[Senate Hearing 110-376]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 110-376
CURRENT 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
SECOND SESSION
ON
S. 177 S. 1473
S. 1474 S. 1929
S. 2370 H.R. 1139
H.R. 1855 H.R. 2085
H.R. 2381
__________
FEBRUARY 28, 2008
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
42-405 PDF WASHINGTON : 2008
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON 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
Corker, Hon. Bob, U.S. Senator From Tennessee.................... 2
Cornett, Mick, Mayor, Oklahoma City, OK.......................... 14
Janzen, Carl, President, Board of the Madera Irrigation District,
Madera, CA..................................................... 17
Johnson, Hon. Tim, U.S. Senator From South Dakota................ 1
Kyl, Hon. Jon, U.S. Senator From Arizona......................... 2
Potucek, Charles P., City Manager, Sierra Vista, AZ.............. 24
Quint, Robert J., Director of Operations, Bureau of Reclamation,
Department of the Interior..................................... 5
Radanovich, Hon. George, U.S. Representative From California..... 3
Rossi, John, General Manager, Western Municipal Water District,
Riverside, CA.................................................. 21
APPENDIXES
Appendix I
Responses to additional questions................................ 29
Appendix II
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 33
CURRENT WATER AND POWER LEGISLATION
----------
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2008
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Water and Power,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m. in room
SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Tim Johnson
presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TIM JOHNSON, U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH
DAKOTA
Senator Johnson. I call to order this hearing before the
Water and Power Subcommittee. It's my pleasure to welcome
everyone to this afternoon's hearing. We have two panels of
witnesses here today--several who have traveled across the
country to provide us their views. Thank you for your efforts.
We also have Congressman Radanovich of California here to
speak on behalf of a bill that he was sponsoring.
The following bills are before us today:
One, S. 177 and H.R. 2085 would authorize the Bureau of
Reclamation to transfer title to certain facilities that are
part of the McGee Creek Projects in Oklahoma.
Two, S. 1473 and H.R. 1855 would authorize Reclamation to
participate in the design and construction of the Madera Water
Supply Enhancement Project in California.
Three, S. 1474 and H.R. 1139 also address water supply
issues in California for authorizing Reclamation to participate
in the design and the construction of the Riverside Corona
Water Supply Project.
Four, S. 1929 would authorize a feasibility study to
evaluate alternatives to augment the water supply in the Sierra
Vista Watershed in Arizona.
Five, S. 2370 would clear title to certain parcels of land
associated with the Middle Rio Grande Project in New Mexico.
Six, H.R. 2381 establishes a scientific program within the
Department of the Interior to manage sediment and nutrient loss
in the Upper Mississippi River Basin.
These bills illustrate the ongoing need that exists for the
Federal Government to work in close partnership with States and
local entities to address the serious water issues facing many
communities. I look forward to hearing more about these issues
today, and working with the members of the committee to try and
enact some of these bills into law.
I'll now turn it over to Senator Corker, the ranking member
on the subcommittee, for an opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Senator Kyl follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jon Kyl, U.S. Senator From Arizona
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for holding
this hearing on S. 1929, the Sierra Vista Subwatershed Feasibility
Study Act. introduced this bill, along with Senator McCain, in August
2007 to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study alternatives
to augment the water supplies in southern Arizona in the Sierra Vista
Subwatershed. This critical region is home to a congressionally
protected riparian area known as the San Pedro Riparian National
Conservation Area (SPRNCA), the U.S. Army Intelligence Center at Fort
Huachuca, and nearly 76,000 residents.
SPRNCA, which protects nearly 43 miles of the San Pedro River,
serves as a principal passage for the migration of approximately four
million birds. It also provides crucial habitat for 100 species of
birds, 81 species of mammals, 43 species of reptiles and amphibians,
and two threatened species of native fish. The Nature Conservancy has
called the area one of the ``last great places on earth.''
Fort Huachuca, which is adjacent to SPRNCA, plays a critical role
in this country's national security by, among other things, training
soldiers in military intelligence. It also is the largest employer in
the area, contributing greatly to the economy of Cochise County and the
State of Arizona.
In recent years, the Fort has done an exemplary job of implementing
water conservation and recharge measures as part of its
responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act. Indeed, since 1995,
it has reduced its groundwater pumping by more than 50 percent.
Nevertheless, water levels in certain areas of the regional aquifer
in the Sierra Vista Subwatershed are still declining due to natural
causes and development near Sierra Vista. Because SPRNCA and the Fort
could be negatively affected by these declining water levels, a 2007
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation appraisal level study concluded that
augmenting the local water supply is necessary. To that end,
Reclamation's study recommended several augmentation alternatives for
further study, all of which are supported by the Upper San Pedro
Partnership, a congressionally recognized consortium of 21 local,
state, and federal agencies and private organizations.
S. 1929 would authorize the Secretary to conduct a feasibility
study of the augmentation alternatives recommended in the preliminary
appraisal level report for further study. The legislation would also
authorize appropriations for the federal share of the study's costs.
Importantly, the non-federal cost share would be at least 55 percent as
opposed to the standard 50 percent, indicating the non federal parties'
strong commitment to the study.
The feasibility study that would be authorized under this
legislation is the next step in the process of determining how to best
address the water challenges facing the Sierra Vista Subwatershed.
Consequently, I hope that the Subcommittee will work with Senator
McCain and me in securing the bill's swift passage in the 110th
Congress.
STATEMENT OF HON. BOB CORKER, U.S. SENATOR
FROM TENNESSEE
Senator Corker. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for
having this hearing. I want to just tell you, I'm so glad
you're back at the helm.
Senator Johnson. Yes.
Senator Corker. Thank you very much for being here. I know
the bills that are under consideration today will serve a
number of purposes that are important to members of this
committee and all members of the Senate. Several regions of the
country, including my home State, have been affected by
drought. Not just this year, but for many years.
Any legislation that will assist these areas by improving
and expanding their water infrastructure availability certainly
deserves our full attention. So I want to thank all the
witnesses, especially the Congressman coming over. I've got a
conflict in 10 minutes. I hope I get to hear most of what you
have to say, but thank you very much for being here, and
certainly, for all the witnesses. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Johnson. If there are no other statements, we'll
proceed to Congressman Radanovich, and then to our witnesses.
It's a pleasure to have you here, Congressman Radanovich.
Please go ahead and make your statement on the Madera Water
Supply Enhancement Act.
STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE RADANOVICH, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM
CALIFORNIA
Mr. Radanovich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's a pleasure to
be before your committee. Thank you, Ranking Member Senator
Corker, as well. I'm going to testify on behalf of Senate Bill
1473, which is the Madera Water Supply Enhancement Act.
The Act authorizes the Bureau of Reclamation to participate
in the design and construction of the Madera Water Supply and
Enhancement Projects, an important water bank, which will help
improve the water supply in California's San Joaquin Valley.
This water bank will be located on a 13,000-acre parcel, called
Madera Ranch, that is ideal for percolating water from the
surface to the aquifer for storage and valuable habitat for
numerous species in native grasslands.
This project will allow the Madera Irrigation District to
bank excess water and rain, accumulating in wet years and to
provide a source of water in dry years. The Madera Irrigation
District is deeply invested in making this project a reality.
They've invested over $40 million to acquire the land and plan
this project.
In addition to the numerous studies undertaken in the past
10 years, verifying the feasibility and the environmental
impact, this project is ready to immediately move in to the
construction phase with the passage of this legislation.
Faced with a future of long-term drought, reduced water
exports from the Sacramento/San Joaquin delta, and detrimental
judicial decisions that threaten water supply, California's San
Joaquin Valley needs water supply projects such as this now
more than ever. America relies on the productivity of the San
Joaquin Valley for much of its food supply. The San Joaquin
Valley and--excuse me, for much of its food supply, and water
is its lifeblood.
The San Joaquin Valley's economic wellbeing depends on
having a secure, sufficient, and reliable water supply. The
Madera Water Supply Enhancement Project increases water supply,
providing groundwater resource protection and litigates the
water supply impacts of the San Joaquin River Restoration
Project.
As the State continues their dialog and debate over the
larger issues of water supply and storage, we must step forward
and make the Madera water bank a reality. I was pleased to help
guide H.R. 1855, the companion legislation, through the House
of Representatives, where it passed last year in October 22.
I do now urge support and ask for your assistance in moving
this through the Senate to expand the water supply
opportunities for California's San Joaquin Valley. I would end
in stating that this is a project that enjoys broad-based
support--not only from the development, but also the
environmental community--and is much needed.
So any help I can get getting this to the Senate, I'd sure
appreciate it.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Radanovich follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. George Radanovich, U.S. Representative
From California
Chairman Johnson and Ranking Member Corker, thank you for holding
this hearing on S. 1473/H.R. 1855 the Madera Water Supply Enhancement
Act. I am pleased to testify before you in support of such an important
project located in my Congressional district in Madera, California.
The Madera Water Supply Enhancement Act authorized the Bureau of
Reclamation to participate in the design and construction of the Madera
Water Supply and Enhancement Project, an important water bank which
will help improve water supply in California's San Joaquin Valley. The
Madera Water Supply and Enhancement Project will be located on the
13,000-acre Madera Ranch, land that is ideal for percolating water from
the surface to the aquifer for storage and valuable habitat for
numerous species and native grasslands. This project will allow the
Madera Irrigation District to bank excess water and rain accumulating
in wet years and to provide a source of water in dry years.
The Madera Irrigation District is deeply invested in making this
project a reality. They have invested over $40 million to acquire the
land and plan this project, in addition to the numerous studies
undertaken in the past ten years verifying the feasibility and
environmental impacts. This project is ready to immediately move into
the construction phase with the passage of this legislation.
Faced with a future of long term drought, reduced water exports
from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, and detrimental judicial
decisions that reduce water supply, California's San Joaquin Valley
needs water supply projects such as this, now more than ever. Our
nation relies on the productivity of the San Joaquin Valley for much of
our food supply. As an agriculturally based region, water is the
lifeblood of the San Joaquin Valley and the economic well-being depends
on having a secure, sufficient and reliable water supply. The Madera
Water Supply Enhancement Project increases water supply, provides
groundwater resource protection, and mitigates the water supply impacts
of the San Joaquin River restoration project. As the State continues
their dialog and debate over the larger issues of water supply and
storage, we must step forward and make the Madera water bank a reality.
I was pleased to help guide H.R. 1855 through the House of
Representatives, where it passed on October 22, 2007. I now urge your
support and assistance in moving this legislation through the Senate,
to expand the water supply opportunities in California's San Joaquin
Valley.
Senator Johnson. Thank you again, Representative
Radanovich, for providing your views. We'll look forward to
taking a closer look at your legislation. I'd now like to ask
our first panelist to come up and take a seat at the witness
table. Thank you.
Before starting, I'd like to quickly note that the
subcommittee has received additional written testimony on
several of the bills before us today. The testimony, as well as
the written submissions of the witnesses here today, will be
made part of the official hearing record.
The first panel consists of one witness, representing the
Administration's views on the bills before us today. We have
Robert Quint, Director of Operations of the Bureau of
Reclamation. Thank you for being here today, Mr. Quint. Please
provide a 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 ROBERT J. QUINT, DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS, BUREAU OF
RECLAMATION, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Quint. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and it's good to have
you back chairing this subcommittee.
Senator Johnson. Yes.
Mr. Quint. Mr. Chairman, and members of subcommittee, I am
Robert Quint, Director of Operations for the Bureau of
Reclamation. Thank you for the opportunity to appear today to
present the Administration's views on several Reclamation-
related bills pending before your subcommittee.
Also, I'd like to note that the U.S. Geological Survey has
provided a statement for the record on H.R. 2381 that reflects
support for the bill's goal of providing sound science for the
managing of sediment and nutrient loss in the Upper Missouri
River Basin.
I'd like to introduce, to my left, Timothy Miller, Chief of
the USGS Office of Water Quality, who is here with me to answer
any questions you may have on this particular legislation.
The Department, as you mentioned, has already submitted
written statements on the five other bills, so I'd be happy to
keep my verbal remarks brief. I'll discuss the legislation in
the order that they are in the hearing announcement.
On S. 177/H.R. 2885, which would authorize the Secretary of
Interior to convey certain lands and facilities of the McGee
Creek Project in Oklahoma to McGee Creek Authority, the
Administration supports this bill, and we thank the
subcommittee for considering it today. The Department of
Interior has an active title transfer program and supports
transferring ownership of certain Reclamation Project
facilities to non-Federal entities.
Initial discussions on this transfer began in 1997.
Reclamation and the McGee Creek Authority have been working
collaboratively to lay the groundwork for this title transfer
since that time. To cooperative efforts of the Authority, all
elements required by Reclamation for the title transfer have
been successfully addressed for the McGee Creek Project. The
Authority has provided funding for Reclamation to complete the
necessary environmental, legal, and historic preservation
documentation for this transfer.
The costs of lands, buildings, and facilities to be
transferred have already been repaid, pursuant to the
Authority's original Repayment Contract. There is no ongoing
revenue streams associated with these lands and facilities. As
such, no additional payment for this transfer is required.
In addition, this title transfer protects the financial
interest of the United States. Transferring title of these
facilities will reduce the number of administrative burdens on
Reclamation. Again, we support passage of S. 177, as it
represents a cooperative and cost-effective process that will
provide a benefit to the Authority and Reclamation.
The next bill, S. 1473/H.R. 1855, the Madera Water Supply
Enhancement Act would authorize the Secretary to enter into a
cooperative agreement with Madera Irrigation District to
support the Madera Water Supply Enhancement Project. While
Reclamation has been an active partner with the Madera
Irrigation District and other entities in studying this
project, the Department cannot support this bill at this time.
Reclamation in the State of California have studied the
Madera Water Supply Enhancement Project. In March 2007,
Reclamation published an appraisal report for this project,
which is transmitted to Congress. The cost for the project is
estimated to be approximately $91 million. Because a
feasibility study for the Madera Water Supply Enhancement
Program has not been completed, it is premature to authorize
Federal implementation at this time.
Moreover, the project would directly compete for funding
with other currently authorized projects in the CVP service
area, including several storage studies authorized under the
CALFED Program, standing obligations to complete multimillion-
dollar backlogs in authorized world water projects, aging
infrastructure requiring rehabilitation, ongoing water
recycling projects, and other fiscal pressures. In light of the
concerns expressed above, the Department cannot support S. 1473
at this time.
On S. 1474/H.R. 1139, which would authorize the Secretary
of Interior to participate with the Western Municipal Water
District in the planning, design, and construction of a water
supply project known as the Riverside-Corona Feeder, for
reasons described below, the Department cannot support this
bill in its present form.
This project would withdraw water from the San Bernardino
Valley groundwater aquifers that are replenished during wet
years from local runoff, regulated releases from the Seven Oaks
Reservoir, and water from the State Water Project. It would
consist of a number of wells and connecting pipelines, which
would deliver up to 40,000 acre feet of water annually to
communities in Western Riverside County.
Mr. Chairman, while the Department encourages the type of
resourceful utilization of local water supplies this bill calls
for, and it has a potential for reducing the use of important
supplies from the Colorado River and the California Bay Delta,
we do not support S. 1474 in its present form. We understand
that feasibility level studies have not yet been completed for
this project. Without a proper analysis to do this feasibility
level of detail, we cannot support Reclamation's participation
in design and construction activities.
In fiscal year 2008, Congress appropriated additional
planning fund beyond Reclamation's fiscal year 2008 request for
continued involvement with the District as they finalized their
feasibility work. Reclamation will continue to work with the
officials from the Western Municipal Water District on the
project and provide them guidance for their feasibility
analysis and the appropriate level of need for compliance that
would be needed.
S. 1929/H.R. 3328, which would authorize the Secretary of
Interior, acting through the Commissioner of Reclamation, to
conduct a feasibility study of water augmentation alternatives
in the Sierra Vista Subwatershed, located in Southeastern
Arizona, the Department does not support the proposed
legislation at this time.
This legislation would provide for a Federal funding of
$1.26 million, with a local share of 55 percent, for an
estimated total cost of $2.8 million. The Upper San Pedro
Partnership, a consortium of Federal, State, local, and private
groups, was established in 1988 to address water needs in the
Sierra Vista Watershed.
Reclamation became a consortium member in 2004. At the
request of the partnership, Reclamation prepared an appraisal
report that was completed in June 2007. A total of 14
augmentation alternatives were evaluated, resulting in a
partnership selecting 3 alternatives for further analysis.
The appraisal report also identified significant legal and
institutional issues that need to be addressed by local
stakeholders in order to make progress. For example, the
partnership is not a traditional government entity in that its
membership consists of representatives from Federal, State, and
local governments, as well as nonprofit organizations and local
businesses.
It has no legal authority to construct, operate, or repay
capital costs. Because of this, Reclamation cannot legally
contract with the partnership. Alternatives under consideration
would need to be implemented by an entity other then the
partnership. Upon resolution of this and other outstanding
issues, Reclamation suggests that a feasibility study would be
the next logical step for the partnership.
Again, while Reclamation does not support this legislation
at this time, we fully understand the tremendous importance of
these issues to local stakeholders, the State, and the Federal
Government. Reclamation will continue to work with the
partnership on these issues.
Finally, S. 2370 would authorize the transfer of title to
real property in New Mexico, associated with the Middle Rio
Grande Project. The Department is not opposed to the concept of
transferring ownership of lands described in this legislation
to another entity. Given current circumstance, including
ongoing litigation, the lack of any excess lands determination,
or an appraisal of land identified for transfer, the Department
feels that this legislation is premature.
The Department has been a defendant in litigation that saw
quiet titles to properties associated with the Middle Rio
Grande Project. However, title claims by the United States to
this land in question have been vindicated by the U.S. District
Court, and are now under appeal in the Tenth Circuit.
In light of the litigation and the uncertainty that
surrounded the title questions before the District Court's
recent decision, the city of Albuquerque initiated improvements
on this property under a license agreement with the
Reclamation. The city of Albuquerque developed the Albuquerque
BioPark and associated properties for public uses that benefit
Albuquerque citizens.
The manner in which the city of Albuquerque obtained the
property from the Middle Grande Conservancy District was
inconsistent with established procedures for conveying title to
Federal property to another party. Nevertheless, the Department
does not believe this was a result of carelessness or neglect
on the part of the city of Albuquerque, nor does the Department
believe this was an intentional encumbrance of Federal
property. However, until the litigation is settled and for the
other reasons given, we feel this legislation is premature.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my testimony. Thank you for
the opportunity to comment on this pending legislation. We'd be
happy to answer any questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Quint follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert J. Quint, Director of Operations, Bureau
of Reclamation, Department of the Interior
s. 177
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am Robert J. Quint,
Director of Operations for the Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased to
appear before this Subcommittee to provide testimony on S. 177,
legislation to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to convey
certain lands and facilities of the McGee Creek Project in Oklahoma to
the McGee Creek Authority (Authority). The Administration supports this
bill and we thank the committee for considering it today.
The Department of the Interior has an active title transfer program
and supports transferring ownership of certain Reclamation project
facilities to non-Federal entities. Initial discussions on this
transfer began in 1997, and Reclamation and the McGee Creek Authority
have been working collaboratively to lay the groundwork for this title
transfer since that time. Reclamation and the Authority entered into a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) in 1998 for the purpose of defining the
activities and responsibilities necessary to move forward with the
proposed transfer. Before the transfer could be finalized and the
necessary legislation could be proposed, the agreement expired in
September 2002. In 2006, the Authority again expressed interest in the
transfer and in April of that year, a new MOA was executed.
Through cooperative efforts with the Authority, all elements
required by Reclamation for title transfer have been successfully
addressed for the McGee Creek project. The Authority has provided
funding for Reclamation to complete the necessary environmental, legal,
and historic preservation documentation for this transfer, including a
Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact,
concurrence from the State Historic Preservation Officer, a hazardous
materials clearance, and conveyance documents.
The costs of the lands, buildings and facilities to be transferred
have already been repaid pursuant to the Authority's original repayment
contract. All of the lands to be transferred were acquired by
Reclamation when the project was built and the original repayment
contract incorporated acquisition costs together with the costs
associated with the construction of the project facilities and
associated easements, lands and buildings. There are no ongoing revenue
streams associated with these lands and facilities. As such, no
additional payment for this transfer is required.
In addition, this title transfer protects the financial interest of
the United States. Transferring title to these facilities will reduce a
number of administrative burdens on Reclamation including periodic
facility reviews that are currently required because it is a
Reclamation owned facility, and the processing of paperwork that
currently consumes significant staff time. It will also ensure that
long term responsibility for the operation, maintenance, management,
and regulation, as well as liability, for the transferred lands and
facilities will rest with the Authority.
Again, we support passage of S. 177 and thank the subcommittee for
holding this hearing. It reflects a cooperative and cost effective
process that will provide a benefit to the Authority and Reclamation.
This concludes my testimony and I would be pleased to answer any
questions.
s. 1473
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am Robert J. Quint,
Director of Operations, Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased to present
the Department of the Interior's views on S. 1473, the Madera Water
Supply Enhancement Act. While Reclamation has been an active partner
with the Madera Irrigation District and other entities in studying this
project, the Department does not support S. 1473.
Reclamation and the state of California have studied the Madera
Water Supply Enhancement Project. The purpose of this project is to
reduce the overdraft of the area's groundwater aquifer and improve
water supply reliability. In March 2007, Reclamation published an
appraisal report for this project and transmitted it to Congress.
Appraisal reports are based upon existing information to determine
whether additional studies to determine Federal feasibility are
warranted.
Reclamation's March 2007 appraisal report identified several
alternatives, including delineation of groundwater recharge areas;
engineered recharge basins on the Madera Ranch; and direct recharge
from the San Joaquin and Fresno Rivers. The cost for the project is
estimated at approximately $91 million, and section 5(b) of the
legislation commits the Federal government to paying 25 percent of
project costs. The total storage space is 250,000 acre-feet. However,
it is important to note that while a maximum of 55,000 acre-feet can be
moved to and from storage in any given year, the average annual water
yield is estimated to be 20,000 acre-feet per year. Altogether, an
appraisal level estimate is that this project would provide water at a
cost of $420 per acre-foot.
Although the bill lists eighteen studies that have been completed
relating to this project, none of these studies meet Reclamation's
feasibility study criteria. Because Reclamation has not completed a
feasibility study of the Madera Water Supply Enhancement Project, it is
premature to authorize Federal implementation at this time. Moreover,
this project would directly compete for funding with other currently
authorized projects in the CVP service area, including several storage
studies authorized under the CALFED Program (PL 108-361).
Reclamation continues to emphasize completion of ongoing projects
and the safe and effective maintenance of its aging infrastructure.
Reclamation must prioritize its program activities to ensure that the
most worthy projects receive funding. In light of these needs,
Reclamation allocates funds to projects and programs based on objective
and performance-based criteria to most effectively implement
Reclamation's programs and its management responsibilities for the
water and power infrastructure in the West.
The Administration appreciates local efforts to address current and
future water issues. However, in light of the concerns expressed above,
the Department does not support S. 1473. That concludes my prepared
remarks. I would be pleased to answer any questions.
s. 1474
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Robert J. Quint,
Director of Operations, Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased to be here
today to present the views of the Department of the Interior on S.
1474, a bill to authorize a water supply project in Southern
California. For reasons described below, the Department does not
support S. 1474.
This bill would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
participate with the Western Municipal Water District in the planning,
design, and construction of a water supply project known as the
Riverside-Corona Feeder. It provides for Federal funding for this
project of not more than 25 percent of the total project cost
(including funding for planning studies), not to exceed $50 million.
This project would withdraw water from San Bernardino Valley
groundwater aquifers that are replenished during wet years from local
runoff, regulated releases from Seven Oaks Reservoir, and water from
the State Water Project. It would consist of a number of wells and
connecting pipelines, which would deliver up to 40,000 acre-feet of
water annually to communities in western Riverside County. Project
benefits include local drought protection, better groundwater
management, and reduced dependence on imported water.
The economic and efficient use of water is a priority for the
Department of the Interior. The Department strongly encourages local
water supply efforts.
Mr. Chairman, while the Department encourages the type of
resourceful utilization of local water supplies this bill calls for and
the potential for reducing the use of imported supplies from the
Colorado River and the California Bay-Delta we do not support S. 1474.
We understand that feasibility level studies have not yet been
completed for this project. Without a proper analysis that adheres to
the ``Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water
and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies,'' and which
otherwise meets appropriate Federal guidelines for consideration of
project authorization, we cannot support Reclamation's participation in
design and construction activities.
Reclamation is currently in consultation with the Western Municipal
Water District on the project and providing them guidance on their
feasibility analysis and the appropriate level of NEPA compliance that
will be needed. In FY 2008 Congress appropriated additional planning
funds beyond Reclamation's FY2008 request for continued involvement
with the Western Municipal Water District as they finalize their
feasibility work. Nevertheless, the Department believes that enactment
of this legislation authorizing a new construction project places an
additional burden on Reclamation, and could delay the completion of
other currently authorized projects. Reclamation must prioritize and
allocate funds to projects and programs based on objective and
performance-based criteria to most effectively implement Reclamation's
programs and its management responsibilities for the water and power
infrastructure in the West.
Thank you for the opportunity to convey our concerns on this
legislation, and I would be pleased to answer any questions.
s. 2370
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am Robert J. Quint,
Director of Operations, Bureau of Reclamation. Thank you for the
opportunity to appear today to present the Administration's views on S.
2370, which would transfer title to real property in New Mexico
associated with the Middle Rio Grande Project and for other purposes.
The Department is not opposed to the concept of transferring
ownership of the lands described in this legislation to another entity.
However, given current circumstances including ongoing litigation and
lack of any excess-lands determination or appraisal of the lands
identified for transfer, the Department feels that this proposed
legislation is premature.
A history of the ownership of this property will help explain the
circumstances leading to the introduction of this bill. The Bureau of
Reclamation acquired interests in Middle Rio Grande Project works
through a conveyance document granted by the Middle Rio Grande
Conservancy District (MRGCD) on November 24, 1953. The lands involved
with the proposed legislation were included in that conveyance, and the
United States has not relinquished its interest in those specific
parcels. On November 25, 1997, MRGCD and the City of Albuquerque (City)
entered into a real estate sales agreement through which the MRGCD sold
the City approximately 65 acres of land associated with San Gabriel
Park and Tingley Beach for $3,875,000.
Article 7 of the sales agreement recognizes that the United States
holds an interest in the properties, and MRGCD agreed to obtain a
release of this interest from the United States. The sale was completed
but the United States has never executed any release.
The Department has been a defendant in litigation that sought to
quiet title to properties associated with the Middle Rio Grande
Project. While the litigation did not specifically name the properties
associated with Tingley Beach or San Gabriel Biological Park, the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Mexico found in July 2005 that
title to all Middle Rio Grande project properties is vested in the
United States. This decision is now being considered on appeal to the
10th Circuit.
In light of the litigation and the uncertainty that surrounded the
title question before the District court's recent decision, the City of
Albuquerque initiated improvements on this property under a License
Agreement with Reclamation. The City has developed and improved San
Gabriel Park and has created fishing ponds, a snack bar and other
recreational facilities at Tingley Beach. They have also installed a
small train which runs between the Albuquerque Biological Park
(BioPark) and Tingley Beach. The BioPark has been fully developed by
the city into an aquarium, botanic garden, a small farm and a refugium
for the endangered Rio Grande silvery minnow.
The City of Albuquerque developed the Park and associated
properties for public uses that benefit Albuquerque's citizens. The
manner in which the City of Albuquerque obtained the property from the
Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District was inconsistent with
established procedures for conveying title to federal property to
another party. Nevertheless, the Department does not believe this was
the result of carelessness or neglect on the part of the City of
Albuquerque, nor does the Department believe this was an intentional
encumbrance of federal property.
The Department is reluctant to support transfers of title to
federal property when those transfers circumvent existing procedures
provided by generally applicable legislation. Federal policy generally
requires that adequate consideration be paid to the United States
before title is transferred.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks and I would be happy to
respond to any questions the Committee may have.
s. 1929 & h.r. 3328
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Robert J. Quint,
Director of Operations Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased to be here
today to give the Department of the Interior's views on S. 1929 and
H.R. 3328, the Sierra Vista Subwatershed Feasibility Act. The
Department does not support the proposed legislation.
The legislation would authorize the Secretary of the Interior,
acting through the Commissioner of Reclamation, to conduct a
feasibility study of water augmentation alternatives in the Sierra
Vista Subwatershed, located in southeastern Arizona, Cochise County, in
the upper San Pedro watershed, near the City of Sierra Vista. It
provides for Federal funding of $1,260,000, with a local cost share of
55%, for a total estimated cost of $2,800,000. In addition to local
cost share for the study, a significant local effort will be required
to resolve legal and institutional challenges in order to complete the
study.
The preservation of two important Federal facilities, Fort Huachuca
(Fort) and the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area (SPRNCA),
requires augmentation of the local water supply. Fort activities and
associated development near the City of Sierra Vista have resulted in a
substantial groundwater overdraft that is expected to negatively impact
the San Pedro River (River). A section of the River was protected by
Congress as the SPRNCA. As the area's largest employer, the Fort
greatly benefits southeast Arizona's (and the entire State's) economy.
Despite conservation and recharge measures, groundwater overdraft
continues to grow.
The Upper San Pedro Partnership (Partnership), a consortium of
Federal, state, local and private groups, was established in 1988 to
sustain the viability of the Fort and the River--Reclamation became a
member in 2004. Also in 2004, Section 321 of the National Defense
Authorization Act recognized the Partnership and directed it to prepare
an annual report on progress toward the goal to ``restore and maintain
the sustainable yield of the regional aquifer by and after September
30, 2011.'' The 2011 date has motivated the Partnership to aggressively
pursue feasibility authorization which could lead to implementation of
an augmentation project.
The Partnership hired a private consultant to investigate measures
to offset groundwater mining, including conservation, recharge, and
augmentation. Reclamation examined alternatives found in the report and
identified data gaps; then helped the Partnership follow a process that
characterized the augmentation portion of the problem, analyzed
alternatives and screened them to identify viable solutions.
Reclamation documented this process in an appraisal report completed in
June 2007. A total of 14 augmentation alternatives were evaluated,
resulting in the Partnership selecting three alternatives for further
analysis: bringing Central Arizona Project (CAP) water to Sierra Vista,
capturing and recharging stormwater, and reclamation and reuse of
impaired mine water. A feasibility study would be the next logical step
for the Partnership to secure Reclamation assistance with augmentation
implementation. The appraisal report identifies significant legal and
institutional issues that need to be addressed, by local stakeholders,
in order to make progress. Only the CAP to Sierra Vista alternative
completely addresses the Partnership's goal for augmentation.
The Partnership is not a traditional government entity in that its
membership consists of representatives from Federal, state and local
governments, as well as non-profit organizations and local businesses.
It has no legal authority to construct, operate, and repay capital
costs. Because of this, Reclamation cannot legally contract with the
Partnership.
Water management in the area is further complicated by the fact
that all of the local water providers are private entities.
Alternatives under consideration would need to be implemented by an
entity other than the Partnership. In 2007, the State of Arizona passed
legislation enabling the creation of an Upper San Pedro Water District.
The legislation establishes a temporary board, which is subject to a
vote by residents to make it permanent.
Reclamation recognizes issues of Federal concern in the Sierra
Vista Subwatershed, including protected Federal lands in the SPRNCA,
species listed under the Endangered Species Act, and the U.S. Army
garrison at Fort Huachuca. A feasibility level study of water
augmentation alternatives could help evaluate possible ways forward.
Reclamation's appraisal report, however, identified water management
challenges facing the basin, as well as legal issues associated with
the alternatives. For instance, extending the CAP to Sierra Vista would
entail not only the acquisition of a CAP water right, but the extension
of the CAP service area. Extending the service area would require both
modifications to State law and the CAP Master Repayment Contract.
To address these issues and develop an augmentation project in a
timely manner, Reclamation described a two-stage process in the
appraisal report. The first stage would involve development of the
appropriate legal and institutional mechanisms required to implement a
project, while a programmatic feasibility/National Environmental Policy
Act study is conducted in which a preferred alternative or alternatives
will be identified. The completion of the first stage would allow the
Partnership the time to develop the necessary institutions with
repayment ability while providing more detailed design and cost
information needed to make informed decisions. The second stage of the
process involves a detailed specific feasibility design and
environmental impact study for an augmentation project. This process
avoids the expense of performing detailed, and costly, design and
environmental work in the case that a project partner is not created or
if other significant legal issues are not resolved. We note that the
Partnership has worked through the issue of institutional repayment
ability in the past by using either the City of Sierra Vista or Cochise
County as fiscal agents.
If issues could be resolved and a partner identified prior to
feasibility authorization, consideration should be given to conducting
a more detailed feasibility study in a one stage process that could
move immediately to construction. Based on Reclamation's experience,
the expected cost of conducting such a study would range from $5 to $10
million and take longer to complete than the programmatic first stage
study. However, if a project is certain to move to construction, the
overall cost and time would be less than the proposed two stage
process.
Again, while Reclamation does not support the legislation given
outstanding questions about institutional capacity and has not
requested appropriations for the study this bill would authorize, we
understand the tremendous importance to local stakeholders, the state
and the Federal government of the resources involved. We will continue
to work with the Partnership on ways to deal with the groundwater
overdraft that the Sierra Vista Subwatershed is facing.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. Thank you for the
opportunity to comment on S. 1929 and H.R. 3328. I would be happy to
answer any questions at this time.
______
Prepared Statement of the Geological Survey, Department of the
Interior, on H.R. 2381
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, the Department of the
Interior appreciates the opportunity to provide its views on H.R. 2381,
the ``Upper Mississippi River Basin Protection Act.''
The Department appreciates the efforts of the sponsors of H.R. 2831
to address this important issue and place emphasis within the bill on
the need for reliance on sound science. However, we have concerns about
the financial resources that would be required for the USGS to carry
out this bill in the context of the availability of resources overall
for Administration programs. In addition, although we support the goals
of H.R. 2831 we note that the activities called for in this bill are
duplicative of existing Department of the Interior authorities.
The bill directs the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the
USGS, to provide a scientific basis for the management of sediment and
nutrient loss in the Upper Mississippi River Basin. This would be
accomplished through establishing a sediment and nutrient monitoring
network that builds on existing monitoring activities; conducting
research and modeling that relates sediment and nutrient losses to
landscape, land use and land management characteristics; providing
technical assistance regarding use of consistent and reliable methods
for data collection; and instituting a program to disseminate new
information to managers, scientists and the public.
The role identified for the Department in this bill is consistent
with USGS's leadership role in monitoring, interpretation, research,
and assessment of the health and status of the water and biological
resources of the Nation. As the Nation's largest water, earth, and
biological science, and civilian mapping agency, USGS conducts the
largest single non-regulatory ambient water-quality monitoring activity
in the Nation. The USGS has been active in a number of programs and
investigations that involve the Upper Mississippi River Basin (UMRB)
specifically.
The USGS is a participant in the Mississippi River, Gulf of Mexico
Watershed Nutrient Task Force. This Task Force, which has
representation from federal agencies, and state and tribal governments
in the basin, is charged with fulfilling requirements of The Harmful
Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control Act of 1998, by preparing
a plan for controlling hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico, and
shares a common goal of improving water-quality conditions in the
Mississippi River Basin.
The USGS also had a lead role in the preparation of a science
report that used available water-quality information to define a recent
baseline condition for nutrient sources and loads in the Mississippi
River Basin--a baseline from which future water-quality trends and
improvements will be measured. This report identifies those parts of
the Upper Mississippi River Basin that have the highest nutrient
yields.
The USGS has offices in each of the five Upper Mississippi River
Basin states. These offices have a long history of conducting water-
quantity and water-quality monitoring and assessment activities within
the basin. Existing USGS programs include the Hydrologic Networks and
Analysis Program, the National Water-Quality Assessment Program, the
National Stream Quality Accounting Network, the National Streamflow
Information Program, the Toxic Substances Hydrology Program, the Water
Resources Research Act Program, and the Cooperative Water Program, as
well as cooperative efforts such as the Long-Term Resource Monitoring
Program funded by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. These programs
currently provide information on nutrients and sediment within the
basin.
For more than 20 years, the USGS Upper Midwest Environmental
Sciences Center (UMESC) in La Crosse, Wisconsin has provided research
support in the Upper Mississippi River Basin to DOI agencies and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to address complex issues of navigation,
contaminants, and other natural resource concerns. More recently, this
Center has developed an active partnership with the Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, on sediment and
nutrient concerns of the agencies. For over 15 years, the UMESC has
provided the scientific and management leadership for the Long-term
Resource Monitoring Program component of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers' Upper Mississippi Restoration-Environmental Management
Program. This monitoring program of water quality, fisheries,
vegetation, land use, and other critical indicators of river health is
the largest main stem river assessment program in the Nation. The USGS
conducts monitoring activities in cooperation with many states and
local governments in the Upper Mississippi River Basin. The USGS is
also active in hydrologic and water-quality studies in the Lower
Mississippi River Basin. The continuity of research is important from
the standpoint of developing a complete assessment of the entire
Mississippi River basin. To this end, the USGS has begun a partnership
with the Long-term Estuary Assessment Group, centered at Tulane
University.
H.R. 2381 acknowledges the need to use all existing monitoring and
science programs of the USGS and those of other entities while
identifying information needs in the Upper Mississippi River Basin.
Existing monitoring and assessment programs and development of models
are tools for defining how water-quality conditions are affected by
human activities and natural climatic variations and how management
actions may best improve water-quality conditions at a wide range of
scales from small watersheds to the Mississippi River Basin.
The bill would also authorize integration of activities conducted
in cooperation with other federal partners and would emphasize and
expand the existing USGS coordination and assistance to state
monitoring programs. For example, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
(Service) Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program restores wetland
habitat in watersheds across the country, including the Upper
Mississippi River Basin. The Service can apply its expertise to the
reduction of sediment and nutrient loss in the basin through
participation in demonstration projects, technical assistance, and
working groups. We recognize the need to ensure that future monitoring
activities complement and do not duplicate state monitoring activities.
In summary, while the proposed legislation describes a program
consistent with current USGS activities to support protection of the
UMRB and the Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force
recommendations, these conservation activities are already being
addressed by other on-going programs. Funding for the activities in
H.R. 2381 is not included in the fiscal year 2009 President's Budget
proposal and would remain subject to available resources.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for providing the Department with the
opportunity to present this statement.
Senator Johnson. As to S. 1474, by Senator Feinstein,
Reclamation recently completed an EIS and Record of Decision on
shortage-sharing in the Lower Colorado River Basin. On a
related note, there was recently a substantial amount of news
regarding the decreasing level of water in Lake Mead.
Doesn't the Bureau of Reclamation have a strong interest in
supporting projects like the Riverside-Corona Feeder Project,
which can help California reduce its reliance on the Colorado
River? What is the long-term forecast for water supplies in the
lower Colorado River Basin?
Mr. Quint. Our long-term prognosis is that it is going to
be a very difficult situation to continue to deal with. As you
may be aware, the Colorado River is an over-appropriated
river----
Senator Johnson. Yes.
Mr. Quint. [continuing]. From the start. With the continued
growth in the Southwest, there's even more needs that need to
be met with that. Granted, this particular project would help
alleviate some of the strains on that system. But, at this
point in time, we can't support this project until it gets a
little more along in its feasibility level of study.
Senator Johnson. As to S. 1929, by Senator Kyl, Reclamation
has already completed an appraisal-level study in three basic
water augmentation alternatives in the Sierra Vista watershed.
Did that report provide an estimated cost for each of the
alternatives? If so, what are those estimates? Is there more
that can be done in the area of water conservation?
Mr. Quint. I am not aware, in detail, of what the report
had, but we'd be glad to provide that information for the
record. My understanding is, regarding water conservation, that
there are significant water conservation activities going on in
the Sierra Vista area. They are a very proactive community in
trying to deal with water conservation issues.
I think the issue there, as I understand it, is even with
those water conservation efforts, the amount of water overdraft
is exceeding the supply that's there.
Senator Johnson. In the interests of time, we will submit
additional questions for the record. I thank you, Mr. Quint,
for being here today. You're excused.
Mr. Quint. Thank you.
Senator Johnson. On our second panel, we have the Honorable
Mick Cornett, Mayor of Oklahoma City, testifying on S. 177 and
H.R. 2085; Carl Janzen of the Madera Irrigation District in
California on S. 1473 and H.R. 1855; John Rossi of the Western
Municipal Water District in California on S. 1474 and H.R.
1139; and Charles Potucek representing the Upper San Pedro
Partnership in Arizona, testifying on S. 1929.
Welcome to each of you. Mayor Cornett, please start by
summarizing your testimony. We'll then proceed down the table
for each of you to give your statements. I'll follow up with a
couple of questions. Mayor Cornett.
STATEMENT OF MICK CORNETT, MAYOR, OKLAHOMA CITY, OK
Mr. Cornett. Chairman Johnson, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today before the subcommittee. I am the
Mayor of Oklahoma City. My name is Mick Cornett. I am here to
present the views of the McGee Creek Authority on S. 177/H.R.
2085, McGee Creek Project Pipeline and Associated Facilities
Conveyance Act.
This Act will transfer certain McGee Creek properties and
associated facilities from the Bureau of Reclamation to the
McGee Creek Authority. The McGee Creek Authority is a public
trust of the State of Oklahoma, to which the city of Oklahoma
City, the city of Atoka, and the county of Atoka are
beneficiaries.
All three entities benefit from the water rights they hold
in the McGee Creek Reservoir, which is in Southeastern
Oklahoma. The McGee Creek Authority was established back in
1978. It is financed, operated, and maintained as a purpose to
keep up the reservoir, dam, and water pipeline, as well as the
pumping station.
The McGee Creek Reservoir provides many Oklahomans with,
first and foremost, a dependable water supply, and in addition,
a number of recreational opportunities.
The McGee Creek Authority and I represent--or, actually,
request that the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Water and Power
consider and ultimately approve S. 177/H.R. 2085, the McGee
Creek Project Pipeline and Associate Facilities Conveyance Act,
which will allow transfer of certain facilities and properties
from the Bureau of Reclamation to the McGee Creek Authority--
namely, the water pipeline and pumping facilities, headquarters
office, pole barn, storage building, surge tank, control and
relay stations, and associated land that they reside in and on.
The McGee Creek Reservoir and associated water pipeline,
pumping facilities, and properties, where built in conjunction
with the Bureau of Reclamation. The McGee Creek Authority
operates and maintains the reservoir and associated water
pipeline and pumping facilities, and is obligated to pay the
annual operational and maintenance costs and for its debt.
In 1992, the McGee Creek Authority paid to the Bureau of
Reclamation $88.6 million to fully repay the Federal Government
for its cost of constructing the McGee Creek water supply
related facilities. At the time the McGee Creek Authority
repaid the costs of the water supply facilities, Federal policy
required all facilities built for the Bureau of Reclamation
remain the property of the Federal Government.
The McGee Creek Authority began pursuing the property
transfer proposed in S. 177/H.R. 2085 when we became fully
aware that the Federal law allowed it--and, I might add,
started to encourage it. The McGee Creek Authority, in
conjunction with Bureau of Reclamation, is requesting that
Congress authorize the transfer of certain facilities,
including the McGee Creek water pipeline and pumping facilities
and associated facilities and property.
Specifically, the pole barn, storage building, and office
structures, and the 13.35 acres on which they are located; the
pumping plant and maintenance shop, and the 10.25 acres on
which they are located; 12 miles of 72-inch raw water pipeline,
and associated easements for this pipeline from the McGee Creek
Pumping Plant to the rate-of-flow control station at Lake
Atoka; five miles of 66-inch raw water pipeline, and associated
easements downstream of the rate-of-flow control station to the
rate-of-flow station at Atoka Lake; the rate-of-flow station at
Atoka Lake, and the associated easement; surge tank connected
to the pipeline, and the connecting pipeline as an associated
easement; and all other water supply control structures in
related facilities with associated easements.
The McGee Creek Reservoir itself is not included in this
transfer. The beneficiaries of the McGee Creek Authority,
including the city of Oklahoma City, only hold the right to
store water and use the water supply contained within the McGee
Creek Reservoir. The mineral rights of the lake and the
reservation are specifically excluded from this transfer. There
will be no impact on oil and gas interests under the purposed
legislation.
We believe the requested transfer of these specific McGee
Creek water facilities and properties will have no adverse
affect on the Federal Government's involvement with or control
of the McGee Creek Reservoir. The McGee Creek Authority already
pays all maintenance and operating costs associated with these
reservoir facilities. The transfer would vest ownership in
these facilities and associated properties in the McGee Creek
Authority, and thereby facilitate the ability of the Authority
to finance future operation, maintenance, and replacement of
these facilities, particularly, the large, aging capital
structures.
The transfer would lessen the Bureau of Reclamation's
responsibility to provide administrative review of the McGee
Creek Authority's ongoing operations and maintenance functions
for these facilities. Going forward, the McGee Creek Authority
will continue to provide the same quality services as we have
provided in the years past. The McGee Creek Authority believes
the transfer of the mentioned facilities and property is in the
best interest of all parties--the Federal Government, the
residents of Oklahoma, and the businesses and beneficiaries of
the McGee Creek Authority. That includes the cities of Oklahoma
City, the city of Atoka, as well as the county of Atoka.
On behalf of the McGee Creek Authority and myself, I hereby
duly request your review of the attached supportive documents,
and ultimately, I ask for Senate approval of S. 177/H.R. 2085,
transferring those McGee Creek facilities and associated
properties to the McGee Creek Authority.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statements. I stand ready
to answer any questions that you might have on this issue.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cornett follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mick Cornett, Mayor, Oklahoma City, OK, on S. 177
and H.R. 2085
Chairman Johnson and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today. My name is Mick Cornett, Mayor
of Oklahoma City, and I am here to present the views of the McGee Creek
Authority on S.177/H.R. 2085, McGee Creek Project Pipeline and
Associated Facilities Conveyance Act. This act will transfer certain
McGee Creek properties and associated facilities from the Bureau of
Reclamation to the McGee Creek Authority.
The McGee Creek Authority is a public trust of the State of
Oklahoma to which the City of Oklahoma City, the City of Atoka and the
County of Atoka are beneficiaries. All three entities benefit from the
water rights they hold in the McGee Creek Reservoir in southeastern
Oklahoma.
The McGee Creek Authority was established in 1978 to finance,
operate and maintain the reservoir, dam and water pipeline and pumping
stations. The McGee Creek Reservoir provides many Oklahomans with,
first and foremost, a dependable water supply and, in addition, a
myriad of recreational opportunities.
The McGee Creek Authority and I request that the U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Water and Power, consider and ultimately approve S.177/
H.R. 2085, the McGee Creek Project Pipeline and Associated Facilities
Conveyance Act, which will allow transfer of certain facilities and
properties from the Bureau of Reclamation to the McGee Creek Authority,
namely the water pipeline and pumping facilities, headquarters office,
pole barn, storage building, surge tank, control and relay stations and
associated land that they reside in and on.
The McGee Creek Reservoir and associated water pipeline, pumping
facilities and properties, were built in conjunction with the Bureau of
Reclamation. The McGee Creek Authority operates and maintains the
reservoir and associated water pipeline and pumping facilities and is
obligated to pay the annual operational and maintenance costs and for
its debt. In 1992, the McGee Creek Authority paid to the Bureau of
Reclamation $88.6 million to fully repay the federal government for its
cost of constructing the McGee Creek water supply related facilities.
At the time the McGee Creek Authority repaid the cost of the water
supply facilities, federal policy required all facilities built through
the Bureau of Reclamation remained the property of the federal
government. The McGee Creek Authority began pursuing the property
transfer proposed in S.177/HR 2085 when we became aware federal law
allows it.
The McGee Creek Authority in conjunction with the Bureau of
Reclamation is requesting that Congress authorize the transfer of
certain facilities, including the McGee Creek water pipeline and
pumping facilities and associated facilities and property,
specifically:
The pole barn, storage building and office structures and
the 13.35 acres on which they are located.
The pumping plant and maintenance shop and the 10.25 acres
on which they are located.
12 miles of 72-inch raw-water pipeline and associated
easements for this pipeline from the McGee Creek pumping plant
to the rate-of-flow control station at Lake Atoka.
Five miles of 66-inch raw-water pipeline and associated
easements, downstream of the rate-of-flow control station to
the rate-of flow station at Atoka Lake.
The rate-of-flow station at Atoka Lake and an associated
easement.
Surge tank connected to the pipeline and the connecting
pipeline and an associated easement.
And all other water supply-control structures and related
facilities with associated easements.
The McGee Creek Reservoir itself is not included in the transfer.
The beneficiaries of the McGee Creek Authority, including the City of
Oklahoma City, only hold the right to store water and use the water
supply contained within the McGee Creek Reservoir. The mineral rights
in the lake and reservation are specifically excluded from the
transfer. There will be no impact on oil and gas interests under the
proposed legislation.
We believe the requested transfer of these specific McGee Creek
water facilities and properties will have no adverse affect on the
federal government's involvement with or control of the McGee Creek
Reservoir. The McGee Creek Authority already pays all maintenance and
operating costs associated with these reservoir facilities. The
transfer would vest ownership in these facilities and associated
properties in the McGee Creek Authority and thereby facilitate the
ability of the McGee Creek Authority to finance future operation,
maintenance and replacement of these facilities, particularly the large
aging capital structures. The transfer would lessen the Bureau of
Reclamation's responsibility to provide administrative review of the
McGee Creek Authority's ongoing operations and maintenance functions
for these facilities. Going forward, the McGee Creek Authority will
continue providing the same quality services as in years past.
The McGee Creek Authority believes the transfer of the mentioned
facilities and property is in the best interest of all parties--the
federal government, Oklahoma residents and businesses, and the
beneficiaries of the McGee Creek Authority, which include the cities of
Oklahoma City and Atoka and the County of Atoka.
On behalf of the McGee Creek Authority and myself, I hereby duly
request your review of the attached supportive documents and,
ultimately, Senate approval of S.177/H.R. 2085 transferring these McGee
Creek facilities and associated properties to the McGee Creek
Authority.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. Thank you for the
opportunity to present the views of the McGee Creek Authority. I would
be pleased to answer any questions that you or other members of the
subcommittee may have.
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mayor Cornett. Next is Mr.
Janzen.
STATEMENT OF CARL JANZEN, PRESIDENT, BOARD OF MADERA IRRIGATION
DISTRICT, MADERA, CA
Mr. Janzen. Senator Johnson, my name is Carl Janzen. I am a
third-generation farmer and President of the Madera Irrigation
District, which I will refer to as MID in the rest of my
testimony. I thank you for inviting me to provide testimony on
Senate 1473. This is the companion of a bill which has already
been passed by the House of Representatives, H.R. 1855, that
George Radanovich has already spoke about. We thank him also.
Mrs. Senator Feinstein is carrying this bill, and we thank her.
MID was established in 1920 by the farmers of Madera County
to bring surface water to the farmers in Madera County and MID,
which later was divided into two water districts. In the past
years, we have bought the Madera Ranch Project to use as water
banking. It is part of our plan to stop the overdraft of the
water in our district.
We are overdrafting now at the rate of 40,000 acre feet a
year. In 1912, when my grandfather came to the area, he dug 20
feet to water for his family. My sons and I, last year, dug 165
feet to get to water. That is what is happening in our
district.
The additional storage that we can gain through the use of
the water bank at the Madera Ranch of 13,600 acres is
approximately 250,000 acres of storage, 55,000 acres of water,
either in or out, on any given year. We have set that up for
use of the farmers, for developers in the county, for
environmental uses, the Bureau, and the State Fish and Game.
There is some use for each of those in this water bank.
It is located in the southwestern part of Madera County and
the Bureau, in the 1990s, did a study--looked at purchasing
this for a water bank owned by the Bureau. For other reasons,
they did not proceed. Private industry and our district looked
at it. We have ended up buying it and are proceeding to try to
bring it to fruition.
This water bank has had many studies done on it--19, in
fact, that I know of--at a total cost of about $8 million on
each of these studies. That is why we ask in this bill that
there not be any further studies done on it, that we go ahead
and do the job, instead of keep studying it to death.
The appraisal report that the Bureau did last year on it
gave it a go-ahead. The Bureau also awarded us a 2025 Water
Grant of $297,000 to work on it. They have approved a pilot
program on the ranch that we're now into. All we need is a wet
year so that we can have extra water to put it in there.
So, it brings me to the final point, I think, of discussion
on this water bank. Before you is--in your Committee for
discussion in the future--Senator Feinstein's San Joaquin River
Restoration Project. This water bank is just six miles from the
San Joaquin River at Gravelly Ford.
We looked at it, and as late as Tuesday I was at the
Bureau's office in Sacramento, discussing with them how they
could be involved in this water bank. We have room set aside in
the water bank for the Bureau of Reclamation to use for
environmental needs. We see that--and the Bureau, I think, is
coming to see that--that if the restoration bill goes through,
it will be a part of their work of fulfilling the restoration
program and the water that they need by dedications in the bill
to have set aside for uses in dry years.
In the Fish and Game from California, the Department is
looking at it, and also maybe wants to use it. So, that in a
nutshell is what this project's for. It's to help, not just the
water district, but it's to help our whole county and the
environment in California.
I thank you for your attention. I hope the Senate will be
able to pass this bill. I thank both Senator Feinstein and
George Radanovich in the House, for their efforts they have put
into it.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Janzen follows:]
Prepared Statement of Carl Janzen, President, Board of Madera
Irrigation District, Madera, CA
Mr. Chairman and members of the Water and Power Subcommittee, My
name is Carl Janzen. I am a third generation farmer and President of
the Board of the Madera Irrigation District, which I will refer to in
my testimony as ``MID''. Thank you for inviting me to provide testimony
on S. 1473, a bill that authorizes critical federal funds to be
directed to the Madera Irrigation District's Water Supply Enhancement
Project in Madera, California. We are extremely grateful to Senator
Feinstein for introducing this legislation and for her leadership on
water issues in California. As you may know, the House of
Representatives has already unanimously passed the companion bill, H.R.
1855. The House also passed this legislation in 2006, and I cannot
stress enough how critical it is to Madera and the Central Valley of
California that the Senate complete final action on this legislation
this year.
MID was established in 1920 to supply surface water to farmers in
its service area. Madera farmers are some of the most productive in
California's San Joaquin Valley, among the most productive agricultural
regions in the world. Every year we produce over one billion dollars in
almonds, grapes, milk and other agricultural products for consumers in
the United States and around the globe. But unlike many other
agricultural areas in California, most of Madera's farms are still
owned and operated by families like my own. Madera's agricultural
economy is the backbone of our region and we're very proud of it.
Water, of course, is the fuel that runs our region's economic
engine. To obtain the water we need, farmers within MID use a
combination of groundwater pumped from beneath our land and surface
water delivered to us by MID. The need to pump groundwater varies in
response to weather conditions and the availability of surface water,
with an increase in pumping required in dry years when there is a
limited supply of surface water.
Over the years, the amount of groundwater pumped has exceeded the
amount of water recharging the aquifer, resulting in what scientists
call groundwater overdraft. Even in wet years, the groundwater is in
overdraft because of pumping in dry years and increased pumping for
municipal and industrial purposes. This overdraft has caused the water
table to decline and groundwater quality to degrade. In addition,
because we have to reach further underground for our water, it is
becoming more and more expensive to pump to the surface.
MID's efforts to reduce the need for groundwater by establishing a
supply of surface water began in the 1930s, when our forefathers
already knew that we needed a stable and reliable source of surface
water. Their foresight led to the sale of MID's property on the San
Joaquin river to the Bureau of Reclamation for the construction of the
Friant Dam. Like other dams, the Friant Dam was designed for flood
control and, most importantly, to store water for agricultural use. The
storage provided by the dam is one of the cornerstones of our water
supply system and is essential to the vitality of our economy.
But while storage in the Friant has reduced our reliance on
groundwater pumping, Madera's aquifer is still in overdraft at the rate
of 100,000 acre feet a year. In 1912, when my Grandfather dug the first
well on our farm, he had to drill just twenty feet before finding water
to sustain our family business. Recently, my son and I had to drill 165
feet in the same area. And my family is one of the lucky ones. Some
farmers are drilling seven-or eight-hundred feet down to get water, if
they can find any at all.
The need for additional storage to reduce the rate of groundwater
overdraft and stabilize supply is why MID is pursuing the Water Supply
Enhancement Project. Like the Friant Dam, MID's project is key to our
water security and the continued health of our region's economy and
communities. But unlike the Friant Dam, our Project provides storage of
water underground. It is what we in the west call a ``water bank'': an
underground storage facility designed to store our water for use during
dry years.
MID has been working for years to realize its vision of an
underground storage facility to serve the needs of the community. We
have talked to our farmers and other members of our community so we
understand exactly how to develop and operate the Project to meet our
needs. Over the last several years, MID has held dozens of public
meetings in Madera County alone and has received many letters of
enthusiastic support from local, state and federal elected officials,
as well as organizations, agencies, and individuals. As a result of our
outreach efforts, support for the Water Supply Enhancement Project has
been overwhelming.
Having achieved the necessary public support, it is essential that
this support be maintained. One of the key components of the Project's
administration is the Oversight Monitoring Committee, which MID
established in 2005. Members of the Committee include community leaders
and neighboring property owners who provide a watchful public eye on
the Project's development and operation. Among many other
responsibilities, the Committee is charged with protecting neighboring
landowners from potential impacts from the Project, and is vital to
ensuring that the Project is responsive to the concerns of local
landowners and the community.
MID has invested $37.5 million to purchase approximately 13,648
acres known as the ``Madera Ranch'', land ideally suited for the Water
Supply Enhancement Project. As designed by MID, the facility has the
ability to store 250,000 acre feet of water, about half of what the
Friant Dam can store. The Project could move 55,000 acre feet into or
out of storage each year, enough to provide the 147,000 acres in MID
with reliable sources during dry years. A key element of our Project is
to always leave behind ten percent of the water banked, thus reducing
the rate of groundwater overdraft.
While this would be the first underground water storage facility in
Madera, there are many examples of successful water banks in
California. The Project is based on proven methods and the latest in
sustainable water management practices. We have learned from the
experiences of the pioneers in this area and are committed to serving
our community with one of California's best examples of underground
banking facilities.
Located in Southwestern Madera County, the Madera Ranch has
historically been used for row crops, orchards, vineyards, and
livestock grazing. Owned for generations by the Pope family, most of
the Madera Ranch has never been farmed. The land contains valuable
habitat and some of the Central Valley's last remaining large sections
of native grasslands. Most importantly for the purposes of the water
storage facility, the soils on and underneath the land are ideal for
percolating water from the surface down to the aquifer. In fact, large
pools of water literally disappear overnight, quickly percolating down
to the overdrafted aquifer below.
We have watched others attempt to build water banks in Madera and
fail because they were motivated more by the goals of out-of-state
business interests than by local needs and priorities. In the mid-
1990s, the Bureau of Reclamation tried to buy the Madera Ranch and
build its own water bank. As part of this effort, the Bureau conducted
extensive studies regarding the feasibility of building such a bank.
When the Bureau abandoned the effort because of other reasons, MID and
other private parties continued to explore the possibility of building
a water bank on the Madera Ranch property. Not counting the Bureau's
own in-house efforts and studies, over $8 million has been spent on
studies relating to this project by MID and private parties.
This long history of studying the possibility of a water bank is
the reason why S. 1473 contains an unusual feature: it declares the
project feasible and states that no further studies are necessary. We
have submitted for the record a list of the 18 studies that have been
conducted since the 1990s regarding the water bank, including the
Bureau's most recent appraisal study which found that ``the Madera
Ranch Groundwater Bank is a project that has been investigated for
approximately ten years for its potential to improve water supply
reliability and reduce groundwater overdraft conditions.'' The Madera
water bank has been studied more extensively than perhaps any other
potential Bureau-supported project and the unanimous view of these
studies is that this project should be built as soon as possible.
There is another reason why it is so urgent to build the water
bank. This committee is currently considering Senator Feinstein's
legislation to implement the provisions of the San Joaquin River
Restoration settlement. The settlement, which MID supports, will place
additional strain on the water supply available to Central Valley
farmers. Already, there is a 100,000 acre-feet per year overdraft in
Madera County. For MID alone the overdraft is 40,000 acre-feet. When
the settlement is implemented, MID's water supply from the Friant
Division, already inadequate, would be reduced by as much as 20 percent
on an annual average basis.
The San Joaquin River Restoration settlement provides not just for
restoration but for water management goals, including taking steps ``to
reduce or avoid the impacts to all Friant Division long-term
contractors caused by the Restoration flows (including, for example,
expanded groundwater banking).'' Although the MID water bank is not
technically part of the settlement, it is just 6 miles from the San
Joaquin River at Gravelly Ford. Recognizing this interrelationship, the
MID Board has discussed with the Bureau setting aside capacity in the
Project for environmental purposes that could help fulfill goals of the
San Joaquin Restoration.
Two and one-half years ago I appeared before the Water and Power
Subcommittee of the House Committee on Resources to testify on an
earlier draft of the legislation. Since that time, MID has completed
the state environmental review process and expects to issue a final EIS
and complete the federal NEPA process by this fall. We are working
cooperatively with Madera County to ensure that the Project plays a
central role in the region's integrated regional water supply and
management planning. The Bureau of Reclamation has approved a three-
year pilot program to bank San Joaquin River water at Madera Ranch and
awarded MID $297,000 for the Project under its Water 2025 Challenge
Grant program.
The next step is to finance and build the water bank. Building the
Project requires the improvement of existing water conveyance systems
and canals on the Ranch to deliver water to recharge areas in natural
swales and low spots in the native grazing land. It also requires the
placement of new wells to pump water out of storage when needed. MID
estimates that the total cost of the water bank will be approximately
$90 million. S. 1473 specifically caps the cost of the Bank at $90
million for purposes of calculating the federal contribution to the
project. Although the bulk of the project's financing will come from
state and local sources, the federal funds authorized by S. 1473 are
critical to MID's ongoing efforts to balance the water needs of MID
users with the Water Bank.
MID is also exploring ways to set aside and protect the Madera
Ranch's native grasslands and habitat, which comprise the largest
contiguous tract of upland habitat in the Central Valley. Of the 13,648
acres, the Water Supply Enhancement Project will need about 10% of the
land for percolation of water into groundwater storage. The extent to
which MID can achieve its goal to protect the remaining almost 10,000
acres of native, undeveloped land will depend, in part, upon the extent
of public assistance we receive from the Project.
Thank you again for the invitation to speak with you today about
the MID Water Supply Enhancement Project. Enactment of the Madera Water
Supply and Enhancement Project Act legislation is essential to timely
completion of the Project and will help to ensure the continued flow of
Madera's agricultural products across the nation and around the world.
We urge the Subcommittee to give the legislation prompt and favorable
consideration.
Senator Johnson. Thank you Mr. Janzen. Next, Mr. Rossi.
STATEMENT OF JOHN ROSSI, GENERAL MANAGER, WESTERN MUNICIPAL
WATER DISTRICT, RIVERSIDE, CA
Mr. Rossi. Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me today to
testify on behalf of Senate 1474, the Riverside-Corona Feeder
Water Supply Act. I am John Rossi, the General Manager of the
Western Municipal Water District, project sponsor for the
feeder.
I know your time is limited, so I will summarize my
comments, and I have submitted my written testimony to your
staff.
Western Municipal Water District provides wholesale retail
water and wastewater services to over a 520-square-mile service
area over a two-county, with a population of over 800,000
people. Our region is expected to double, both in population
and in demand for potable water by the year 2025.
Designed to help us meet these demands for our ever-growing
region, S. 1474 authorizes the planning, design, and
construction of the feeder with a 25 percent Federal cost
share. It contemplates that the Bureau of Reclamation will be
the lead Federal agency partnering on the project. The feeder
will provide one of California's fastest growing, but drought-
prone regions, with up to 40,000 acre feet a year of new
drinking water by capturing and storing in wet years, in order
to increase firm water supplies and improve water quality,
especially in dry years.
The project will include approximately 20 wells and 28
miles of pipeline to convey the water throughout the region, to
numerous cities and water districts. As we prepare for the
future impacts of global climate change on our limited water
supplies, this project will be even more important. Models now
predict the climate change will produce less frequent, but more
intense, rainstorm events and significantly faster snow melt.
This will result in more lost water to the ocean as current
water distribution and diversion systems in the State cannot
capture enough of this higher peak runoff flow. Without
projects like the feeder, our current drought, which is already
of historic proportions, may seem like the good old days.
The Federal nexus of this project, the current Reclamation
projects, is clear and compelling. New, useable water supplies
created by the feeder would replace imported water from the
Colorado River and the California State Water Project sources
in times of drought or other shortages. By better managing our
precious imported water supplies, it supports the Secretary of
Interior's role as Water Master of the Lower Colorado River.
We believe constructing the feeder is crucial to the State
of California's efforts to implement the Quantification
Settlement Agreement, referred to as the QSA, a key foundation
for a future Lower Colorado River management by the Secretary.
Further projects like the feeder will integrate to the
implementation of the new Seven States Agreement in the
Colorado River Basin.
We're all very pleased in Southern California that this
accord has been signed. It's now time to build projects that
will help address shortages on the river and help augment the
rise of water storage levels in both Lake Powell and Lake Mead.
The water supplies imported by the State project are now
negatively impacted by the recent Federal court ruling on the
delta smelt. In our region, we have acute need to find new
resources of water, because portions of our service area are
100 percent reliant upon imported State water project supplies.
Fortunately, with Federal authorization for this project,
the district can step into quickly minimizing the damage caused
by these shortages that will hit Southern California as a
result of a delta smelt decision.
Detailed feasibility studies and environmental reports have
been prepared. The District is working diligently to continue
implementation efforts for the feeder. We will continue to work
closely with the Reclamation's Temecula area office to
coordinate engineering and environmental work necessary to
complete the project.
Finally, the project has been vetted, studied, and will
create new water, improve groundwater quality, and reduce,
again, our reliance on Colorado River and State Water Project
supplies.
We look forward to continuing to strengthen our
relationship with Reclamation or design and build this crucial
water supply project. I certainly want to thank Senator
Feinstein and Congressman Calvert, as well as yourself, for the
assistance today. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rossi follows:]
Prepared Statement of John Rossi, General Manager, Western Municipal
Water District, Riverside, CA
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting
me to testify today in support of S. 1474, the ``Riverside-Corona
Feeder Water Supply Act.'' I am John Rossi, General Manager of Western
Municipal Water District, project sponsor of the Riverside-Corona
Feeder.
Western Municipal Water District (District) is a regional wholesale
water agency and a member of the Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California. We provide wholesale and retail water and
wastewater services to a 527 square mile service area with a population
of over 800,000 people. Our region is expected to double in population,
with a similar doubling of demand for imported water by 2025. Our
region is also one of the fastest expanding economies in the nation.
S. 1474 authorizes the planning, design, and construction of the
Feeder with a 25% Federal cost share. S. 1474 contemplates that the
Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) will be the lead Federal agency
partnering on the project.
The Riverside-Corona Feeder (Feeder) will provide one of
California's fastest growing, but drought prone regions, with up to
40,000 acre-feet a year of new drinking water by capturing and storing
water in wet years in order to increase firm water supplies and improve
water quality. The project will include approximately 20 wells and 28
miles of pipeline to convey the water throughout the region to numerous
cities and water districts.
Let me put this project into perspective--if it was in place in
2005, one of the wettest years on record in California, we could have
stored about 35,000 AF of water. Instead, that water was lost to the
ocean, and was not available to serve the region in the drought years
that have followed.
As we prepare for the future impacts of global climate change on
our limited water supplies, this project will become even more
important. Models for our region produced by the University of
California predict that climate change will produce less-frequent, but
more intense rain storm events. Additionally, these projections detail
significantly faster snow melt. This will result in more water lost to
the ocean as current water diversion systems in the state cannot
capture these higher peak run off flows. Without projects like the
Feeder, our region stands to face ever-worsening droughts and we will
simply have to continue to watch our only local fresh surface water
supply continue to run into the ocean. It will make our current
drought, which is already of historic proportions, seem like the good
old days.
Recognizing the importance of the Feeder, The California State
Water Resources Control Board awarded the project $4.9 million from
Proposition 50 competitive grant funds. And because they understand
that the project is integral to regional water planning, the Feeder is
supported by water agencies upstream in San Bernardino County and
downstream in Orange County. This bill is also supported by and fully
consistent with the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California's Integrated Resource Plan, the Santa Ana Watershed Project
Authority's Integrated Watershed Plan, the San Bernardino Valley
Municipal Water District's Integrated Resource Plan, and the water
management plans for the cities of Riverside, Norco and Corona as well
as the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District.
The federal nexus of this project to current Reclamation projects
is clear and compelling. New usable water supplies created by the
Feeder would replace imported water from Colorado River and the
California State Water Project sources in times of drought or other
shortages.
By better managing our precious imported water supplies, it
supports the Secretary of the Interior's role as Watermaster of the
Lower Colorado River. We believe constructing the Feeder is crucial to
the State of California's effort to implement the Quantification
Settlement Agreement (QSA), a key foundation for future Lower Colorado
River management by the Secretary. Also, projects such as the Feeder
can be a far more effective means to QSA implementation than relying on
agricultural transfers as a long-term supplemental water supply.
Further, projects like the Feeder will be integral to the
implementation of the new ``Seven States Agreement'' in the Colorado
River Basin. We are all very pleased that this accord has been signed.
It is now time to build projects which help address shortages on the
Colorado River and help to augment the rise of water storage levels in
both Lake Powell and Lake Mead under the newly minted Colorado River
Basin reservoir management criteria approved by the seven states and
adopted by Interior.
The water supplies imported by the State Water Project are now
negatively impacted by the recent federal court ruling on the Delta
smelt. Water interests across the state can no longer rely on
``business as usual'' water supplies from the Delta, and need to find
and develop new local sources of water that are more reliable than
imported water.
In our region, we have an acute need to find these new sources
because portions of the District's service area are 100 percent reliant
upon imported state water supplies. Fortunately, our District is well
along that path with the Feeder and, with federal authorization for the
project, we can step in quickly to minimize the damage caused by
shortages that will hit southern California as a result of the Delta
smelt decision.
Finally, there are very important environmental remediation
benefits of the Feeder project. Up to half of the project's wells could
be placed within plumes of volatile organic compounds (VOC's) and
perchlorate which have polluted groundwater basins in the District
through the prior industrial and agricultural uses in the region. Much
of the perchlorate in the groundwater is the result of Department of
Defense munitions manufacturing. These new Feeder injection wells could
annually remediate up to 20,000 acre-feet of currently contaminated
water per year.
Detailed Feasibility Studies and environmental reports have been
prepared and approved by District personnel and contracted professional
engineers, and have been certified by the State of California. The
District is working diligently to continue implementation efforts for
the Feeder. We will continue to work closely with the Reclamation's
Temecula area office to coordinate engineering and environmental work
necessary to complete the project.
To conclude, the Feeder is a project that has been vetted and
studied and will create new water, improve groundwater quality, and
reduce our reliance on the Colorado River and the State Water Project.
We look forward to continuing and strengthening our relationship with
Reclamation in order to design and build this crucial water supply
project. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would answer any questions you
or the Committee may have at this time.
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Rossi. Mr. Potucek,
proceed.
STATEMENT OF CHARLES POTUCEK, CITY MANAGER,
SIERRA VISTA, AZ
Mr. Potucek. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to
speak today on Senate 1929, the Sierra Vista Subwatershed
Feasibility Study Act. Let me start by extending the regrets of
Mayor Bob Strain, of the city of Sierra Vista, Arizona, and
chair of the Upper San Pedro Partnership, for not being able to
attend today's hearing. I want to thank Senator Kyl for
sponsoring of this bill on our behalf.
My name is Charles Potucek, and I serve as the city manager
for the city of Sierra Vista, Arizona, a city of 44,000 people,
located in Cochise County in Southeastern Arizona, and home to
the Fort Huachuca Military Installation.
Today, I am representing the Upper San Pedro Partnership, a
consortium of 21 Federal, State, and local governmental
agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and private companies.
The partnership strives to ensure that we meet the long-term
groundwater needs of both the residents of the Sierra Vista
Subwatershed, as well as the Upper San Pedro River. The city of
Sierra Vista serves as a fiscal agent for the partnership, and
facilitates many Federal agreements through this mechanism on
behalf of the partnership.
Congress formally recognized the partnership through Public
Law 108-136, Section 321, in 2003 and requires us to report on
its progress to Congress on an annual basis. As a testimony to
its efforts, we recently learned that the partnership is the
recipient of the U.S. Department of Interiors Cooperative
Conservation Award, and Mayor Strain will accept that award,
here, on April 21.
The Sierra Vista Subwatershed contains two important
Federal treasures--Fort Huachuca, administrated by the
Department of Defense, and the San Pedro Riparian National
Conservation area, designated by Congress in 1988 and
administered by the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land
Management.
Fort Huachuca houses the United States Army Intelligence
Center, the U.S. Army Network Enterprise Technology Command,
9th Signal Command, the U.S. Army Information Systems
Engineering Command, the Joint Interoperability Test Command,
the Electronic Proving Ground, the Intelligence and Electronic
Warfare Testing Directorate, and the U.S. Army Communications
Electronics Command Communications Security Logistics Activity.
The San Pedro Riparian National Conservation area supports
approximately 400 avian species, 81 mammalian species, 43
species of reptiles and amphibians, and serves as a primary
migratory bird corridor.
Also, of extreme importance, this conservation area
provides critical habitat to the endangered Huachuca water
umbel, requiring Fort Huachuca to seek a biological opinion
from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, pursuant to
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973. In June 2007,
that biological opinion was completed.
Protection of that critical habitat by Fort Huachuca, as
published in the biological opinion, will ensure that Fort
Huachuca can continue to perform its critical missions without
jeopardizing the endangered species found in the conservation
area.
The partnership established three fundamental strategies in
order to achieve its goal. The strategies include conservation,
reclaiming effluent, and augmenting existing water resources
through improved rainfall harvesting and the importation of
addition ones.
Senate 1929 speaks to the third strategy and allows the
partnership to proceed to the second phase of the augmentation
project. The Bureau performed a required appraisal report in
June 2007, completing the first phase of the process.
The partnership values the Bureau's contributions. In fact,
the Bureau provided $1.5 million through a cooperative
agreement with the city of Sierra Vista toward construction of
Sierra Vista's Environmental Operations Park that began
operations in 2001. The Environment Operations Park recharges
high-quality, treated effluent into the ground in order to
protect the conservation area from the effects of groundwater
pumping from the more densely populated areas of the
subwatershed. It remains the single and most effective water
reclamation project in the subwatershed, recharging more than
2,000 acre feet of water annually.
The appraisal report identified three basic alternatives
for further analysis in the proposed feasibility study. These
include recharging urban storm water runoff, extracting excess
water flooding the Copper Queen Mine to the West in Bisbee,
Arizona, and recharging that water near the conservation area
and extending Central Arizona Project water to the Sierra Vista
subwatershed.
The partnership anticipates that the feasibility study will
identify the best alternative to pursue future construction and
implementation. The Partnership stands ready to assist its
Federal partners via technical and scientific expertise and
matching in-kind in financial resources in order to perform
this feasibility study, helping us to preserve and protect
these two vital, federally owned treasurers.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to address
you today. Thank you, Senator Kyl, for preparing this bill on
our behalf. I am prepared to answer your questions at this
time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Potucek follows:]
Prepared Statement of Charles Potucek, City Manager, Sierra Vista, AZ
The Honorable Chairman and Distinguished Members of the
Subcommittee: My name is Charles Potucek and I serve as the city
manager for the City of Sierra Vista, Arizona, a city of 44,000 located
in Cochise County in Southeastern Arizona and home to the Fort Huachuca
Military Installation.
Today I am representing the Upper San Pedro Partnership (USPP), a
consortium of 21 federal, state and local governmental entities, non-
governmental organizations and private companies. The USPP strives to
ensure that we meet the long-term groundwater needs of both the
residents of the Sierra Vista Sub-watershed as well as the Upper San
Pedro River.
Congress formally recognized the USPP through Public Law 108-136,
Section 321 in 2003 and requires us to report its progress to them on
an annual basis. (Attachment A)*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Attachment A can be found at www.usppartnership.com/docs/
Sec3212006Rept907Hill(2).pdf.
Attachment B can be found at http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/
arizona/Documents/Biol_Opin/070132_FortHuachucaFINAL.pdf.
Attachment C can be found at http://www.usbr.gov/lc/phoenix/
reports/sierravista/Finalnoapps.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We recently learned that USPP is the recipient of the U.S.
Department of the Interior's Cooperative Conservation Award.
The Sierra Vista Subwatershed contains two important federal
treasures--Fort Huachuca, administered by the Department of Defense
(DoD) and the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area (SPRNCA),
designated by Congress in 1988 (Public Law 100-696) and administered by
the Department of the Interior (DoI), Bureau of Land Management.
Fort Huachuca houses the U.S. Army Intelligence Center, the U.S.
Army Network Enterprise Technology Command/ 9th Army Signal Command,
the U.S. Army Information Systems Engineering Command, the Joint
Interoperability Test Command, the Electronic Providing Ground, the
Intelligence and Electronic Warfare Testing Directorate, and the U.S.
Army Communications Electronics Command Communications Security
Logistics Activity.
The SPRNCA supports approximately four hundred avian species, 81
mammalian species, 43 species of reptiles and amphibians, and serves as
primary migratory bird corridor. Also of extreme importance, the SPRNCA
provides critical habitat to the endangered Huachuca water umbel
requiring Fort Huachuca to seek a biological opinion (BO) from the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 in June of 2007 (Attachment B).* Protection of that
critical habitat by Fort Huachuca as published in the BO will ensure
that Fort Huachuca can continue to perform its critical missions
without jeopardizing the endangered species found in the SPRNCA.
The USPP established three fundamental strategies in order to
achieve its goal. The strategies include reducing consumption
(conservation), reclaiming effluent and reusing or recharging it, and
augmenting existing water resources through improved rainfall
harvesting and the importation of additional ones.
The Sierra Vista Sub-watershed Feasibility Study Act (S.1929)
speaks to the third strategy and allows the USPP to proceed to the
second phase of the augmentation project. The DoI's Bureau of
Reclamation (BOR) performed a required appraisal report titled
``Augmentation Alternatives for the Sierra Vista Sub-watershed,
Arizona'' in June of 2007, completing the first phase of the process
(Attachment C).*
The USPP values BOR's contributions. In fact, BOR provided $1.5
million through a cooperative agreement with the City of Sierra Vista
towards the construction of Sierra Vista's Environmental Operations
Park (EOP) that began operations in 2001. The EOP recharges high-
quality treated effluent into the ground in order to protect the SPRNCA
from the effects of groundwater pumping from the more densely populated
areas of the sub-watershed. It remains the largest single and most
effective water reclamation project in the sub-watershed, recharging
more than 2000 acre feet of water annually.
The appraisal report identified three basic alternatives for
further analysis in the proposed feasibility study. These include
recharging urban storm-water runoff near the SPRNCA, extracting excess
water flooding the Copper Queen Mine to the west near Bisbee, Arizona,
and recharging the water near the SPRNCA, and extending the Central
Arizona Project (CAP) water to the Sierra Vista Sub-watershed. The USPP
anticipates that the feasibility study will identify the best
alternative to pursue for future construction and implementation. The
selected project will significantly contribute to the stated goals of
the USPP.
The USPP stands ready to assist its federal partners via technical
and scientific expertise, and matching in-kind and financial resources
in order to perform this feasibility study, helping us to preserve and
protect these two vital federally owned treasures.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the distinguished members of the
Subcommittee on Energy and Natural Resources for the opportunity to
address you today and I am prepared to answer your questions at this
time.
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Potucek.
For Mayor Cornett, your testimony talks about the need for
maintaining and replacing aging facilities that are part of the
McGee Creek Project.
Mr. Cornett, I have a two-part question. What is the
overall condition of the project, and does the BOR have any
ongoing responsibilities to maintain or rehabilitate the
facilities? Will the title transfer sought in the legislation
result in any changed operations of the project?
Mr. Cornett. There are some ongoing needs and capital
projects that the trust will be paying for. The Federal
Government will have no additional responsibilities. We see,
really, no downside of the Federal Government, no additional
responsibilities that they will have long-term.
We are accepting and acknowledging that we have some
capital projects to create. What we'd really to do is just try
to get rid of some of the paperwork and the bureaucracy that's
created by having to go through the Federal Government to get
permission to work on these types of projects.
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mayor Cornett.
Mr. Janzen, as you note in your testimony, the bill
declares the project is feasible and authorizes Reclamation to
assist with its design and construction. Based on the amount of
studies and work you've referenced, is design of the project
essentially complete and ready to proceed to the construction
phase? If so, how long will it take to complete construction?
Mr. Janzen. We are starting to deliver water there through
our facilities. The biggest--but we have not started any
construction on an extraction part of it. We can deliver water
there at the present time. What will have to be constructed
is--we're going to have to enlarge some of the canals bringing
water to there, because it is at the end of our system, and the
canals keep getting smaller as it gets there, because we were
serving farmers upstream from there.
So, as part of delivery and extraction, we will need to
reconstruct some of the canals. In large dams, there will be
pumps to pump it back upstream in these canals during
extraction, so that we get the water back up into the district
to where the farmers are, so that we can then let it run
downhill through the canals to the farmers that we serve. We're
ready to start that at this time.
Senator Johnson. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Janzen.
Mr. Rossi, the Riverside Corona Bill authorized a 25
percent cost-share for the project, not to exceed $50 million,
which means that the overall costs must be in the range of $200
million. You note that the District has received $4.9 million
from the State of California.
How will the balance of the project be financed? What are
the implications of this if this legislation is not enacted?
Mr. Rossi. Mr. Chairman, the approximately $200 million
project, was with $50 million of Federal shares, as you said.
The remainder amount of that financing will come from local
user financed water rates from a number of cities and water
districts, we mentioned in the 525-square-mile area.
Given the tremendous growth, a large portion of that, more
than 50 percent, will come from the development of the homes
through leader connection fees, as well.
Senator Johnson. What are the implications of this
legislation not being enacted?
Mr. Rossi. It will make a very significant--make it very
difficult for us to get the project going and moving forward,
given the amount of--this project is dependent on growth over
the next 20 or 30 years. So by getting the funding online,
we'll be able to start moving with the project now. If not, we
think the project will be delayed for a number of years.
Senator Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Rossi. Mr. Potucek, your
testimony identifies a threefold strategy for the watershed,
which includes water conservation, reclaiming effluent, and
supply augmentation.
What has been accomplished in the region through water
conservation activities? Is that the most cost-effective
strategy? Is there more that can be done as part of the water
conservation strategy?
Mr. Potucek. Mr. Chairman, water conservation is a key
component of all the strategies that we employ in the Sierra
Vista Subwatershed. Primary examples of water conservation
projects include, for example, the city of Sierra Vista's
toilet rebate program, in which we rebate residents $100 for
the replacement of old, large-flush toilets for water
conservation-saving devices.
Fort Huachuca, itself, has reduced groundwater pumping
dramatically over the last 5 or 6 years. In Sierra Vista,
itself, we've been able to stabilize and reduce our gallons per
capita used per day by the residents there through a variety of
strategies, to include rebates, to include water conservation
ordinances, to include public education programs.
So it's an ongoing effort. We have to use that plus our
Reclamation strategy. I mentioned our Environmental Operations
Park, which is a very significant contributor to our overall
effort. But we also need water augmentation strategies, such as
the ones I described in my testimony, because we need the
combination of all three to be able to meet our goals under the
biological opinion that Fort Huachuca is under.
So we need all three strategies. Yes, water conservation is
the most cost effective, but will not get us there by itself.
Senator Johnson. I have no additional questions. Thanks to
each of you for your willingness to travel here today and
provide the subcommittee your views on the legislation before
us.
For the information of Senators and their staff, questions
for the record are due by close of business tomorrow. With
that, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:55 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIXES
----------
Appendix I
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Responses of the Department of the Interior to Questions From
Senator Johnson
Question 1. S. 1474 / H.R. 1139 - Has Reclamation reviewed studies
prepared by the Western Municipal Water District related to the
Riverside-Corona Feeder Project? If so, what additional work is
necessary to provide the detail and analysis necessary for Reclamation
to assess feasibility under its criteria?
Answer. Reclamation, through its Southern California Area Office,
has reviewed studies prepared by Western Municipal Water District
(WMWD) on this and other projects. In the FY 2006 appropriation for the
Southern California Investigations Program, Congress provided $100,000
to assist with the general planning and environmental compliance for
the Riverside-Corona Feeder Project. Reclamation has executed a
contract to complete the requirements for compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act. This work has been held up due to changes in
the pipeline alignment. Work will resume as soon as the alignment has
been confirmed. Reclamation is working with the WMWD to define the best
use of the FY 2008 funds.
Question 2. S.1473/H.R. 1855 - At the hearing, Mr. Janzen
represented that the Madera Water Supply Project would help address the
water management goals sought as part of the San Joaquin settlement.
Does Reclamation agree with that assessment? If so, where does the
Madera Water Supply Project fall with respect to the priorities for
water management options in the San Joaquin basin?
Answer. Further analysis and coordination with the beneficiaries
are needed before that determination can be made. It is important to
note that all of the necessary background work has not been completed
on this project. Therefore, in terms of priority, until we complete the
feasibility level analysis of this project, we cannot fully assess its
proper place in serving water users in the basin.
Question 3a. S. 1929 - Reclamation has already completed an
appraisal-level study on three basic water augmentation alternatives in
the Sierra Vista watershed. Can you provide an estimated cost for each
of the alternatives?
Answer. In June 2007, Reclamation completed an appraisal study that
identified 14 augmentation alternatives. The Upper San Pedro
Partnership (USPP) selected three projects for further investigation.
The three alternatives and the respective cost estimates are the
following:
(1) Bringing Central Arizona Project water to Sierra Vista
a. Cost estimates vary widely depending on the
specifics (quantity of water and treatment):
i. Capital costs - $158 million - $408
million
ii. O&M costs - $16.21 million - $37.33
million per year
iii. Total Annual Project Costs - $27.85
million - $64.69 million
(2) Capturing and recharging stormwater
a. Cost estimates:
i. Capital Costs - $51.73 to $61.16 million
ii. O&M Costs - $280,000 to $310,000 per year
iii. Total Annual Project Cost - $4.09 to
$4.81 million
(3) Reclamation and reuse of impaired mine water
a. This alternative was introduced late in the
process, so a cost estimate was not calculated. This
alternative is a middle ground between two other
related alternatives, so this estimate is based on the
averages of the costs associated with those
alternatives:
i. Capital Costs - $45 million
ii. O&M Costs - $1.33 million per year
iii. Total Annual Project Cost - $4.75
million
Question 3b. What does your testimony mean when it states that
``[o]nly the CAP to Sierra Vista alternative completely addresses the
Partnership's goal for augmentation''?
Answer. In 2004, Section 321 of the National Defense Authorization
Act formally recognized the USPP and directed it to prepare annual
reports on progress toward the goal of ``sustainable yield'' by
September 30, 2011. In order to reach this goal, projects must be
identified to yield an estimated 11,000 acre-feet by 2011 and 26,000
acre-feet per year by the year 2050. Of the alternatives, the CAP to
Sierra Vista alternative is the only one that will achieve that goal.
It should be noted, however, that the Partnership, which consists of
representatives from Federal, state, and local governments and other
stakeholders has no legal authority to construct, operate, and repay
capital costs. Reclamation cannot legally contract with the
partnership.
Question 4a. S.2370 - Your testimony states that there has not been
any excess-lands determination for the properties that are the subject
of S. 2370, and that there has not been an appraisal of lands. Is
Reclamation suggesting that it should be paid for disclaiming its
interests in Tingley Beach or San Gabriel Park?
Answer. The United States has not relinquished its interest in
parcels specified in the legislation. On November 25, 1997, Middle Rio
Grande Conservancy District (MRGCD) and the City of Albuquerque (City)
entered into a real estate sales agreement through which the MRGCD sold
the City approximately 65 acres of land associated with San Gabriel
Park and Tingley Beach for $3,875,000.
Reclamation's initial determination with regard to the properties
identified was that they were excess to the Project needs. However, the
determination of ``surplus'' to the United States is outside of
Reclamation's jurisdiction. Decisions involving the disposal of
acquired federal surplus lands, unless otherwise authorized by specific
legislation, must follow Sec. 203 of the Federal Property and
Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 541), and are made by
the General Services Administration.
In general, the Federal government does not support transfers of
title to Federal property when those transfers circumvent existing
procedures.
Question 4b. In 1998, didn't Reclamation propose releasing any
interest it had in Tingley Beach or San Gabriel Park for $1.00? As part
of that analysis, didn't Reclamation determine that Tingley Beach or
San Gabriel Park were surplus to the needs of the Middle Rio Grande
Project?
Answer. The United States has not relinquished its interest in
parcels specified in the legislation. On November 25, 1997, Middle Rio
Grande Conservancy District (MRGCD) and the City of Albuquerque (City)
entered into a real estate sales agreement through which the MRGCD sold
the City approximately 65 acres of land associated with San Gabriel
Park and Tingley Beach for $3,875,000. Reclamation did determine these
parcels are in excess to the Project, release was proposed to involve
an estate held in easement. Subsequent research by the United States
concluded that the lands involved in the Sales Agreement were in fact
held in fee title and would therefore require disposal under Sec 203 of
the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, which is
conducted by the General Services Administration.
Question 5a. H.R. 2381 - What work plan is being implemented to
fulfill the requirements of the Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia
Research and Control Act of 1998? What resources has USGS committed
over the last 4 years for this effort? What is the budget request for
FY 2009?
Answer. The Harmful Algal Bloom and Hypoxia Research and Control
Act of 1998 called for a national assessment of the causes and
consequences of coastal hypoxia, a region-specific assessment of the
causes and consequences of hypoxia in the northern Gulf of Mexico,
including establishment of a Gulf Task Force, and development of an
Action Plan to address Gulf hypoxia. Since enactment, the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) participated in development of the national
hypoxia assessment, titled ``An Assessment of Coastal Hypoxia and
Eutrophication in U.S. Waters'' (CENR, 2003). USGS contributed to and
participated in activities of the Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico
Watershed Nutrient (Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia) Task Force that led to the
following Task Force publications:
1) ``Flux and Sources of Nutrients in the Mississippi-
Atchafalaya River Basin: Topic 3 Report for the Integrated
Assessment on Hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico (Goolsby, 1999);
2) ``Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico: An Integrated
Assessment'' (CENR, 2000), an integrated science assessment
used as a basis for the Action Plan;
3) ``Action Plan for Reducing, Mitigating, and Controlling
Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico'', the Action Plan
identified in the statute; and
4) ``A Science Strategy to Support Management Decisions
Related to Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico and Excess
Nutrients in the Mississippi River Basin'' (USGS Circular 1270,
2004), which identified, and provided a plan for development
of, the scientific information upon which management actions
could be adapted.
At this time, USGS is also working with NOAA and others on a new
national hypoxia assessment report expected to be drafted in 2008 and
completed by early 2009. USGS has participated in the development of a
new science assessment and development of an updated Action Plan for
Gulf of Mexico hypoxia, accessible on the Internet at: http://
www.epa.gov/msbasin/taskforce/pdf/2008draft_actionplan.pdf
In addition to the Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia Task Force, USGS
participates in other ocean-related activities through the Joint
Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology (e.g., the Interagency
Work Group on Hypoxia). USGS also continues to monitor water-quality
conditions within the Mississippi River basin and on a limited basis
for other watersheds around the nation that discharge to coastal
estuaries. For example, USGS has long-term monitoring stations funded
through the National Water Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA) and the
National Stream Quality Accounting Network (NASQAN) where samples are
collected to determine:
1. Concentrations and loads of nitrogen, phosphorus, carbon,
silica, dissolved solids, selected pesticides, and suspended-
sediment to coastal waters of the U.S., and
2. Changes in concentrations and loads of these constituents
through time.
Specific objectives for the Mississippi River Basin are to
determine:
1. Seasonal loads of total and dissolved nutrients from the
Mississippi River Basin to the Gulf of Mexico,
2. Concentrations and loads of constituents in major sub-
basins within the Mississippi River Basin, and
3. Changes in concentrations and loads of constituents
through time in major sub-basins of Mississippi River Basin.
On an annual basis USGS reports the loads of nutrients delivered to
the Gulf of Mexico to support model estimates of expected hypoxia
extent, and for additional research. On a longer-term basis (about
every 5 years), USGS publishes interpretations of trends in coastal
delivery (Aulenbach et al., 2007).
USGS also, in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and
the five upper Mississippi River Basin States (Minnesota, Wisconsin,
Iowa, Illinois, and Missouri), operates the Long Term Resource
Monitoring Program (LTRMP, http://www.umesc.usgs.gov/ltrmp.html). The
monitoring system encompasses the commercially navigable reaches of the
Upper Mississippi River (UMR), as well as the Illinois River and
navigable portions of the Kaskaskia, Black, St. Croix, and Minnesota
Rivers. The LTRMP provides decision makers with the information needed
to maintain the Upper Mississippi River System as a viable multiple-use
large river ecosystem, and LTRMP collects water quality, fish,
vegetation, and macroinvertebrate data.
USGS is using its Spatially Referenced Regressions on Watershed
Attributes (SPARROW, http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/sparrow/) model to
support identification of contributing land use activities and
geographic areas for nutrients transported to the Gulf of Mexico. In
addition, the NAWQA program is supporting development of a regional
SPARROW model in the upper Mississippi River Basin based on historical
monitoring data, which entails the evaluation and addition of other
federal, state and non-governmental water-quality data bases to
increase the amount of water-quality data that can be used to describe
the condition of streams in the basin.
On a broader basis, the SPARROW model is being used to identify
sources of nutrients in the entire Mississippi River Basin. Information
about nutrients and data available in the Mississippi Basin are
available on the web at the USGS site http://toxics.usgs.gov/hypoxia/
index.html and on the EPA Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia Task Force site, at
http://www.epa.gov/msbasin/index.htm.
Resources USGS commits to these efforts are primarily part of the
NASQAN funding and some funding for the National Monitoring Network
(NMN) that was designed in collaboration with the Advisory Committee on
Water Information. The NMN has a focus of monitoring rivers that
discharge to coastal water bodies, and thus complements NASQAN
activities. Together, NASQAN and NMN monitor streamflow and loads of
selected chemicals at the mouth of the 18 largest (in terms of
streamflow and nutrient loads) rivers draining to U.S. coastal waters,
and 19 additional stations within the Mississippi River Basin that
monitor the source origins of streamflow and nutrients. USGS also
contributes staff time to analyze data, report on loads, and generate
reports. Annually, the amount has been about $2 million per year, but
with the NMN efforts starting in FY 2008, the amount is about $3
million. In FY 2009, USGS expects the level of activities for NASQAN,
LTRMP, and NMN to be similar to previous years.
Question 5b. Your testimony notes that H.R. 2381 ``describes a
program consistent with current USGS activities''? What activities of
H.R. 2381 are currently being carried out, and what activities in the
bill are not being carried out?
Answer. The current surface water quality monitoring activities
under the NAWQA, NASQAN, LTRMP, and NMN are using methods and
approaches for monitoring and analysis that would be applicable to the
requirements of HR 2381. Thus HR 2381 would not require new methods or
approaches to assessment.
Requirements of HR 2381 that are not a current focus of USGS
activities include 1) a specific focus on monitoring in the upper
Mississippi River Basin (MSRB) at the level provided in the bill, and
2) the inclusion of modeling sources for both sediments and nutrients
from the upper Basin. Currently, for impacts to the Gulf of Mexico,
USGS monitors on a much broader scale and the focus is on nutrients.
Even when the regional SPARROW model is developed, its general focus
will be for identification of nutrient sources, not sediment sources.
To adjust the current USGS efforts and accommodate the provisions of HR
2381, more river locations would have to be monitored within the upper
MSRB so that source locations can be identified. Accomplishing the
sediment monitoring and modeling effort would require more frequent
monitoring than is presently done in monitored areas within the upper
MSRB. Both of these activities would require additional budgetary
resources and would be subject to the normal budget and priority
setting process.
Aulenbach et al., 2007, Streamflow and Nutrient Fluxes of the
Mississippi-Atchafalaya River Basin and Subbasins for the Period of
Record Through 2005: http://toxics.usgs.gov/pubs/of-2007-1080/
CENR, 2000, Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico: An Integrated
Assessmenthttp://oceanservice.noaa.gov/products/hypox_final.pdf
CENR, 2003, Assessment of Coastal Hypoxia and Eutrophication in
U.S. Waters: http://www.eutro.org/documents/HABHRCA%20hypoxia.pdf
Goolsby et al., 1999, Flux and Sources of Nutrients in the
Mississippi-Atchafalaya River Basin: Topic 3 Report for the Integrated
Assessment on Hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico: NOAA Coastal Ocean Program
Decision Analysis Series, No. 17, http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/
products/pubs_hypox.html#Topic3
Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force,
2001, Action Plan for Reducing, Mitigating, and Controlling Hypoxia in
the Northern Gulf of Mexico:http://www.epa.gov/msbasin/taskforce/pdf/
actionplan.pdf
USGS Circular 1270, 2004, A Science Strategy to Support Management
Decisions Related to Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico and Excess
Nutrients in the Mississippi River Basin:http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/
2004/1270/
Appendix II
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
Statement of Martin J. Chavez, Mayor, City of Albuquerque, NM, on S.
2370
After an extended number of outright lies at a number of levels at
the Department of the Interior, the City of Albuquerque again
respectfully seeks to clear title to its Bio Park property.
I must say that despite the now repeated pattern of having the
proverbial football pulled out from in front of our foot, I am
nonetheless stunned to learn that the Bureau of Reclamation has filed a
statement in opposition. I was personally assured by then Secretary of
the Interior Norton (who apologizes for the Bureau of Reclamation) and
her representatives that Interior and Reclamation would not oppose this
legislation. Indeed, this legislation was proposed and initiated by the
Bureau of Reclamation.
Yet each time the corrective legislation it is introduced,
Reclamation submits a statement in opposition, effectively killing the
legislation. We feel like Charlie Brown falling for big sister Lucy's
trick yet again.
The Bio Park is a jewel of the City of Albuquerque. It contains
zoological and botanical gardens, an aquarium, parks and other
recreational features along the banks of the Rio Grande. The property
is located in one of the oldest parts of a city that itself is over
three hundred years old.
November 25, 1997, after leasing the lands from the Middle Rio
Grande Conservancy District (MRGCD) for close to thirty years, the City
purchased a significant portion of the Bio Park lands from MRGCD (for
about $4 million). The City was issued title insurance during the
transaction which did not reflect any clouds on the title to the
property. For the leasehold, the consent of the Bureau of Reclamation
was sought and obtained because Reclamation had an ``easement'' across
the lands. At the time of the 1997 purchase, Reclamation gave no
indication that it asserted or might assert an ownership interest in
the Bio Park lands. Rather, the Bureau's concerns were with the Rio
Grande and a handful of canals nearby and the Silvery Minnow.
Subsequently, the City sought a release of the Reclamation
easement. An archeologist at Reclamation was requested to approve the
proposed release. She, Signa Laralde, advised Ted Pearson, Deputy City
Attorney, that Reclamation asserted actual ownership to the lands. As a
result, Mr. Pearson placed the City's title company on notice. The City
began its efforts to resolve Reclamation's claims. These efforts
included the Mayor (myself) and other City officials traveling to
Washington to meet with the Secretary of Interior and others regarding
Bureau of Reclamation's claims. At that time, Secretary Norton
apologized for the actions of her Bureau of Reclamation and assured me
that the Department of Interior would not oppose the special
legislation to clear title. I returned from Washington believing the
problem solved. I left office as the City's mayor.
This brings us to 2005 when I am once again mayor of the City of
Albuquerque. MRGCD and the United States Bureau of Reclamation are
disputing the ownership of lands that the MRGCD regard as conservancy
district property. Litigation followed as a part of the so-called
Silvery Minnow suit.
Because maps and legal descriptions of the area have changed over
the years, some boundaries are vague. For example, early descriptions
were typical of the time, referring to landmarks. By the mid-20th
century, conservancy district maps were in common use. As the area grew
and development increased, areas were platted and replatted,
occasionally giving rise to confusion such as ``which Lot 2-A do you
mean?''
At the time of the 2005 litigation, I learned that, due to
Reclamation's actions, the legislation had not passed and that
Reclamation still raised issues regarding its purported ownership to
the City's Bio Park. Consequently, the City intervened in the quiet
title proceedings initiated by the MRGCD which were a component of a
larger federal court proceeding.
Meanwhile, the New Mexico Congressional delegation, both
Republicans and Democrats, introduced a new bill to direct Reclamation
to issue a quit claim of the Bio Park lands to the City. The
legislation passed the Senate quickly; however, at the House committee
hearing, on September 27, 2005, Jack Garner, Acting Deputy Commissioner
and Deputy Director of Operations Bureau of Reclamation, submitted a
statement in opposition to the bill. The bill died without further
action.
Director of Operations, Mr. Quint, misrepresents the current state
of affairs:
Representatives of the Reclamation's Albuquerque office
cooperated with the City in providing the legal description to
the Congressional staff for insertion in the bill, representing
they supported clearing title to the Bio Park. Those employees
were surprised to learn of Mr. Quint's Statement in opposition.
No litigation is pending involving the land which is the
subject of this legislation. The appellate proceeding
referenced by Mr. Quint does not involve the Bio Park. In March
of 2006, on behalf of the Bureau of Reclamation, the United
States Department of Justice, Environmental and Natural
Resources Division, in case number 05-2315 (the silvery minnow
case), filed a motion with the United States 10th Circuit Court
of Appeals in which the DOJ attorney stated:
Nor has the United States sought to client title in either
Tingley Beach or San Gabriel Park, either in this litigation or
any other litigation. Most important, neither the district
court's opinion nor judgment on MRGCD'S cross-claims purport to
adjudicate the interest of the United States or the City in any
property in which the City claims ownership. (Add G, H) [R.
665, 666]. Thus the district court's judgment does not have res
judicata effect on the title of any property in which the City
claims ownership, including Tingley Beach and San Gabriel Park.
As a result of the motion by the DOJ and the concurring motion of
the City in reliance on the DOJ's representations, the 10th Circuit
appeal involving the City's Bio Park lands was dismissed.
The Bureau of Reclamation maintains it is not presently asserting
ownership to the City's Bio Park lands. It has refused to acknowledge
that it never will assert such ownership; in fact, it reserves that
right. This refusal by the Reclamation to concede that it has no
ownership interest in the City's Bio Park causes the City great
concern.
The City wishes to continue to improve its Bio Park without the
slightest risk or threat that the Bureau of Reclamation will assert
ownership at some point in the future. The City earnestly desires this
matter be resolved once and for all. The City seeks to have its title
cleared and to have Reclamation emphatically state by way of a quit
claim deed that it has no interest in these lands.
The City respectfully requests that the Congress approve by this
legislation a directive to the Bureau of Reclamation to issue a
quitclaim to the property described in the bill, ending this issue once
and for all, and thereby assuring the Citizens of the City of
Albuquerque that its Bio Park is truly theirs, removing all clouds on
the title.
Mr. Chairman, I am happy to respond to any questions that the
Committee may have.
______
Statement of Barry Drazkowski, Executive Director, GeoSpatial Services,
Saint Mary's University of Minnesota, on H.R. 2381
Good afternoon. Thank you, Chairman Johnson and Members of the
Subcommittee, for this opportunity to submit this testimony in support
of H.R. 2381. My name is Barry Drazkowski and I am Executive Director
of GeoSpatial Services, at Saint Mary's University of Minnesota, on the
Mississippi River in Winona, Minnesota. I am proud to be the coauthor,
with Mr. Rory Vose, of the Upper Mississippi Basin Stewardship
Initiative, which is the basis for H.R. 2381, the Upper Mississippi
River Basin Protection Act. We collaborated with the Upper Basin's
major agricultural organizations, Federal and State Agencies, and non
government conservation organizations. The principles and components of
the Initiative reflect the unanimous support of those organizations.
This Bill represents the monitoring and assessment portion of the
Stewardship Initiative. I was Deputy Director of the Department of
Interior and U.S. Army Corps of Engineer's Upper Mississippi River Long
Term Resource Monitoring Program and developed intimate knowledge of
the water quality, nutrient, habitat, and management issues facing the
Upper Mississippi Basin. Over the past eleven years I developed Saint
Mary's University's GeoSpatial Services. I am proud of our achievement
of mapping over 100 million acres of wetlands for the Fish and Wildlife
Service, the National Park Service, and numerous States resource
agencies. We also achieved preferred contractor status for BP Pipelines
and Logistics of North America in support of their safety and integrity
and database development operations. I formed and implemented the Upper
Mississippi River Stakeholder Network as the Stewardship Initiative's
public outreach and coordination component, and published the
Mississippi Monitor, a conservation advocacy newspaper distributed to
over 10,000 subscribers across the Upper Basin and Washington D.C.
Finally, I live on a small farm in the rugged bluff country of western
Wisconsin and see first hand the impact sediment and nutrients have on
our quality streams and Mississippi River ecosystem. I am pleased to
offer the following comments regarding the Upper Mississippi River
Basin Protection Act (H.R. 2381).
overview
My career experiences working both as a researcher, manager, and
conservation advocate on the Mississippi River Basin's water quality,
nutrient, habitat, and watershed resources are reflected in my strong
and enthusiastic support for the Upper Mississippi River Basin
Protection Act (H.R. 2381). I commend Representatives Ron Kind, Tim
Walz, and their House colleagues in addressing the basin's water
resource needs and their commitment to providing sound scientific data
upon which to make future resource management decisions. I have worked
closely with the sponsors of H.R. 2381 on previous versions of the
legislation including H.R. 4013 in the 106th Congress, H.R. 1800 and
H.R. 3480 in the 107th Congress, and H.R. 2381 in the 108th Congress.
The fact that this legislation has been introduced in four
Congressional sessions and undergone numerous changes in response to
suggestions from both state and federal water agencies, as well as
stakeholders in the basin, is testimony to the tenacity and patience of
its sponsors and the significance of its programs. I am hopeful that
this Senate hearing marks the final leg of the journey to enactment of
H.R. 2381.
the importance of monitoring and modeling
Both sediment and nutrients have a profound affect on the quality
of lakes, rivers, and streams throughout the Upper Mississippi River
Basin. Sediment fills in valuable wetlands and streams throughout the
basin, as well as the unique backwater habitats and navigation channel
of the Mississippi River. Excess nutrients degrade water quality,
impairing rivers and streams and threatening ground water supplies. In
addition, excess nutrients from the Mississippi River Basin have been
linked to oxygen depletion in the Gulf of Mexico, resulting in what is
known as Gulf hypoxia. Nutrients and sediment originate across the
broad expanse of the Upper Mississippi River Basin. They are the by
product of seventy years of Federal agriculture policy and basin land
use. They are the principle target and/or consequence in our multi
billion dollar Farm Bill. They are also the target of the multi billion
dollar Mississippi River Navigation and Environmental Sustainability
Program. However, both programs fail to address value of understanding
the fate and consequences of sediment and nutrients from the time they
leave agricultural areas to the time they arrive in the Mississippi
River. Understanding sediment and nutrient transport, processing, and
consequences provides Federal and State managers the ability to
significantly improve the management and deployment of Federal
agriculture and wetland programs and the implementation of sediment and
nutrient remediation programs within the Mississippi River. These multi
billion dollar programs will realize substantial efficiency in meeting
their Federal objectives through this Bill. The monitoring and modeling
program authorized in H.R. 2381 is not a scientific luxury; it is a
management imperative. The data and information resulting from these
efforts will help guide federal, state, and local programs designed to
solve the very real problems of water quality and habitat degradation.
Targeting our efforts to restore wetlands, reduce nonpoint pollution,
and help agricultural producers apply best management practices,
depends on good scientific data.
The need for enhanced sediment and nutrient monitoring in the Upper
Mississippi River Basin is widely recognized. In the January 2001
``Action Plan for Reducing, Mitigating, and Controlling Hypoxia in the
Northern Gulf of Mexico,'' state and federal agencies participating in
the Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force
called for ``increasing the scale and frequency of monitoring of both
the extent of the hypoxic zone and the sources of nutrients and
conditions of waters throughout the basin.'' In an October 23, 2001
letter to Bush Administration officials, six Governors of Mississippi
River Basin states urged that federal programs to reduce nutrient
inputs be enhanced. In this regard, the Governors stated that a
``monitoring effort conducted jointly by the U.S. Geological Survey and
the states is required within the basin to determine the water quality
effects of the actions taken and to measure the success of efforts on a
sub-basin and project level.'' H.R. 2381 reflects just the type of
increased monitoring effort that has been proposed by both the Task
Force and the Governors.
specific comments on h.r. 2381
Sediment and Nutrient Monitoring.--The monitoring network
and modeling efforts described in H.R. 2381 are designed to
address both sediment and nutrients. However, the sources,
transport, delivery, and impacts of sediment and nutrients are
not identical and will require different monitoring and
modeling approaches. Moreover, there are natural baseline
levels of sediment and nutrients that would occur without human
activity. For many water bodies in the basin, acceptable levels
of sediment and nutrient impairment have not been identified.
While it may not be necessary for the legislation to explicitly
acknowledge or accommodate these considerations, they will be
critical in the design of the monitoring network and in
development of the models. Developing and maintaining the
database supporting both this important monitoring effort and
implementation of Federal programs affecting sediment and
nutrient production is critical to successfully implementing
this effort and to realize the full value of the multi billions
of dollars spent on Federal agricultural programs. This
database as described in Section 102 is a critical bill
component. This data must both be available and integrated into
existing agricultural and wetland program deployment and
management to realize Federal nutrient and sediment management
objectives. Creating this system is not a trivial task as
realized by the Great Lakes Commission in their struggle with
this data issue. It will take a concerted effort on the part of
the USGS to develop a system that effectively meets this very
important objective. However, it is of equal importance and
added difficulty, to realize this objective while recognizing
and maintaining the privacy rights of land owners. This Bill
should not result in the unintended consequences of creating
Federal regulatory actions through its data availability. The
data should be protected and guarded to guarantee the privacy
of Upper Mississippi River Basin landowners. Federal privacy
Codes must be evaluated to insure they provide this protection
and that USGS can build a data management system that achieves
the difficult task of protecting privacy, yet realizing the
core objective of targeting problematic sediment and nutrient
producing watersheds with appropriate Federal remediation
programs. In part, this is why Section 104 of the bill is a key
provision. Section 104 requires that USGS collaborate with
other federal agencies, states, tribes, local units of
government, and private interests in establishing the
monitoring network. Such collaboration should help ensure that
the design of the monitoring network yields information
relevant to both sediment and nutrient management issues. I
strongly recommend that the USGS develop partnerships with
academic organizations to both insure scientific integrity and
to provide a vehicle for protecting data privacy.
Relationship to Existing Efforts.--Sections 103 and 104
require that USGS coordinate with other agencies and programs
and build upon existing monitoring efforts. Such provisions are
critical to the ultimate success of the new monitoring and
modeling initiatives authorized in H.R. 2381. For example, it
is important that a basin-wide monitoring network be linked to
on-going work in the basin's tributary watersheds, such as the
sediment transport modeling in the Illinois river watershed,
the Minnesota river watershed, and the developing number of
State/local partnership intent on addressing local watershed
sediment and nutrient problems. It is our expectation that the
monitoring network and modeling activities authorized in H.R.
2381 be designed and implemented consistent with and building
on these important local initiatives.
Computer Modeling and Research and Electronic Information
Dissemination.--Sections 201 and 202 are the heart and soul to
realizing and understanding the transport and fate of the
Basin's sediment and nutrients. It is the mechanism through
which Federal and State programs will target watershed
management, wetland restoration, and Farm Bill Energy and
Conservation title programs to realize nutrient and sediment
impact reduction. The USGS will be challenged to create and
electronically distribute this information to the appropriate
Federal and State management programs, while maintaining
landowner privacy as guaranteed in Section 102. I strongly
recommend that USGS consider utilizing existing Upper Basin
university-based capacity to assist in the modeling and
information dissemination responsibilities to achieve the
intended benefits, implement the program in a cost effective
manner, and build on existing infrastructure reducing the need
to build new Federal infrastructure and costs.
Additional New Funding.--Section 301 of H.R. 2381 authorizes
annual appropriations of $6.25 million for this new monitoring
and modeling effort. I strongly recommend that the Senate
consider increasing this appropriation to $10 million. The
scale of collaboration, monitoring, and modeling and the
importance this initiative has to the multi billion dollar
agriculture and Mississippi River program, seems to logically
justify an increase in the appropriation to insure Federal
interests are served in its implementation. It is equally
important that this funding represent additional new resources,
rather than a redirection of existing Federal resources. H.R.
2381 emphasizes integration of existing monitoring efforts and
use of existing data, a strategy that will certainly help to
leverage scarce resources. However, integration of existing
efforts is not a substitute for a real increase in the level of
effort. And most importantly, this increased effort must not
come at the expense of other important USGS programs such as
the National Water Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA) or the
National Stream flow Information Program (NSIP). In particular,
stream gauging supported by NSIP provides flow data that will
be critical to successfully monitoring and modeling sediment
and nutrient loads. We cannot afford to lose any of that stream
flow data, and in fact will likely need to increase discharge
measurements.
National Research Council Assessment.--Section 106 of H.R.
2381 directs the National Research Council of the National
Academy of Sciences to conduct a ``comprehensive water
resources assessment of the Upper Mississippi River Basin.'' In
the context of this legislation, it is my assumption that such
an assessment would be focused on the specific water quality
issues associated with sediment and nutrients and their
relationship to land use watershed policies. As such, it is
critical to the scoping and implementation of the monitoring
and modeling authorized in H.R. 2381.
Thank you for the opportunity to share my views with you and assert
my strong support for H.R. 2381.