden, Smith, Hatch
and Allard for co-sponsoring it.
CREDA is a non-profit organization representing consumer-owned
electric systems that purchase federal hydropower generation of the
Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP). CREDA was established in 1978,
and serves as the ``voice'' of CRSP power customers in dealing with
resource availability and affordability issues. CREDA represents its
members in working with the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), as the
owner and operator of the CRSP, and the Western Area Power
Administration (WAPA), as the marketing agency of the CRSP.
CREDA members are all non-profit electric utilities and
organizations and serve over four million electric consumers in the six
western states of Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and
Wyoming. Through long-term power contracts with WAPA, CREDA members
purchase over 85 percent of the CRSP hydropower generation and ensure
repayment of the federal investment in the CRSP.
Mr. Chairman, the safety and security of the facilities operated by
Reclamation are critical to millions of Americans. The issue of how to
pay for the costs of post 9/11 security measures at multi-purpose dams
owned and operated by Reclamation is not a new one.
Immediately following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks,
Reclamation initiated an aggressive program to protect its dams against
terrorist attacks. Based on World War II precedent and internal legal
analysis by the Department of the Interior, the Commissioner of
Reclamation in April 2002 issued an administrative determination that
the costs of increased security measures should be a federal
obligation, non-reimbursable by project beneficiaries. Beginning in
Fiscal Year 2005, however, the Administration's position shifted, and
Reclamation began to assign a significant portion of the security costs
to water and power customers.
CREDA and virtually all other water and power customers objected to
this change in policy, on several grounds. One was the deviation from
historical precedent.
Other important concerns, however, included the lack of cost
controls on the security program, its lack of transparency and the fact
that Reclamation assigned reimbursable costs only to water and power
users, not to other project beneficiaries. In fact, approximately 94
percent of the reimbursable costs were allocated to power customers in
our region. We did not think this was fair and do not believe
Reclamation's allocation of costs was based on any objective, fair
allocation of the costs and associated benefits of the security
measures.
Our efforts to modify Reclamation's policy on reimbursable costs
peaked at the oversight hearing the House Water and Power Subcommittee
held on June 22, 2006. At that time, an array of witnesses representing
water and power customers from virtually all regions testified, with
one voice, about the need to expressly authorize the site security
program to provide: (1) effective Congressional oversight; and (2) an
equitable, durable allocation of costs.
Following that hearing, CREDA and other power and water interests
worked to develop a consensus on legislation that would be clear, fair
and consistent with existing Reclamation policy. Although we discussed
other alternatives, the power and water representatives jointly decided
that amending the Reclamation Safety of Dams Act to authorize the site
security program made good policy sense. The approach embodied in S.
1258 and the principles (see attachment) on which the legislation is
based, are supported by organizations representing over 80 million
Americans.
The Reclamation Safety of Dams program was first authorized in
1978, following the Teton Dam failure. It authorized modifications
needed as a result of new hydrologic or seismic information or changes
in state of the art dam technology. The safety and the security of
these facilities are critical, regardless of the cause. Therefore, we
think the site security program fits nicely into the existing policy
and legal framework of the Safety of Dams program.
We also think the 15 percent cost share, which was added to the
Safety of Dams program in 1984 and has been reaffirmed by Congress
since then, is reasonable, appropriate and fair. The remaining site
security costs would remain a non-reimbursable, federal obligation.
CREDA endorses S. 1258 because it contains the following:
An express authorization of the site security program, as
part of the Safety of Dams program;
Application of the existing Safety of Dams Act 15 percent
cost share for water and power users for all site security
costs, including capital and O&M costs; and
A requirement that Reclamation report annually to Congress
on site security activities undertaken for each fiscal year.
Those reports shall include information relating to a five year
planning horizon for the program and will show both pre 9/11
and post-9/11 costs for building and site security activities.
CREDA believes that S. 1258 would be a ``win-win'' for the American
public, for water and power customers and other beneficiaries at multi-
purpose Reclamation projects and for the federal government. We urge
its swift passage.
Thank you for the opportunity to present these comments.
Attachment.--Bureau of Reclamation Building and Site Security Program
position statement
The Colorado River Energy Distributors Association (CREDA), the
Northern California Power Agency (NCPA), the Sacramento Municipal
Utility District (SMUD), the Washington Public Utility District
Association (WPUDA), the Mid-West Electric Consumers Association (Mid-
West), the Northwest Public Power Association (NWPPA), the National
Water Resources Association (NWRA), the American Public Power
Association (APPA), the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association
(NRECA), the Family Farm Alliance (FFA), the CVP Water Association, the
Upper Colorado River Commission and the four Upper Colorado River Basin
States (collectively ``Parties'') believe that Congress should
expressly authorize oversight of the Bureau of Reclamation's (BOR)
Building and Site Security program to ensure accountability to Congress
and provide cost certainty to funding stakeholders through an
equitable, durable allocation of reimbursable costs.
background
The Parties believe that security measures instituted at Bureau of
Reclamation Facilities as a response to the attacks of 9/11 should be
the cost responsibility of the United States Government and should be
funded through appropriated, non-reimbursable dollars. The Parties have
worked diligently with Congress, the administration, and other
stakeholders over the past five years on this issue.
The protection of these facilities benefits all project
beneficiaries, as well as the public. If power facilities were not part
of the project there would still be substantial security cost
investments. If a portion of security costs is to be a repayment
responsibility of the power and water customers it should be based on a
fair share of the costs with some level of certainty that these costs
will remain reasonable, stable and appropriate.
In its proposed FY 2006 budget as well as discussions with the
Parties, the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) indicated that only the costs
of guards and patrols would be reimbursable, and that the costs of
facility fortification would remain nonreimbursable. However, in its
2006 Report to Congress (issued in March), the costs of ``facility
fortification upgrades''\1\ are also listed as reimbursable. The
practical effect of this approach is that ALL costs at some point are
reimbursable. Not only is this inconsistent with stated BOR direction,
it is inconsistent as well with the title of the report
(``Reimbursement of Security Guard and Patrol Costs on Bureau of
Reclamation Facilities'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Report to Congress ``Reimbursement of Security Guard and Patrol
Costs on Bureau of Reclamation Facilities'', February 2006, page 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Parties believe that authorizing legislation is necessary to
ensure appropriate Congressional oversight and to provide some
certainty to the funding stakeholders in terms of a fair, durable and
equitable allocation of costs.
The Parties take no position as to the mechanism used to generate
funds that are not funded through reimbursable revenues.
legislative principles
Authorizing legislation should include the following essential
features:
1. BOR will report annually to the House and Senate
Committees on Homeland Security, Resources and Appropriations
on security actions/activities taken in the prior fiscal year
and proposed for the upcoming fiscal year and the sources and
expected sources of reimbursable and nonreimbursable funding
for each type of action.
2. The capital cost of security enhancements or
fortifications (``hardening''), including the operation,
maintenance and replacement of such enhancements or
fortifications, shall continue to remain non-reimbursable.
3. Funding stakeholders to reimburse costs of Guards and
Patrols at National Critical Infrastructure (NCI) Facilities up
to a level that does not exceed the FY 2006 Congressionally-
approved level of $10 million,\2\ indexed for inflation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Id, page 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Such reimbursable funds to be spent only on Guards and
Patrols at NCI facilities and allocated among NCI Facilities in
the same delineation as allocated in FY 2006.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Id, page 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. BOR is authorized to enter into bilateral contractual
arrangements with funding stakeholders, if stakeholders are
willing to do so, in lieu of seeking appropriated funds for
Guards and Patrols.
6. In the event of a change in the level of national security
threat, BOR will immediately notify Congress and with the
funding stakeholders seek approval of Congress to adjust the
reimbursable costs for Guards and Patrols until such time as
the threat level changes.
7. BOR must facilitate appropriate actions to allow funding
stakeholder review, input on and management of work program
elements, including security enhancements, on at least a five-
year planning horizon, detailed by pre- and post-9/11 and by
category (fortification, guards and patrols).
Senator Salazar. Thank you, Mr. Caan.
Mr. Kennedy.
STATEMENT OF GARY KENNEDY, SUPERINTENDENT, MANCOS WATER
CONSERVANCY DISTRICT, MANCOS, CO
Mr. Kennedy. I want to thank the committee, Mr. Chairman
and Senator Craig, and committee members and staff for the
opportunity to speak before you today.
I am Gary Kennedy, Superintendent of the Mancos Water
Conservancy District. I have held this position for the past 18
years, and I am here representing the Mancos Water Conservancy
District's members, the Board of Directors of the Mancos Water
Conservancy District. I'm glad to be able to provide to you the
information for the Jackson Gulch Rehabilitation Act of 2007,
S. 1477.
I would like to give you a brief history of the project,
just slightly. The project was approved in 1940, completed in
1950's, with the Bureau of Reclamation operating and
maintaining the project up until 1963 when the District did
assume operations and maintenance due to financial situations
and restraints to the District.
Since then, the District has operated and maintained the
project to the satisfaction of the Bureau of Reclamation. In
1999, the District did celebrate the 50th Anniversary of the
Dam. At that time, the Board reviewed the need for the
reservoir, understanding that the past 50 years were useful,
very needed for the Valley, and wanted to see that the project
lasted another 50 years into the future.
At that time, we went to the Bureau of Reclamation, asked
for a feasibility report, which they happily gave to us, coming
in with a $5.2 million cost for rehabilitation. Understanding
the need of that important issue and protecting the Federal
interest of the project, the Board at that time came to the
State of Colorado and asked for funding to authorize a
feasibility study with an engineering group for a full report
of that rehabilitation.
At that time, we came in with a $6.2 million price range.
Understanding the importance, once again we started coming to
Congress to ask for appropriations upon helping with that
rehabilitation cost. This is our fourth time before the Senate
asking those costs.
Since we've started, our cost share has gone from 30
percent down to 20 percent. That's just in a matter of 4 years.
The District is in a crucial need. The canal system is vital to
the Reservoir. It is an off-river reservoir. Without the canal
system, the Reservoir is useless. For that, as far as, we're
just here to plead and ask that you give us support for this
bill.
I want to thank you for the time that it took me to impress
upon you the rehabilitation of Jackson Gulch Rehabilitation
Act.
Thank you, and open for any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kennedy follows:]
Prepared Statement of Gary Kennedy, Superintendent, Mancos Water
Conservancy District, Mancos, CO
Committee Chairman and Members: I am before you representing the
board of directors and residents of the Mancos Water Conservancy
District. I am Gary Kennedy, Superintendent of the District for the
last 18 years. I would like to thank you for holding this hearing in
order that I can provide information on Jackson Gulch Rehabilitation
Act of 2007 (S. 1477).
history
First I would like to provide a brief history of the project. The
ranchers living in the Mancos valley during the dust bowl of the 1930's
also experienced a devastating drought. This brought about discussion
and a study--the end result of this was the construction of Jackson
Gulch Reservoir (an off-river dam) providing storage of 10,000 acre
feet of water storage. 2.6 miles of feeder canal (Inlet Canal) snakes
along the steep West Mancos River Canyon, across a narrow mesa and
dumps water from the West Mancos River into Jackson Gulch. Storage
water is returned back to the river via 2.2 miles of return flow canal
(Outlet Canal).
The Mancos Project was authorized in 1940; construction began in
1941. The CCC's began construction. During WWII, their camp became the
home of many conscientious objectors. In 1947, the Venel Company was
awarded the contract for the dam which was completed in 1954.
Construction was continually plagued by interruptions caused by
earth slides, rock falls, and adverse weather. Construction roads along
the Inlet Canal were constantly being reinforced and rebuilt. In 1958
the Bureau of Reclamation elected to discontinue rebuilding the roads.
Natural erosion over the years has narrowed many places to barely
walking trail width.
Immense boulders have rolled right through portions of the canal.
Mudslides have filled the canal requiring lengthy shut-downs for
repairs. This could occur at anytime along the canal today. Fortunately
with Reclamation's assistance, the majority of the concrete flumes are
protected from small rock fall and mudslides by concrete lids. However,
the earthen sections are still vulnerable to slides that which fill
sections and/or take the canal into the canyon with them. We have
experienced the loss of 700 feet of canal in the last 10 years.
Boulders the size of cars hitting canal walls has created the need for
emergency repairs.
o&m (operations and maintenance)
The District assumed operations and maintenance of the project in
1963 and has continued to the satisfaction of the Bureau of Reclamation
to date.
In the last 20 years, we have financed and overseen major upgrades
to the project such as:
Construction of a permanent diversion dam on the West Mancos
River.
Installation of a Hydroelectric Power Plant (increased
revenue).
Installation of automated Measuring Devices and Structures
(conservation).
Purchase of Canal Easement.
Safety Measures (fences, protective covers on the canal, 200
feet of pipe for safety).
New Equipment for O&M.
500 feet of pipe for Canal Repair.
400 feet of Penstock Pipe Upgrade.
New bridges at canal crossings.
The total amount of money spent during these years for these
upgrades is over $850,000.
importance of the mancos project and jackson gulch reservoir
Many valley residents depend on the agricultural land for their
livelihood. The town of Mancos and the Mancos Rural Water Company
utilize the water stored in the reservoir to supply domestic water to
residents. The water provided to over 550,000 annual visitors (742,080
in 1992) to Mesa Verde National Park is supplied by the reservoir.
In 1998, we experienced loss of a section of canal due to a
landslide. The emergency repair was exceedingly expensive. In 2002,
drought conditions resulted in sacrifice of irrigation water by
agricultural producers in order that domestic water could be provided
with drastic conservation measures. It is hard to imagine what would
have happened had the reservoir not been in place to supply the
domestic water. Our agricultural producers are just now recovering from
that summer.
It is plainly evident that loss of the reservoir is unacceptable.
It is also evident that the District does not and cannot sustain or
generate the revenue required to continue emergency management.
Since the loss of the reservoir is not an option and emergency
management is cost prohibitive, two options remain--either to rebuild
the structures or to rehabilitate the structures. The Board requested a
feasibility study from the Bureau of Reclamation for the cost to
replace the structures and/or to rehabilitate the structures. The study
was completed in 2000. Cost to rebuild was so excessive that
rehabilitation was chosen. Projected cost at that time was 5.6 million.
A formal engineer study came back with a cost of 6.2 million for total
rehabilitation.
consequences of canal failure
The canals were built in 1947 and 1948. The canals had a flow
capacity of 258 c.f.s. They are concrete box flumes in some sections
and earthen in others. Natural occurrences and emergency repairs have
forced a reduction in our flow capacity. Current capacity is 160 c.f.s.
The earthen canal sections have been plagued with land/mud slides
since the start of construction. As stated previously, we've lost 700
feet of earthen canal in the last 10 years. Repairs to canal sections
cost well over $170,000 requiring loans from the State of Colorado. The
failure of the canal area happened after extremely dry summers when the
water in the reservoir was lower than normal. In fact, it had been
drawn down to historic levels--18%--equal to 2 years of domestic water
supplies.
The concrete box flume was designed and constructed before the use
of rubber water stops for construction joints. Over 50% of the
construction joints have experienced serious deterioration causing
reduced structural integrity. The seepage from deteriorating concrete
walls not only reduces the structural integrity, it also contributes to
slope instability and failure.
One other hazard to the concrete flumes is rock fall. There is
1,400 feet of the flume that is exposed to high-moderate rock falls.
The right rock in the wrong place would destroy a section of the canal
causing a large financial hardship due to the manner in which the
repair would have to be made (helicopter in most cases). It would also
most likely happen during inflow to the reservoir restricting water to
the reservoir for an extended amount of time. Depending on the seasonal
precipitation, it could take us more than one season to recover and
would possibly cause great strain on water availability for domestic
and agriculture.
Access is a huge problem to approximately 1,000 feet of concrete
flume. The construction road was not rebuilt after it failed in 1958.
Rebuilding the road is much more financially responsible than making
repairs by helicopter.
The operation facilities were constructed in 1941-42 as temporary
facilities. Partly due to the era and partly due to their temporary
status, they were constructed using unconventional building methods.
Therefore, these buildings do not conform to uniform building codes and
do not comply with federal regulations. The District's Superintendent
is required to live on-site by contract with Bureau of Reclamation.
Following 9/11 this is even more important for the safety and security
of the project itself.
previous legislation
Most discussion on water projects focus on dams. There are
financial programs (grants, etc) for dam safety, water storage, and
conservation. However, for the few dams that rely on canals to supply
the water for storage, there are no programs to help fund major
repairs.
In 1983, P.L. 98-50, 97 Stat. 251 was passed appropriating 3
million dollars for improvement of siphons, concrete liners, improved
irrigation efficiency, to conserve water and reduce O&M costs. The cost
of this rehabilitation was non-reimbursable and the rehabilitated and
new features were turned over to the operating entity for future O&M.
funding
The District began to search for assistance for funding the
rehabilitation:
We studied our ability to increase our income (water rates
and taxes). It was immediately evident that the small
population of the Mancos Valley could not provide total funding
but may be encouraged to accept an increase in their mill levy
taxes to cover a small percentage of the overall cost. In 1995
we asked the members of our District to approve a mill levy
increase of 5 mills to cover what we felt was a reasonable
share of the cost of rehabilitation our residents could
provide. The increase would bring our total mill levy to 6.5
mills. The measure passed by a very comfortable margin
providing us with not only the increased funds but the absolute
knowledge our residents understand the utmost importance of
their water supply and supported our efforts.
Water rates have been gradually increased in past years to
cover the cost of emergency repairs and will continue to be
gradually increased.
The Board requested assistance from the Bureau of
Reclamation with no success.
We researched and applied for grants. Our research has
revealed that there are no grants, state or federal, large
enough to cover the cost. We were successful in securing a
small grant to study the effects of lining material in the
canal. This will be finalized this year. We were also
successful in securing an EPA/Stag grant but have been unable
to collect these funds ($250,000).
We went to the State of Colorado. The State (CWCB) approved
a line of credit for engineering, cost share and interim
emergency repairs--up to 5.2 million dollars.
We decided to apply to Washington D.C. for appropriations.
We have been here four years in a row with our request for
partial funding to be awarded annually until complete (6
years). Each year reveals an increase in the cost due to
rapidly increasing construction expenses. And each year brings
us closer to a catastrophic canal failure.
Before the study for rehabilitation, the District was aware of the
need for increased revenue. After a lengthy process, a hydroelectric
power plant was installed. The power plant is providing up to 250 KWH
of hydro power or 912,000 KWH annually--enough electric power for 60
homes saving 5,000 barrels of oil annually. The most revenue increase
brought in by the hydro plant is $22,000/annually.
consequences of failure to secure funding
The options for the District should we fail to secure the funding
necessary to rehabilitate the project are dismal. We cannot force funds
from a source (valley residents) with no funds available. Current funds
allow us to do some of the lesser rehabilitation but do not and cannot
begin to cover the cost of the overall project. Emergency repairs will
become more and more frequent causing the District to incur more and
more debt. There will come a point when we will be unable to secure
funding to cover the cost of emergency repairs. It is projected that
maintenance issues will be forced to be delayed in order to cover
emergency repairs.
At that point it is projected that Bureau of Reclamation will begin
to express concern and dissatisfaction with the O&M until the District
will have no choice but to turn the project back over to Reclamation.
When this possibility was brought to discussion before the board and
Reclamation, the question was what would happen if this were to occur?
The answer given to the board was that Reclamation is no longer in a
financial position to operate and maintain this project; therefore in
all likelihood the project would be locked up and/or shut down.
If this were to be an eventuality, recreation on the reservoir
would cease. Current estimates of visitation to the reservoir are
80,000 people annually. Domestic water organizations would be forced to
consider their own storage facilities to maintain some water delivery.
Mesa Verde National Park would have to consider a storage facility or
the possibility of having to haul water from other delivery points.
Irrigated agriculture would cease to exist--limited dry land
agriculture may be able to be maintained. If the drought continues, the
river would dry up not far below the town limits in the months of July
and August possibly through October. There is no way to predict the
effect on wildlife, particularly waterfowl. We cannot begin to
speculate on the effects to the people themselves.
Therefore, we are here before you now asking for assistance in
passage of this Bill. Passage will insure continued use of a project
considered extremely vital in the 1940's and no less vital--if not more
so--today. Plus, this Bill not only affects our local area, it will
continue to fulfill that part of the Upper Colorado Compact which was
established in 1922. It will protect not only the environmental issues
connected with the canal system but agriculture, recreation, cultural,
historical and futuristic uses. We ask you to observe the vision of our
forefathers for the West and keep looking to the future and protect
these resources so vital to those who will follow us.
Thank you for this time in order that I could impress upon you the
importance of the rehabilitation of the Jackson Gulch Rehabilitation
Project Bill S. 1477.
Senator Salazar. Thank you very much, Mr. Kennedy and we
will ask some questions, if we have some time. We have a vote,
Senator Craig has indicated, about 3:30 p.m. So, we'll keep
going as long as we can, and have your testimony here, but we
also have your statements for the record, as well.
Ms. Benemelis.
STATEMENT OF PERRI BENEMELIS, ON BEHALF OF HERBERT R. GUENTHER,
DIRECTOR, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES, PHOENIX, AZ
Ms. Benemelis. Thank you. I'm Perri Benemelis. I'm here on
behalf of Herb Guenther, the Director of the Arizona Department
of Water Resources, to provide testimony in support of S. 300,
the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program
Act. I'd like to tell you a little bit about the program, and
then talk about how this legislation helps to secure the long-
term benefits of the program.
In April, 2005, the Secretary of the Interior signed the
Record of Decision and program documents to implement the Lower
Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program. This is a
cooperative effort among 50 Federal and non-Federal entities in
Arizona, California, and Nevada to protect 26 endangered,
threatened, and sensitive species, while providing assurances
to affected water and power agencies of the three States, that
their operations may continue upon compliance with the Program
requirements.
The primary reason the non-Federal water and power entities
have pursued development of, and agreed to share the cost, to
implement this program, is to attain a higher level of
certainty in the use of water and power resources of the
Colorado River.
Operation and management of the Lower Colorado River is
complex. It involves non-Federal actions by parties in the
three States, and management actions by the Bureau of
Reclamation acting as the water master. The Lower Colorado
Multi-Species Conservation Program provided comprehensive
coverage for ongoing non-Federal and Federal operations,
through a program that mitigates the effects of those
operations.
The program provides Endangered Species Act compliance for
changes to existing operations up to a defined range of use,
such as water diversion and change in points of diversion.
Having this compliance allows the Basin States to discuss
drought management options, such as temporary water transfers
that otherwise would require individual compliance.
The Program is unique when compared to previous efforts to
recover endangered species associated with the Lower Colorado
River. First, the Program includes most of the water and power
users on the Lower Colorado River. Second, the program is
coordinated and large scale. Finally, this 50-year program has
an adaptive management component. The long-term program allows
sufficient time to establish restored habitats, to evaluate
monitoring and research data to address biological
uncertainties. The opportunity to improve the status of these
species to the point of downlisting, or removing them, from the
endangered species list is enhanced by the large geographic
scope, the broad stakeholder participation, and the coordinated
implementation of this 50-year program.
The Federal and State parties have agreed to share program
implementation costs totally $626 million, indexed for
inflation over the 50-year term of the program. Costs are split
50 percent Federal, 50 percent non-Federal. S. 300 will affirm
this funding agreement by providing that the Federal share of
program costs will be non-reimbursable and will cap the non-
Federal cost at the agreed-upon amount. In addition to securing
the program financial agreements, the legislation includes
several provisions that affirm the agreements of the Federal
and non-Federal participants.
The bill provides that subsequent congressional action will
not modify the parties' obligations unless specific to the
program. It secures the ``no surprises'' and ``pertinent
revocation'' policies contained in the program documents. The
bill provides a limited waiver of sovereign immunity, to the
extent that the non-Federal parties would ever need to enforce
their agreements with the Federal Government. It does not
provide for money damages.
The bill authorizes the Secretary to enter into an
agreement with the lower division States to provide water for
implementation of the program.
Program development and implementation has been an open and
public process. The draft Habitat Conservation Plan underwent
independent scientific peer review. The final plan was modified
to incorporate recommendations from the review panel. Steering
Committee meetings are noticed and open to the public. Program
documents are available for review. Given the open and public
nature of the program, the legislation would exempt the program
Steering Committee from Federal Advisory Committee Act
requirements.
The water and power operations of the non-Federal entities
covered by the program are critical to the citizens of the
three lower division States. Colorado River water serves over
20 million people in the lower basin and irrigates more than
900,000 acres of farm land.
This program is the best program to address endangered
species needs, while preserving cities, farms, Indian tribes,
and power production uses of the river. Enactment of this bill
provides the non-Federal parties with certainty that the
program will be funded and implemented as intended.
I'll answer any questions that you have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Guenther follows:]
Prepared Statement of Herbert R. Guenther, Director, Arizona Department
of Water Resources, Phoenix, AZ
s. 300, the colorado river multi-species conservation program act
Thank you for the opportunity to provide the following comments in
support of S. 300, ``The Lower Colorado River Multi-Species
Conservation Program (LCR MSCP) Act''. In April 2005, the Secretary
signed the Record of Decision (ROD) and Program Documents that
implemented this comprehensive program to address the needs of
threatened and endangered species that rely on the Colorado River and
adjacent habitat for their continued existence. I, along with
representatives of California and Nevada, joined the Secretary in
signing the agreement that became the ROD. I hope that you will support
this important legislation that protects the substantial financial
commitment of the non-federal parties to the protection of these
species.
There have been other programs and individual efforts to improve
the status of Lower Colorado River species and habitats. But the LCR
MSCP differs from these other efforts in some significant ways. First,
the Program includes most of the major water and power users on the
Lower Colorado River. Second, the LCR MSCP is a coordinated, large-
scale Program covering approximately 100 miles of the Colorado River.
The opportunity to improve the status of these species to the point of
down or delisting is greatly enhanced by the geographic scope,
stakeholder participation and coordinated implementation of the
Program.
Although Program implementation has already begun, federal
authorizing legislation remains a final, very important goal. All of
the LCR MSCP parties fully support implementation of the Program, but
federal funding priorities change over time. The LCR MSCP is a long-
term, 50-year program. Program costs are high in the early years when
land and water acquisition and costly habitat restoration and
enhancement work are underway. The value of this early investment is
only secure if the federal contribution is assured for the full term of
the Program.
The federal and state parties have agreed to share Program
implementation costs totaling $626 million, indexed for inflation over
the 50-year term of the Program. Costs are split 50 percent federal/50
percent non-federal. S. 300 will affirm this funding agreement by
providing that the federal share of Program costs will be non-
reimbursable, and cap the non-federal costs at the agreed upon amount.
The State of Arizona has provided legislative authority to collect user
fees to meet the Arizona portion of state parties funding obligation.
In addition to securing the Program financial agreements, this
legislation includes several provisions that affirm the agreements of
the federal and non-federal participants. S. 300 provides that
subsequent Congressional action will not modify the party's
obligations, unless specific to the LCR MSCP. S. 300 will secure the
``no surprises'' and permit revocation policies contained in the
Program documents. It provides for a limited waiver of sovereign
immunity to the extent that the non-federal parties would need to
enforce their agreements with the federal government. S. 300 also
authorizes the Secretary to enter into an agreement with the Lower
Division States to provide water for implementation of the LCR MSCP.
The LCR MSCP development and implementation has been an open and
public process. The Draft Habitat Conservation Plan underwent
independent scientific peer review, and the final Plan was modified to
incorporate recommendations from the review panel. Steering Committee
meetings are noticed and open to the public, and Program documents are
available for review. Given the open and public nature of the Program,
the legislation would exempt the LCR MSCP Steering Committee from
Federal Advisory Committee Act requirements.
The important objectives of this Program can only be accomplished
if Reclamation obtains adequate, long-term funding to implement the
Habitat Conservation Plan. The LCR MSCP is the best program to address
endangered species needs while preserving cities, farms, Indian tribes
and power production uses of the Colorado River. Arizona supports S.
300, the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program Act,
and asks for its enactment by Congress.
Thank you for the opportunity to present Arizona's view on this
important piece of legislation.
Senator Salazar. Thank you very much, Ms. Benemelis.
I'm going to turn it over to Senator Craig for any comments
or questions that he might have and then I have some questions
for some of you.
Senator Craig.
Senator Craig. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much and thank
you for holding this hearing.
All of these bills are critical and the areas of
reauthorization or the areas of enhanced cooperation that have
just been spoken to, that are representative in these pieces of
legislation, are critical. I think Mr. Thalacker and Mr.
McDaniel reflect for me the concerns we have in the reason and
our effort to comply with the Endangered Species Act, our
obvious effort to help these endangered and listed species in
the Snake and the Columbia system. At the same time
recognizing, obviously, the value of what we've done in the
region to transform those water systems into working water
ways, both for transportation and hydro and irrigation,
critical to the environment in which we live out there.
Of course, as you know Mr. Chairman, we have our critics.
We have some that would like to remove all the dams and return
the world, from which we never came, to somebody's memory. That
isn't the way we run an arid West. We cooperate, we work
together. We're accommodating in every respect as we can, the
needs of our endangered species of fish in this case, mostly.
At the same time I think that these pieces of legislation
reflect the balance and the application and allocation of
resources necessary to do a better job.
I think the reality is, we are doing a better job,
increasingly so. We know a lot more about our systems today
than we did a decade or two ago, because we focused on them. As
you've spoken to your work with the Advisory Committees, and
tremendous amount of effort that's gone forward.
So, I thank you all for your cooperative effort and the
energy that has gone into this and these pieces of legislation.
Because we're dealing, in most instances, with Federal projects
and State relationships and private water-user relationships,
where there has to be a cooperative effort. I think that we've
come to a point here where moving these pieces of legislation
is important, and timely, and I hope we can do so this year.
Thank you.
Senator Salazar. Thank you very much, Senator Craig.
We have a vote underway as we speak, so I'm going to ask a
few questions and then we will adjourn the hearing.
Mr. Kennedy, you testified on behalf of the District and
the need additional money. I think you said that the
feasibility study indicated that the need for the
rehabilitation of these canals and the structures was about
$6.2 million?
Mr. Kennedy. That's correct. That was in 2004.
Senator Salazar. What steps has the District taken to try
to come up with some or all of that money up to this point in
time?
Mr. Kennedy. Since then, the District has applied for a
2025 grant for testing of canal linings, which we did receive,
which was a 50/50 grant. We have those test liners in place and
a final report will come out on those this fall. Since then
we've also taken the need to the members of the district and
asked for a tax increase to them of 5 mils, which was five
times more than they had taxed previous, which they unanimously
passed. We feel that we can not put any further burden on the
tax payers of the district. We do have water rates, but those
rates do have to go to operations and maintenance.
Senator Salazar. Mr. Kennedy, so the members of the
District taxed themselves 5 mils in order to create revenue in
order to be able to take on their responsibility with respect
to the maintenance and rehabilitation to the project?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes they did, and that 5 mils also included
rehabilitation.
Senator Salazar. Five mils, within the district, generates
how much money?
Mr. Kennedy. Approximately $130,000.
Senator Salazar. That's $130,000 per year?
Mr. Kennedy. Per year.
Senator Salazar. OK.
From your point of view has the district properly
maintained the canals since the Bureau transferred those canals
over to the district?
Mr. Kennedy. I believe they have so, yes.
Senator Salazar. What would the passage of the legislation
that we have here before us, S. 1477 do, if in fact we were
able to get it through the Congress and signed by the
President?
Mr. Kennedy. It would allow us to keep the canal system as
it is today, which preserves the historical value of it. At the
same time, we'll be able to keep the concrete structures in
place, rather than replacing them. We'll also be able to keep
the earthen sections in place, which the foundations of both
have been tremendously eroded because of weather, time, and
seepage of the canals themselves.
Senator Salazar. OK. Thank you, Mr. Kennedy.
Let me check on the timing of the vote. While that's being
checked on, I will ask just a couple of more questions, as I
can.
On S. 1522, Mr. Thalacker, can you give the subcommittee a
sense of the magnitude of the work that still needs to be done
with respect to fish passage and fish screens in the Pacific
Northwest?
Mr. Thalacker. Well, the previous 5 years of moneys,
basically covered about 120 projects. We figure there's well
over 1,000 screens and passage projects left to do.
Senator Salazar. To Mr. Caan, Reclamation indicates that it
is still seeking full reimbursement for the cost associated
with increased guards and patrols at certain Reclamation
facilities. From a rate-payer perspective, what are the
implications of that initiative by the Bureau on the power
users?
Mr. Caan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We believe, because these are Federal multipurpose projects
benefiting water, power, recreation, flood control, serving
over 20 million Americans in the lower Colorado River and
others, that it is unfair to place the entire burden of these
costs on one element of that group, the power customers.
That's why we feel this 15 percent, 85 percent split that's
already been set as a precedent in the safety of dams, is a
precedent, it makes a lot of sense to have that equitably
shared, an appropriate and fair way to share those costs.
Senator Salazar. OK. Mr. Caan and Mr. McDaniel, a similar
question to you. What are the implications to the water users
if Reclamation moves forward with its policy to seek
reimbursement of all costs associated with increased guards and
patrols?
Mr. McDaniel. Well, I think, from my perspective, that, you
know, it's just another increased cost to the irrigation
districts, and our inability to make sure that those costs are
going in appropriate ways. We're very concerned that--and
historically we found that the more we negotiate, the better we
understand the process and so we're able to get a better deal--
but, through full reimbursement of those costs and, I was not
aware until I came to this meeting today, that there was a
$14.5 million cap this year. But from year to year to year, we
need to know what we're going to get. If they're going to
increase those costs and if they're, and what they're
allocating them for, it just makes it difficult for us to plan
for the future.
Senator Salazar. Thank you very much.
To Ms. Benemelis: your testimony indicates concern that the
Federal Government will not implement the MSCP Program
consistent with the Program documents. Is that concern the
reason why you are seeking this legislation?
Ms. Benemelis. Well, not that Reclamation would not
implement the Program consistent with the Program documents,
it's a 50-year Program. The funding for the Program is very
heavily front-loaded. During the early years of the program
we're acquiring land and water and we're constructing restored
habitats along the lower Colorado River. Our concern is just,
that priorities change over time. We would like to do
everything that we can to be sure to affirm that we've got a
long-term funding stream to implement the full program.
Senator Salazar. Thank you very, very much.
Let me, first of all, thank each of the witnesses for
coming here to Washington, DC from your respective States,
traveling long distances with expenditure of resources and your
time to be here to provide the testimony to the committee. I
want to also thank all of the staff who works for the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources for the work that they do,
including the staff that's on the Subcommittee of Water and
Power here in the U.S. Senate. I want to thank the staff for
each of the Senators for also helping on this important
legislation.
With that, the meeting is adjourned. All your testimony and
the questions will all be made part of the record.
[Whereupon, at 3:42 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIXES
----------
Appendix I
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Response of Marc Thalacker to Question From Senator Salazar
s. 1522
Question 1. Your testimony makes it clear that a number of very
good projects have been implemented under the FRIMA program.
Can you expand upon your answer at the hearing and provide the
subcommittee some details on the magnitude of work that still needs to
be done with respect to fish passage and fish screens in the Pacific
Northwest? Are we making good progress at the levels of funding that
have been provided?
Answer. We have not been able to collect accurate information for
you about the work still needing to be done and the progress that has
been made under past FRIMA funding due to vacations at the state
agencies that have this data. We will continue our efforts to get this
information and forward it to you when we have it.
In Oregon, the Oregon Fish and Game Department has chosen to put
most of the FRIMA funding into on-the-ground projects to benefit and
protect the fish rather than use funds to develop a full inventory to
document the magnitude of work that still needs to be done. Based on
informal surveys of entities that deliver irrigation water in Oregon,
our estimate is that there are 200-500 diversions of different sizes
that may still need fish screens. That, of course, does not account for
the need in Washington, Idaho, and Montana. The cost for each of these
varies based on the physical characteristics at the point of diversion
including the shape of the stream bed and banks, the geological
material in the bed and banks, the amount of water being diverted, the
type of diversion structure, the sources of power for the screen
(electric or paddlewheel or other) whether the fish can be just
``turned back'' or there needs to be a side channel to move them back
to the stream. Project costs range from roughly $500,000 to several
millions dollars.
Responses of Marc Thalacker to Questions From Senator Corker
s. 1522, the fisheries restoration and irrigation mitigation act
Question 1. S. 1522 would give priority to projects costing less
than $2.5 million--down from the current threshold of $5 million. Why
do you support this decrease?
Answer. The reduction in the cost for priority projects reflects
our experience over the life of FRIMA. We have found project costs to
be less than originally anticipated and felt this should be reflected
in the authorizing legislation.
Question 2a. You've stated that you don't believe Congress intended
FRIMA be used by municipal, Federal or Tribal governments to fund their
facilities.
Answer. OWRC does not have the list of applicants for projects,
only information about projects that were funded. It is our
understanding based on discussions we have had with USFWS and other
parties involved with FRIMA that the USFWS has interpreted FRIMA to
include municipal, Federal, and Tribal governments as eligible
applicants. Our original intent for FRIMA was that it be used to
mitigate the impact on fish from irrigation diversions. The proposed
language in S. 1522 simply states the original intent and ensures the
funding is used as originally intended.
Question 2b. Are you aware of any cases where this has been
occurred?
Answer. OWRC does not have the full list of projects approved for
FRIMA funding in the four states, but in reviewing the projects listed
in the USFWS brochure (July 2005) there are projects sponsored by
federal agencies and a landowner, by non-profit organizations, by state
agencies, by cities, by tribes--all without a cooperating partnership
with an irrigation district or other agriculture water supplier. It
should be note, that many of these same types of entities also had
projects in which they partnered with irrigation districts or other
agriculture water suppliers.
Question 3. Why do you believe it is necessary to specify that BPA
funds be considered non-federal share money? Has any entity been
prohibited from accepting BPA funds as part of the non-federal share?
Answer. OWRC supports considering BPA funding as non-federal funds
for two reasons. First, BPA provides funding to protect fish in the
Columbia Basin through different groups. This is a major source of
funding for these kinds of projects in the Basin where this is little
other funding available. By allowing BPA funds to be considered non-
federal share money, we anticipate more projects being proposed and
built as this would provide some part of the non-federal match for
project sponsors who have no other source of funding.
Secondly, BPA funds are rate-payer funds, not Federal funds. These
rate-payer funds are from local entities in the states. The
circumstance that these funds are budgeted through the Federal
budgeting process does not convert them from local funding; it only
serves as the medium that enables BPA to budget them for local
projects.
______
Responses of Shannon McDaniel to Questions From Senator Corker
s. 1258, the site security program
Question 1a. In FY06, the Bureau collected $10 million in security-
related O&M guard costs from its customers. How much of an increase did
your customers see in their monthly bills?
Answer. Our customers do not receive monthly bills. They are
assessed annually for operation and maintenance charges.
Question 1b. How will customers be impacted by the collection of
$14.5 million this year?
Answer. There are 630,000 acres in the Columbia Basin Project, and
the increase in the annual bill was $62,000.
Question 1c. How much of an increase would your customers see if
the Administration collected the full $18.9 million request?
Answer. The Districts will pay $82,000 without a cap. However, it
is important to note that our landowners are dual customers. They are
also power consumers and receive retail power through a public utility
district or rural electric association that receives power from
Bonneville Power Administration. Therefore, the landowners pay for this
charge at Grand Coulee Dam as a U.S. Bureau of Reclamation payment and
then receive additional charges through their monthly electric bills.
None of these costs can be passed on to consumers of agricultural
products, leaving crop producers with higher operating costs and less
income.
Question 2a. From which facilities do you receive your water or
power and are you a primary or secondary customer?
Answer. We receive both water and power from Grand Coulee Dam. The
Columbia Basin Project's primary feature is Grand Coulee Dam. We have a
contract with the United States for power and water at the dam through
the Columbia Basin Project.
Question 2b. Have those facilities already been fortified by the
Bureau at the Administration's expense?
Answer. Yes.
Question 2c. How do you respond to the argument that a 15% cap that
covers both capital fortifications and O&M expenses will result in
increased costs for those customers of facilities where fortification
is not yet complete?
Answer. Our goal is to pay those costs in the future. If the bill
needs to be amended to include initial fortification costs, that would
be acceptable to us.
Question 3a. I think it is safe to assume that the country will
never return to the security posture that existed prior to September
11, 2001. Reclamation has stated in their budget justifications that
facility fortification and anti-terrorism management-related
expenditures will continue to be non-reimbursible. However the costs
for guards and patrols are reimbursable to their water and power
customers. As the ratepayers, as well as the water and power customers,
benefit from the enhanced security provided by these guards and
patrols, what is the justification that these should be Federal
expenses?
Answer. My understanding is that the war on terrorism is a war. We
realize that we will probably never return to the laissez faire type of
security conditions that previously existed. However, a war on
terrorism in the protection of federal assets should be a federal
expense, in our opinion.
Question 3b. Wouldn't you think that it is only fair that those who
benefit from this enhanced security level should pay part of the costs?
Answer. I thought that this was what the bill was about. Therefore,
both irrigation customers and power customers would pay 15 percent, and
the federal government would pay the remaining 85 percent.
______
Responses of George Caan to Questions From Senator Salazar
s. 1258
Question 1. Reclamation indicates that it is seeking full
reimbursement for the costs associated with increased guards and
patrols at certain Reclamation facilities.
What are the implications of that policy for power users? Have
power rates increased already because of the allocation of a portion of
the costs? Will they increase more in the future?
Answer. The history of Reclamation's policy to seek full
reimbursement of the costs of guards and patrols from water and power
users is as follows:
In April 2002 the Commissioner of Reclamation made an
administrative determination that all costs of enhanced site security
should be a federal responsibility, consistent with the way similar
costs were treated during World War II. Therefore, in fiscal years
2002, 2003 and 2004 costs for dam fortification work, guards and
patrols and related expenses were non-reimbursable by project
beneficiaries.
In its FY 2005 budget submission, the Bureau of Reclamation
(Reclamation) shifted course and proposed that water and power
customers pay for costs of increased guards and patrols at its dams.
However, Congress in the FY 2005 Energy and Water Development
Appropriations bill directed Reclamation not to collect any costs of
increased security from customers until directed to do so by Congress.
In FY 2006, Congress allowed Reclamation to recover $10 million of
the $18.9 million in reimbursable costs the agency requested from water
and power customers, but expressed concern about the equity of imposing
the reimbursablity responsibility only on water and power
beneficiaries.
In FY 2007, Reclamation again requested that water and power
customers reimburse the full cost of guards and patrols, almost $20
million. As a result of a compromise following enactment of a
Continuing Resolution for FY 2007, $14.5 million will be reimbursed by
water and power customers.
For FY 2008, Reclamation has again proposed that water and power
customers reimburse the full cost of guards and patrols. These costs
are passed by Reclamation to the Western Area Power Administration
(Western), which adds them to the cost of power generated at federal
dams and passes them on to its utility power contractors. Those
utilities, in turn, pass them on to their commercial, industrial,
municipal, tribal and residential customers.
Whether the increased costs for guards and patrols have impacted
power rates depends on the timing of rate processes at each project.
For example, at Hoover Dam, Western reviews and adjusts its power rates
each year, so increased costs for guards and patrols in FY 2006 and
2007 have already been passed through to power purchasers.
At the Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP), however, the costs of
increased guards and patrols have been allocated to power contractors,
but Western adjusts the rate periodically, rather than annually.
Therefore, FY 2006 cost increases have not yet been reflected in the
CRSP power rate, but will be when Western implements the next rate
adjustment.
Question 2. Reclamation is currently seeking reimbursement on just
O&M costs, not capital costs related to facility fortification. S. 1258
would require some reimbursement for capital costs.
Is there a policy reason that exists from your perspective on why
some water and power users should now have to repay a portion of the
capital costs associated with site security?
Answer. CREDA believes that the best policy would be for the
federal government to pay 100% of the costs of increased security at
Reclamation dams, because the dams are national assets and because
historically these national security costs have been a federal
obligation.
However, in an effort to reach a reasonable compromise, CREDA and
other members of the water and power coalition that supports S. 1258
looked for legislative models for cost-sharing. The Safety of Dams Act
requires project beneficiaries to pay 15% of the capital costs of dam
modifications due to new seismic or hydrologic data. Eighty-five
percent of the costs of such modifications are paid by the federal
government.
This model seemed both reasonable and apt, because the increased
security measures (both capital and O&M expenditures) now required at
Reclamation facilities are due to new information available about post-
September 11, 2001 terrorism threats. The coalition members believe
that the policy rationale that justifies the 15/85 cost-sharing formula
for Reclamation's Safety of Dams program applies equally well to
Reclamation's site security program.
Responses of George Caan to Questions From Senator Corker
Question 1. In FY06, the Bureau collected $10 million in security-
related O&M guard costs from its customers. How much of an increase did
your customers see in their monthly bills? How will customers be
impacted by the collection of $14.5 million this year? How much of an
increase would your customers see if the Administration collected the
full $18.9 million request?
Answer. For CRSP customers, the impact of the '06 collection is
just beginning to be felt. Rates are reviewed annually and adjusted
periodically by the Western Area Power Administration. Western must
include Reclamation costs--such as site security costs--into its rate-
setting process.
Western has begun a rate increase process for the CRSP, currently
expected to be about 14%, to be implemented in October '08. This
increase includes not only the impact of the inclusion of increased
guard costs, but also increases in Reclamation and Western operating
expenses and impacts of the ongoing drought in the Southwest.
The impact of the CRSP's share of the $14.5 million for FY 2007 is
also included in this rate adjustment. If the full $18.9 million were
collected, the rate increase would be higher than the 14%, but Western
has not recalculated what that amount would be at this point.
Question 2. From which facilities do you receive your water or
power and are you a primary or secondary customer? Have those
facilities already been fortified by the Bureau at the Administration's
expense? How do you respond to the argument that a 15% cap that covers
both capital fortifications and O&M expenses will result in increased
costs for those customers of facilities where fortification is not yet
complete?
Answer. For CRSP power customers, power is generated primarily at
the Glen Canyon Dam, Flaming Gorge Dam and Aspinall Unit (comprised of
the Blue Mesa, Morrow Point and Crystal Dams). Glen Canyon generation
represents about 70% of the total CRSP generating resource. It is one
of Reclamation's multi-purpose, National Critical Infrastructure (NCI)
facilities. It is CREDA's understanding that fortification has been
substantially, if not entirely, completed at all Reclamation's NCI
facilities. However, due to the security nature of the issue, customers
do not have complete access to information about those completed
improvements or potential future fortifications.
It is further CREDA's understanding that, once fortification of NCI
facilities is completed, Reclamation will proceed to fortify other,
smaller, single-function facilities (e.g. irrigation only projects.) If
S. 1258 is enacted, there will, indeed, be an increase in security
costs to customers at some projects, i.e. those that currently have no
or minimal costs for guards and patrols. Under Reclamation law, capital
costs that are considered beyond the ``ability to pay'' of irrigators
are allocated to power users for repayment. Thus, we anticipate that a
significant portion of capital costs that would be reimbursable if S.
1258 is enacted would be costs to power users. We believe that the
``trade-off'' for power users that would result from enactment of S.
1258, i.e. our agreeing to pay for 15% of previously non-reimbursable
capital costs for fortification work in exchange for the certainty that
only 15 percent of all site security costs would be reimbursed by water
and power users, is worthwhile.
Question 3. I think it is safe to assume that the country will
never return to the security posture that existed prior to September
11, 2001. Reclamation has stated in their budget justifications that
facility fortification and anti-terrorism management-related
expenditures will continue to be non-reimbursable. However the costs
for guards and patrols are reimbursable to their water and power
customers. As the ratepayers, as well as the water and power customers,
benefit from the enhanced security provided by these guards and
patrols, what is the justification that these should be Federal
expenses? Wouldn't you think that it is only fair that those who
benefit from this enhanced security level should pay part of the costs?
Answer. We do think it is reasonable to ask water and power
customers to pay a fair share of the costs of increased site security
at Reclamation dams. However, many of these facilities are multi-
purpose facilities, serving millions of Americans through a variety of
functions, including flood control, water supply, power supply,
recreation, etc. We believe that all who benefit from these important
facilities should share in the cost of ensuring their safety and
security. For example, if a terrorist attack succeeded in taking out a
major dam, most of the impact would be from loss of life and property
from flooding downstream and loss of the water supply. For various
reasons, Reclamation has not sought to recover costs from other project
beneficiaries or to identify other potential sources of revenues, e.g.
a fee charged to visitors at the Glen Canyon or Flaming Gorge Dam
visitor centers.
S. 1258 does not attempt to authorize Reclamation to seek
reimbursement from those who benefit from the flood control, recreation
or other functions of these multi-purpose projects. Instead, it
provides fairness to water and power customers another way: by
implementing a fairer cost-sharing formula than the one Reclamation now
seeks to impose. It provides that these customers contribute 15% of all
site security costs and that the remaining costs be assumed from the
federal government on behalf of these multi-purpose, multi-use
facilities. We do think, as you ask, that it is fair for water and
power customers to pay part of the costs, thus the 15% included in this
bill.
______
Response of Gary Kennedy to Question From Senator Salazar
s. 1477
Question 1a. Reclamation's testimony indicates that major facility
rehabilitation is the District's responsibility pursuant to an existing
contract. Per contract in question I1r-1384, there is no reference to
rehabilitation or replacement.
Do you agree with Reclamation's interpretation of the contract?
Answer. No. I do not agree. The interpretation appears to be an
assumption of contracts issued throughout Reclamation and not specific
to the District's contract. The District's contract (I1r-1384) article
11 only specifies operations and maintenance.
Question 1b. Is the work that needs to be done beyond routine
maintenance?
Answer. Yes. Operations and maintenance has done all it can to
protect or slow deterioration due to age or exposure to the elements.
Question 1c. Has Reclamation expressed any dissatisfaction with the
District's maintenance program as a result of its annual inspection?
Answer. No. The District has maintained the project to the
satisfaction of the B.o.R. since it assumed the duties of O&M. I have
attached several inspections that have been completed during my tenure.
Response of Gary Kennedy to Question From Senator Corker
Question 1. Please describe your analysis of the additional rate
increase needed to pay for the project if all the costs were deemed
reimbursable.
Answer. Today's Cost is Approximately $8,065,389. Annual Interest
Rate (if available): 3%. Loan Period in Years: 30. Annual Payment:
$411,514.
There are 1,525 taxable properties in the Mancos Water Conservancy
District. The mill per taxable property was 1.5. In 2005, based on the
information given the residents regarding the cost of rehabilitation
and restoration we had secured from our engineer study, those residents
voted in a 5.0 mill levy tax increase (total mill levy=6.5). Therefore,
1,525 taxable properties pay an additional tax of $123,596 annually.
As previously established, the annual loan payment would be
$411,513.13. Minus the tax increase of $123,596, those 1,525 taxable
properties would be asked to pay an additional $287,917 of new taxes
annually. It is important to note that the average median household
income of Montezuma County based on 2004 census figures is $34,416
(compared to $50,105 Colorado state-wide--http:www//quick-
facts.census.gov/qfd/states/08/08083.html).
That's an additional 12 mills for a total mill levy of 18.5. There
are 12 different taxing entities in addition to our district.
Even if we could convince property owners within our District to
vote on that kind of tax increase, none of the funds raised could be
slated for O&M, safety and security issues, or reserved for future
replacement.
If you or any of the committee members have any additional
questions I would be happy to see that they get answered.
______
Responses of Perri Benemelis to Questions From Senator Salazar
Question 1. The Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation
Program (LCR MSCP) is a unique program that combines federal compliance
under Section 7, and non-federal compliance under Section 10 of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA). Enactment of S. 300 provides the non-
federal parties with certainty that the program will be funded and
implemented as intended.
Do you believe that the program documents provide the necessary
flexibility to address changed circumstances over the next 50 years?
Answer. Yes. The program addresses future changed circumstances in
two ways. First, the parties to the program documents have assumed an
explicit obligation to deal with defined changed circumstances. Second,
the program includes monitoring, research and adaptive management
components to ensure that the measures employed to conserve species and
their habitat will be based on the most current, and best available
scientific information. If this data indicates that alternate species
conservation measures will provide greater species benefit than
currently prescribed measures, the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) can
be modified and funding may be reprogrammed.
The HCP defines specific changed circumstances, prescribes required
response measures and commits over $13 million to respond to changed
circumstances. Defined changed circumstances include failure to
establish essential habitat elements for one or more of the covered
species, drought or shortage reductions to water supplies,
sedimentation of backwater habitat or destruction of terrestrial
habitat due to flooding, loss or reduced production capability for fish
rearing facilities, toxic or hazardous substance spills affecting
conservation areas or future listing of non-listed covered species.
Response measures will be implemented after conferring with the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) the federal agency charged with
the responsibility of protecting endangered species and their habitat.
Current monitoring and research data will be used to develop an
informed response to habitat or aquaculture technique failures. If
flooding destroys terrestrial habitat, it will be recreated. If
flooding results in sedimentation of backwater or marsh sites, those
sites will be dredged. Toxic or hazardous waste spills will be
evaluated on a case by case basis, and appropriate response measures
taken. The HCP already provides covered activities mitigation for 20
covered, but not currently listed species. If any of these covered
species are listed in the future, the USFWS will automatically
authorize take as prescribed by regulation.
Question 2. What happens if the species of concern decline in
population and health?
Answer. The HCP includes the restoration of more than 8,000 acres
of habitat and stocking of more than 1.2 million juvenile fish to
augment populations of two endangered fish covered by the program.
Habitat restoration involves more than just planting trees. Habitat is
not considered ``restored'' until plant communities have sufficiently
matured, or additional habitat features are established to provide the
primary constituent elements that covered species rely upon for their
survival. Ongoing monitoring will provide information about the status
of restored habitats and utilization by covered species. If monitoring
data indicates that a covered species continues to decline regardless
of the successful implementation of conservation measures, program
biologists will evaluate alternate conservation strategies which may be
implemented through the adaptive management process.
Question 3. Do you believe that Reclamation currently has all the
Authority it needs to implement all aspects of the MSCP consistent with
the Program documents?
Answer. Reclamation has no specific authorization to implement the
LCR MSCP. It has been doing so as part of its Colorado River operations
program, and within its obligations under the Endangered Species Act.
This legislation will affirm Congress' commitment to support
Reclamation through specific authority to implement the program and
long-term funding.
The bill also provides a legal basis for the authority to use
Colorado River water for LCR MSCP purposes. A contract with the
Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) is required for the use of
Colorado River water pursuant to the Boulder Canyon Project Act of
1928. Reclamation's Lower Colorado Regional Director enters into water
delivery contracts on behalf of the Secretary. The water delivery
contract constitutes an authorization to use Colorado River water in
the Lower Basin. These contracts define the type of use, either for
domestic or agricultural purposes.
The beneficial use of Colorado River water for environmental
purposes has been called into question from time to time, and was
challenged by parties in California during negotiations of the
Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA). Although the California
issue was resolved to the extent necessary to implement the QSA, S. 300
would provide explicit authorization for the Secretary to enter into an
agreement with the Lower Division States to provide Colorado River
water for implementation of the LCR MSCP. Subject to final review and
approval within the Interior Department, the non-federal parties have
reached agreement with the United States on an agreement to provide
Colorado River water for LCR MSCP purposes, as authorized by Section
3(b) of the bill. Representatives of the Interior Department have
advised us, however, that the United States will not be able to execute
the agreement unless and until Congress enacts S. 300 or the companion
House bill. The legislation does not alter existing rights to use
Colorado River water.
This legislation will secure the long-term benefits of the program
for covered species, water and power users.
______
Response of Perri Benemelis to Question From Senator Corker
Question 1. Please describe why you believe that additional
authorities are needed to fully implement the Lower Colorado River
Multi-Species Conservation Program. Specifically address why you
believe the Department does not have clear authorities to administer
the program under existing statutes.
Answer. Reclamation has no specific authorization to implement the
LCR MSCP. It has been doing so as part of its Colorado River operations
program, and within its obligations under the Endangered Species Act.
This legislation will affirm Congress' commitment to support
Reclamation through specific authority to implement the program and
long-term funding.
The bill also provides a legal basis for the authority to use
Colorado River water for LCR MSCP purposes. A contract with the
Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) is required for the use of
Colorado River water pursuant to the Boulder Canyon Project Act of
1928. Reclamation's Lower Colorado Regional Director enters into water
delivery contracts on behalf of the Secretary. The water delivery
contract constitutes an authorization to use Colorado River water in
the Lower Basin. These contracts define the type of use, either for
domestic or agricultural purposes.
The beneficial use of Colorado River water for environmental
purposes has been called into question from time to time, and was
challenged by parties in California during negotiations of the
Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA). Although the California
issue was resolved to the extent necessary to implement the QSA, S. 300
would provide explicit authorization for the Secretary to enter into an
agreement with the Lower Division States to provide Colorado River
water for implementation of the LCR MSCP. Subject to final review and
approval within the Interior Department, the non-federal parties have
reached agreement with the United States on an agreement to provide
Colorado River water for LCR MSCP purposes, as authorized by Section
3(b) of the bill. Representatives of the Interior Department have
advised us, however, that the United States will not be able to execute
the agreement unless and until Congress enacts S. 300 or the companion
House bill. The legislation does not alter existing rights to use
Colorado River water.
This legislation will secure the long-term benefits of the program
for covered species, water and power users.
______
[Responses to the following questions from the Department of the
Interior were not received at the time the hearing went to press.]
Questions From Senator Salazar
s. 1477
Question 1a. You oppose federal support for rehabilitation of this
project because of the precedent it would set for other projects across
the country in need of rehabilitation.
Isn't the Jackson Gulch situation an example of a much larger
problem that exists with a number of Reclamation projects? Is
Reclamation doing anything to address the impending crisis that exists
West-wide because of the aging infrastructure of its facilities? What
specifically is Reclamation doing to address the problem of aging
infrastructure?
Question 1b. Please provide the Subcommittee a list of the
Reclamation Projects, including specific infrastructure, which are in
need of significant rehabilitation or replacement in order to maintain
water and power infrastructure at peak operating efficiency. In
addition to specific infrastructure, please also identify the scope of
work required, including cost estimates.
Question 2. Your testimony asserts that the District is solely
responsible for the operation, maintenance, and replacement of these
facilities, pursuant to their contract.
Please explain in detail, with supporting documentation, the basis
for your assertion that the District assumed responsibilities for
rehabilitation and replacement of project facilities, when it assumed
responsibility for annual operations and maintenance.
Question 3. With respect to the Mancos Project, you've acknowledged
that the canals need to be rehabilitated, that the U.S. owns the
project, and that a large number of water users rely on these
facilities.
What are the implications of the District being unable to afford
the full cost of the necessary rehabilitation of the system? What is
Reclamation's liability if the facilities fail, and rehabilitation and
replacement are not necessarily the District's responsibility under the
contract?
s. 300
Question 4. The bill directs the Secretary to implement the MSCP
consistent with the ``program documents''.
Do those documents provide flexibility to modify the program to
address changing circumstances or new scientific information over the
next 50 years? If so, please describe in detail the provisions which
maintain program flexibility.
s. 1258
Question 5. The water and power users' testimony describes problems
that exist with Reclamation's current approach to allocating security
costs. These problems include a include the lack of transparency in
determining the level of security needed; and that site security costs
are only allocated to water & power users, and not other project
beneficiaries.
What is Reclamation doing to improve transparency in allocating
security costs?
Are the water power users correct in alleging that site security
costs are not allocated to all project functions/beneficiaries?
Questions From Senator Corker
s. 1258, the site security program
Question 1a. In its FY07 Budget Request, the Administration
anticipated full reimbursement of $18.9 million for security-related
O&M guard costs. However, due to the Continuing Resolution, the Bureau
is collecting $14.5 million this year.
With the collection of $14.5 million in security costs, how much of
an increase will end-use customers see in their bills? How much of an
increase would they see if the entire amount was collected?
Question 1b. Do you expect the $18.9 million requested amount to
remain steady or will in increase over time?
Question 1c. Are the reimbursable security costs distributed
uniformly across all of the customers?
Question 2. How has the Corps of Engineers, which also operates
multi-purpose federal facilities, addressed this security cost issue?
In particular, how have TVA and its customers handled relevant security
costs?
Question 3a. Since 9/11, the Bureau has continued to pay for the
capital investment of facility fortifications. S. 1258 would cap the
costs collected by water and power customers to 15%--covering both
guard O&M costs, and, for the first time, capital costs.
How many facilities have been fortified? How many are left?
Question 3b. While S. 1258 would cap the costs for some customers
on the O&M side, wouldn't it result in increased costs for those
customers whose facilities have yet to be fortified?
Question 4. This legislation amends the Safety of Dams program. Is
that appropriate?
Question 5. We have heard repeatedly from the secondary power
customers concerning the reimbursement of these security costs, yet
surprisingly little from the primary power customers. Do you know why
that might be the case?
s. 300, the colorado river multi-species conservation program act
Question 1. Please describe all the existing authorities that
Reclamation has used, and will use to fully implement the Lower
Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program.
s. 1477, jackson gulch rehabilitation
Question 1. Please describe how the Administration determines which
projects need rehabilitation.
Question From Senator Cantwell
Question 1a. Mr. Todd, following the attacks on Pearl Harbor in
1942, then-Reclamation Commissioner John C. Page advised Congress that
costs for enhanced security at federal dams should be non-
reimbursible--that they are the responsibility of the federal
government.
Following September 11, and consistent with federal policies
adopted following the attack on Pearl Harbor, the Commissioner of
Reclamation in April 2002 made an administrative determination that
Operation and Maintenance costs that pay for enhanced guards and
patrols at Reclamation's multi-purpose projects were in the public
interest, and should be paid for by the federal government.
But in FY 2005, the Bureau reversed this decision and have saddled
water and power customers with 100% of the increased costs of enhanced
guards and patrols.
Mr. Todd, recognizing that security enhancements benefit the public
at large and thus are the responsibility of the federal government, why
did the Bureau in FY 2005 shift its earlier position that water and
power users should not bear 100% of the responsibility for paying for
increased security costs?
Question 1b. How are Post-9/11 security enhancements different than
Post-Pearl Harbor security enhancements?
Question 2. Mr. Todd, there is currently no cap on what the Bureau
can spend on guards and patrols for enhanced security at federal dams.
There is also little transparency to how the Bureau determines those
costs. So if the Bureau continues to act with no accountability for the
Site Security program, and with no Congressional oversight, there is
nothing to stop the costs from rising exponentially.
As one example of this cost uncertainty, replacement fortification
costs were not a reimbursable cost in FY 2005. But in FY 2006 the
Bureau decided that replacement fortification costs suddenly were
reimbursable by the water and power customers. Much worse, the Bureau
has not even disclosed how much these costs are.
The Northwest region and BPA are trying very hard to keep all costs
as low as possible and to plan for future costs, so every dime counts.
Currently BPA and the Northwest Region are involved in a
painstakingly detailed multi-year ``Regional Dialogue'' on how best to
allocate power generation resources for the next two decades.
With a lack of cost controls and congressional oversight and
transparency to the Bureau's current site security program, water and
power customers have little certainty about future costs for this
program.
Mr. Todd, given this uncertainty in future costs and the lack of
cost controls, transparency, or Congressional oversight of the Bureau's
current Site Security program, how can you provide certainty to water
and power customers about future costs of security enhancements?
Question 3a. Mr. Todd, currently only water and power users are
paying for the enhanced site security costs of guards and patrols at
federal dams. Yet, multi-purpose projects provide many benefits to the
general public such as flood control, recreation, fish and wildlife
mitigation, and navigation that help ships our farmer's products to
market.
Given that there are more than several beneficiaries for each
project, do you think it is fair to saddle water and power customers
with all of the reimbursable security costs?
Question 3b. What plans does the Bureau have for equitably
apportioning responsibility for security costs among all the project
beneficiaries?
Question 3c. What obstacles are standing in your way and how do you
suggest overcoming them?
Question 3d. Once the Bureau determines which costs should be
reimbursed by project beneficiaries, how does it allocate those costs
among beneficiaries?
Question 3e. Why aren't all classes of project beneficiaries
allocated a portion of the costs the Bureau determines should be
reimbursed?
______
[Responses to the following questions from the Fish and Wildlife
Service were not received at the time the hearing went to press.]
Question From Senator Salazar
s. 1522
Question 1. Both your testimony, and that of the Oregon Water
Resource Congress, hail FRIMA as a true success, and an example of the
cooperative approach needed to protect and restore depleted fish stocks
in the Pacific Northwest, which also protects the interests of water
users.
Why hasn't the Administration requested any funding for the program
in its annual budgets? What can be a higher priority than a cooperative
program in which the state and local parties are shouldering most of
the costs to achieve federal objectives? Please describe the federal
objectives being address by FRIMA.
Question From Senator Corker
s. 1522, the fisheries restoration and irrigation mitigation act
Question 1. You testified that ``in some instances, BPA funds are
treated as non-federal cost share amounts. However, more study and
evaluation is needed to determine whether Bonneville funds should be
counted toward the non-federal component of FRIMA.''
In what instances have BPA funds been treated as a non-federal
cost-share amount? What are the Administration's concerns regarding
such treatment? Why do you believe further study is needed?
Questions From Senator Wyden
regarding s. 1522
Question 1. Mr. Wilson, the Fish and Wildlife Service has been a
good partner in this program and we want to continue to work with you.
However, as you stated during the hearing, the Fish and Wildlife
Service has never requested any federal funds for this program, because
it was not of sufficient priority. Given the billions of dollars that
are being spent on restoring and protecting both listed and non-listed
fish populations in the Northwest and years of litigation concerning
impacts of federally constructed and operated dams and reclamation
projects on endangered species in the Northwest (such as biological
opinion on Coho salmon pending before Judge Redden), why isn't this
program a higher priority? Please also identify for the Subcommittee
what Fish and Wildlife programs have a higher priority?
Question 2. Please submit for the record, copies of the most recent
inventories of fish diversion projects that could be implemented with
FRIMA funding for each state. Within each state, please provide the
level of funding needed in order to implement these projects in
priority order.
Appendix II
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
Statement of the American Public Power Association
We appreciate the opportunity to submit this statement for the
record related to the Subcommittee's hearing to receive testimony on S.
1258, which would amend the Reclamation Safety of Dams Act of 1978 to
authorize improvements for the security of dams and other facilities.
The American Public Power Association (APPA) strongly supports S. 1258.
APPA is the national service organization representing the
interests of the 2,010 municipal and other state- and locally-owned
utilities throughout the United States (all but Hawaii). Collectively,
public power utilities deliver electricity to one of every seven
electric consumers (approximately 44 million people), serving some of
the nation's largest cities. However, the vast majority of APPA's
members serve communities with populations of 10,000 people or less. Of
the 2,010 public power systems nationwide, approximately 580 of them
receive all or a portion of their power supply directly from one of the
four federal Power Marketing Administrations (PMAs).
The PMAs were specifically created to market federally-generated
hydropower from Bureau of Reclamation and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
multi-purpose water projects with a right of first refusal granted to
not-for-profit entities including public power systems and rural
electric cooperatives. These entities market wholesale electric power
to 1180 public power systems and rural electric cooperatives in 33
states.\1\ They also sell power to a number of other public agencies
and federal installations as well as to for-profit, investor-owned
utilities in years with high water flows. The power rates paid to the
PMAs by their public power and rural electric cooperative customers
cover all of the costs for generating and transmitting electricity and
of repayment with interest of the federal investment in these
hydropower projects. None of the costs are borne by taxpayers. Power
rates also help to cover the costs of other activities authorized by
these multi-purpose federal dams including: flood control; irrigation;
municipal water supply; interstate and international compact water
deliveries; lake and stream recreation; blue ribbon trout fisheries;
river regulation; economic development; fish and wildlife propagation
and mitigation; and power generation and transmission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The following states receive a portion of their power from the
PMAs. Bonneville Power Administration: Washington, Oregon, Idaho,
Montana (part). Western Area Power Administration: Arizona, California,
Colorado, Iowa, Kansas (part), Minnesota, Montana (part), North Dakota,
Nebraska, New Mexico, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas (part), Utah,
Wyoming. Southwestern Power Administration: Arkansas, Kansas (part),
Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas (part). Southeastern Power
Administration: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky,
Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Bureau of
Reclamation (Bureau) embarked upon an aggressive program to enhance the
security of the federal dams they operate to protect these facilities
against terrorist attacks. Based on historical precedent, the Bureau
initially determined that the costs of increased security measures
should remain an obligation of the federal government, and that funds
spent on these measures should not be reimbursed by the PMA customers.
In Fiscal Year 2005, however, the Bureau reversed its position and
asked for some of these costs to be reimbursed from power and water
customers.
Despite numerous expressions of congressional and customer concern
about the Bureau's shift in policy since FY 2005, however, the Bureau
has proceeded to expand and implement its reimbursable site security
cost plan. Given that the multi-purpose federal dams benefit a host of
stakeholders and the general public--not just water and power
customers--we believe that asking these customers to give the Bureau a
``blank check'' to implement security measures is unreasonable.
Therefore, we strongly support S. 1258, introduced by Senator Maria
Cantwell (D-WA), among others, as it would provide a ceiling on the
amount of reimbursable security costs that would be borne by this
subset of beneficiaries of the dams, and would therefore keep costs
manageable and provide needed certainty for future planning. As capital
intensive not-for-profit electric utilities trying to manage costs for
our customers, plan for future growth, and address environmental
issues, this type of certainty is essential.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to provide this statement for
the hearing record. We would also like to associate with the testimony
of George Caan, Executive Director of the Colorado River Commission of
Nevada who is testifying on behalf of the Colorado River Energy
Distributors Association (CREDA). Both the Colorado River Commission of
Nevada and CREDA are members of APPA. We look forward to working with
Senator Cantwell, cosponsors of the legislation, Senators Wyden (D-OR),
Smith (R-OR), Hatch (R-UT) and Allard (R-CO), Subcommittee Members, and
Full Committee members to achieve enactment of this important
legislation.
______
Statement of the Bonneville Power Administration
s. 1522 the fisheries restoration and irrigation mitigation act of 2007
Chairman Salazar and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
inviting the Bonneville Power Administration (Bonneville) to provide a
statement of its views on S. 1522, a bill that reauthorizes the
Fisheries Restoration and Irrigation Mitigation Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-
502). The Administration supports the principles of the Fisheries
Restoration and Irrigation Mitigation Act (FRIMA) program as an
important part of a multi-agency effort to recover and conserve fish
populations.
Bonneville is a Federal Power Marketing Agency under the Department
of Energy that markets about 40 percent of the electricity consumed in
the Pacific Northwest. The electricity is produced at 31 Federal dams
in the Pacific Northwest and one nuclear plant, and is sold to over 140
Pacific Northwest utilities. Bonneville also operates a high-voltage
transmission grid of more than 15,000 circuit-miles of lines and
associated substations in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana.
Bonneville generates revenues from the sale of power and transmission
services and its costs are covered by its revenues, so that it does not
receive annual appropriations like other federal agencies.
The Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act
of 1980 (Northwest Power Act) requires Bonneville to protect, mitigate
and enhance fish and wildlife affected by Federal Columbia River Power
System (FCRPS) dams. Since 1978, Bonneville has contributed over $9
billion in costs to aid fish and wildlife mitigation and species and
habitat recovery efforts in the Pacific Northwest.
Bonneville's funding for fish and wildlife recovery efforts has
five main components:
Expense or direct program.--Bonneville funds over 400 fish
and wildlife projects in the Columbia Basin (habitat
restoration, research, hatcheries, land acquisitions, predator
control, and culvert replacement).
Reimbursable.--Bonneville reimburses the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation for a portion of
those operation and maintenance costs related to improvements
at the dams for fish passage and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service for hatchery operations.
Project repayment.--Bonneville reimburses the U.S. Treasury,
principal and interest, for constructing and operating projects
such as hatcheries and fish passage projects at the dams.
Power purchases.--Bonneville is obligated to provide its
customers with electricity, and if fish operations limit
electricity generated at the dams, Bonneville must purchase
power elsewhere to supply customer demand. The cost varies
depending on power market prices and water volume.
Lost opportunity costs.--The water that is spilled through
the dams for fish represents ``lost'' electricity and money
that could have been generated if the water had passed through
the turbines. The cost varies depending on power market prices
and water volume.
Given this significant commitment, Bonneville believes that the
FRIMA program, which is intended to prevent fish losses from irrigation
projects, constitutes a cost-effective means to protect the investment
already being made by Bonneville and its customers for fisheries
programs. Bonneville also believes that participation in FRIMA programs
is consistent with its statutory mandates for mitigating system impacts
on fish and wildlife under the Northwest Power Act and other statutes.
For purposes of implementing this bill, Bonneville would fund non-
Federal cost-shares through the expense or direct program portion of
its budget. That portion of our fish and wildlife mitigation budget
obtains review from the Independent Scientific Review Panel (ISRP) and
consists largely of project recommendations from the Northwest Power
and Conservation Council. Bonneville understands that there may be
policy considerations that should be taken into account by the
Secretary when determining whether Bonneville's funds are appropriate
for the FRIMA program. And, as stated in the Department of Interior
testimony, the Administration believes that more study and evaluation
is needed to determine whether Bonneville funds should be counted
toward the non-Federal component of FRIMA.
Congress has given Bonneville's Administrator both a mandate to
mitigate the effects of the FCRPS dams on the fish and wildlife of the
Columbia River Basin and broad contracting and funding authorities that
allow the agency to be run much like a business in fulfilling that
mission. Because the authorities granted to the Administrator allow
him/her to provide funding when it would meet one or more of
Bonneville's statutory purposes, the agency believes that so long as it
is not violating the Northwest Power Act or other laws, the
Administrator may provide funding for mitigation that helps address the
FCRPS dams' impacts on fish and wildlife.
Since the Northwest Power Act passed, Bonneville has interpreted
its authorities to allow the Administrator to offer to fund the non-
Federal cost-share of another Federal agency's mitigation grant program
so long as Bonneville's funding was authorized under section
4(h)(10)(A) of the Northwest Power Act. Since Bonneville's revenues are
derived from ratepayers rather than from appropriated funds, it
provides a basis for a local cost-share determination. The limitations
placed on funding under that section of the act are clear and have not
changed:
Mitigation must be done in a manner consistent with the
goals, objectives, and measures in the Northwest Power and
Conservation Council's Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife
Program, the Council's Power Plan, and the Act's other
purposes.
Mitigation funded must help address FCRPS dam's impacts and
be for fish and wildlife and their habitat in the Columbia
River Basin.
Bonneville's funding must not replace other mitigation
programs or efforts that others are responsible for.
For years, Bonneville's Administrators have made funds available to
state and local governments, tribes, and non-governmental organizations
for use as the non-Federal cost-share in mitigation grant programs run
by other Federal agencies. Depending upon the statutory authorizations
and regulations governing those grant programs, some but not all
Federal agencies have been able to accept Bonneville's funding. For
example the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers accepts Bonneville funding as
a non-Federal cost share for the Nursery Bridge fish ladder facility on
the Oregon portion of the Walla Walla River, the 12 Mile Project on
Idaho's Salmon River, and for its General Investigations Program for
the Willamette Floodplain Restoration Study. Bonneville has also
entered into memoranda of understanding to provide a non-Federal cost
share for fish mitigation projects managed by the Bureau of Reclamation
and the Forest Service.
To date, Bonneville has not contributed FRIMA matching funds to the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service because the Department of Interior
believes it is not authorized to accept non-Federal matching funds from
Bonneville. The proposed amendment to FRIMA would expressly authorize
the Secretary of Interior to accept non-Federal matching funds from
Bonneville. As stated in the Department of Interior testimony, the
Administration believes that more study and evaluation is needed to
determine whether Bonneville funds should be counted toward the non-
Federal component of FRIMA.
conclusion
In conclusion, the Administration supports the principles of the
Fisheries Restoration and Irrigation Mitigation Act and looks forward
to working with the Committee to address concerns with the legislation.
______
Statement of George M. Caan, Executive Director, Colorado River
Commission of Nevada
s. 300, the lower colorado multi-species conservation program act
I want to thank Chairman Johnson and Senator Corker for moving this
legislation forward and I especially thank Senator Kyl for his
leadership efforts on this bill. My name is George Caan and I am the
Executive Director of the Colorado River Commission of Nevada. I am
also the Chairman of the Steering Committee charged with overseeing the
Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program. I appreciate
the opportunity to submit a written statement regarding S. 300. This
bill authorizes the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation
Program. My statement is on behalf of the State of Nevada, one of the
three lower basin states directly involved in the Program. Like its
sister states of California and Arizona, Nevada fully supports this
bill. Finally, I am grateful to have the support of Senator Harry Reid
and Senator John Ensign, who are co-sponsors of this legislation.
The Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program is an
unprecedented, robust 50 year, cooperative effort among 50 federal and
non-federal entities in Nevada, California and Arizona designed to
protect 26 endangered, threatened and sensitive species on the Lower
Colorado River. The Program provides for the creation of over 8,100
acres of riparian, marsh and backwater habitat for the species covered
by the Program, and includes plans for the rearing and stocking of over
1.2 million fish to augment populations of two endangered fish covered
by the Program. The Program also provides for the maintenance of
existing, high-quality habitat, and a research, monitoring and adaptive
management effort to ensure that Program elements are effective in
helping covered species. In exchange for species and habitat
protection, the affected water and power agencies of the three states
are provided with assurances that their operations may continue upon
compliance with Program requirements.
This Program is particularly vital to the State of Nevada. The
State, through the Colorado River Commission of Nevada, an agency of
the State of Nevada, and the Southern Nevada Water Authority, a
political subdivision of the State of Nevada, currently diverts its
entire apportioned share of Colorado River water. This Colorado River
water constitutes the overwhelming majority of the water supply for the
Las Vegas Valley area, almost 90%, with the remaining water coming from
a limited groundwater supply. There are currently more than one and a
half million residents living in the Las Vegas area. Southern Nevada is
the fastest growing urban area in the United States. In the last ten
years alone the population increased by almost 70% and for the next
ten-year period the population is projected to increase by an
additional 50%.
Southern Nevada also relies on the Colorado River for hydroelectric
power. On behalf of the State and as principal in its own behalf, the
Colorado River Commission receives electric power generated by various
federal hydroelectric projects on the Colorado River through delivery
contracts with the Western Area Power Administration of the U.S.
Department of Energy. These projects include the Boulder Canyon
Project, the Parker-Davis Project and Salt Lake City Area Integrated
Projects. The Commission, in turn, contracts to deliver electric power
from one or more of these federal projects to the several companies
comprising the Basic Industries in Henderson, Nevada, the Southern
Nevada Water Authority and to five power utilities that together serve
southern Nevada.
Consequently, the sustainability of the Colorado River System is
absolutely critical to the vitality of southern Nevada's future. For
this reason, the State of Nevada was a significant participant in the
development of the Program and is now one of the primary non-federal
party funding contributors to the Program. In short, the Program
provides for a total of $626 million in funding, indexed for inflation
over 50 years, for the species conservation efforts that will be
implemented under the Program. These costs are divided 50-50 between
the state and federal entities covered by the Program. Accordingly, S.
300 provides an authorization of appropriations for the federal share
of Program costs and directs the Secretary of the Interior to manage
and implement the Program in accordance with the Program Documents.
These documents include the agreements that the parties have signed
embodying their commitment to carry out the Program. As former
Secretary Norton declared in the Record of Decision for the Program:
The importance of the Colorado River to the southwestern
portion of the United States cannot be overstated: the Colorado
is the lifeblood of the southwest. The Colorado River provides
water and power to over 20 million people (in such cities as
Los Angeles, San Diego, Las Vegas, Phoenix and Tucson),
irrigates over 2 million acres, and generates up to 10 billion
kilowatt hours of electricity annually.
S. 300 gives the necessary strength and integrity to this
monumental federal and non-federal collaborative conservation Program
and virtually assures its success over the next five decades. The State
of Nevada supports this bill in its entirety and urges the Committee to
approve the bill. I will make myself available for any questions you
may have in the future.
______
Statement of the Robert F. Stackhouse, Executive Director, Central
Valley Project Water Association
The Central Valley Project (CVP) Water Association wishes to
express its strong support for S. 1258, bi-partisan legislation to
address the costs of increased Site Security measures at Bureau of
Reclamation (Reclamation) facilities.
We believe that this legislation would provide for a fair
allocation of financial responsibility for the costs of increasing
security at Reclamation facilities, which are a critical element of the
nation's water supply, power generation and food production
infrastructures.
The CVP Water Association represents the interests of the 300
agricultural and municipal and industrial districts, agencies and
communities that are located in the Central Valley of California that
have contracts for water from the federal CVP. Annually, these
contractors use the CVP water to irrigate 3 million acres of land (one-
third of the agricultural land in California) and to meet the water
needs of 1 million households. The CVP Water Association works to
preserve and protect our members' CVP contractual water supplies and
ensure that those water supplies are dependable, of good quality, and
affordable.
S. 1258 would amend the Reclamation Safety of Dams Act to authorize
funding and oversight for Reclamation's Site Security program and apply
the Act's existing reimbursability requirements to all building and
Site Security activities. Because both the Site Security program and
the Safety of Dams program are exclusively for the purpose of ensuring
the structural integrity of Reclamation facilities, S. 1258 provides
that both programs have the same basis for determining cost
reimbursability. Under the legislation, 15% of all costs incurred for
facility fortifications, operation, maintenance and replacement of such
fortifications and guards and patrols, as identified in Reclamation's
Report to Congress, February 2006, would be subject to reimbursement by
the water and power customers.
The CVP Water Association fully supports Reclamation's efforts to
protect the physical and operational integrity of its multi-purpose
facilities from attack, but has had serious concerns about the lack of
cost controls, customer involvement and Congressional oversight of the
Site Security program, as well as the inequitable allocation of
reimbursable costs to water and power customers. S. 1258 would address
these concerns by authorizing Reclamation's Site Security program as
part of the agency's Dam Safety program.
Most importantly, the legislation would provide certainty for water
and power users by establishing a statutory allocation of financial
responsibly for the Site Security program, thus ensuring that any
future changes in that allocation would be subject to full public
review and debate. Currently, costs are allocated according to
Reclamation policy, which can change at anytime.
The bill is supported by a broad coalition of Western water and
power entities, including the CVP Water Association, the Sacramento
Municipal Utility District, the Northern California Power Agency, the
Family Farm Alliance and others.
We respectfully request your support for S. 1258 and for its
approval by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding this legislation,
please feel free to contact me.
______
United States Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region,
Durango, CO, December 29, 1994.
Mr. Thomas K. Colbert,
President, Mancos Water Conservancy District, 42888 County Road N,
Mancos, CO.
Subject: Annual Review of Operation and Maintenance (RO&M) Report, the
1994 Examination of Jackson Gulch Dam, Mancos Project, Colorado
Dear Mr. Colbert: Enclosed is a copy of the subject report for your
files and records. We commend the Mancos Water Conservancy District
(District) personnel and The Board of Directors on the operation and
maintenance of project facilities.
If you have any questions or comments, please contact Stan
Mattingly.
Sincerely,
Acting for Patrick J. Schumacher,
Chief, Water and Land Division.
Enclosures.
REVIEW OF OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE--MANCOS WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT
SYSTEM
mancos project
I. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND FACILITIES
As a feature of the Mancos Project, the inlet canal serves as the
primary source of water for the offstream Jackson Gulch Reservoir. Its
headworks are about 7 miles northwest of Mancos, Colorado, on the West
Mancos River, and the canal has a length of 2.6 miles and capacity of
258 cubic feet per second (cfs). The outlet canal has a capacity of 207
cfs and a length of 2.2 miles from Jackson Gulch Dam and its
termination point at the West Mancos River. Both canals were
constructed during 1943-1950.
II. DATE OF EXAMINATION AND PERSONNEL
November 23, 1994
Gary Kennedy, Superintendent, Mancos Water Conservancy
District
Stan Mattingly, Water Operations Branch, Durango Projects
Office
III. STATUS OF PREVIOUS RECOMMENDATIONS
Category 1
None.
Category 2
90-2-A--Adjust or replace bottom seal on radial gate at
headworks.--Incomplete.
90-2-B--Clean and paint new headworks radial gate located
400 feet upstream of old radial gate and also clean and paint
old radial gate.--Incomplete.
90-2-C--Inlet canal--Finish repair of seep and compact
material adjacent to the seep.--Complete.
90-2-D--Reshape outlet canal to its original alignment to
eliminate ponding.--Complete.
93-2-A--Replace or repair two south bench flume wall panels
directly downstream from diversion dam.--Incomplete.
93-2-B--Stabilize the inlet channel directly upstream of
Jackson Gulch Reservoir.--Partially Complete.
Category 3
93-3-A--Core the wood bridge stringers to determine the
extent of deterioration.--Incomplete.
93-3-B--Remove willows and brush along the inlet and outlet
canals.--Partially Complete.
IV. NEW RECOMMENDATIONS
Category 1
None.
Category 2
None.
Category 3
None.
V. DETAILS OF THE 1994 EXAMINATION
Jackson Gulch Dam and Outlet Works
Jackson Gulch Dam and outlet works were inspected and found to be
in satisfactory condition.
Inlet Canal
The old radial gate downstream of the diversion headworks needs to
be painted and the seals adjusted or replaced as recommended during the
1990 examination (90-2-A and 90-2-B). Two south bench flume wall panels
need to be replaced or repaired (93-2-A). These panels are directly
downstream of the diversion dam headworks. The panels are leaning into
the inlet canal.
The District has installed and is in the process of installing
covers for the bench flume. These covers protect the bench flume
against sliding material entering the flume. The covers also protect
the flume form falling rocks.
The condition of the first wood bridge downstream of the diversion
dam headworks was discussed. The top of the stringers have
deteriorated. These stringers need to be cored to determine the extent
of deterioration (93-3-A). Supports have been installed under the
bridge to allow concrete trucks to cross.
The District is continuing to monitor seeps from both embankment
and concrete lined canal sections. The District is also continuing with
the program to remove willows and brush growing along the canal in some
reaches. These willows and brush along the inlet canal need to be
removed (93-3-B). The inlet channel directly upstream of Jackson Gulch
Reservoir has been stabilized by the District (93-2-B).
A seep near the south side of the drop flume is being monitored by
the District.
The drop flume and stilling basin were inspected during the year.
In late September, the District cleared the stilling basin of debris
that had been accumulating since original construction. There was found
to be an extensive area of concrete erosion downstream of the stilling
basin dentates (see Photo No. 1).* The eroded area was repaired by
replacing missing reinforcement and placing silica fume concrete. A
road was reopened on the west and north sides of the reservoir to allow
access for the concrete delivery truck (see Photos No. 2, 3, and 4).*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Photos 1-4 have been retained in committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diversion Dam
The diversion dam headworks radial gate was inspected. This gate
needs to be painted and the seal replaced or adjusted (90-2-A). The
diversion dam concrete is in good condition with no spalling or
cracking.
Outlet Canal
The outlet canal is in fairly good condition. Willows and brush
have grown along the canal. These willows and brush need to be removed
(93-3-B). A seep in the canal embankment at a point just upstream of
the concrete lined section is causing sliding failure of the
embankment. The District will reshape and monitor further problems. One
reach of the canal had been widened due to failure of a bank. The
outlet canal has been reshaped to its original alignment to eliminate
ponding (90-2-D).
The drop structure and stilling basin were not inspected. The
District attempted to dewater the stilling basin but other maintenance
activities prevented the District from completely dewatering it. Mr.
Kennedy is not aware of any reports on prior dewatering attempts. The
stilling basin needs to be dewatered and inspected prior to or during
the next annual inspection.
VI. CONCLUSIONS
Mancos Water Conservancy District System is in good condition. The
District should be commended for their efforts to keep the system in
good operating condition.
______
Statement of Kara Gillon, Senior Staff Attorney, Defenders of Wildlife
s. 300
Mr. Chair and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Kara Gillon, Senior
Staff Attorney with Defenders of Wildlife. Thank you for this
opportunity to provide testimony on S. 300, a bill to authorize
appropriations for the Bureau of Reclamation to carry out the Lower
Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program.
Defenders of Wildlife (``Defenders'') is a national, nonprofit
membership organization dedicated to the protection of all native wild
animals and plants in their natural communities. Headquartered in
Washington, D.C., Defenders has field offices in Albuquerque, NM, where
I am located, and throughout the Colorado River basin states, in
Tucson, AZ, Sacramento, CA, and Denver, CO.
Before summarizing our concerns with the Multi-Species Conservation
Program, also known as the ``MSCP,'' and proposed authorizing
legislation, I first want to address briefly the Lower Colorado River--
how it has been managed over the last seventy years and why the MSCP
could do a better job addressing the environmental degradation suffered
by the Colorado River and Delta.
We appreciate the effort and resources put into the MSCP. At its
inception, Defenders seized on the opportunity presented--long-term,
large-scale habitat improvement and species recovery where before there
was very little. Unfortunately, the final MSCP provides lesser
protections for fewer species over a smaller area.
Ten years ago, the Bureau of Reclamation found in its own
biological assessment of its historic and ongoing operations that
``[H]uman-induced change since the beginning of the century has
resulted in an ecosystem having significantly different physical and
biological characteristics. Such changes have taken place as a result
of the introduction of exotic plants (such as salt cedar), the
construction of dams, river channel modification, the clearing of
native vegetation for agriculture and fuel, fires, increasing soil
salinity, the cessation of seasonal flooding, and lowered water
tables.''\1\ It is as if man created an entirely different river.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Bureau of Reclamation, DESCRIPTION AND ASSESSMENT OF
OPERATIONS, MAINTENANCE, AND SENSITIVE SPECIES OF THE LOWER COLORADO
RIVER 83 (1996), available at http://www.usbr.gov/lc/region/g2000/
batoc.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Native wildlife is finding survival in an altered Colorado River
basin more difficult. These changed processes no longer naturally
sustain riparian forests and meadows, fail to provide young fish access
to flooded lands and leave young fish more susceptible to predation by
sight-feeding, non-native predators.
The plight of the ``Big River Fishes'' highlights this extreme
ecological degradation. All four fish are listed as endangered under
the Endangered Species Act--the Colorado pikeminnow; bonytail;
razorback sucker; and humpback chub. The Colorado pikeminnow has been
extirpated from the lower basin and is not even considered by the MSCP.
The bonytail also has been virtually extirpated from the wild.
Razorback sucker populations have declined from 50,000 to 5,000 fish
over the last ten years with very small wild populations; they are not
self-sustaining. There is only one small population of the humpback
chub in the lower basin.
Habitat restoration and fish augmentation performed without regard
to the well-known threats to listed species are likely to fail. Years
of river restoration efforts have shown us that successful river
restoration is critically dependent on understanding and addressing the
causes of the river's decline (Palmer et al., 2006; Aronson & Le Floch,
1996). The restored habitats and stocked fish will continue their
decline because the MSCP does not address the root causes of habitat
degradation and low fish survival--the impounding, storing, and
diverting of the river's waters without regard to the natural
hydrograph that naturally sustains the cottonwood-willow forest,
mesquite bosque, and backwaters that harbor razorback suckers,
bonytails, southwestern willow flycatchers and other fish and birds,
compounded by the stocking of non-native predatory fish.
Success of the conservation plan is also questionable because there
are no goals or objectives for habitat restoration. Without goals or
objectives, there are no metrics for measuring success. For example, we
do not know if cottonwood-willow habitat is successful if we find one
southwestern willow flycatcher, a flycatcher nest, or ten flycatchers.
We also do not know that mitigation will occur prior to adverse impacts
or if permanently lost habitat will be maintained in perpetuity. We
also do not know how the MSCP will select habitat creation and
restoration sites; thus we do not know if the MSCP will select sites
that are off-channel or hydrologically connected to the river.
Lastly, the MSCP purports to ensure the survival of imperiled fish
and wildlife for the next fifty years yet fails to address perhaps the
largest threat wildlife will fact in this century--global warming. In
2004, a report prepared for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change
synthesized published global warming studies and concluded that there
was ``convincing evidence'' that anthropogenic global warming had
significantly affected natural systems and that ``[t]he addition of
climate change to the mix of stressors already affecting valued
habitats and endangered species will present a major challenge to
future conservation of U.S. ecological resources'' (Parmesan &
Galbraith, 2004).
In fact, this year, Working Group II of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (``IPCC'') issued a Summary for Policy Makers which
states with medium confidence that 20-30% of plant and animal species
assessed in the report have an increased chance for extinction if the
average global temperature increases by more than 1.5-2.5 Celsius.
According to the IPCC, an increase in temperatures above this range
would drastically alter ecosystem structure and functions, species'
ecological interactions, and species' geographic ranges (IPCC, 2007).
Colorado River fish and wildlife are particularly susceptible to
adverse effects because of their concentrated habitat and their
location in the Southwest. Global warming is likely to cause
temperatures in the Southwest to increase above levels which increase a
species chances for extinction, according to the IPCC. Furthermore, the
IPCC predicts with very high confidence that global warming will lead
to decreased snow pack, more winter flooding, and reduced summer flows
for the mountains of the American West. Global warming effects likely
to affect the Colorado River fish include precipitation decreases in
the lower-basin by mid-century, early snowmelt runoff in the upper-
basin, decreased overall runoff, and increased evaporation rates
(Garfin & Lenart, 2007). Therefore, global warming is likely to produce
changes in stream flows, precipitation, water temperature, and
ecosystem structure which could very well result in an increased
probability of fish extinction in the Southwest, such as in the
Colorado River (National Assessment Synthesis Team, 2001).
The imperiled status of many of these fish leave them less equipped
to adapt to habitat modifications presented by global warming, making
the possible effects upon them even more severe and leaving them more
vulnerable to extinction. The MSCP is a rare, but foregone, chance to
assist wildlife through the looming bottleneck of complex effects of
global warming.
To institutionalize the MSCP, as called for in the proposed
legislation, may instead present one more challenge to wildlife
conservation in the lower Colorado River.
We too face increasing challenges from a highly regulated river
system, increasing water use, drought, and climate change. The National
Research Council has recently synthesized several studies that tell us
historical conditions are no longer a reliable indicator of future
conditions, with future droughts exceeding those of recent experience.
First, our streamflow record in the basin is only a small subset within
a range of greater variability than previously thought. For example, we
are learning that although up to 16.5 million acre-feet of water has
been allocated to users in the United States and Mexico, the river
naturally yields 12.5 million acre-feet to 14.7 million acre-feet of
water. In addition, studies show a trend of increasing temperatures
across the basin and a reduction in future streamflow (National
Research Council, 2007). The MSCP, however, does not confront any of
these challenges. For this reason, the success of proposed habitat
restoration and fish augmentation is highly uncertain.
In the face of growing challenges, the desire for certainty will
increase. To provide the level of certainty contemplated here can only
come at the expense of assurances for another--the environment.
Instead, we suggest legislation that preserves the Secretary of the
Interior's authority as ``water master.'' Think instead in terms of
flexibility and resiliency, where mechanisms may be created that create
opportunities for all--whether through new opportunities and creative
ideas for storage, instream flow, water acquisition programs, or
reservoir re-operation. Certainty, whether over water supply or other
resources and gained only at the expense of others, will create an
untenable and unsustainable condition.
This legislation will have the effect of constraining the Secretary
of the Interior at precisely the time we need more opportunities for
the Colorado River system. Provisions that codify the Program Documents
and No Surprises and direct the Secretary to perform certain functions
are inappropriate.
there is no precedent for the constraints placed on the secretary of
the interior
The legislation proposed here is far, far different from that for
other endangered fish programs authorized by Congress. Nearby and oft-
cited examples are the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
Program and the San Juan River Endangered Fish Recovery Program.
Legislation for the MSCP should only do what may be necessary for
federal participation in the program: authorize appropriations;
authorize the federal party to acquire interests in land and/or water,
accept or provide grants, and enter into contracts and cooperative
agreements; and authorize the federal party to carry out aspects of the
program. Rather than simply authorize the Secretary's participation, S.
300 directs the Secretary to take a certain course of action. Doing so
confines the Secretary's authority as ``water master'' for the next
fifty years.
Moreover, codifying the Program Documents would encourage other
programs to emulate this legislative approach despite the fact that key
documents--the Implementing Agreement and the Funding and Management
Agreement--were not made available for public review and comment.
S. 300 also constrains future Congresses. The bill contains what
is, in effect, a legislative no surprises policy requiring future
Congresses to explicitly state if legislation applies to the MSCP,
turning traditional legislative drafting and interpretation on its
head.
an hcp and ``no surprises'' are inappropriate due to the level of
federal influence
The MSCP is a combination of Endangered Species Act (``ESA'')
sections 7 and 10, providing coverage for federal and non-federal
participants. Use of a section 10 Habitat Conservation Plan, or HCP, is
inappropriate in light of the federal nexus associated with nearly all
lower Colorado River activities. Section 10 and use of the ``No
Surprises'' policy are only appropriate where there is no federal
nexus.
The provision in the bill directing the Secretary to act in
accordance with the Program Documents not only enacts No Surprises
assurances for the non-federal participants but also for federal
parties. Neither the Endangered Species Act nor its regulations
authorize extension of No Surprises to federal agencies.
The federal government is implicated in nearly every aspect of
lower Colorado River operations, due to the Secretary of the Interior's
role as ``water master''. The Bureau of Reclamation has been delegated
responsibility for operating and maintaining the extensive network of
dams, water diversions, levees, canals, and other water control and
delivery systems on the River. Reclamation's authority and discretion
are guided by a body of treaties, Congressional enactments, compacts,
and other agreements known as the law of the river.
In 1928, Congress passed the Boulder Canyon Project Act which
authorized the construction of a dam system on the River. Importantly,
the Act reserved for the federal government broad authority over the
operation of the dam system. As the Supreme Court in Arizona v.
California explained, it was the United States' undertaking of this
ambitious project and its concomitant assumption of responsibility for
its operation, that ``Congress put the Secretary of Interior in charge
of these works and entrusted him with sufficient power . . . to direct,
manage, and coordinate their operation.''\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546, 589-90 (1963).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unlike biological opinions for federal agencies pursuant to section
7, which could change in future consultations, section 10 HCPs include
No Surprises assurances. In general, if the status of a species covered
by an HCP worsens because of unforeseen circumstances, the Fish and
Wildlife Service will not require conservation or mitigation measures
in addition to those in the HCP without the consent of the permittee.
To obtain these assurances available only to non-federal parties,
the MSCP parties employed a section 7/10 hybrid that pooled federal and
non-federal actions and effects as interrelated. If No Surprises
prohibits the Fish and Wildlife Service from requiring additional
mitigation measures from non-federal participants in terms of land,
water or other resources, the Fish and Wildlife Service may be equally
constrained in requesting changes to federal activities.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program
Implementing Agreement at Sec. 7.2 (recognizing that federal and non-
federal actions are so interconnected that a federal action could
arguably be included in a section 10 permit), available at http://
www.usbr.gov/lc/lcrmscp/publications/FinalIA.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In other words, there is a high degree of federal influence in
lower basin operations. Section 10 of the ESA relates solely to
authorizing take of listed species by non-federal entities. Use of
section 10 and the No Surprises policy are therefore inappropriate.
the degree of federal influence renders direction to the
secretary unnecessary
Similarly, given the authority possessed by the Secretary as
``water master,'' directing a water accounting agreement is unnecessary
and unwise. The Secretary has ample authority to provide for the
comprehensive management and control of the Lower Basin system. Indeed,
the Secretary need not be authorized or directed to enter into a water
agreement any more than he needs authority to enter into the Colorado
River Water Delivery Agreement or to develop surplus or shortage
guidelines. And again, to direct the Secretary to enter into this water
agreement is problematic because the Program Documents do not mention
the need for such an agreement, even after comment that the documents
were vague as to the sources and use of water for the MSCP, and there
will be no future opportunity to comment on such agreement.
the mscp does not cover all listed species
Defenders was a member of the MSCP Steering Committee during the
mid-1990s, during which we sought opportunities for the MSCP to include
the Colorado River Delta within its coverage and conservation areas.
After extensive negotiations with other MSCP participants and after the
Steering Committee voted not to endorse an agreement where the MSCP
would give good faith consideration of conservation opportunities in
Mexico, Defenders withdrew in late 1998.
The Colorado River basin encompasses nine states: seven in the
United States and two in Mexico. The MSCP planning area, however, only
``comprises areas up to and including the full-pool elevations of Lakes
Mead, Mohave, and Havasu and the historical floodplain of the Colorado
River from Lake Mead to the Southern International Boundary.'' Although
these fish naturally occurred in this area, the MSCP wrongly excludes
the Colorado pikeminnow from consideration; it offers no conservation
measures for the fish. Moreover, the MSCP ``Planning Area'' does not
encompass the entire area that may be affected by the covered actions--
the Colorado River Delta. Several endangered species, including the
razorback sucker, Yuma clapper rail, desert pupfish, and vaquita, find
a home there, are affected by activities along the lower Colorado
River, and deserve protection.
conclusion
In its current form, the Lower Colorado River MSCP preserves the
Secretary's role as water master of the Colorado River. Defenders of
Wildlife has long advocated for flexibility in Colorado River
management in order to increase the reliability and predictability of
use of river resources. Such flexibility, however, should not come at
the expense of the Secretary's environmental authorities and
obligations nor should the Secretary relinquish his role as water
master in lower Colorado River management in an attempt to achieve such
flexibility.
Providing for increased levels of flexibility in river management
will be critical to meeting the demands of both human and environmental
water users in the future, particularly as Upper Basin use and the
impacts of climate change decrease overall water availability in the
Colorado River system. Defenders believes that S. 300 goes beyond what
it needed to authorize the MSCP and may limit our options to address
future challenges.
references
J. Aronson, J. and Le Floch, E. 1996. Vital landscape attributes:
missing tools for restoration ecology, Restoration Ecology 4: 377-387.
Garfin, Gregg and Lenart, Melanie. 2007. Climate Change: Effects on
Southwest Water Resources, 6 Southwest Hydrology 6:16-34 (2007).
IPCC, 2007. Climate change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of
Working group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [B. Metz, O. R. Davidson, P.
R. Bosch, R. Dave, L. A. Meyer (eds)], Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Available at http://
www.ipcc.ch/SPM040507.pdf (last visited July 20, 2007).
McCarty, John P. 2001. Ecological Consequences of Recent Climate
Change, 15 Conservation Biology 15:320-331.
National Assessment Synthesis Team, Climate Change Impacts on the
United States: The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and
Change, Report for the US Global Change Research Program, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge UK (2001). Available at http://
www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/nationalassessment/foundation.htm (last
visited July 20, 2007).
National Research Council, National Academies, Colorado River Basin
Water Management (2007).
Palmer, M.A. et al. 2005. Standards for ecologically successful
river restoration, J. of Applied Ecology 42:208-217.
Camille Parmesan & Hector Galbraith, Pew Center on Global Climate
Change, Observed Impacts of Global Climate Change in the U.S. (2004),
available at http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/final_ObsImpact.pdf
(last visited July 20, 2007).
______
Family Farm Alliance,
Klamath Falls, OR, July 25, 2007.
Hon. Ken Salazar,
Acting Chairman, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on
Water and Power, United States Senate, 304 Dirksen Senate
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Salazar: On behalf of the Family Farm Alliance
(Alliance), I would like to express support for S. 1258, a bill to
amend the Reclamation Safety of Dams Act of 1978 to authorize
improvements for the security of dams and other facilities.
The Family Farm Alliance is a grassroots organization of family
farmers, ranchers, irrigation districts and allied industries in 16
Western states. The Alliance is focused on one mission: To ensure the
availability of reliable, affordable irrigation water supplies to
Western farmers and ranchers.
The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) operates about 180 projects
in the area covered by our membership. Reclamation projects provide
agricultural, household, and industrial water to about one-third of the
population of the American West. About 5 percent of the land area of
the West is irrigated, and Reclamation provides water to about one-
fifth of that acreage.
The federal multi-purpose dams associated with these projects were
authorized by Congress to provide a wide range of significant benefits
to millions of citizens in the United States and elsewhere, including:
flood control; irrigation; municipal water supply; lake and stream
recreation; river regulation; fish and wildlife propagation and
mitigation; and power generation and transmission.
Ensuring the security of these federal dams and related facilities
is of utmost importance to all citizens of the United States, not just
to the direct beneficiaries of these resources. This fact must be
recognized in the allocation of security costs between the federal
government and non-federal water and powers users. Currently, that
allocation is established by Reclamation policy, not by law, and the
policy is subject to change. In the past two years, Reclamation has
changed its policy to move a larger share of security costs to water
and power users. We fear that this trend will continue in the future.
The Alliance believes that Congress should establish in law an
equitable allocation of security costs. This is the only way to prevent
future administrations from shifting a greater and greater share of the
financial burden on to non-federal water and power users.
S. 1258 would accomplish this. It would provide a ceiling on the
amount of reimbursable security costs that would be borne by
beneficiaries of the dams and would, therefore, keep costs manageable
and provide needed certainty for future planning.
The Alliance supports this legislation because we believe it helps
to address our concerns about the lack of cost controls, authorization
ceiling, sunset date, and congressionally-approved parameters to
control the amount of money Reclamation can spend for increased
security. The burden our water customers are being asked to shoulder
for these counter-terrorism measures are above and beyond normal
operation and maintenance functions.
We look forward to continuing to work with you as the legislation
proceeds. If you have any questions about this letter, I encourage you
or your staff to contact me.
Sincerely,
Dan Keppen,
Executive Director.
______
United States Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region,
Durango, CO, July 10, 2006.
Mr. Dee Graf,
President, Mancos Water Conservancy District, 42888 CR N, Mancos, CO.
Subject: 2006 Annual Review of Operation and Maintenance for Mancos
Project Inlet and Outlet Canal System, Mancos Project, Colorado
Dear Mr. Graf: Enclosed is the 2006 annual Mancos Project Review of
Operation and Maintenance (RO&M) Area Office examination report for the
Inlet and Outlet Canal System. Please review the report and note the
current status of our RO&M recommendations.
We appreciate the continued cooperation of the Mancos Water
Conservancy District, and Reservoir Superintendent, Mr. Gary Kennedy,
and his interest in protecting the integrity of Jackson Gulch Dam and
Reservoir.
In addition to the inspection of the inlet and outlet canals, a
separate inspection was also completed on the dam. This report is being
sent under a separate cover letter.
If you have any questions concerning this report, please contact
Jim Rottman.
Sincerely,
Brad Dodd,
Chief, Facility Maintenance Group.
Attachment.--Managing Water in the West
Annual Review of Operation and Maintenance Facilities Examination
Report
Mancos Project Inlet and Outlet Canal System
mancos project colorado
2006 annual ro&m inspection
The Annual Inspection of the Mancos Project Inlet and Outlet Canal
System was conducted on June 19, 2006, as required under the RO&M
Program, Reclamation Manual, Directives and Standards FAC 01-04. The
cooperation and assistance provided by Mancos Water Conservancy
District (MWCD) personnel in conducting the review are appreciated.
The following personnel attended the inspection: Mr. Gary Kennedy,
Reservoir Superintendent, MWCD; Brad Dodd, BOR, Facility Maintenance
Group Chief, WCAO-D; Jim Rottman, BOR, Facility Maintenance Group; Tom
Strain, BOR, Facility Maintenance Group.
Results of the inspection are summarized on the enclosed inspection
checklist. A summary of the relevant RO&M recommendations, with
estimated completion dates, is also enclosed.
operational and weather data
Reservoir water surface elevation.--7,820 feet.
Reservoir storage (active).--8,890 acre feet.
Releases: Outlet works.--Total release of 55 cfs consisting of 45
cfs through the power plant and 10 cfs through the 24-inch jet valve.
Weather.--Sunny and breezy.
status of previous recommendations
2003-2-A
Install buoy lines above major drop structures.
Status.--Incomplete--buoy's purchased in 2006 and on site, will be
installed as time allows.
2004-2-A
Install ``No Swimming'' signs.
Status.--Incomplete--signs on site, will be installed as time
allows.
2004-2-B
Install ``No Trespassing'' signs along canal.
Status.--Incomplete--signs on site, some installed and others will
be installed as time allows.
2004-2-C
Repair leaking joints in concrete box sections.
Status.--Incomplete--outlet box section completed, after evaluation
of test sections on inlet canal, will complete as necessary.
2004-2-D
Investigate repair methods for existing inlet canal structures--
earthfill and concrete sections.
Status.--Incomplete--test sections in third and last year of
review, repair method to be chosen in 2007.
2004-2-E
Furnish Reclamation with piezometer data for canal wells.
Status.--Completed in June 2006.
listing of new recommendations
There is one new recommendation for the operation and maintenance
of Marcos Project Inlet and Outlet Canal System.
2006-2-A
District will resume negotiations with landowner on downstream
easement for outlet canal drop structure.
The following table is a status summary of the RO&M Recommendations
for Marcos Project Inlet and Outlet Canal System:
MANCOS PROJECT CANAL SYSTEM--COLORADO
RO&M RECOMMENDATIONS--SUMMARY OF STATUS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
Number Description Status Completion Actual Completion Date Originated by
Date (office)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003-2-A........................... Install buoy lines above Incomplete--buoy's on site, 2006 ...................... Area
major drop structures. will be installed as time
allows.
2004-2-A........................... Install ``No Swimming'' Incomplete--signs on site, 2006 ...................... Area
signs. will be installed as time
allows.
2004-2-B........................... Install ``No Trespassing'' Incomplete--signs on site, 2006 ...................... Area
signs along canal. will be installed as time
allows.
2004-2-C........................... Repair leaking joints in Incomplete--Outlet box 2006 ...................... Area
concrete box sections. sections done; ongoing.
2004-2-D........................... Investigate repair methods Incomplete--lined sections 2006 ...................... Area
for existing inlet canal in third and final year of
structures--earthfill and evaluation.
concrete sections.
2004-2-E........................... Furnish Reclamation with Completed.................. 2006 June 2006............. Area
piezometer data for canal
wells.
2006-2-A........................... District will resume New........................ 2007 ...................... Area
negotiations with
landowner on downstream
easement for outlet canal
drop structure.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
definitions of the recommendation categories
Inspections of Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) project
facilities are conducted under the Review of Operation and Maintenance
(RO&M) Program. O&M issues noted during the RO&M inspection are
assigned a Category 1, 2, or 3, based upon the severity of the problem.
The following definitions (revised May 1993) apply to all levels of
Reclamation RO&M inspections:
CATEGORY 1
Recommendations involving the correction of severe deficiencies
where immediate and responsive action is required to ensure structural
safety and operational integrity of a facility.
Based on the severity of the deficiency and the condition of the
structure/facility at the time of the examination, the examination team
will mutually prescribe an appropriate time frame for completion of the
recommendation. Suggested remedial measures will be discussed at the
time of the examination and included in the examination report. Within
30 days following preparation or receipt (depending on office
conducting the examination) of the examination report containing a
Category 1 recommendation, the responsible Regional Directory shall
notify all concerned offices (i.e., Commissioner, Attention: W-6500 and
W-6600, and Assistant Commissioner--Resources Management, Attention: D-
5620 and D-5850) of the operating office or entity's plan for
accomplishing the work and a schedule completion date.
Status reports will be provided by the responsible Regional
Director to all concerned offices every 6 months (January 1 and July 1)
until the recommendation is completed. Progress made on its completion
will be reported in the Annual Summary Report for the RO&M Program.
CATEGORY 2
Recommendations covering a wide range of important matters where
action is needed to prevent or reduce further damage or preclude
possible operational failure of a facility.
Such recommendations are intended to be acted upon as soon as
practicable following receipt of the corresponding examination report
by the operating office or entity. It is desirable that those
recommendations that can be included, scheduled, and accomplished as
part of the normal O&M program, be undertaken as soon as weather or
water conditions allow, to permit quality remedial measures. Some
recommendations may require a longer time to accomplish because of the
need to budget funds, complete designs, or secure equipment, material,
or personnel. In such cases, the related planning and budgeting should
be initiated in a timely manner.
Any Category 2 recommendation remaining incomplete at the time of
the following examination (generally 3 years) will be addressed during
that examination and within the corresponding examination report.
Status reports will be provided on these recommendations by the
responsible Regional Director to the Assistant Commissioner--Resources
Management, Attention: D-5850, on an annual basis and summarized in the
Annual Summary Report for the RO&M Program until such recommendations
are completed.
CATEGORY 3
Recommendations covering less important maters but believed to be
sound and beneficial suggestions to improve or enhance the O&M of the
project or facility.
Status reports on an annual basis will not be required on these
recommendations; however, the status of each recommendation will be
provided in the subsequent examination report. If the recommendation is
still applicable, a current year designation should be used.
description of facilities examined
A. Diversion Structure
The diversion structure is in good condition. The concrete, gates,
and screen are in good condition. There is some debris on the inlet
screen, but does not affect operation of the intake structure.
B. Canal Headwork
The canal headwork is in good condition. The concrete, painted
metal, gate valves, and gates are in good condition. The gates have new
paint and seals and look very good. The sluiceway gate has a minor leak
of approximately 1-2 cfs.
C. Inlet Canal
The inlet canal is in fair to good condition. The District is
preparing to do some additional slope protection above the canal (begun
in 2005) and has begun to place a soil/debris layer on top of the
concrete lids to protect the canal from falling rocks during the slope
scaling.
Several of the inlet concrete box sections have test linings
installed and are being evaluated before an extensive repair is
attempted for the leaking concrete box sections. This is the third and
final year of the evaluation. There are some random and stress cracks
and concrete box joints that are leaking. The District has marked the
locations on the concrete and continues to monitor the leakage.
The District contracted with Buckhorn Geotech in 2003 to evaluate
the inlet canal and make recommendations as to repair/replacement
techniques. A recommendation report was published in February 2004.
Seepage and subsidence along the canal is generally minimal, both
have occurred in the past along sections, but conditions appear to be
stable at the time of the inspection. The slopes above the canal appear
to be relatively unstable and landslide debris can build up on top of
the canal or adjacent to it. The District is doing a good job cleaning
the debris as necessary.
The new ramp flumes are in good condition. There is none to minor
silting in the concrete box sections and inlet headwork.
D. Outlet Canal
The outlet canal section is in good condition with no abnormal
conditions noted. The joints of the concrete box sections have been
sealed with Sikaflex. The District has new buoys and cables that they
will install above the drop structure that flows back to the Mancos
River.
MANCOS PROJECT INLET AND OUTLET CANALS--COLORADO
CHECKLIST FOR RO&M INSPECTION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OPERATIONS:
Project Name.......................... Mancos
Owner................................. Bureau of Reclamation
Operating Entity--Reservoir Mancos Water Conservancy
Superintendent. District (MWCD)--Gary
Kennedy
Date of Inspection.................... June 19, 2006
Last RO&M report date................. June 28, 2005
Person responsible for RO&M report.... Tom Strain/Jim Rottman/Brad
Dodd, WCD
Last RO&M report copy on hand?........ Yes
Attendance at Project................. Daily during irrigation
season, weekly during rest
of season.
Ditch operators training (name, date). Gary Kennedy. Completed Dam
Tenders Training 2006
Flow.................................. Inlet 19 CFS, Outlet 55 CFS
(June 19, 2006)
OPERATING LOG:
Maintained at headquarters?........... Yes
Maintenance log updated?.............. Yes
SOP/DOC................................... Included in Jackson Gulch
Dam SOP
Ditch copies updated?................. Yes
How many copies?...................... Three
Where kept?........................... Dam tenders residence
COMMUNICATIONS:
Type(s)............................... Telephone, Cell Phone
Normal................................ (970) 533-7325
Standby............................... (970) 560-2742 (Gary Kennedy
cell) 560-6513 (cell in
truck) 560-6514 (cell at
power plant)
Adequacy.............................. Good coverage, Dam tenders
residence
ACCESS ROADS:
Sufficient access/adequacy............ Generally Adequate--section
of inlet canal access
adjacent to canal failed
several years previous and
is non-existent. Work being
done to provide access
along canal. 1950's
OIL CONTAINMENT:
SPCC Plan? Last Updated?.............. None
GENERAL OPERATIONS:
Landslides............................ No new activity--annual
registry--submitted 2005
Landslide Restricted/Signs............ No--slides monitored
annually, locked gate for
access control
Underwater inspection................. None needed
Weed control program.................. Throughout the season.
DIVERSION STRUCTURE:
Concrete.............................. Ok
Rock/Debris waterdrop................. Ok
Riprap................................ Ok
Abutment walls........................ Ok
Wingwalls............................. Ok
Embankments........................... Ok
Foundation at downstream toe of Ok
structure.
CANAL HEADWORKS:
Vegetation............................ Ok
Rock.................................. Ok
Crest................................. Ok
Concrete.............................. Ok
Gates................................. Ok
Coating............................... Ok
Hoists................................ New cables.
Operation............................. Ok
Leakage............................... Ok
Guardrails............................ Ok
Sluiceway............................. Ok--Minor gate leak about 1-
2 cfs
Outlet channel........................ Ok
Standby power......................... Not needed--manual
Other................................. None
INLET CANAL:
Under drains.......................... Ok--where existing
Detention ponds....................... N/A
Subsidence............................ Mostly None--some in areas
of landslide and fill
sections
Seepage............................... Ok in general, installed
piezometers in 2003--not
monitored this year--
seepage in some areas where
original earth lining is
missing. Very little noted
during inspection.
Linings............................... Ok for age of Project, earth
lining in several areas
needs replaced, concrete
box joints leaking in
several areas.
Constructed joints.................... Ok overall for age of
Project. In general, the
concrete box sections
joints need attention-
several are leaking.
Cracking.............................. Random and stress relief
cracking
Joint sealers......................... Marginal for most of
concrete box sections--in
some areas, seals have
rusted through.
Silting............................... None to minor
Check Structures...................... Ok
Structural features................... Ok
Measuring flume....................... Two ramp flumes constructed--
one in canal, one in river--
condition good.
Silting............................... None to minor
Bridge................................ Culvert--Ok
Deck.............................. Ok--gravel
Railings.......................... Ok
Structural features............... Ok
Operating roads....................... Generally graveled, minor
areas are dirt
Vegetation............................ Ok
Safety features....................... Need signage and floats/
buoys above inlet to drop
structure
Over chute............................ N/A
Spills................................ Ok
Siphons............................... None
Pipe.................................. Good--restricts flow
Canal chute concrete lids............. Ok for project age
PVC liner............................. \1/2\ mile D/S of diversion
structures installed 1998--
added on to 1999 added flow
capacity to 120 cfs. Third
and last year of
evaluation.
OUTLET CANAL:
Under drains.......................... Ok
Detention ponds....................... None
Subsidence............................ Ok
Seepage............................... Minor
Linings (earth)....................... Ok--earth lining may be
missing in some areas
Constructed joints.................... Ok
Random cracking....................... Ok
Joint sealers......................... Ok
Silting............................... Ok
Check structures...................... Ok
Structural features................... Ok
Measuring flume....................... Ok
Silting........................... Ok
Controls.......................... Ok
Turnouts.............................. Ok
Gates............................. Ok
Structure......................... Ok
Bridge................................ Ok--Inspected in 2004
Deck.............................. Ok
Railings.......................... Ok
Structural features............... Ok
Operating roads....................... Ok--water line buried
underneath
Vegetation............................ Ok
Safety features....................... Need signage and floats/
buoys above inlet to drop
structure
Concrete chute section................ Ok for age of structure
Canal-cut section..................... 1 mile downstream of dam--
MWCD having problems
maintaining this section.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative photographs.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Photographs have been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
conclusion and summary
Overall the District has maintained the facilities in good
condition. District is preparing the inlet canal for a slope stability
contractor and has had little time to work on RO&M recommendations this
spring. As time allows the District will work on them. One new
recommendation was added concerning the District negotiating with a
landowner for an easement to the outlet canal drop structure. Report
prepared by: Tom Strain, Facility Maintenance Group. Approved: Brad
Dodd, Facility Maintenance Group Chief, WCAO-D.
______
Kansas Department of Agriculture,
Topeka, KS, July 25, 2007.
Hon. Tim Johnson,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Water and Power, 304 Dirksen Senate Office
Building, Washington, DC,
Hon. Bob Corker,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water and Power, 304 Dirksen Senate
Office Building, Washington, DC.
RE: Support for H.R. 1025, Republican River Study
Dear Chairman Johnson and Ranking Member Corker: On behalf of the
Governors Sub-Cabinet on Natural Resources for the State of Kansas, I
am writing to express our support for H.R. 1025. This bill authorizes
the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study to determine the
feasibility of implementing a water supply and conservation project to
improve water supply reliability, increase the capacity of water
storage, and improve water management efficiency in the Republican
River Basin between Haman County Lake in Nebraska and Milford Lake in
Kansas.
During December 2002, Kansas, Nebraska and Colorado settled their
litigation in the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the enforcement of the
Republican River Compact, which the Court affirmed during October 2003.
The settlement included a commitment by the States and federal
government to pursue system improvements in the basin, including
measures that would improve the ability to allow periodic excess waters
to be made available for later use to supplement existing irrigation
supplies in Kansas and Nebraska.
Thus authorizing the study is the first step toward fulfilling an
important provision of the Republican River Compact Settlement. H.R.
1025 is supported by all three Compact states, Nebraska, Colorado and
Kansas.
Your support of this study will provide an important tool for the
three Compact states to use as they collectively manage this important,
interstate water resource.
If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact
me.
Sincerely,
David Barfield, P.E.,
Acting Chief Engineer.
______
Kansas Farm Bureau,
Manhattan, KS, July 26, 2007.
Hon. Ken Salazar,
United States Senator--Colorado, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, Subcommittee on Water and Power, 304 Dirksen Senate
Building, Washington, DC.
RE: HR 1025, Lower Republican River Basin Study Act
Dear Senator Salazar: I am writing to encourage the support of your
sub-committee for H.R. 1025. The measure which was authored by U.S.
Representative Jerry Moran of Kansas would provide for a study of water
use in the Republican River Basin and could facilitate solutions to
increased water supply, reliability, storage and management in the
Lovewell reservoir region.
This legislation is important to producers in the area for several
reasons. First, farmers in the Bostwick Irrigation District have long
faced shortages in their allocations due to drought and over-
appropriation in Nebraska. Secondly, the Republican River alluvial
aquifer and the landowners in the valley who pump its supply have been
impacted by the requirements of minimum desirable stream flow resulting
in administration of nearly 200 water rights over the majority of the
last 10 to 15 years. Both of these factors have resulted in critical
shortages of water throughout the region.
Passage of H.R. 1025 and the authorization of this study is the
first step toward the creation of additional storage in Lovewell
Reservoir which could address many of these shortages and provide
important relief to producers in the area.
The State of Kansas has held dollars in its budget anticipating
this study, and the Legislature has considered other measures that
would set aside potential settlement dollars awarded in water
litigation with Nebraska to address shortages in the area in an effort
to be prepared should the Federal Government authorize and fund this
study by the Department of the Interior.
I appreciate your consideration of this measure and respectfully
ask that the sub-committee take favorable action on H.R. 1025. KFB is
grateful for your support of Kansas agriculture and your effort to
secure a solid future for irrigators across the state through the
passage of H.R. 1025. If you have questions, or if I can be of further
assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Steve Baccus,
President.
______
State of Oregon,
Theodore R. Kulongoski, Governor,
Salem, OR, June 13, 2007.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chairman,
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
Ranking Member,
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, 364 Dirksen Senate
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Bingaman and Domenici: I write again this year to
offer my full support for reauthorization of the Fisheries Restoration
and Irrigation Mitigation Act (FRIMA) of 2007. This Act is critical to
addressing the challenge of protecting fish while meeting farming,
ranching, hydropower and municipal water needs in the Pacific
Northwest.
The Fisheries Restoration and Irrigation Mitigation Act is a highly
successful voluntary cost-share program, leveraging state and local
dollars with federal dollars to achieve benefits for fish, with
implementation through cooperative partnerships among local, state,
tribal and federal governments and private entities. FRIMA has provided
funds for fish screen and fishway installations at numerous irrigation
diversions and dams in Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington, and has
received support from a wide range of constituents as a win-win
solution for addressing fish protection while meeting the needs of
water users. Partnerships created serve as models of communication and
cooperation among the participating or affected entities and agencies.
With the listing of wild Endangered Species Act (ESA) species of
salmon and steelhead in the Pacific Northwest, fish screening and
passage are critical to improving survival and reducing migration
delay. FRIMA is a cornerstone tool for implementing projects to aid in
addressing barriers to migration. It is widely accepted that correcting
fish barrier, diversion and screen problems provides a large benefit to
the resource in creating fish-friendly projects that minimize
mortality. Throughout Oregon, the FRIMA Program has been a valuable
source of funding for improving fish survival at water diversions and
dams. Numerous partners, including the State of Oregon, have
contributed significant dollars to this successful cost-share program.
Species protected in Oregon have included ESA-listed fish such as
salmon, steelhead, trout and Klamath suckers.
Each federal FRIMA dollar has been matched by $1.37 in state or
local dollars. Participants have contributed a total of 58 percent
toward the cost share, and in addition pay 100 percent of project
operation and maintenance costs. The FRIMA projects are completed
quickly because existing state fish screening and passage programs are
used to implement projects.
Again, I wholeheartedly support reauthorization of the Fisheries
Restoration and Irrigation Mitigation Act of 2007, and the necessary
funding to support its goals. The fisheries resources and water users
of Oregon and the Pacific Northwest have benefited greatly from this
program, and it is hoped that those significant benefits will continue
long into the future.
Sincerely,
Theodore R. Kulongoski,
Governor.
______
Project Condition Report of the Mancos Water Conservancy District
jackson gulch reservoir
The Mancos Project has stored and delivered water for domestic,
agriculture, and recreation uses for over 50 years. It is a vital
cornerstone underpinning the economy and well-being of an entire
community and region hosting national historic resources. The 55-year-
old Mancos Project has retained most of its structural integrity and
functionality. However, restoration and rehabilitation work is needed
to preserve and protect the project's canal system, the operations and
maintenance buildings (operations facilities) to extend its working
life for another 40 or 50 years.
Aging and gradual deterioration of the canal system, increasing
maintenance costs, and a history of delivery interruptions caused by
landslides and rockfall incidents, have seriously jeopardized the life
expectancy and reliability of the entire canal system. Since Jackson
Gulch Reservoir supplies municipal water to Mesa Verde National Park
(419,662 visitors in 2003--the eleven year average annual visitation is
591,660 visitors), the Town of Mancos, and the Mancos Rural Water
Company, the continued viability of the canal system is critically
important to the region.
Recognizing the burden of their responsibility, the Mancos Water
Conservancy District entered into a contract with Buckhorn Geotech,
Inc. on September 18, 2003, to conduct a thorough assessment and
evaluation of the condition of the canal system and identify
restoration and rehabilitation work necessary to extend the life of the
canal system, improve access and operational efficiency, protect
against catastrophic losses, and assure dependable water delivery.
The assessment and evaluation of the Jackson Gulch canal system and
operations facilities has identified significant catastrophic problems
in the form of concrete aging and deterioration, structural distress,
hydraulic constrictions, access limitations, and risks from geologic
hazards.
The intention of this project is to preserve and protect 4.9 miles
of the canal system and associated operations facilities (workshop/dam
tenders residence/public office). Only the areas with problems of the
highest priority have been addressed in this proposal.
This is a federal project--title is held by the federal government.
The Mancos Water Conservancy District is taking a proactive stand to
protect the federal interest and extend the productive life of the
Mancos Project facilities. Unfortunately, a project of this magnitude
is beyond the financial capability of the population of the District.
The Jackson Gulch Reservoir system consists of an off-line storage
reservoir located in Jackson Gulch, which is a deep gulch with very
little tributary drainage. The reservoir functions by diverting water
from the West Mancos River and transporting it to the reservoir via an
Inlet Canal. The stored water is used as a domestic water supply for
Mesa Verde National Park, the Town of Mancos, and the Mancos Rural
Water Company, hydroelectric generation, and irrigation. The domestic
water supply is processed through a treatment plant located just below
the reservoir. Water mains feeding the distribution systems are buried
beneath the access road that parallels the Outlet Canal. Released water
that is not diverted for consumption is returned to the West Mancos
River at the end of the Outlet Canal.
Water diversion from river to canal begins as soon as snow pack
begins to melt. During this time, six weeks of maximum capacity flow to
fill the reservoir, the canal is the most vulnerable and frequent
inspections are made around the clock. The three greatest threats to
the canal at this time are:
1) Maximum flow--the canal is running the maximum amount
water it can carry.
2) Landslide action above or below the canal due to spring
thaw, rain and saturated soil, combined with maximum flow.
3) Rock damage due to spring thaw and rain combined with
maximum flow.
The dam tender can decrease the first threat--the others are not
controllable.
Deterioration and erosion of retaining walls built in 1943-1948 has
resulted in the loss of 2,000 feet of access road to the middle section
of the canal. A failure of the canal especially at this point would
have catastrophic consequences, especially during the spring run-off.
The Buckhorn Geotech, Inc. report of February, 2004 has
``identified significant problems in the form of concrete aging and
deterioration, structural distress, hydraulic constrictions, access
limitations, and risks from geologic hazards'' for the entire 4.9 miles
of canal.
The federal operations facilities were constructed in 1941 by the
Civilian Conservation Corp as the temporary construction offices. After
completion of the project (1952), the offices were modified into the
present operations facilities (workshop/dam tenders residence/public
office). Due to the nature of their construction, purpose, and age (63
years); rehabilitation and/or modernization of these buildings is cost
prohibitive.
These structures suffer from increasing wood rot and concrete
deterioration. They lack reinforcement in the concrete floor and
foundation. They are non-compliant with any United Building Codes.
Title to the Project is held by the federal government. It is time
to look toward the future and protect the existing federal interest;
but in order to move forward with the restoration/rehabilitation of
these operations facilities, appropriation is essential.
Evaluations show that aging and deterioration are jeopardizing the
future reliability of the project. Buckhorn Geotech, Inc. has
determined that rehabilitation is one-third less costly than
replacement. Continuing emergency management places a greater financial
burden on the local economy and threatens the Project. As a result, the
Board of Directors of the Mancos Water Conservancy District is taking a
proactive stance to restore and rehabilitate the operations facilities
securing it for the future generations. Loss of any of the Project's
operations facilities is NOT an option.
The principal findings are as follows:
53% of the joints in the northern concrete bench flume
section have experienced serious deterioration as have 46% of
the joints in the southern concrete bench flume section. This
deterioration is causing reduced structural integrity and
seepage losses.
106 instances of concrete blowouts have been recorded in the
concrete bench flume sections. These blowouts are gaps in and
around the joints indicative of stress induced failure and
deterioration of the concrete.
Excessive lateral pressures from uphill slope failures,
rockfall, soil creep, and debris flows have pushed sections of
the concrete bench flume laterally, caused walls to be
displaced, and created numerous stress cracks in the walls.
Pressures in 320 linear feet of the concrete bench flume are
approaching the ultimate load capacity of the walls and some
wall sections are in danger of collapsing inward.
Hundreds of cubic yards of rockfall and colluvial debris
have accumulated atop the concrete bench flume. This debris may
be in excess of the safe load capacity of the lids. Additional
loading or rockfall impacts could cause the lids to collapse.
7000 square feet of the flume floor have experienced scour
and damage from freezing of ponded water during winter periods.
Seepage from leaking flume joints has contributed to slope
instability problems resulting in loss of support in some areas
along the base of the flume.
Landslides have removed a large section of the access road
alongside the flume so that approximately 2000 linear feet of
canal cannot be accessed for maintenance purposes. Any failure
of the flume within this section would result in a prolonged
shutdown of the canal with severe consequences to Mesa Verde
National Park, the Town of Mancos, Mancos Rural Water Company
and the many farms and families that depend on this water
source.
Seepage losses in the vicinity of a previously damaged
section of the canal have contributed to activation of a
landslide below the canal. This landslide is actively moving
and its headwall is migrating uphill towards the canal. If this
seepage is not arrested quickly, a portion of the canal could
slide into the lower canyon.
The canal system has been found to have two flow
constrictions that are limiting its hydraulic capacity to only
58% of the District's diversion entitlement. These
constrictions restrict operational flexibility and the ability
to optimize storage during times of uncertain supply.
Weak geologic formations and weathering of the steep canyon
walls above the canal have created rockfall hazards. Fourteen
hundred and five (1,405) linear feet of the canal system are
exposed to high to moderate rockfall hazard. Rockfalls have
destroyed sections of the canal in the past. Thirteen patches
in the concrete walls were noted in the upper flume section
alone indicating that, on average, this section of flume is
damaged about every four years by impact from rockfall. If this
hazard is not mitigated, pending rockfall events can be
expected to take the canal out of service at any time.
Twenty slope failure features have been identified along the
canal route. If these features are not de-watered, buttressed
or otherwise stabilized, the canal will be subjected to
continuous risk of damage, loss of service, and extensive
maintenance problems.
A section of the earthen canal is subject to seepage losses
that are adversely affecting the stability of a large landslide
area downslope of the canal as well as the soil materials
supporting the foundation of the Mancos Rural Water Company's
treatment plant. Any significant movement of the hillside below
the canal could result in rupture of the domestic water lines
buried beneath the access road. Such rupture would terminate
water flow to the Mesa Verde National Park, the Town of Mancos,
and the Mancos Rural Water Company.
Unconventional (temporary) building (operations facilities)
construction method does not conform to any uniform building
code.
Deterioration of concrete by displacement and stress-cracks
to the foundations and floors has weakened the structural
integrity of the buildings also allowing uncontrollable
seasonal flooding.
The buildings do not comply to any building code and can not
be made to comply.
Existing heating system does not comply with current code
and will require extensive remodel to replace.
American Disability Act standards are not compatible with
existing structural deficiencies.
The buildings are not energy efficient nor do they meet snow
load capabilities for Colorado.
A detailed description of recommendations for restoration and
rehabilitation of the canal system is given in the final report
submitted by Buckhorn Geotech, Inc. These recommendations will restore
the integrity of the canal system, protect against catastrophic loss,
restore the hydraulic capacity, and extend the life of the Jackson
Gulch canal system and operations facilities by another 40 or 50 years.
The significant components include the following:
Rehabilitate concrete blowouts, scoured floors, and damaged
joints within the concrete bench flumes, apply a waterproof
synthetic liner over sides and floor of the flume, and apply a
protective coating of gunnite concrete.
Restore a uniform grade within the earthen canal, dress side
slopes, and apply a buffered synthetic liner to eliminate
seepage loss, prevent slope instability, and reduce maintenance
costs.
Eliminate hydraulic flow constrictions by removing a bridge
and installing a 600-foot length of elliptical concrete pipe to
increase flow capacity, eliminate seepage losses, improve
drainage, and buttress an unstable slope.
Salvage an existing corrugated metal pipe and reuse it,
along with additional piping, to provide a 300-foot long double
pipe to replace a section of the earthen canal. This pipe
section will stop seepage losses, improve drainage, and
stabilize an area of active landslide.
Install drilled tie-back anchors into the hillside where
additional protection from earth pressures and landslides is
needed to preserve stability and prevent collapse of the flume
walls.
Remove excessive overburden to prevent lid collapse while
placing a wedge of soil over unprotected lid sections to
provide mitigation against potential rockfall impacts.
Restore access along a 2000-foot length of canal by
anchoring a retaining wall into the narrow canyon wall for
restoration of a lost roadway section.
Install a 24-inch diameter HDPE pipeline to run alongside
the canal for use during low-flow periods so that the
construction season can be greatly expanded, winter water can
be utilized to augment seasonal runoff, and to provide an
opportunity for hydroelectric power generation.
Rehabilitate the drop chute, prevent seepage losses, and
eliminate a severe safety hazard by laying a 42-inch diameter
welded steel pipe inside the existing concrete chute.
There is no method of remodel of the buildings that would be
any less expensive or any more efficient than total
replacement.
Restoration of both concrete flumes, including concrete patching,
flume lining, slope stabilization, rockfall mitigation, and access
retaining walls is approximately $180 per linear foot. Whereas, the
cost to build new flumes would be approximately $525 per linear foot,
which does not include removal of the old flume, slope stabilization,
rockfall mitigation, or access retaining walls.
The estimated cost to rehabilitate 5,040 feet of earthen canal is
approximately $150 per linear foot. This includes canal lining, piping
900 feet, slope stability improvements, and bridge replacement.
By using this method of rehabilitation for the canal system, we
will be able to preserve the historical integrity of the original
project.
In preparation of the rehabilitation as described, the Board of
Directors requested an increase to the District's mill levy of 5 mills.
The measure passed by a comfortable margin. The increase raised the
original mill levy of 1.5 mills to 6.5 mills. This enables the District
to provide the 20% cost share without interfering with the operations
and maintenance budget.
In March of 2006, the District received a request to increase the
Project's M&I water allocation due to increased development within our
boundaries.
______
Statement of Kenneth Nelson, Superintendent, Kansas Bostwick
Irrigation District
Chairman Bingaman and Senator Domenici, I am Kenneth Nelson,
Superintendent of the Kansas Bostwick Irrigation District, which
delivers water to 42,500 acres from the Republican River in Republic
and Jewell Counties of Kansas. We provide irrigation water to 350
irrigators and provide economic support to this portion of North
Central Kansas, which is vital to keeping rural America alive. Many
other users such as recreation, municipal, industrial users and other
irrigators benefit from the Republican River as well.
This district strongly supports H.R. 1025 which would authorize the
Secretary of Interior to conduct a feasibility study of the Republican
River to improve river management. The Republican River is vital not
only to Kansas Bostwick but also to all down stream communities in
Kansas who receive support from the River flows. The Republican River
is controlled by a three state compact involving Kansas, Nebraska, and
Colorado. There is much controversy over shortages and sharing of
flows. This district as well as all other irrigation districts on the
Republican have experienced shortages and in some cases no useable
supply for several years now. The future of the River and especially
Kansas share of the flows will depend upon our ability to plan and move
forward with conservation and management plans improving the efficiency
of the river.
There is a wide range of improvements to consider and prioritize on
the Republican. Possibilities include increased storage, canal lining,
automation, vegetation control, flow management and many more. Every
opportunity for improvement needs to be explored giving us the
opportunity to make the best possible improvements in a timely manner.
The States are struggling with compact compliance at this time.
This study is absolutely necessary to move forward with river
management to avoid conflict. Without the study, no lasting solutions
will be reached and state versus state conflict will result. We have
the opportunity to identify and work towards lasting solutions on the
Republican and need to take action as soon as possible.
It goes without saying that water issues will be paramount to our
future. Please pass H.R. 1025 at the earliest possible opportunity. I
appreciate this opportunity to comment.
______
Statement of Willl Lutgen, Jr., Executive Director, Northwest Public
Power Association
Chairman Salazar, I am writing on behalf of the Northwest Public
Power Association (NWPPA) to express support for S. 1258, a bill to
amend the Reclamation Safety of Dams Act of 1978 to authorize
improvements for the security of dams and other facilities. We are
pleased that the Subcommittee is holding a hearing on this important
piece of legislation.
NWPPA is a non-profit association of approximately 150 public/
people's utility districts, electric cooperatives, municipalities and
crown corporations in the Western states--including Alaska, Arizona,
California, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, South Dakota, Oregon, Utah,
Washington and Wyoming--and in Canada. NWPPA also serves the sales and
networking needs of over 200 Associate Members across the U.S. and
Canada who are allied with the electric utility industry.
The Bonneville Power Administration's (BPA's) rates are affected by
many factors, including drought, fish and wildlife obligations and
contracts with the direct service industries and we have been working
hard in the Northwest to control those costs. As stewards of the public
trust, we are also working to make sure that the cost of the Bureau of
Reclamation's (Reclamation) enhanced security measures at Grand Coulee
Dam, which also affect our rates, receive congressional scrutiny and
are fair to our ratepayers.
We are concerned that currently there are no cost controls,
authorization ceiling, sunset date, or congressionally-approved
parameters to limit or control the amount of money Reclamation can
spend for increased security. Year after year, power customers are
being asked to pay a disproportionate share of the costs, despite the
fact that Congress continues to include report language in
appropriations bills recognizing that all project beneficiaries benefit
and stating that it wants more transparency in what Reclamation is
spending its money on.
NWPPA members believe in being responsible stewards of the
facilities and for paying their fair share of the costs. We are not
seeking to circumvent our responsibilities. However, we firmly believe
that the burden our power customers are being asked to shoulder for
these national security, counter-terrorism measures is above and beyond
normal operation and maintenance functions. For these reasons, NWPPA
strongly supports S. 1258.
Once again, we appreciate the subcommittee considering this bill
and look forward to working with you and your staff as it advances.
______
Association of California Water Agencies,
Washington, DC, July 23, 2007.
Senator Jon Kyl,
U.S. Senate, 730 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC,
Senator Dianne Feinstein,
U.S. Senate, 331 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Kyl and Feinstein: The Association of California
Water Agencies (ACWA) is pleased to support your S. 300, the Lower
Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program Act. ACWA's 447
public agency members are collectively responsible for 90 percent of
the water delivered in our state for residential and agricultural
purposes.
The LCR MSCP provides for the restoration of over 8,000 acres of
riverside habitat for bird and terrestrial species, a vigorous fish
augmentation effort for endangered fish species, maintenance of
existing, high quality habitat, and a research, monitoring and adaptive
management effort to ensure that program elements arc effective in
helping covered species. Further, the program provides a basis for
compliance with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act by the
federal and non-federal entities involved in continuing water and power
operations on the Lower Colorado River.
ACWA supports your efforts to codify the Multi-Species Conservation
program (MSCP) and advance and enhance the goals of the program as it
was developed. Codification of the MSCP will establish a means for
integration of ecological needs and water management on the lower
Colorado River.
Again, ACWA is pleased to support S. 300, and working together with
our members statewide, will encourage the rest of the Congress to do
the same. Please do not hesitate to contact our office if we can be of
any assistance to you.
Sincerely,
David L. Reynolds,
Director of Federal Relations.
______
United States Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado Region,
Grand Junction, CO, September 23, 2003.
Mr. Todd Sehnert,
President, Mancos Water Conservancy District, 42888 CR N, Mancos, CO.
Subject: 2003 Review of Operation and Maintenance Associated Facilities
Examination for the Mancos Project Inlet and Outlet Canal System,
Mancos Project, Colorado
Dear Mr. Sehnert: Enclosed is the 2003 annual Mancos Project Review
of Operation and Maintenance (RO&M) Associated Facilities Report for
the Inlet and Outlet Canal System. Please review the report and note
the current status of our RO&M recommendations. The next associated
facilities inspection will be in 2004.
We appreciate the continued cooperation of the Mancos Water
Conservancy District, Mr. Gary Kennedy and his interest in protecting
the future and integrity of Jackson Gulch Inlet and Outlet Canals.
If you have any questions concerning this report, please contact
Jim Rottman.
Sincerely,
Brad Dodd,
Chief, Facility Maintenance Group.
Attachment.--Bureau of Reclamation Review of Operation and Maintenance
Program
definitions
Inspections of Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) project
facilities are conducted under the Review of Operation and Maintenance
(RO&M) Program. O&M issues noted during the RO&M inspection are
assigned a Category 1, 2, or 3, based upon the severity of the problem.
The following definitions (revised May 1993) apply to all levels of
Reclamation RO&M inspections:
CATEGORY 1
Recommendations involving the correction of severe deficiencies
where immediate and responsive action is required to ensure structural
safety and operational integrity of a facility.
Based on the severity of the deficiency and the condition of the
structure/facility at the time of the examination, the examination team
will mutually prescribe an appropriate time frame for completion of the
recommendation. Suggested remedial measures will be discussed at the
time of the examination and included in the examination report. Within
30 days following preparation or receipt (depending on office
conducting the examination) of the examination report containing a
Category 1 recommendation, the responsible Regional Directory will
notify all concerned offices (i.e., Commissioner, Attention: W-6500 and
W-6600, and Assistant Commissioner--Resources Management, Attention: D-
5620 and D-5850) of the operating office or entity's plan for
accomplishing the work and a schedule completion date.
Status reports will be provided by the responsible Regional
Director to all concerned offices every 6 months (January 1 and July 1)
until the recommendation is completed. Progress made on its completion
will be reported in the Annual Summary Report for the RO&M Program.
CATEGORY 2
Recommendations covering a wide range of important matters where
action is needed to prevent or reduce further damage or preclude
possible operational failure of a facility.
Such recommendations are intended to be acted upon as soon as
practicable following receipt of the corresponding examination report
by the operating office or entity. It is desirable that those
recommendations that can be included, scheduled, and accomplished as
part of the normal O&M program, be undertaken as soon as weather or
water conditions allow, to permit quality remedial measures. Some
recommendations may require a longer time to accomplish because of the
need to budget funds, complete designs, or secure equipment, material,
or personnel. In such cases, the related planning and budgeting should
be initiated in a timely manner.
Any Category 2 recommendation remaining incomplete at the time of
the following examination (generally 3 years) will be addressed during
that examination and within the corresponding examination report.
Status reports will be provided on these recommendations by the
responsible Regional Director to the Assistant Commissioner--Resources
Management, Attention: D-5850, on an annual basis and summarized in the
Annual Summary Report for the RO&M Program until such recommendations
are completed.
CATEGORY 3
Recommendations covering less important maters but believed to be
sound and beneficial suggestions to improve or enhance the O&M of the
project or facility.
Status reports on an annual basis will not be required on these
recommendations; however, the status of each recommendation will be
provided in the subsequent examination report. If the recommendation is
still applicable, a current year designation should be used.
mancos project inlet & outlet canals--colorado
2003 annual ro&m inspection
The inspection of the Mancos Project Inlet and Outlet Canal System
was conducted on July 29, 2003, as required under the RO&M Program,
Reclamation Manual, Directives and Standards, FAC-01-04. The
cooperation and assistance provided by Mancos Water Conservancy
District (MWCD) personnel in conducting the review are appreciated.
The following personnel attended the inspection: Gary Kennedy,
Reservoir Superintendent, MWCD; Brad Dodd, BOR, Facility Maintenance
Group Chief, WCD; Jim Rottman, BOR, Facility Maintenance Group, WCD.
Results of the inspection are summarized on the enclosed checklist.
A summary of the relevant RO&M recommendations, with estimated
completion dates, is also enclosed.
key findings of the 2003 inspection
1. The Mancos Water Conservancy District completed two
outstanding Category 2 RO&M recommendations, 1990-2-A and 1990-
2-B. New seals were installed on both intake radial gates at
the headworks and new cables were installed. Both gates were
cleaned and painted.
2. The district has acquired a loan authorization and issued
a ``request for proposals'' for repair work on the inlet canal.
3. One new Category 2 Recommendation is the installation of
buoy lines above the inlet and outlet canal major drop
structures.
MANCOS PROJECT INLET AND OUTLET CANALS--COLORADO
CHECKLIST FOR RO&M INSPECTION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OPERATIONS:
Project Name.......................... Mancos
Owner................................. Bureau of Reclamation
Operating Entity--Reservoir Mancos Water Conservancy
Superintendent. District (MWCD)--Gary
Kennedy
Date of Inspection.................... 07/29/03
Last RO&M report date................. 08/01/00
Person responsible for RO&M report.... Jim Rottman, WCD
Last RO&M report copy on hand?........ yes
Attendance at Project................. Daily during irrigation
season, weekly during rest
of season.
Ditch operators training (name, date). ............................
Flow.................................. 7\1/2\ cfs
OPERATING LOG:
Maintained at headquarters?........... Yes
Maintenance log updated?.............. Yes
SOP/DOC................................... Included in SOP
Ditch copies updated?................. See Jackson Gulch Dam 07/29/
03 inspection
How many copies?...................... See Jackson Gulch Dam 07/29/
03 inspection
Where kept?........................... See Jackson Gulch Dam 07/29/
03 inspection
COMMUNICATIONS............................ See Jackson Gulch Dam 07/29/
03 inspection
Type(s)............................... See Jackson Gulch Dam 07/29/
03 inspection
Normal................................ See Jackson Gulch Dam 07/29/
03 inspection
Standby............................... See Jackson Gulch Dam 07/29/
03 inspection
Adequacy.............................. See Jackson Gulch Dam 07/29/
03 inspection
ACCESS ROADS.............................. Adequate
Sufficient access/adequacy............ OK
OIL CONTAINMENT:
SPCC Plan? Last Updated?.............. None
Landslides............................ No new activity--annual
registry--submitted 2003
Landslide Restricted/Signs............ No
Underwater inspection................. None needed
Weed control program.................. Throughout the season -
DIVERSION STRUCTURE:
Concrete.............................. Ok
Rock/Debris waterdrop................. Ok
Riprap................................ Ok
Abutment walls........................ Ok
Wingwalls............................. Ok
Embankments........................... Ok
Foundation at downstream toe of Ok
structure.
Leakage (Gates)....................... Ok
Embankments........................... Ok
Upstream.............................. Ok
Vegetation............................ Ok
Riprap................................ Ok
Downstream............................ Ok
Vegetation............................ Ok
Rock.................................. Ok
Crest................................. Ok
Canal headworks....................... Ok
Concrete.............................. Ok
Gates................................. New Paint and seals.
Coating............................... Ok
Hoists................................ New cables.
Operation............................. Ok
Leakage............................... Ok
Fish facilities....................... N/A
Guardrails............................ Ok
Outlet channel........................ Ok
Control structures.................... Ok
Sluiceway............................. Ok
Concrete.............................. Ok
Hoists and cables..................... New cables
Operation............................. Ok
Leakage............................... Ok
Handrails............................. Ok
Approach channel...................... Ok
Outlet channel........................ Ok
Standby power......................... Not needed
Other................................. ............................
INLET CANAL:
Under drains.......................... Ok
Detention ponds....................... N/A
Subsidence............................ None
Seepage............................... Ok
Linings............................... Ok
Constructed joints.................... Ok
Random cracking....................... None
Joint sealers......................... Ok
Silting............................... None
Inlet checks.......................... Ok
Structural features................... Ok
Measuring flume....................... Ok
Silting............................... None
Controls.............................. Ok
Turnouts.............................. None
Gates................................. Ok
Structure............................. Ok
Bridge................................ Culvert--ok
Deck.................................. Ok--gravel
Railings.............................. Ok
Structural features................... Ok
Operating roads....................... Graveled
Vegetation............................ Ok
Safety features....................... Ok
Over chute............................ N/A
Spills................................ Ok
Siphons............................... ............................
Pipe.................................. 6\1/2\ foot diameter
installed 1996--good
Canal chute concrete lids............. Ok
PVC liner............................. \1/2\ mile D/S of diversion
structures installed 1998--
added on to 1999 added flow
capacity to 120 cfs.
OUTLET CANAL:
Under drains.......................... Ok
Detention ponds....................... Ok
Subsidence............................ Ok
Seepage............................... Ok
Linings............................... Ok
Constructed joints.................... Ok
Random cracking....................... Ok
Joint sealers......................... Ok
Silting............................... Ok
Check structures...................... N/A
Structural features................... Ok
Measuring flume....................... Ok
Silting............................... Ok
Controls.............................. Ok
Turnouts.............................. Ok
Gates................................. Ok
Structure............................. Ok
Bridge................................ Ok
Deck.................................. Ok
Railings.............................. Ok
Structural features................... Ok
Operating roads....................... Ok--water line buried
undeneath
Vegetation............................ Ok
Safety features....................... Ok
Concrete chute section................ Ok
Cut section........................... 1 mile downstream of dam--
MWCD having problems
maintaining this section.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MANCOS PROJECT CANAL SYSTEM--COLORADO
RO&M RECOMMENDATIONS--SUMMARY OF STATUS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Completion Actual Completion Originated by
Number Description Status Date Date (office)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990-2-A......................... Adjust or replace bottom Complete................. Per 1996 Status 2001................ Area
seal on radial gate at Report: Scheduled
headworks (Region). fall 2001.
1990-2-B......................... Clean and paint new Complete. New cables were New scheduled date 2001................ Area
headworks radial gate added on both radial fall.
located 400 feet gates.
upstream of old radial
gate and also clean and
paint old radial gate
(Region).
2003-I-A......................... Install buoy lines above New...................... 2004................ .................... Area
major drop structures.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Report prepared by: Jim Rottman, Facility Maintenance Group.
Approved: Brad Dodd, Chief, Facility Maintenance Group; Ed Warner,
Resources Management Division Manager.
______
Statement of James Shetler, Assistant General Manager, Energy Supply,
Sacramento Municipal Utility District
introduction
My name is James Shetler. I am the assistant General Manager of
Energy Supply for the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD). I
am responsible for overseeing the purchase and sales of the District's
gas and electric commodities, the reliability of the transmission
system, and the District's electric generating facilities. This
testimony is being submitted in support of S. 1258, which SMUD believes
will provide a fair and reasonable allocation of reimbursable costs and
authorize effective congressional oversight of the Bureau of
Reclamation's (Reclamation's) site security program.
SMUD is the largest single power purchase contractor from
Reclamation's Central Valley Project (CVP), buying 31 percent of the
CVP's power output under a 20 year contract with the Western Area Power
Administration (Western) at cost-based rates.
SMUD strongly supports S. 1258, legislation to amend the
Reclamation Safety of Dams Act of 1978 in order to authorize
improvements for the security of dams and other facilities.
the central valley project
Congress originally authorized the CVP in 1935 for flood control,
navigation, the development of hydroelectric power, irrigation and
municipal and industrial water supply; protection of the Sacramento-San
Joaquin River Delta from seawater encroachment; and the protection and
enhancement of fish and wildlife. The project was constructed from 1939
to 1979.
California's Central Valley Basin includes two major watersheds,
the Sacramento River on the north and the San Joaquin River on the
south, plus the Tulare Lake Basin. The combined watersheds extend
nearly 500 miles from northwest to southeast and range from about 60 to
100 miles wide.
The Central Valley Project extends from the Cascade Range in the
north to the semi-arid but fertile plains along the Kern River in the
south. The CVP serves farms, homes, and industry in California's
Central Valley as well as major urban centers in the San Francisco Bay
Area; it is also the primary source of water for much of California's
wetlands. In addition to delivering water for farms, homes, factories,
and the environment, the CVP produces electric power and provides flood
protection, navigation, recreation, and water quality benefits. It is
truly a multiple-purpose project.
The CVP power facilities, which include 11 power plants, now have
an installed capacity of 2006 MW, and generate 4,500,000 MWh in an
average hydrologic year. The power generated by CVP powerplants is used
to pump over three million acre feet of water per year to Central
Valley farms, but also to municipal and industrial users in Northern
and Central California. The remaining 80 percent of the generation is
sold by Western under long-term power contracts to over 80 not-for-
profit consumer-owned utilities and government agencies at cost-based
rates, pursuant to Reclamation law.
site security costs for cvp facilities
Following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Reclamation
initiated an aggressive program to protect its dams against terrorist
attacks. Based on World War II precedent and internal legal analysis by
the Department of the Interior, the Commissioner of Reclamation in
April 2002 issued an administrative determination that the costs of
increased security measures should be a federal obligation, non-
reimbursable by project beneficiaries. Beginning in Fiscal Year 2005,
however, Reclamation began a process to assign a significant portion of
the security costs to water and power customers. While Reclamation's
long-term proposal for the allocation of security costs is unclear, the
current allocation schedule is for water and power to cover 90% of the
annual O&M security costs. It is recognized that new capital projects
installed to bolster post-911 security measures are currently not
treated as reimbursable costs; however, a concern exists that
replacement of these facilities will be treated as reimbursable costs.
Such replacement costs eventually would dwarf the annual reimbursable
O&M costs.
SMUD and many all other water and power customers believe that the
CVP water and power customers should not be required to bear the lion's
share of the costs associated with these increased security measures.
To do so would be a deviation from historical precedent, whereby such
special security costs in the past were treated as non-reimbursable
costs. SMUD is concerned that Reclamation will continue to assign the
vast majority of costs to the water and power users, even though other
project beneficiaries, like flood control beneficiaries, face the
greater risk resulting from security threats to Reclamation facilities.
The CVP water and power customers are also concerned with the lack of
cost controls in place on the security program, and its lack of
transparency.
SMUD endorses S. 1258 because it contains an express authorization
of the site security program, as part of Reclamation's Safety of Dams
program; it applies the existing Safety of Dams Act 15 percent cost
share to water and power users for all site security costs, including
capital and O&M costs; and, it establishes a requirement that
Reclamation report annually to Congress on site security activities.
The Reclamation Safety of Dams program was first authorized in
1978. It authorized modifications needed as a result of new hydrologic
or seismic information or changes in state of the art dam technology.
The enhanced security measures undertaken by Reclamation following the
September 11, 2001 events were the result of new information about the
potential for terrorist attacks on vital dams and related facilities.
Therefore, we believe that the site security program fits nicely into
the existing policy and legal framework of the Safety of Dams program.
We also think that the proposed 15 percent cost share assigned to
the water and power customers is reasonable, appropriate, and fair.
This cost-sharing formula, which was added to the Safety of Dams
program in 1984, has been reaffirmed by Congress since then. The
remaining 85 percent of site security costs would remain a non-
reimbursable, federal obligation.
Reclamation has proceeded to expand and implement its reimbursable
site security cost plan, and SMUD is concerned that the costs down the
road could be much higher. Given that the multi-purpose federal dams
benefit a host of stakeholders and the general public, not just water
and power customers, we believe that allowing Reclamation to have free
rein to implement security measures, and at the same time requiring
that the water and power customers be responsible for reimbursement of
the majority of these costs, is not reasonable, nor equitable. SMUD
strongly supports S. 1258, as it would provide a ceiling on the amount
of reimbursable security costs that would be borne by this subset of
beneficiaries, and it would therefore keep costs manageable for the
water and power users and provide needed certainty for budget
management and future planning activities. As capital intensive not-
for-profit electric utilities strive to manage their costs, plan for
future growth, and address increasing complex regulatory and
environmental issues, this type of certainty is essential.
Finally, I wish to thank the Committee for adding my testimony to
the hearing record on S. 1258, and for considering the information and
concerns provided therein.
______
Statement of Susan Bitter Smith, President, Board of Directors, Central
Arizona Water Colnservation District
s. 300, the lower colorado river multi-species conservation program act
I am pleased to present this statement on behalf of the Central
Arizona Water Conservation District (``CAWCD'') in support of S. 300,
the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program Act. S. 300
protects and implements the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species
Conservation Program (``MSCP''). The MSCP is a comprehensive,
cooperative effort among 50 federal and non-federal entities in
Arizona, California and Nevada to protect 26 endangered, threatened and
sensitive species along the Lower Colorado River and to provide
assurances to the non-federal entities involved that their essential
water and power operations on the River may continue if they comply
with the Program's requirements. The participants in the Program
include The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, the
Southern Nevada Water Authority and the Central Arizona Project.
CAWCD is the Arizona political subdivision responsible for
operating the Central Arizona Project (``CAP''), and is the underwriter
of Arizona's share of the costs of the MSCP. The CAP is a massive water
delivery project, constructed under the authority of the Colorado River
Basin Project Act of 1968, to enable Arizona to make full use of its
Colorado River entitlement. In a normal water supply year, the CAP will
deliver about 1.5 million acre-feet of Colorado River water to the
citizens of Arizona, at the rate of 3,000 cubic feet of water per
second, almost two billion gallons per day. The CAP is the largest
single source of renewable water supplies in the State of Arizona,
serving 80 percent of the State's water users and taxpayers, including
the Phoenix and Tucson metropolitan areas.
CAWCD strongly supports S. 300 because the bill assures continued
compliance by the United States with the requirements of the MSCP.
That, in turn, provides protection to the non-federal participants in
the Program, who, like CAWCD, have agreed to provide substantial
amounts of non-federal monies for the conservation of endangered
species in return for receiving a permit under the Endangered Species
Act for their water and power operations.
The Secretary of the Interior approved this 50-year conservation
initiative on April 2, 2005. The overall Program costs, $626 million,
will be adjusted for inflation, with the three lower basin states
paying 50 percent of the costs and the federal government paying 50
percent. Of the states' share, Arizona and Nevada will each pay 25
percent, while California will pay 50 percent. In return for their
funding commitments, the non-federal participants have received a 50-
year permit, issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under Section
10 of the Endangered Species Act, which authorizes their existing and
future water and power operations to continue. All of the Arizona
participants have made a financial commitment to the MSCP, but CAWCD
has agreed to guarantee payment of Arizona's share of the Program
costs.
Although the MSCP is already in effect, this bipartisan legislation
has been introduced by Senators Jon Kyl, Dianne Feinstein, Harry Reid
and John Ensign to protect the substantial financial commitments that
the non-federal parties are making to species protection. The bill
specifically authorizes federal appropriations to cover the federal
share of the Program costs, directs the Interior Secretary to manage
and implement the Program in accordance with the underlying Program
Documents, and provides a waiver of sovereign immunity to allow the
non-federal parties to enforce the agreements they have entered into
with the federal agencies, should that become necessary. The bill does
not allow money damages.
A companion bill has been introduced in the House (H.R. 2515) by
Congressman Dean Heller of Nevada, that is cosponsored by Congressmen
Harry Mitchell, Trent Franks, John Shadegg and Rick Renzi of Arizona,
Congressman Jon Porter and Congresswoman Shelley Berkley of Nevada, and
Congressmen Ken Calvert and George Radanovich of California. Since the
time that similar legislation was introduced last year, two significant
developments have occurred. First, subject to final review and approval
within the Interior Department, the non-federal parties have reached
agreement with the United States on an agreement to provide Colorado
River water for MSCP purposes, as authorized by Section 3(b) of the
bill. Second, Section 5(b) of the bill, which relates to the impact of
future legislative actions on the MSCP, has been modified and narrowed
significantly to meet the concerns of some members.
The MSCP is a worthy and important program for protection of
endangered species. It provides for the creation of over 8,100 acres of
riparian, marsh and backwater habitat for the species covered by the
Program, and includes plans for the rearing and stocking of over 1.2
million fish to augment populations of two endangered fish covered by
the Program. The MSCP also provides for maintenance of existing, high-
quality habitat, and a research, monitoring and adaptive management
effort to ensure that Program elements are effective in helping covered
species. At the White House Conference on Cooperative Conservation in
August 2005, the MSCP was recognized as an ``Exemplary Initiative.''
Implementation of the MSCP is critical to the long term needs of those
of us in the southwest that depend on the Lower Colorado River for a
major portion of their water and power. As the Secretary said in her
Record of Decision approving the Program----
The importance of the Colorado River to the southwestern
portion of the United States cannot be overstated: the Colorado
is the lifeblood of the southwest. The Colorado River provides
water and power to over 20 million people (in such cities as
Los Angeles, San Diego, Las Vegas, Phoenix and Tucson),
irrigates over 2 million acres, and generates up to 10 billion
kilowatt hours of electricity annually.
The MSCP represents a fifty-year commitment by all of the parties
involved. It is essential that that commitment be fully and faithfully
met. S. 300 will help ensure that that occurs.
______
Western Business Roundtable,
Golden, CO, July 25, 2007.
Senator Tim Johnson,
Chairman, Senate Energy Committee, Subcommittee on Energy and Water,
304 Dirksen Senate Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Johnson: I am writing, on behalf of the Western
Business Roundtable's diverse membership, to express our support for S.
1258, legislation amending the Reclamation Safety of Dams Act of 1978
to address current inequities in security cost allocations.
Your Subcommittee colleague Senator Maria Cantwell (WA) is lead
sponsor of this bipartisan legislation. She is joined in this effort by
other Western Senators: Senator Wyden (OR), Senator Gordon Smith (OR),
Senator Orrin Hatch (UT) and Senator Wayne Allard (CO).
The Bureau of Reclamation (``Reclamation'') is the nation's largest
wholesale water supplier with a large inventory of water resources
infrastructure. The inventory includes five National Critical
Infrastructure (NCI) facilities, and 471 dams and appurtenant
facilities which could threaten the public if they were to fail. The
inventory also includes 58 hydroelectric power plants which generate 42
billion kilowatt hours annually. Reclamation's reservoirs have a
capacity of 245 million acre feet of storage which is enough to serve
31 million people and 10 million farm land acres.
State, local and project roads, as well as water and land-based
recreation activities, bring the public in close proximity to these
dams and power plants. Ensuring the security of these federal
facilities is of utmost importance to all citizens of the United
States.
S. 1258 provides the necessary Congressional oversight and cost-
sharing for expenditures made to prevent and deter threats to
employees, visitors and vital facilities and infrastructure, as well as
detect impeding danger before attacks or incidents occur. Without this
oversight and cost-sharing, Western power purchasers and consumers bear
a disproportionate brunt of the costs of these important security
measures.
On behalf of the many member organizations of the Western Business
Roundtable, thank you for giving attention to this issue, so important
to the West. We urge you to move S. 1258 forward and looking forward to
working with you in that regard.
Sincerely,
Jim Sims,
President and CEO.
______
Washington Public Utility Districts Association,
Seattle, WA, July 23, 2007.
Hon. Ken Salazar,
Acting Chairman, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on
Water and Power, United States Senate, 304 Dirksen Senate
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Salazar: On behalf of the Washington Public Utility
Districts Association (WPUDA), I would like to express support for S.
1258, a bill to amend the Reclamation Safety of Dams Act of 1978 to
authorize improvements for the security of dams and other facilities.
WPUDA represents 28 nonprofit, community-owned utilities that
provide utility services including electricity, water, sewer and
wholesale telecommunications to over 1.7 million people in the state of
Washington.
We agree with the premise of the legislation: the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation's (Reclamation) costly and non-transparent record of
administering the enhanced dam security program warrants a more
reasonable cost-sharing formula, greater customer involvement and
congressional oversight. We agree that it is important for Reclamation
to protect these critical projects; however, Reclamation's projects are
multi-purpose federal facilities that serve a wide range of public
purposes, including flood control, recreation, fish and wildlife, water
supply, power generation and others, and the burden of paying for post-
9/11 enhanced security measures should not be borne solely by the water
and power ratepayers. The water and power users are willing to pay a
fair share, but the remainder should be paid for by other
beneficiaries--or by the federal government, if it chooses not to
create mechanisms to recover costs from the non-paying functions.
In the Northwest, we have been working hard to control the
Bonneville Power Administration's (BPA's) costs. BPA's electric rates
are affected by many factors, including drought, fish and wildlife
obligations and contracts with the direct service industries. As
stewards of the public trust, we are trying hard to make sure that the
cost of the Bureau's enhanced security measures at Grand Coulee Dam,
which also affect our rates, receive close congressional scrutiny and
are fair to our ratepayers.
WPUDA supports this legislation because we believe it helps to
address our concerns about the lack of cost controls, authorization
ceiling, sunset date, and congressionally-approved parameters to limit
or control the amount of money Reclamation can spend for increased
security. We are not seeking to circumvent our responsibilities;
however, we firmly believe that the burden our power customers are
being asked to shoulder for these counter-terrorism measures are above
and beyond normal operation and maintenance functions.
Thank you for your leadership in holding a hearing on this very
important issue. We look forward to working with you and your staff as
the legislation advances.
Sincerely,
Steve Johnson,
Executive Director.
______
Statement of Gerald R. Zimmerman, Executive Director, Colorado River
Board of California
s. 300, the lower colorado river multi-species conservation program act
Thank you for providing the Colorado River Board of California
(CRB) the opportunity to submit written testimony for the hearing
record regarding S. 300. As the subcommittee is aware, S. 300
authorizes appropriations associated with long-term implementation the
Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program (``LCR MSCP'').
The LCR MSCP is a comprehensive, cooperative effort among fifty federal
and non-federal entities in Arizona, California and Nevada to protect
26 endangered, threatened and sensitive species along the Lower
Colorado River and to provide assurances to the non-federal entities
involved that their essential water and power operations on the River
may continue if they comply with the Program's requirements and
agreements.
As background, I am the Executive Director of the CRB; and I served
as the Chairman of the LCR MSCP Steering Committee throughout the
program-development phase and the first two years of the implementation
phase. The CRB is the agency in California created by State statute to
protect California's rights and interests in the resources provided by
the Colorado River and to represent California in discussions and
negotiations regarding the Colorado River and its management.
California's rights and interests in the water and power resources of
the Colorado River System are vital to the State's economy. Seven
counties in Southern California, with more than half of the state's
population, nearly 20 million residents, receive water and
hydroelectric energy from the Colorado River, in support of a service
area economy in excess of $850 billion per year. All ten members on the
Colorado River Board of California are appointed by the Governor.
It should be pointed out that in a normal water year California is
entitled to the use of up to 4.4 million acre-feet of water from the
mainstream of the Colorado River. This valuable water supply is
utilized by several large southern California agricultural districts,
as well as The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, the
wholesale distributor of water supplies to municipal providers that
meet the needs of nearly 18 million residents in Southern California.
The CRB strongly supports S. 300, because this legislation, if
passed, assures continued compliance by the United States with the
program documents and agreements that have been developed as part of
the LCR MSCP. That, in turn, provides protection to the non-federal
participants in the Program, who like the CRB, its member agencies, and
all of the Colorado River water and hydroelectric power contractors,
have agreed to provide substantial amounts of non-federal monies for
the conservation of endangered species in order to receive an
incidental take permit under the terms of the Endangered Species Act
for their continued water and power operations.
On April 2, 2005, Secretary of the Department of the Interior, Gale
A. Norton, approved this major collaborative and innovative 50-year
conservation initiative. The overall Program costs, $626 million, will
be annually adjusted for inflation, and will be shared by the three
lower basin states paying 50 percent of the costs and the federal
government paying 50 percent. Of the states' share, Arizona and Nevada
will each pay 25 percent, while California will pay the remaining 50
percent. In return for their funding commitments, the non-federal
participants have received a 50-year incidental take permit, issued by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under Section 10 of the Endangered
Species Act, which authorizes their existing and future water and power
operations to continue. All of the California participants have made a
significant long-term financial commitment toward the implementation of
the LCR MSCP that has been memorialized in a California LCR MSCP
Funding Agreement, executed on April 2, 2005.
From California's perspective, S. 300, as written, provides several
key elements that are important toward ensuring the long-term effective
implementation of this important Program. First S. 300 provides an
authorization of appropriations for the federal share of Program costs
and directs the Secretary of the Interior to manage and implement the
Program in accordance with the executed Program Documents and
Agreements. These documents and agreements, executed by all of the
federal and non-federal parties reflect the long-term commitment to
implement this important Program through 2055. California believes
that, through this legislation, it is important that the Congress
formally recognize the value of the Program to the citizens of the
United States and the overarching responsibilities that the Secretary
of the Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) have toward
long-term Program implementation.
Second, S. 300 establishes a process for the Secretary of the
Interior and Reclamation to acquire and provide adequate water supplies
associated with the restoration and maintenance of habitats created
pursuant to the Program documents. In these times of limited water
supplies in the Lower Basin States, this process will allow for the
creation and maintenance of the 8,132 acres of aquatic, wetland, and
riparian habitats within the Program planning area along the Lower
Colorado River, and yet ensure that lawful entitlement holders in the
three states can continue to manage and effectively utilize their
important Colorado River apportionments over the fifty-year period.
Specifically, there is language in S. 300 ensuring that the habitat
water acquisition and use policies established by the Secretary of the
Interior will not impair any right to mainstream water established
under any compact, treaty, law, decree, or contract in effect as of
enactment of this Act.
Third, S. 300 acknowledges that a long-term cooperative effort,
involving the federal and non-federal Program participants, will be
required in order to successfully implement this Program over the
fifty-year period. This will be accomplished through periodic meetings
of the LCR MSCP Steering Committee and Reclamation's LCR MSCP Office
staff. These meetings, several of which have occurred since inception
of Program implementation in April 2005, are the primary focal point
for decision-making regarding the preparation and adoption of annual
work plans, budgets, and Program implementation status reports. It is
in the Steering Committee where consensus-based decisions will be made
associated with the results of ongoing monitoring and research
activities and the utilization of adaptive management in suggesting
modifications to implementation activities based upon the best
available science.
Finally, since the time that similar legislation was introduced in
2006, two significant developments have occurred. First, subject to
final review and approval within the Department of the Interior, the
parties have reached agreement with the United States on an agreement
to provide Colorado River water for LCR MSCP habitat restoration and
maintenance purposes, as authorized by Section 3(b) of the bill.
Second, Section 5(b) of the bill, which relates to the impact of future
legislative actions on the LCR MSCP, has been modified and narrowed to
meet the concerns of some members. Both of these sections are essential
elements of the legislation.
California is fully committed to carrying out its responsibilities
toward long-term implementation of the LCR MSCP over the fifty-year
period, and looks forward to working with representatives and agencies
within the States of Arizona and Nevada, as well as the participating
federal agencies in carrying out those goals and meeting our collective
obligations. Toward this end, California believes that S. 300 is of
vital importance to all of the LCR MSCP participants committed to the
Program's success. California urges the Subcommittee and the Committee,
as well as the full House to approve this important legislation.
It is worth noting that at the White House Conference on
Cooperative Conservation in August 2005, in St. Louis, Missouri, the
LCR MSCP was recognized by the Administration as an ``Exemplary
Initiative.'' Implementation of the LCR MSCP is critical to the long-
term needs of those in the southwest that depend on the Lower Colorado
River for a major portion of their water and power resources. As
Secretary Norton said in her April 2005 Record of Decision approving
the Program:
The importance of the Colorado River to the southwestern
portion of the United States cannot be overstated: the Colorado
is the lifeblood of the southwest. The Colorado River provides
water and power to over 20 million people (in such cities as
Los Angeles, San Diego, Las Vegas, Phoenix and Tucson),
irrigates over 2 million acres, and generates up to 10 billion
kilowatt hours of electricity annually.
The LCR MSCP represents a fifty-year commitment by all of the
parties involved. It is essential that this commitment be fully and
faithfully met. Passage of S. 300 will help ensure that this occurs and
is considered by the CRB to be very important in protecting
California's long-term interests and rights in the water and power
resources of the Colorado River System. Again, thank you for the
opportunity to have this statement included in the hearing record.
______
Report From the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Photos have been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish Screening and Passage Program
frima funding status as of april 27, 2007
summary
The FRIMA Program is a valuable source of funding for improving
fish survival at water diversions and dams throughout Oregon. These
federal matching funds along with state and local resources have
resulted in the installation of fish screens at water diversions and
will ensure future fish passage at dams.
The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife appreciates efforts
taken to increase this valuable funding for installing fish protection
devices.
Total FRIMA funding received by Oregon 2002-2006.--$3,229,903.
Total Matching partner contributions (includes estimated projects
under construction).--$7,883,102.
Species Benefited
ESA-listed species
Coho salmon
Steelhead
Short nose suckers
Lost River suckers
Lamprey
Warner suckers
Other Species
Redband trout
Cutthroat trout
Misc. native fish
frima projects
central oregon irrigation district, swalley irrigation district, and
lone pine irrigation district (id)
Description
This joint fish screening project involves two fish screens that
are operated by three Irrigation Districts: Central Oregon ID, Swalley
ID, and Lone Pine ID. The diversions are in the Deschutes River in the
Deschutes River Basin. The redhand trout support a recreational
fishery.
Species Benefited
Redband trout and other native species.
Partners
Central Oregon ID, Swalley ID, and Lone Pine ID.
Funding
FRIMA.--$274,950.
Match.--$148,842.
Total.--$423,792.
Completed
July 2004.
eagle point irrigation district
Description
The District operates a combined irrigation and hydroelectric water
diversion in South Fork Big Butte Creek in the Rogue River Basin. Two
fish screens and one fishway were installed. Benefits include
protection for migratory fish, restoration of access to spawning and
rearing areas and enhancement of important commercial and recreational
fisheries.
Species Benefited
ESA-listed coho salmon and steelhead, as well as native cutthroat
trout.
Partners
Eagle Point Irrigation District.
Funding
FRIMA.--$306,800.
Match.--$178,818.
Total.--$485,618.
Completed
March 2004.
lakeshore gardens drainage district
Description
The Lakeshore Gardens Drainage District operates an irrigation
diversion in Upper Klamath Lake near Klamath Falls. A fish screen was
installed. Suckers are a culturally important fish to local tribes and
the redband trout support a recreational fishery.
Species Benefited
ESA-listed shortnose and Lost River suckers, as well as redband
trout.
Partners
Lakeshore Gardens Drainage District.
Funding
FRIMA.--$19,971.
Match.--$10,754.
Total.--$30,725.
Completed
December 2004.
lost and boulder
Description
The Lost and Boulder Ditch Improvement District operates an
irrigation diversion in Boulder Creek in the Deschutes River Basin. A
new fish screen and fishway have been installeld in the White River
Basin. Eight miles have been made accessible to fish.
Species Benefited
A genetically unique stock of redband trout.
Partners
Lost and Boulder Ditch Improvement District
Funding
FRIMA.--$61,084.
Match.--$53,834.
Total.--$114,918.
Completed
November 2005.
medford irrigation district north fork little butte
Description
The Medford Irrigation District operates an irrigation water
diversion in the North Fork of Little Butte Creek in the Rogue River
Basin. A fish screen and fishway have been installed. Benefits include
protection for migratory fish, restoration of access to spawning and
rearing areas and enhancement of important commercial and recreational
fisheries. Ten miles of additional excellent habitat have been made
accessible to fish.
Species Benefited
ESA-listed coho salmon, as well as steelhead and native cutthroat
trout.
Partners
Medford ID and Rogue River ID.
Funding, Phase 1, Engineering (X1D7)
FRIMA.--$163,200.
Match.--$101,500.
Total.--$264,700.
Funding, Phase 2, Construction (X1D8)
FRIMA.--$324,800.
Match.--$229,819.
Total.--$554,619.
Total Funding
FRIMA.--$488,000.
Match.--$331,319.
Total.--$819,319.
Completed
June 2005.
medford irrigation district south fork little butte
Description
The Medford Irrigation District operates an irrigation diversion in
the South Fork of Little Butte Creek in the Rogue River Basin. The fish
screen and fishway have been installed. Benefits include protection for
migratory fish, restoration of access to spawning and rearing areas and
enhancement of important commercial and recreational fisheries. 25
miles of habitat were made accessible to fish.
Species Benefited
ESA-listed coho salmon as well as steelhead and trout.
Partners
Medford Irrigation District, Rogue River Irrigation District.
Funding
FRIMA.--$397,000.
Match.--$280,131.
Total.--$677,131.
Completed
September 2004.
odfw inventory--2002
Description
Comprehensive Barrier Database Development Project
This project combined ODFW natural and artificial passage barriers
database into one system that included existing barrier information
from other agencies and entities. Resulting information is available
and accessible through the ODFW website. ODFW is working with the
Oregon Fish Passage Task Force to come up with a conceptual approach to
prioritize barrier replacement efforts.
Wood River Water Diversions and Fish Screens Assessment
Water diversions were surveyed in the Wood River--Agency Lake Sub-
basin (Wood River, Annie Creek, Sun Creek, Sevenmile Creek, Fort Creek,
and Crooked Creek) in the Klamath River Basin for screening status. The
ongoing assessment includes screening needs, estimated screening costs,
location maps, and screening priorities.
Little Butte Creek Diversions and Screens Assessment
Eleven Water diversions with fish screens were surveyed in Little
Butte Creek in the Rogue River Basin. The fish screens are old and out-
of-criteria, so screen replacement was assessed. Landowners were
contacted and willing to participate in screens replacement. Screen
locations were mapped using GIS.
Funding
FRIMA.--$44,181.
Match.--$68,666.
Total.--$112,347.
Completed
September 2004.
running y ranch, geary canal
Description
The Geary Canal is an irrigation diversion in Upper Klamath Lake.
Screen site analysis and roadwork were completed. Suckers are a
culturally important fish to local tribes. The redband trout support a
recreational fishery.
Species Benefited
ESA-listed shortnose and Lost River suckers as well as redband
trout.
Partners
Running Y Ranch and Wocus Drainage District.
Funding
FRIMA.--$37,870.
Match.--$88,365.
Total.--$126,235.
FRIMA portion completed
September 2006.
santiam water control district
Description
The Santiam Water Control District operates a combined irrigation,
municipal and hydroelectric water diversion in the North Santiam River
in the Willamette River Basin. This 1,050 cfs diversion was the largest
unscreened diversion in Oregon. A fish screen has been installed. A
tailrace barrier was also installed at the diversion irrigation canal
outfall into the river to prevent fish from swimming upstream into the
canal. Benefits include protection for migrating fish and enhancement
of important commercial and recreational fisheries.
Species Benefited
ESA-listed chinook salmon, steelhead and Oregon Chub as well as who
salmon and cutthroat trout.
Partners
Santiam Water Control District, City of Stayton and Marion Soil and
Water Conservation District.
Funding
FR1MA.--$400,000.
Match.--$1,284,261.
Total.--$1,684,261.
Completed
September 2004.
tumalo bend feed canal
Description
The Tumalo Irrigation District operates an irrigation diversion in
the Deschutes River in the Deschutes River Basin. The redband trout
support a recreational fishery.
Species Benefited
Redband trout and other native species.
Partners
Tumalo Irrigation District.
Funding
FRIMA.--$40,000.
Match.--$62,982.
Total.--$102,982.
Completed
June 2005.
upper bennett dam, city of salem
Description
The City of Salem operates Upper Bennett Dam, a large dam in the
North Santiam River in the Willamette River Basin. The existing fishway
needed significant improvement in passing fish upstream. Benefits
include improved access for fish to more than 100 miles of natural
production habitat and the enhancement of important commercial and
recreational fisheries.
Species Benefited
ESA-listed chinook salmon and steelhead, as well as coho salmon and
cutthroat trout.
Partners
City of Salem.
Funding
FRIMA.--$250,000.
Match.--$1,210,080.
Total.--$1,460,080.
Completed
December 2005.
red house fishway
Description
Fish passage was blocked by the Red House diversion dam on the
Chewaucan River in Southeastern Oregon. Redband out spawn and rear in
the river, and grow to adult size in the river's end reservoir, which
is adjacent to the terminal Abert Lake. Three major diversion dams
blocked fish passage on the Chewaucan River. Fish ladders were provided
at these three dams. A pool and weir fish ladder was constructed for
the Red House dam. More than 82 miles of good spawning and rearing
habitat for redbird trout is now accessible.
Species Benefited
Redband trout and other native species.
Partners
ZX Ranch, Lakeview Soil and Water Conservation District.
Funding
FRIMA.--$97,660.
Match.--$223,251.
Total.--$320,910.
Completed
February 2006.
oak creek
Description
This project will remove an existing, unused sheet pile diversion
dam in Oak Creek, tributary to Marys River in the Willamette Basin. The
dam poses a passage barrier to ESA-listed and other fish. Dam removal
will open access to 1.3 miles of fish habitat.
Species Benefited
ESA-listed spring chinook salmon, cutthroat trout, lamprey and
other native species.
Partners
City of Corvallis, Willamette Restoration Initiative.
Estimated Funding
FRIMA.--$23,087.
Match.--$12,434.
Total.--$35,521.
Completion
September 2007.
north unit irrigation district (nuid)
Description
NUID built a large 153 cfs pumping station in 1968 on the Crooked
River to provide irrigation water. Each pump has a screened bay. The
old 9 rotary drum screens mesh, shafts and gaskets are deteriorating.
The screens mesh is compromised and also has 0.25" openings that are
too large to meet fish screening criteria. Bull trout are federally
listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The
Crooked River historically supported anadromous chinook salmon,
steelhead, and Pacific lamprey. Chinook salmon and steelhead are
proposed for re-introduction into the Crooked River and the upper
Deschutes River in 2006. Resultant salmonid smolts will migrate
downstream through a planned device at Round Butte Dam. A single self-
cleaning vertical plate screen should be installed in June 2008 to
protect these fish.
Species Benefited
Redband trout, bull trout, mountain whitefish and other species.
Partners
NUID.
Estimated Funding
FRIMA.--$282,586.
Match.--$287,000.
Total.--$569,586.
Completion
June 2008.
lacomb irrigation district
Description
Lacomb Irrigation District (ID) has a large diversion (65 cfs) for
irrigation and hydroelectric generation in Crabtree Creek, which flows
into the South Santiam River. The existing rotary drum fish screen is
deteriorated. The screen mesh is compromised in places and has openings
too large to meet fish screening criteria. Chinook salmon and steelhead
are federally ESA-listed. A horizontal perforated plate screen should
be installed in October 2007 to protect these fish.
Species Benefited
Chinook salmon (spring), steelhead (winter), cutthroat trout and
other fish species.
Partners
Lacomb, ID.
Estimated Funding
FRIMA.--$161,175.
Match.--$87,325.
Total.--$248,500.
Completion
October 2007.
city of sumpter, fish screen
Description
The City of Sumpter has a 5 cfs gravity diversion for domestic
water. The diversion is in the McCully Fork of the Powder River at
Sumpter in northeastern Oregon. An additional fish passage project is
planned at the diversion site. A horizontal perforated plate screen
will be installed.
Species Benefited
ESA-listed bull trout and redband trout.
Partners
City of Sumpter.
Funding
FRIMA.--$32,100.
Match.--$39,690.
Total.--$71,790.
Completion
September 2007.
city of sumpter, fishway
Description
The City of Sumpter has a diversion dam for providing domestic
water. This project will replace an existing diversion dam by
installing a fishway comprised of multiple full-spanning rock weirs and
a re-built stream channel, in conjunction with a separate project for a
fish screen, at an existing diversion on the McCully Fork of the Powder
River in Northeastern Oregon. Providing a fishway and fish passage will
benefit fish species and help stabilize the channel. Removal of the
barrier will provide access to approximately 13.2 miles of stream above
the site.
Species Benefited
Redband trout and ESA-listed bull trout.
Partners
City of Sumpter.
Funding
FRIMA.--$25,608.
Match.--$15,280.
Total.--$40,888.
Completion
September 2007.
o'keeffe/cleland
Description
The O'Keeffe/Cleland unscreened diversion takes 25 cfs of
irrigation water from Deep Creek in the Warner Valley Basin near the
town of Adel. Deep Creek flows into Crump Lake, one of many lakes in
the Warner Valley in Lake County in southeastern Oregon. The new fish
screen will enhance the survival of ESA-listed species. The new triple
bay self-cleaning rotary drum screen array should be constructed and
installed during September 2007.
Species Benefited
ESA-listed Warner Suckers and resident redband trout.
Partners
O'Keeffe, Cleland (landowners).
Funding
FRIMA.--$44,856.
Match.--$35,010.
Total.--$152,786.
Completion
September 2007.
tumalo irrigation district, tumalo feed ladder
Description
Tumalo Irrigation District has a diversion dam for irrigation
water. This project will replace an existing, non-compliant fish ladder
with a new fish ladder, in conjunction with a separate project for a
fish screen, at an existing irrigation diversion on Tumalo Creek in the
Deschutes River Basin in central Oregon. The fish passage will open up
the entire upper 12 miles of Tumalo Creek, making it accessible.
Species Benefited
Redband trout.
Partners
Tumalo ID.
Funding
FRIMA.--$100,000.
Match.--$150,000.
Total.--$250,000.
Completion
September 2008.
______
Mancos Water Conservancy District,
July 17, 2007.
To whom it may concern: The Mancos Valley, located in southwest
Colorado, is basically high desert with approximately twenty inches of
precipitation annually. Agriculture has always been a major industry,
which here means irrigation.
Irrigation in the Mancos Valley comes from the Mancos River and its
tributaries. Most years the river's summer flows are far from adequate
for commercial production; therefore, the United States, in cooperation
with the Valley, constructed the Mancos Project in the 1940s.
The Mancos Project stores Mancos River water during times of high
flow for use during our crop season. The project is truly the lifeblood
of the Mancos Valley, providing water for irrigation and water for
homes and businesses. I cannot overstate the importance of this project
to the valley.
Although the project was well designed, it has surpassed the design
life of some of the structures. The Mancos Water Conservancy District
(operator) has practiced diligence in maintaining the project, yet the
project is now in serious need of major rehabilitation.
This rehabilitation is beyond the resources of the District and the
irrigators in the valley. The District and the irrigators are certainly
willing to do what we are able, we do, however, need help.
Our farmers (irrigators) are struggling to survive (myself
included). WE are between the proverbial rock and the hard place. On
the one hand, we cannot survive without the Mancos Project on the other
hand, we cannot pay for the rehabilitation of the project from our own
resources.
Thank you for your time,
Dee Graf,
President.