[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 1065, H.R. 1738, H.R. 2265, H.R. 2442, H.R. 2522, H.R. 2741 AND
H.R. 2950
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
__________
Serial No. 111-28
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
51-187 PDF WASHINGTON : 2009
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Chairman
DOC HASTINGS, Washington, Ranking Republican Member
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan Don Young, Alaska
Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Elton Gallegly, California
Samoa John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee
Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii Jeff Flake, Arizona
Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey Henry E. Brown, Jr., South
Grace F. Napolitano, California Carolina
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Louie Gohmert, Texas
Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam Rob Bishop, Utah
Jim Costa, California Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania
Dan Boren, Oklahoma Doug Lamborn, Colorado
Gregorio Sablan, Northern Marianas Adrian Smith, Nebraska
Martin T. Heinrich, New Mexico Robert J. Wittman, Virginia
George Miller, California Paul C. Broun, Georgia
Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts John Fleming, Louisiana
Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon Mike Coffman, Colorado
Maurice D. Hinchey, New York Jason Chaffetz, Utah
Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Cynthia M. Lummis, Wyoming
Islands Tom McClintock, California
Diana DeGette, Colorado Bill Cassidy, Louisiana
Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Lois Capps, California
Jay Inslee, Washington
Joe Baca, California
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South
Dakota
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland
Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire
Niki Tsongas, Massachusetts
Frank Kratovil, Jr., Maryland
Pedro R. Pierluisi, Puerto Rico
James H. Zoia, Chief of Staff
Rick Healy, Chief Counsel
Todd Young, Republican Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Republican Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California, Chairwoman
TOM McCLINTOCK, California, Ranking Republican Member
George Miller, California Cathy McMorris Rodgers,
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Washington,
Jim Costa, California Adrian Smith, Nebraska
Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon Mike Coffman, Colorado
Jay Inslee, Washington Doc Hastings, Washington, ex
Joe Baca, California officio
Nick J. Rahall, II, West Virginia,
ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Tuesday, July 21, 2009........................... 1
Statement of Members:
Baca, Hon. Joe, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California.............................................. 57
Chaffetz, Hon. Jason, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Utah, Prepared statement of....................... 20
Costa, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California.............................................. 57
Gallegly, Hon. Elton, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, Prepared statement of................. 83
McClintock, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 4
Miller, Hon. George, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 5
Napolitano, Hon. Grace F., a Representative in Congress from
the State of California.................................... 2
Walden, Hon. Greg, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oregon............................................ 6
Statement of Witnesses:
Alvarez, Desi, Deputy City Manager, Downey, California....... 30
Prepared statement on H.R. 1738.......................... 31
Brookshier, Ed, City Manager, Hermiston, Oregon.............. 51
Prepared statement on H.R. 2741.......................... 53
Connor, Michael L., Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C................ 8
Prepared statement on H.R. 1065.......................... 16
Prepared statement on H.R. 1738.......................... 9
Prepared statement on H.R. 2265.......................... 10
Prepared statement on H.R. 2442.......................... 10
Prepared statement on H.R. 2522.......................... 11
Prepared statement on H.R. 2741.......................... 12
Prepared statement on H.R. 2950.......................... 13
Darling, Gary W., General Manager, Delta Diablo Sanitation
District, Antioch, California.............................. 43
Prepared statement on H.R. 2442.......................... 45
Hansen, Edwin J., General Manager, Magna Water District,
Magna, Utah................................................ 41
Prepared statement on H.R. 2265.......................... 42
Lupe, Ronnie, Tribal Chairman, White Mountain Apache Tribe,
Fort Apache Indian Reservation, Arizona.................... 65
Prepared statement on H.R. 1065.......................... 66
Mulligan, Susan, Manager of Engineering, Calleguas Municipal
Water District, Thousand Oaks, California.................. 47
Prepared statement on H.R. 2522.......................... 49
Ruppe, Scott, General Manager, Uintah Water Conservancy
District, Vernal, Utah..................................... 54
Prepared statement on H.R. 2950.......................... 56
Sullivan, John F., Associate General Manager, Water Group,
Salt River Valley Water Users Association and Salt River
Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District,
Phoenix, Arizona........................................... 71
Prepared statement on H.R. 1065.......................... 72
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 1738, TO AMEND THE RECLAMATION WASTEWATER
AND GROUNDWATER STUDY AND FACILITIES ACT TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF
THE INTERIOR TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CITY OF DOWNEY, CALIFORNIA, REGIONAL
WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND RECLAMATION FACILITY PROJECTS. ``DOWNEY
REGIONAL WATER RECLAMATION AND GROUNDWATER AUGMENTATION PROJECT OF
2009;'' H.R. 2265, TO AMEND THE RECLAMATION WASTEWATER AND GROUNDWATER
STUDY AND FACILITIES ACT TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO
PARTICIPATE IN THE MAGNA WATER DISTRICT WATER REUSE AND GROUNDWATER
RECHARGE PROJECT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. ``MAGNA WATER DISTRICT WATER
REUSE AND GROUNDWATER RECHARGE ACT OF 2009;'' H.R. 2442, TO AMEND THE
RECLAMATION WASTEWATER AND GROUNDWATER STUDY AND FACILITIES ACT TO
EXPAND THE BAY AREA REGIONAL WATER RECYCLING PROGRAM, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES. ``BAY AREA REGIONAL WATER RECYCLING PROGRAM EXPANSION ACT OF
2009;'' H.R. 2522, TO RAISE THE CEILING ON THE FEDERAL SHARE OF THE
COST OF THE CALLEGUAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT RECYCLING PROJECT, AND
FOR OTHER PURPOSES;
H.R. 2741, TO AMEND THE RECLAMATION WASTEWATER AND GROUNDWATER STUDY
AND FACILITIES ACT TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO
PARTICIPATE IN THE CITY OF HERMISTON, OREGON, WATER RECYCLING AND REUSE
PROJECT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; H.R. 2950, TO DIRECT THE SECRETARY OF
THE INTERIOR TO ALLOW FOR PREPAYMENT OF REPAYMENT CONTRACTS BETWEEN THE
UNITED STATES AND THE UINTAH WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT; AND H.R. 1065,
TO RESOLVE WATER RIGHTS CLAIMS OF THE WHITE MOUNTAIN APACHE TRIBE IN
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. ``WHITE MOUNTAIN APACHE
TRIBE WATER RIGHTS QUANTIFICATION ACT OF 2009.''
----------
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Water and Power
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:01 a.m. in
Room 1334 Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Grace
Napolitano [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Napolitano, McClintock, Miller,
Costa, and Baca.
Also Present: Representatives Gallegly, Chaffetz, Walden,
Smith of Nebraska, Roybal-Allard, Matheson, and Kirkpatrick.
STATEMENT OF HON. GRACE NAPOLITANO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mrs. Napolitano. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. The
meeting of the Subcommittee on Water and Power will come to
order.
The purpose of today's meeting is to hold a legislative
hearing on H.R. 1738, H.R. 2265, H.R. 2442, H.R. 2741, H.R.
2950 and H.R. 1065.
But first, before I start the meeting, I would like to
welcome and congratulate my former colleague in the State
Assembly and newly appointed Ranking Member, Tom McClintock,
for having his first hearing today. And while I am at it, I
would like to also, I would like to introduce our new Director
of Personnel for the Water and Power Subcommittee, David
Wegner, and look forward to having a lot more interaction on
water.
I ask unanimous consent that Congresswoman Roybal-Allard,
Congressman Matheson, Congressman Chaffetz, Congressman
Gallegly, Congressman Walden, and Congresswoman Kirkpatrick be
allowed to sit on the dais and participate in the Subcommittee
proceedings today. And without objection, so ordered.
After my opening statement I will recognize all of the
members of the Subcommittee for any statements they may have.
Any member who desires to be heard will be heard.
Additional material may be submitted for the record by
members, by witnesses or by any interested party. The record
will be kept open for 10 business days following the hearing.
The five-minute rule with our timer will be enforced. Green
means go, yellow indicates one minute remains, and red means
stop or I will.
Today's legislative agenda focuses on two issues that the
Water and Power Subcommittee sees as priorities: Title XVI
water recycling and tribal water rights settlement litigation.
Mrs. Napolitano. Today we are also considering H.R. 2950, a
bill that allows for early repayment of contracts to the
Federal government from Uintah Water Conservancy.
Welcome Commissioner Connor to what I anticipate will be
the first of many Subcommittee hearings. Hopefully all of them
will be pleasant. We look forward to hearing the Bureau of
Reclamation's perspective on Title XVI and Indian water rights.
Mrs. Napolitano. I am concerned about the Administration's
position to not support Title XVI legislation and H.R. 1065,
the White Mountain Apache settlement legislation, and I hope
you will be able to enlighten the Subcommittee this morning on
the reasons why the Department of the Interior does not support
programs to better manage our western water resources.
We want to better understand the constraints the Bureau has
in supporting these programs, and what needs to be done to
resolve your concerns. One of mine is budgetary, and I hope to
see in the future a budget of at least $100 million for the
next several legislative years to be able to catch up with the
backlog of over $600 million.
There is an issue of unclear administrative or legislative
direction. Tell us how we can help provide the focus.
Let me make this very clear. We look upon Title XVI and
Indian water settlement programs as being critical to
addressing the current and future water crisis of the West.
Today we will hear testimony on five separate Title XVI
programs' authorizations. When combined, these five bills
produce 62,000 acre-feet of recycled, reused water for our
systems.
At a time when my home state of California faces extremely
tough economic and hydrological conditions from the Bay Area,
Bay Delta Region to the Southland, we cannot ignore the role
nor the importance of Title XVI programs to helping solve our
water problems.
I personally welcome Chairman Lupe of the White Mountain
Apache Tribe--welcome, sir--for the testimony we will receive
on H.R. 1065. This legislation settles the claims of the Tribe
and provides the White Mountain Apache Tribe with a quantified
water right. Most importantly, it provides certainty to all
water users in the Salt River Basin and a defined water right
from which the Tribe can work to improve their economic well-
being.
Thank you to all of the witnesses for traveling so many
miles to meet with us here in Washington, D.C.
I want to again welcome my colleague and new Ranking
Member, Tom McClintock, to the Subcommittee and ask for any
opening statements he may have.
STATEMENT OF HON. TOM McCLINTOCK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. McClintock. Well, thank you very much, Madame
Chairwoman. I very much enjoyed our service together years ago
in the California Assembly, and I am looking forward to being
able to work with you in this new capacity.
The former Ranking Republican on this Subcommittee, Cathy
McMorris Rodgers, and the Republican staff have told me
repeatedly how much they appreciate the open and bipartisan
manner with which you have conducted this Subcommittee, and I
want you to know how strongly I seek to continue that working
relationship.
I would like to begin by offering a few thoughts on the
general work of the Subcommittee and then on the bills before
us today.
A generation ago the principal objective of our water and
power policy was to create an abundance of both. It was an era
when vast reservoirs and hydroelectric facilities produced a
cornucopia of clean and plentiful and cheap electricity and
water on a scale so vast that many communities didn't even
bother to meter.
But the last generation seems to have abandoned this
objective and to replace it with a very different philosophy
that now dominates our public policy, that the principal
purpose of government is not to produce abundant water and
power but rather to ration and manage shortages the government
has caused by abandoning its earlier objectives.
The result is increasingly expensive water and power that
is now affecting our prosperity as a nation. We are no longer
looking at cost-benefit analysis of which projects make
economic sense and which do not. Instead, practicality has been
replaced by an entirely new ideological filter. Those projects
that ration or manage shortages are considered worthy,
regardless of their feasibility or cost; and projects that
produce abundance are to be discouraged, regardless of their
economic benefits or simple common sense.
We have seven bills before us today, including five that
deal with water recycling programs. With respect to the
recycling bills, I think we need to address some very basic
questions to assure consistency and accountability.
First, what is the Federal nexus? Projects that exclusively
benefit local communities ought to be exclusively financed by
local communities. Federal funds should be used to benefit the
entire nation. So the question arises, why should St.
Petersburg be asked to pay for a water project for St. Paul?
Second, have we established the project's feasibility?
Before Congress authorized most water supply projects in the
past, the planning had to be completed so we knew what we were
getting. Has this process been undertaken on the projects
before us?
Third, is the project cost-effective? It is said that every
gallon of recycled water avoids the need for a gallon of
harvested water. But that begs the obvious question, if an
acre-foot of recycled water costs $1,000 and an acre-foot of
harvested water costs $200, why replace the cheaper water with
the more expensive water at enormous expense to taxpayers and
consumers?
This is a question that seems to be neglected in these
discussions. But at a time when the Federal deficit is at its
highest level in history by a factor of four, it is a question
that ought to dominate every discussion on this subject.
One of the bills before us today involves the settlement of
Indian water rights claims. Congress has passed 20 settlement
bills over the last 20 years, but there are hundreds of others
that it may be called upon to decide in the future.
I support the basic principle of the Winters decision that
an inherent obligation to the Federal government in
establishing a reservation is to guarantee sufficient water for
that reservation. However, I am concerned about tribal claims
to excess water for the sole purpose of reselling it at profit.
For example, 99,000 acre-feet of water are proposed to be given
to 15,000 residents. That is 2.1 million gallons per person,
more than 25 times the average annual residential usage.
The total cost of this legislation is $292 million or
nearly $20,000 per resident. One part of this bill requires the
American taxpayer to finance economic development projects that
may not be supported by the Administration nor be related to
the water rights settlement. And I hope that these issues can
be addressed during that portion of the hearing.
Finally, we have a bill that allows the Uintah Water
District to prepay its obligations to the Federal Treasury.
This is in the interest of the District that can be relieved of
interest costs and regulatory burdens. But it is also in the
interest of the Nation at a time when it is running a
catastrophic deficit.
My only question is why an Act of Congress is necessary to
make it possible for the District to do so. I hope that the law
can be broadened to allow any district in similar circumstances
to prepay Federal loans or other obligations without having to
beg Congress for special approval to do so.
Those are my initial questions and observations, Madame
Chairman. And I want to thank the witnesses for traveling all
the way to address them and to assist us in this decisionmaking
process.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, sir. And I am Chairwoman, sir.
Mr. Miller?
STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE MILLER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Madame Chairwoman. I want to thank
you so much for holding this hearing and for your unflagging
support of alternative water supplies like water recycling.
And I want to welcome Commissioner Mike Connor here to the
Subcommittee and thank him for bringing us his wealth of
experience. And he has a reputation and experience in working
on many of these problems, in fact even solving a few of them.
So welcome to the Committee and welcome to the Department of
the Interior.
I also want to welcome Gary Darling and thank him for his
tireless work on the Title XVI programs in the San Francisco
Bay Area. Through the Bay Area Recycled Water Coalition, Gary
has brought the region's water and wastewater agencies together
to identify effective and worthy projects. It is a successful
model, and it is one that we should reward. The Title XVI
program helps provide a sustainable water supply for California
and for the West and helps us to lessen the impact on the Bay
Delta ecosystems and on other parts of the California water
system.
The six water recycling projects in H.R. 2442 would add
over 8,000 acre-feet of water, of new sustainable water supply
in California. That works out to 7.2 million gallons per day
and up to meet the needs of 24,000 households, over 24,000
households.
Over time the Bay Area Water Recycling program is projected
to add more than 90,000 acre-feet of water to our region's
clean water supply. This bill and the water it will provide is
absolutely critical to a state like ours. That is why I am
extremely disappointed to see that the Bureau of Reclamation is
not supporting the additional authorizations for the Title XVI
programs.
I hope to hear an explanation from the Commissioner as to
the Administration's position on the program, and I look
forward to seeing and working with the Administration for its
support of water reuse and recycling in the 2011 budget.
But thank you again for these hearings so that we can
narrow these subjects. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Miller.
Mr. Walden.
STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. Walden. Thank you very much, Chairwoman Napolitano and
Ranking Member McClintock. It is good to be back here on the
dais. I only wish I had a vote up here again.
Thank you for holding a hearing on H.R. 2741, legislation I
wrote to authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to participate in
the building of a new water recycling and reuse facility for
the City of Hermiston in northeast Oregon.
And like my friend and colleague from California, Mr.
Miller, I too share concerns about the Bureau's opposition to
this legislation because in this case, as in many in the West
where we are starved for water, being able to reuse it can
bring great benefits for agriculture, for fish and to meet new
environmental regulations.
Before I get into the specifics of the bill before us now,
I want to say thank you for allowing me the opportunity to
participate in the hearing, Madame Chairwoman.
Second, I would like to welcome Hermiston City Manager Ed
Brookshier to the hearing. Ed and his team have done a
wonderful job of demonstrating to me the need for this project
and why it is a worthwhile Federal project. He has made the
long trip out here from the West Coast to testify for the bill
today. Madame Chairwoman and Congressman McClintock, as I do, I
know you understand the distances in making that trip.
The construction of the Hermiston Recycled Water Plant
Improvement project, as it is commonly known, will enable the
city to reliably meet numerous key goals, including complying
with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit
levels for the next 20-plus years.
Now the existing facilities were constructed in 1979 and as
you can imagine after 30 years are in need of modernization
that will help meet new pollution reduction requirements, add
capacity and help put water instream for salmon. This project
will increase wastewater treatment capacity to match the
population and economic growth for a community that refuses to
be in a recession, a statement made by the Hermiston Chamber of
Commerce Executive Director, Debbie Pedro, to me and others
during a community meeting in Hermiston a while back.
The project has been designed to produce the highest
quality class A recycled water that will add additional
protections for the Umatilla River's threatened salmon species.
This was one of the key reasons that the Confederated Tribes of
the Umatilla Indian Reservation are supporting the legislation
and the project. I thank them for their support.
And, Madame Chairwoman, I have a letter of support from the
Umatilla Tribes that I would like to have put into the record,
along with a statement from the West Extension Irrigation
District in support of the legislation, without objection I
would like to have added in as supporting documents.
Mrs. Napolitano. Without objection, so ordered.
[NOTE: The documents submitted for the record have been
retained in the Committee's official files.]
Mr. Walden. The final component of the project will be the
drought-resistant water delivery of recycled water to the West
Extension Irrigation District. These deliveries will help the
irrigation district serve their diverse agricultural community.
This water will supplement current allocations, but as we all
know, a little extra water in a dry climate can make or break
it for farmers.
The proposed project must comply with numerous
environmental laws and regulations, and the city has completed
the required supporting documentation. This included
preparation of an environmental assessment for potential
impacts from the proposed project, such as a cultural resources
survey, wetland delineation and an Endangered Species Act
biological assessment.
The Federal cost share in this bill, 25 percent Federal, 75
percent local, will be of enormous assistance in this
partnership for the community to meet these requirements, most
of which are driven by the Federal government as the project
moves on from drawing boards to construction.
However, the Federal cost share only exists if this bill
becomes law. So I ask that this Subcommittee make a do-pass
recommendation to the full Committee to take action as soon as
possible so the House can consider and pass this legislation.
You can see this legislation is of great importance to the
City of Hermiston and surrounding areas.
I thank you, Madame Chairwoman, for holding this hearing
today, and I would be happy to answer any questions. Thank you,
Madame Chairwoman.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Walden, for your
statement--and to all of you gentlemen.
We will now hear from our witnesses. We do have two panels.
We have combined Mr. Connor into the first panel. Witnesses
will be introduced before they testify. And after we hear from
each panel, we will have questions.
Your prepared statements will be entered into the record,
and all witnesses are asked to kindly summarize the high points
of your testimony and limit your remarks to five minutes.
Again, the timer before you will be used to enforce this rule.
It also applies to our questions. Members will have five
minutes for questions. If there are additional questions, we
may have a second round, time permitting.
For our first panel, we have Commissioner Mike Connor from
the Bureau of Reclamation. He will testify on all bills. And
you have 10 minutes, sir, because that way you don't have stop,
Mr. Connor. Commissioner Connor.
STATEMENT OF MIKE CONNOR, COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, WASHINGTON, D.C., ON H.R.
1738, H.R. 2265, H.R. 2442, H.R. 2522, AND H.R. 2741
Mr. Connor. Thank you. Madame Chairwoman and members of the
Subcommittee, this is my first appearance before the
Subcommittee, and I welcome the opportunity to testify before
you today and look forward to working with you and your staff
over the next several years.
I am pleased to provide the Department of the Interior's
views today on seven bills before the Subcommittee. In the
interest of time, I will provide a quick summary of my written
statements, which have been submitted for the record.
To begin, I will devote this portion of the statement to
summarizing the Department's position on the five Title XVI
bills that are before the Subcommittee today. I will also
provide testimony then following on the other two bills that
are before you.
The five Title XVI bills before the Committee today all
authorize Federal cost-sharing in new water or expanded local
water recycling projects. Reclamation staff, working with local
project sponsors, have determined that the projects before the
Subcommittee today are at various stages in the process of
evaluating their feasibility. This is a key aspect of the Title
XVI program, and the details for each project are set forth in
my written statement.
One update I have is that at the end of last week, the
Magna, Utah project, that is in H.R. 2265 was certified as
feasible by Reclamation staff. So that is an update to the
written statement.
As a threshold matter, I would like to express the
Department's general support for the Title XVI Reclamation and
Reuse program. The 2010 budget proposal includes funding for
Secretary Salazar's water conservation initiative, and Title
XVI is an important element of that program.
Also, on July 1, the Department announced the award of
approximately $135 million in American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act funding for authorized Title XVI projects. We
recognize that water reuse is an essential tool in stretching
the limited water supplies in the West.
Notwithstanding the support, Reclamation is managing the
Title XVI program in evaluating new authorizations in the
context of a backlog of over $600 million in currently
authorized projects. This figure takes into account the just-
announced $135 million in funding out of the Recovery Act. So,
given the budget challenges presented by this backlog, the
Department is unable to support the authorization of new Title
XVI projects at this point in time.
Reclamation will, however, continue to work with project
proponents to evaluate the feasibility of their projects. To
that end, Reclamation recently revised and improved its
directives and standards that govern its review of Title XVI
projects. By applying these new standards, we believe
Reclamation can play a constructive role with local sponsors as
well as Congress in evaluating the merits of proposed water
recycling projects.
Reclamation believes that information regarding a project's
feasibility should be fundamental to Congress's evaluation of
new Title XVI authorizations.
With that, that summarizes my statement with respect to the
Title XVI projects. I will go forward now to the other
specifics of the two bills before the Subcommittee.
[The prepared statements of Mr. Connor on H.R. 1738, H.R.
2265, H.R. 2442, H.R. 2522 and H.R. 2741 follow:]
Statement of Michael L. Connor, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation,
U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 1738
Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Michael L.
Connor, Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased provide
the Department of the Interior's views on H.R. 1738, the Downey
Regional Water Reclamation and Groundwater Augmentation Act. For
reasons described below, the Department cannot support H.R. 1738.
H.R. 1738 would amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater
Study and Facilities Act (43 U.S.C. 390h et seq.), commonly called
Title XVI, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in
the design, planning, and construction of the Downey Regional Water
Reclamation and Groundwater Augmentation Project in Los Angeles County,
California.
Reclamation this summer has begun meetings with the City of Downey
to exchange information regarding this project and help them develop a
feasibility study in accordance with existing Directives and Standards.
A feasibility study has not been submitted by the City of Downey, and
compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act for this project
has not been initiated. As such, Reclamation cannot provide a
determination as to its merits.
As a threshold matter, I'd like to express the Department's general
support for the Title XVI Reclamation and Reuse program. The 2010
budget proposal includes funding for Secretary Salazar's Water
Conservation Initiative and Title XVI is an important element of that
program. Also, on July 1, the Department announced the award of
approximately $135 million in grants for specific authorized Title XVI
projects. We recognize that water reuse is an essential tool in
stretching the limited water supplies in the West.
However, given that there are 53 already authorized Title XVI
projects and numerous competing mission priorities and demands on
Reclamation's budget, the Department cannot support the authorization
of new Title XVI projects at this time. As a practical matter,
Reclamation is concerned that a proliferation of authorized projects
would be detrimental to effective overall program management because
there would be a dilution of available funding and a diminished ability
of the Bureau to carry out and complete individual projects.
Reclamation will, however, continue to work with project proponents
to evaluate the feasibility of their projects. To that end, Reclamation
recently revised and improved its directives and standards that govern
the review of Title XVI projects. By doing so, we believe that
Reclamation can play a constructive role with local sponsors, as well
as Congress, in evaluating the merits of proposed water recycling
projects. Information regarding a project's feasibility should be
fundamental to Congress' evaluation of new authorizations.
H.R. 1738 authorizes the appropriation of up to $20 million, or a
maximum of 25 percent of total project costs. While the Department
supports efforts to increase local water supplies and increase recycled
water use in Southern California, this project would compete with other
critical needs within the Reclamation program, including other Title
XVI projects currently under construction, for funding priority in the
President's Budget.
Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my testimony. Thank you for the
opportunity to comment on H.R. 1738. I would be pleased to answer any
questions at this time.
______
Statement of Michael L. Connor, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation,
U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 2265
Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Michael L.
Connor, Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased to
provide the Department of the Interior's views on H.R. 2265,
legislation to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate
in the Magna Water District water reuse and groundwater recharge
project. For reasons discussed below, the Department cannot support
H.R. 2265.
H.R. 2265 would amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater
Study and Facilities Act (43 U.S.C. 390h et seq.), commonly called
Title XVI, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in
the design, planning, and construction of permanent facilities needed
to establish recycled water distribution and wastewater treatment and
reclamation facilities in the Magna Water District in Salt Lake County,
Utah.
H.R. 2265 authorizes a $12 million Federal cost share for the
project. Reclamation's Regional and Program offices are reviewing the
Magna Water District's draft Feasibility Report this month to determine
its compliance with the requirements identified in the Title XVI Water
Reclamation and Reuse Program Directives and Standards (D&S) and
Section 1604 of Public Law 102-575, as amended. Reclamation anticipates
making a final determination as to the project's feasibility in the
next few months.
As a threshold matter, I'd like to express the Department's general
support for the Title XVI Reclamation and Reuse program. The 2010
budget proposal includes funding for Secretary Salazar's Water
Conservation Initiative and Title XVI is an important element of that
program. Also, on July 1, the Department announced the award of
approximately $135 million in grants for specific authorized Title XVI
projects. We recognize that water reuse is an essential tool in
stretching the limited water supplies in the West.
However, given that there are 53 already authorized Title XVI
projects and numerous competing mission priorities and demands on
Reclamation's budget, the Department cannot support the authorization
of new Title XVI projects at this time. As a practical matter,
Reclamation is concerned that a proliferation of authorized projects
would be detrimental to effective overall program management because
there would be a dilution of available funding and a diminished ability
of the Bureau to carry out and complete individual projects.
Reclamation will, however, continue to work with project proponents
to evaluate the feasibility of their projects. To that end, Reclamation
recently revised and improved its directives and standards that govern
the review of Title XVI projects. By doing so, we believe that
Reclamation can play a constructive role with local sponsors, as well
as Congress, in evaluating the merits of proposed water recycling
projects. Information regarding a project's feasibility should be
fundamental to Congress' evaluation of new authorizations.
Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my testimony. Thank you for the
opportunity to comment on H.R. 2265. I would be happy to answer any
questions at this time.
______
Statement of Michael L. Connor, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation,
U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 2442
Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Michael L.
Connor, Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased to
provide the Department of the Interior's views on H.R. 2442,
legislation to expand the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program
(BARWRP). Although Reclamation commends BARWRP's goals, for reasons
discussed below the Department cannot support H.R. 2442.
H.R. 2442 would amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater
Study and Facilities Act (43 U.S.C. 390h et seq.), commonly called
Title XVI, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in
the design, planning, and construction of six new projects for water
recycling and distribution of non-potable water supplies in the greater
San Francisco Bay Area. The legislation would also increase the Federal
cost share for two previously-authorized Title XVI projects in the same
area to $16.3 million from $10.5 million. H.R. 2442 would increase the
number of BARWRP projects from eight to 14.
As a threshold matter, I'd like to express the Department's general
support for the Title XVI Reclamation and Reuse program. The 2010
budget proposal includes funding for Secretary Salazar's Water
Conservation Initiative and Title XVI is an important element of that
program. Also, on July 1, the Department announced the award of
approximately $135 million in grants for specific authorized Title XVI
projects. Reclamation also recently selected 27 Title XVI projects--26
of which are in California--that will receive American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 funding. We recognize that water reuse is an
essential tool in stretching the limited water supplies in the West.
However, given that there are 53 already authorized Title XVI
projects and numerous competing mission priorities and demands on
Reclamation's budget, the Department cannot support the authorization
of new Title XVI projects at this time. As a practical matter,
Reclamation is concerned that a proliferation of authorized projects
would be detrimental to effective overall program management because
there would be a dilution of available funding and a diminished ability
of the Bureau to carry out and complete individual projects.
Reclamation will, however, continue to work with project proponents
to evaluate the feasibility of their projects. To that end, Reclamation
recently revised and improved its directives and standards that govern
the review of Title XVI projects. By doing so, we believe that
Reclamation can play a constructive role with local sponsors, as well
as Congress, in evaluating the merits of proposed water recycling
projects. Information regarding a project's feasibility should be
fundamental to Congress' evaluation of new authorizations.
Many Federal Title XVI projects are located in the greater San
Francisco Bay area, a region that encompasses the United States'
largest west coast estuary and the source of drinking water for two-
thirds of California. Many of the local project sponsors work together
through entities such as the Bay Area Recycled Water Coalition. Over
the past decade, such agencies have invested nearly $300 million of
local funds in water recycling projects.
Reclamation commends these agencies for working together to
coordinate their efforts to address the regional issues of water supply
and water quality. Reclamation, in collaboration with each project
sponsor, is assisting in the preparation of project-specific
feasibility reports and will review all submitted documents for
compliance with applicable Federal environmental and cultural
regulations.
H.R. 2442 authorizes the appropriation of over $38 million of new
or increased Federal cost shares. The Department supports efforts to
increase local water supplies and increase recycled water use in
northern California. However, the Department does not support the
authorization of new Title XVI projects which have not yet received a
determination that they are feasible for construction. Also, as
discussed above these projects would compete with other needs within
the Reclamation program, including other Title XVI projects currently
under construction, for funding priority in Reclamation's Budget.
Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my testimony. Thank you for the
opportunity to comment on H.R. 2442. I would be happy to answer any
questions at this time.
______
Statement of Michael L. Connor, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation,
U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 2522
Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Michael L.
Connor, Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased to
provide the Department of the Interior's views on H.R. 2522, a proposal
to raise the ceiling on the Federal share of the cost of the Calleguas
Municipal Water District (District) Recycling Project. For reasons
discussed below, the Department cannot support H.R. 2522.
H.R. 2522 would amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater
Study and Facilities Act (43 U.S.C. 390h et seq.) commonly called Title
XVI, to increase the ceiling on the federal share of the costs of the
Calleguas project to $60 million. Current Federal law limits the
Federal share of individual project costs to 25 percent of the total,
or a maximum contribution of $20 million. Raising the cost share
further would further strain Federal budgetary resources.
The District submitted a feasibility study as required by the Title
XVI statute, and it was approved in April of 2000. The feasibility
study included nine distinct components: five wastewater reclamation
and reuse projects, three brackish groundwater recovery projects, and a
regional brine disposal project. A cooperative agreement was executed
in September 2000, to provide Federal funding for one of the wastewater
reclamation and reuse projects known as the Conejo Creek Diversion
Project. This project was completed in September, 2003, and is
currently producing about 9,000 acre-feet of recycled water annually.
The total Federal share for this component was almost $1.7 million.
In January, 2003, a cooperative agreement was executed to provide
federal funding for the Regional Brine Line component. To date,
Reclamation has provided about $10 million to the District as the
federal share of costs for this facility, which will provide a means to
dispose of brine wastes from facilities such as brackish groundwater
recovery projects throughout Ventura County. The FY 2010 Budget
requested $1.4 million for the Calleguas Municipal Water District
Recycling project.
The Regional Brine Line is being constructed in three phases,
starting with Phase 1 near the coast, and progressing inland. The
current estimated cost of Phase 1, which includes an ocean outfall, is
about $76 million. The 25 percent federal share of Phase 1 would be $19
million, which would obviously be reduced slightly because Reclamation
has already provided $1.7 million for the Conejo Creek Diversion
Project. There would be no additional Federal funds available for
Phases 2 and 3, which together are estimated to cost about $145
million; nor for any of the remaining seven projects that were
identified in the feasibility study due to the current ceiling. This
legislation would authorize $40 million in additional federal funds.
As a threshold matter, I'd like to express the Department's general
support for the Title XVI Reclamation and Reuse program. The 2010
budget proposal includes funding for Secretary Salazar's Water
Conservation Initiative and Title XVI is an important element of that
program. Also, on July 1, the Department announced the award of
approximately $135 million in grants for specific authorized Title XVI
projects. Reclamation also recently selected 27 Title XVI projects--26
of which are in California--that will receive American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 funding. We recognize that water reuse is an
essential tool in stretching the limited water supplies in the West.
However, given that there are 53 already authorized Title XVI
projects and numerous competing mission priorities and demands on
Reclamation's budget, the Department cannot support the authorization
of new Title XVI projects at this time. As a practical matter,
Reclamation is concerned that a proliferation of authorized projects
would be detrimental to effective overall program management because
there would be a dilution of available funding and a diminished ability
of the Bureau to carry out and complete individual projects.
Reclamation will, however, continue to work with project proponents
to evaluate the feasibility of their projects. To that end, Reclamation
recently revised and improved its directives and standards that govern
the review of Title XVI projects. By doing so, we believe that
Reclamation can play a constructive role with local sponsors, as well
as Congress, in evaluating the merits of proposed water recycling
projects. Information regarding a project's feasibility should be
fundamental to Congress' evaluation of new authorizations.
Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my testimony. Thank you for the
opportunity to comment on H.R. 2522. I would be pleased to answer any
questions at this time.
______
Statement of Michael L. Connor, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation,
U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 2741
Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Michael L.
Connor, Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased to
provide the Department of the Interior's views on H.R. 2741, the City
of Hermiston, Oregon, Water Recycling and Reuse Project. For reasons
discussed below the Department cannot support H.R. 2741.
H.R. 2741 would amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater
Study and Facilities Act (43 U.S.C. 390h et seq.), commonly called
Title XVI, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in
the design, planning, and construction of permanent facilities to
reclaim and reuse water in the City of Hermiston, Oregon. Current
federal law limits the federal share of individual project costs to 25
percent of the total, or a maximum federal contribution of $20 million.
The City of Hermiston is located in north central Oregon and is one
the largest communities within the Bureau of Reclamation's Umatilla
Project Area. As part of their Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements
Project, the City of Hermiston is exploring the option of delivering
reclaimed water to the West Extension Irrigation District to be used as
agricultural water. Based on the city's current population, the reuse
project would deliver an additional 1,132 acre-feet of water to the
West Extension Irrigation District during the irrigation season. By
2026, it is estimated that the project would yield 1,685 acre-feet of
reused water. The total estimated cost for this project is about $21.5
million.
H.R. 2741 includes authorization for design, planning, and
construction of this project, of which the Federal cost share is
limited to 25 percent of the total cost. No Title XVI related appraisal
or feasibility levels studies have been completed for this project.
The City of Hermiston is part of an agricultural community and
recent changes in the state of Oregon's recycled water regulations
reduce the barriers to using such water for the irrigation of food
crops. There have also been a number of discussions between the City of
Hermiston and the West Extension Irrigation District's governing board
and the District has taken a favorable view of the project.
As a threshold matter, I'd like to express the Department's general
support for the Title XVI Reclamation and Reuse program. The 2010
budget proposal includes funding for Secretary Salazar's Water
Conservation Initiative and Title XVI is an important element of that
program. Also, on July 1, the Department announced the award of
approximately $135 million in grants for specific authorized Title XVI
projects. We recognize that water reuse is an essential tool in
stretching the limited water supplies in the West.
However, given that there are 53 already authorized Title XVI
projects and numerous competing mission priorities and demands on
Reclamation's budget, the Department cannot support the authorization
of new Title XVI projects at this time. As a practical matter,
Reclamation is concerned that a proliferation of authorized projects
would be detrimental to effective overall program management because
there would be a dilution of available funding and a diminished ability
of the Bureau to carry out and complete individual projects.
Reclamation will, however, continue to work with project proponents
to evaluate the feasibility of their projects. To that end, Reclamation
recently revised and improved its directives and standards that govern
the review of Title XVI projects. By doing so, we believe that
Reclamation can play a constructive role with local sponsors, as well
as Congress, in evaluating the merits of proposed water recycling
projects. Information regarding a project's feasibility should be
fundamental to Congress' evaluation of new authorizations.
Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my statement. Thank you for the
opportunity to comment on H.R. 2741. I would be pleased to answer any
questions at this time.
______
Mr. Connor. H.R. 2950, the Uintah Prepayment Bill. The
Department supports H.R. 2950, with a clarification as set
forth in my written statement.
H.R. 2950 is legislation that would allow for prepayment of
current and future repayment obligations of the Uintah Water
Conservancy District in Utah.
The District's current contract from 1992 requires them to
repay about $5.5 million through the year 2037 at the project
interest rate of 3.2 percent, with annual payments of about
$226,000.
My written statement provides more details on this
legislation and on the Jensen unit of the central Utah project.
But in summary, the Department believes that the proposed
legislation will provide for terms favorable to the District
and the United States and provide flexibility to address any
future unknowns if future additions to the Jensen unit do not
materialize.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Connor on H.R. 2950
follows:]
Statement of Michael L. Connor, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation,
U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 2950
Madam Chairwoman and members of the Subcommittee, I am Mike Connor,
Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. Thank you for the
opportunity to provide the Department of the Interior's views on H.R.
2950. The legislation allows for prepayment of the current and future
repayment contract obligations of the Uintah Water Conservancy District
(District) of the costs allocated to their municipal and industrial
water (M&I) supply on the Jensen Unit of the Central Utah Project
(CUP). H.R. 2950 would amend current law to change the date of
repayment to 2019 from 2037. The legislation would also allow repayment
to be provided in several installments and requires that the repayment
be adjusted to conform to a final cost allocation. The Department
supports the goals of H.R. 2950. However, the legislation should be
amended to clarify that the early repayment will be of an amount equal
to the net present value of the foregone revenue stream. Under any
repayment scenario, the Federal Treasury must be made whole.
The District entered into a repayment contract dated June 3, 1976,
in which they agreed to repay all reimbursable costs associated with
the Jensen Unit of the CUP. However, pursuant to Section 203(g) of the
Central Utah Project Completion Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575) the
District's contract was amended in 1992 to reduce the project M&I
supply under repayment to 2,000 acre-feet annually and to temporarily
fix repayment for this supply based upon an interim allocation
developed for an uncompleted project. The 1992 contract required the
District to repay about $5.545 million through the year 2037 at the
project interest rate of 3.222% with annual payments of $226,585. The
net present value of the amount remaining from this income stream
starting in 2009 is $3,887,364. 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All net present value figures cited in this testimony were
calculated by discounting the payment stream to the year 2009 using the
rate from 30-year Treasury constant maturities for the week ending July
10, 2009. The exact net present value will fluctuate based on the date
of the calculation and the Treasury rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, the costs allocated to the contracted M&I supply, and the
M&I supply available through additional contract amendments, may be
significantly revised in the future upon project completion and Final
Cost Allocation. An additional currently unallocated cost of $7,419,513
is expected to be allocated to the contracted 2,000 acre-feet.
2 Assuming that the costs allocated to the contracted 2,000
acre-feet will be increased by $7,419,513 with the reallocation in
2019, the net present value of the stream of benefits from this
reallocation is $4,654,454. Therefore, under Reclamation's assumptions,
the net present value of the total stream of benefits anticipated under
this contract is $4,654,454 plus $3,887,364, or $8,541,818. The
contracted M&I amount is $4.1 million and the adjustment amount is $7.4
million. In total non-discounted dollars, the Conservancy District owes
the Federal government $11.6 million.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ This allocation will be subject to revision should there be
additions to the project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under Reclamation law, water districts are not authorized to prepay
their M&I repayment obligation based upon a discounted value of their
remaining annual payments.
This legislation would authorize early repayment by the Uintah
Conservancy District to the Federal government. Because there is an
interest component to the M&I repayment streams to be repaid early,
early repayment without an adjustment for interest would result in
lower overall repayment to the United States. However the Bureau
believes that the language in this bill requiring that the early
repayment be ``under terms and conditions similar to those used in
implementing section 210 of the Central Utah Project Completion Act
(Public Law 102-575), as amended'' is intended to require that the
United States allow the early repayment in such a way as to keep the
United States whole. We interpret this to mean that the Bureau of
Reclamation would collect the present value of the whole amount that
would be due without early repayment. Thus, given Reclamation's
assumptions the present value of the payments collected under this
legislation will be at least $8,541,818, although the legislation
allows some flexibility in the timing of the repayment and under some
scenarios the total amount due could be higher.
The language in H.R. 2950 should be amended to clarify that this
legislation is requiring that the Federal government be paid what it is
owed by the Conservancy District. In supporting the concept of early
repayment of the amount owed under this contract, the United States is
reserving the right to seek full repayment to the U.S. Treasury.
While the Department supports the goals of H.R. 2950, the
legislation should be amended to clarify that the U.S. Treasury will be
repaid in full; our support depends upon language that will clearly
establish that early repayment under this legislation must be of an
amount equal to the net present value of the foregone revenue stream.
This concludes my testimony. I will be pleased to answer any
questions the Subcommittee may have.
______
Mr. Connor. Finally, with respect to the White Mountain
Apache Tribe proposed settlement, H.R. 1065 would authorize a
settlement of the Federal Indian reserve water rights of the
White Mountain Apache Tribe in Arizona.
To begin with, this Administration strongly supports the
resolution of Indian water rights claims through a negotiated
settlement. Settlements improve water management by providing
certainly not just for the quantification of the Tribes' water
rights but also for the rights of all water users, both Indian
and non-Indian.
Indian water rights settlements are consistent with the
Federal Trust's responsibility to Native Americans and with a
policy of promoting Indian self-determination and economic
self-sufficiency. For these reasons and more, for over 20
years, Federally recognized Indian tribes, states, local
parties and the Federal government have acknowledged that when
possible negotiated Indian water rights settlements are
preferable to protracted litigation over Indian water rights
claims.
However, the Department's general policy of support for
negotiations cannot translate into support for every proposed
settlement. As discussed in my written statement, while we
appreciate that much good work has gone into this proposed
settlement, we are unable to support H.R. 1065 at this point in
time.
The Administration has a number of concerns about the
specific language of this legislation. For example, Reclamation
recently completed a review of the engineering estimates for
the rural water system authorized in Section 7 of the bill.
This project is a centerpiece of the settlement.
Based on that review, Reclamation determined that the
Tribe's cost estimate of roughly $126 million is not
sufficiently detailed to provide the necessary assurance that
the project can be constructed for that amount of money. This
raises an uncertainty as to the actual Federal contribution
that will be necessary to implement the settlement.
The Administration is also concerned about the mechanism
under which the project construction funds would be handled. As
introduced, H.R. 1065 has conflicting provisions regarding how
the Secretary is to handle the money appropriated for
construction of the rural water system.
Section 14 of the bill requires the establishment of a
trust fund into which construction monies would be deposited.
This trust fund would be managed in accordance with the
American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994. The
Tribe would be able to withdraw these funds and spend them
after submitting a plan to the Secretary.
This is an unusual and potentially cumbersome way to deal
with construction funds, particularly when compared to the
option of constructing the project under the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act, the P.L. 93.638
program.
The waivers and releases authorized in Section 12 of the
bill are also of serious concern to the Administration because
they do not adequately protect the United States from future
liability and do not provide the measure of certainty and
finality that the Federal contribution contained in the bill
should afford. The U.S. Forest Service has also raised concerns
about the waiver provisions. We believe the issues, however,
raised are not irreconcilable if we are given the opportunity
to work with the parties toward resolving them.
My written statement details additional concerns
surrounding the financial structure of the settlement and some
process considerations. In the interest of time, I will just
add that the Administration needs to complete its analysis of
this settlement, particularly the financial aspects.
The Administration appreciates the willingness of the
settlement parties to negotiate their differences in a
cooperative spirit. We are committed to working with Congress
and all parties to developing settlement legislation that the
Administration can support.
This concludes my statement. Thank you again for the
invitation to appear today, and I welcome the opportunity for
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Connor on H.R. 1065
follows:]
Statement of Michael L. Connor, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation,
U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 1065
Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Michael L.
Connor, Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased to
provide the Administration's views on H.R. 1065, the White Mountain
Apache Tribe Water Rights Quantification Act of 2009. H.R. 1065 would
authorize a comprehensive settlement of the Federal Indian reserved
water rights claims of the White Mountain Apache Indian Tribe in
Arizona.
This Administration supports the resolution of Indian water rights
claims through negotiated settlement. However, our general policy of
support for negotiations is premised on the federal contribution to the
settlement being appropriate. Before the Administration can support a
settlement, there must be a thorough analysis of the costs it would
entail and the benefits to be received in order to assess the
appropriateness of the proposed federal contribution. As I will discuss
later, while the Administration appreciates that much good work has
gone into this proposed settlement, we are unable to support it at this
time.
Negotiated Indian Water Rights Settlements
Settlements improve water management by providing certainty not
just as to the quantification of a tribe's water rights but also as to
the rights of all water users. That certainty provides opportunities
for economic development for Indian and non-Indians alike. Whereas
unquantified Indian water rights are often a source of tension and
conflict between tribes and their neighbors, the best settlements
replace this tension with mutual interdependence and trust. In
addition, Indian water rights settlements are consistent with the
Federal trust responsibility to Native Americans and with a policy of
promoting Indian self-determination and economic self-sufficiency. For
these reasons and more, for over 20 years, federally recognized Indian
tribes, states, local parties, and the Federal government have
acknowledged that, when possible, negotiated Indian water rights
settlements are preferable to protracted litigation over Indian water
rights claims.
White Mountain Apache Tribe Water Rights Quantification Act of 2009
The heart of this bill is provisions ratifying and approving the
White Mountain Apache Quantification Agreement dated January 13, 2009,
a settlement reached between the tribe and other non-federal parties
regarding the quantification of the Tribe's water rights. H.R. 1065
requires the Bureau of Reclamation to plan, design, construct, operate,
maintain, replace, and rehabilitate a rural water system to serve the
White Mountain Apache tribe. It also establishes a trust fund for the
operation and maintenance of the system to be constructed. Finally, the
bill includes authorizations for the Secretary to carry out a number of
other activities that appear to be intended to promote economic
development on the White Mountain Apache reservation.
These economic development activities include (1) providing
financial and technical assistance to completing the Hawley Lake,
Horseshoe Lake, Reservation Lake, Sunrise Lake, and Big and Little Bear
Lake reconstruction projects and facilities improvements; (2)
conducting a feasibility study of options for improving the manufacture
and use of timber products derived from commercial products derived
from commercial forests on the White Mountain Reservation and forest
management practices; (3) rehabilitating and improving the Alchesay-
Williams Creek National Fish Hatchery Complex; (4) constructing a White
Mountain Apache Tribe Fishery Center; (5) rehabilitating Canyon Day and
other historic irrigation systems on the reservation; (6) planning,
design, and construction of snow-making infrastructure, repairs, and
expansion at Sunrise Ski Park; and (7) planning, designing, and
constructing any recommended on-reservation recreation impoundments
following a feasibility study of such impoundments.
H.R. 1065 is the culmination of cooperative negotiations among the
Tribe and many non-Indian water users throughout northern and central
Arizona. The negotiations were focused on the need for a long term
solution to the problems of an inadequate Reservation domestic water
supply and quantifying the Tribe's water rights. The Tribe and other
non-Federal parties reached agreement in 2008. The parties are to be
commended for that effort.
There is much in the proposed settlement that is positive. The
rural water system authorized through this bill would replace and
expand the current water delivery system on the Reservation, which
relies on a diminishing groundwater source and is quickly becoming
insufficient to meet the needs of the Reservation population. We do not
question the Reservation's need for reliable and safe drinking water.
Although a system such as the one proposed may turn out to be the best
way to address the Reservation's need, the Administration has many
concerns about the specific language of this legislation as introduced,
which are summarized below. We also have concerns about the large
federal contribution expected in the proposed settlement. We would like
to work with the sponsor of legislation and the settlement parties to
address our concerns.
Water Rights Allocation
Under Section 5 of H.R. 1065, the Tribe would have the right to
divert up to 99,000 acre-feet of water from a combination of
groundwater, surface water, and Central Arizona Project water. We
understand that the Tribe believes that this is a favorable
quantification of its federal reserved water rights. The Department of
the Interior's preliminary analysis indicates that the allocation is
appropriate and we hope to have a final Administration analysis in the
near future.
Concerns about the Cost Estimate for Construction of the Rural Water
System
The centerpiece of the settlement is the construction and operation
of the White Mountain Apache Rural Water System (WMAT Rural Water
System) described in Section 7. This system would consist of the Miner
Flat Dam, a 155 foot high dam along the North Fork of the White River
that would have an anticipated total storage capacity of 8,400 acre-
feet with a surface area of approximately 160 acres; water treatment
facilities and a pipeline conveyance system extending approximately 50
miles throughout the Reservation. The surface water delivered from this
system is anticipated to meet population requirements through 2040 or
beyond.
The Bureau of Reclamation recently completed a review of the
Design, Engineering, and Construction (DEC) estimates for the WMAT
Rural Water System. Based on that review, Reclamation determined the
Tribe's cost estimate of roughly $126.2 million, which is in the
proposed legislation, is not sufficiently detailed or comprehensive to
provide the necessary assurance that the project can be constructed for
that amount of money. Moreover, the legislation does not provide any
cap on the amount of Federal funds that can be expended for project
construction. The Administration is concerned about authorizing a
project in cases such as this where we are very uncertain as to end
costs. Our experience has been that projects authorized in this manner
can become far more expensive than originally contemplated.
Further work is needed to bring the cost estimate up to the
feasibility level generally required by Reclamation authorities before
a project is recommended for authorization. This work will require
Reclamation funding. At this time, Reclamation is developing a
cooperative agreement to allow the Tribe to complete the planning,
engineering, and design of a rural water system, pursuant to P.L. 110-
390, under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act,
P.L.93-638. The real cost of the WMAT Rural Water System will certainly
be refined as this effort moves forward.
In addition to concerns about the cost estimate, the Administration
is also concerned about the mechanism under which project construction
funds would be handled, which could add to the costs of project
construction. As introduced, H.R. 1065 has differing provisions
regarding how the Secretary is supposed to handle the money
appropriated for construction. Section 14 of H.R. 1065 requires the
establishment of a trust fund, the ``Rural Water System Construction
Fund'' into which construction monies would be deposited. This trust
fund would be managed in accordance with the American Indian Trust Fund
Management Reform Act of 1994. The Tribe would be able to withdraw
these funds and spend them after submitting a plan to the Secretary.
This is an unusual and cumbersome way to deal with construction funds.
Reclamation, the bureau responsible for constructing the WMAT Rural
Water System and the bureau to which the funds would typically be
appropriated, would have to deposit construction funds into a trust
account managed by a different bureau.
Under section 7(g) of H.R. 1065, the Tribe has the option of
performing the planning, design, construction, operation, maintenance,
rehabilitation, and replacement of the WMAT Rural Water System in
accordance with the provision of the Indian Self-Determination and
Education Assistance Act (P.L. 93-638). Reclamation believes that
having the tribe carry out the construction under an ISDEAA framework
is one alternative that would accomplish the intended purposes of this
act in a more direct and efficient manner than the trust fund model set
forward in section 14. However, the Tribe has had financial management
and accounting issues with other P.L. 93-638 contracts and grants. The
Department encourages the use of the Indian Self-Determination and
Education Assistance Act and would support its use for the projects
called for in H.R. 1065 if additional language could be formulated and
added to the legislation allowing the Secretary of the Interior to
require appropriate accounting and review measures to insure that
Federal funds are expended as intended. At the very least, the
legislation needs to clarify whether the Secretary is being called upon
to establish a trust fund to be controlled by the Tribe or to
accomplish the construction through an ISDEAA contract. We look forward
to working with the bill sponsors on this clarification. Ultimately,
the Administration's goal in this or any other settlement is to define,
with as much certainty as possible, the Federal costs necessary and
appropriate to achieve implementation of the settlement.
Title to the Rural Water System
H.R. 1065 requires that the WMAT Rural Water System be held in
trust by the United States. This stands in sharp contrast to the manner
in which title to domestic water supply systems is handled in other
enacted and pending water rights settlements. Generally, title is
transferred to tribes or other project users once construction is
complete. The Administration believes transferring title to the
domestic water supply system is more consistent with concepts of self
determination and tribal sovereignty and we would prefer that the WMAT
Rural Water System be so transferred.
Concerns about the Waivers and Releases
The waivers and releases authorized in Section 12 of the bill are
of serious concern to the Administration. We note that the Department
of Justice has concerns that the waivers set forth in the bill do not
adequately protect the United States from future liability and do not
provide the measure of certainty and finality that the Federal
contribution contained in the bill should afford. The U.S. Forest
Service also has concerns about the waiver provisions. We believe that
the issues raised are not irreconcilable if we are given the
opportunity to work with the parties towards resolving them. Recently
enacted settlements, such as the Duck Valley Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of
the Duck Valley Reservation Water Rights Settlement, P.L. 111-11,
provide an example of waiver and release provisions that were
negotiated with the parties in a manner that addressed many of the
Justice Department's concerns.
Additional Concerns about the Financial Structure of this Settlement
In addition to authorizing the WMAT Rural Water System, H.R. 1065
also authorizes appropriations for several other projects as part of
the settlement: (a) snow-making facilities ($25 million); (b) fish
hatcheries ($12.47 million); (c) irrigation rehabilitation ($4.95
million); (d) a forest products feasibility study and implementation
funds ($25 million); and (e) recreation lakes improvements ($48.67
million), a total of approximately $116 million in addition to the
amount authorized for the rural water system. However, under H.R. 1065
as introduced, the waivers by the Tribe and the United States of the
Tribe's federal reserved water rights become effective once there is
funding to construct the rural water system. With the exception of the
funding for the rehabilitation of the irrigation systems on the
reservation, the other settlement activities authorized in this
legislation are completely uncoupled from the waivers. The final
effectiveness and enforceability of the settlement is not contingent on
these other appropriations, but only upon the appropriations for the
design and construction of the WMAT Rural Water System. Other
settlements have followed a different model under which a tribe
receives an appropriation in a fund to accomplish its own development
priorities in using the water it receives under a settlement. We
believe that model might be preferable, although the Administration has
not determined what would be an appropriate amount of federal funding
for such a fund.
We also note that the bill as introduced would require all of the
funding for the rural water system to be appropriated by October 31,
2013. Given the realities of federal budgeting, it will be much more
realistic to provide a longer period to budget for what are ultimately
determined to the appropriate federal costs of this system. To the
extent that one of the factors driving the settlement proponents to ask
for this money upfront is a desire for waivers that come into effect
earlier, we would suggest that they look at other settlements involving
construction where waivers are able to come into effect but are subject
to nullification if construction does not get completed within the time
frame established in the settlement agreement and authorizing
legislation.
Process Concerns and Conclusion
This legislation has to be analyzed and understood within the
context of the large numbers of Indian water rights settlements which
are expected to be introduced during the course of the 111th Congress.
We need to establish negotiating approaches and standards that will
result in fair consideration and treatment of all of the settlements
that this Congress will be asked to review. While we are aware that the
settling parties worked closely with the Federal negotiating team in
developing the parameters of this settlement, we have also been
informed by the team that issues involving the cost of the settlement
were not considered. We believe that these costs need to be discussed
and negotiated and that the benefits of the settlement must justify the
costs. The Administration needs to complete its analysis of the
settlement so that we can inform the parties what level of funding we
would be able to support, and we need to explore alternative funding
mechanisms that will provide a realistic chance for this settlement to
be implemented in a way that fulfills the promise that it represents to
the Tribe and to others for a comprehensive settlement.
In conclusion, the Administration appreciates and is encouraged by
the willingness of the settlement parties to negotiate their
differences in a cooperative spirit. We are committed to working with
Congress and all parties to develop settlement legislation that the
Administration can support.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for the opportunity to present this
testimony. I will be pleased to answer questions you and other Members
might have.
______
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Connor. And I read most of
your testimony except for what came in this morning. I
certainly would appreciate all of it coming in so that I have a
chance to go over it and draw some of my questions out of your
testimony.
I have the greatest respect for the work that the Bureau
does and look forward again to working extensively the next few
Congresses to be able to see what we can do to help promote
Title XVI and other projects, but specifically Title XVI, to
help address some of the drought, what are the tools that they
have to address the drought in the West.
And you talk about the Native American tribes, and I am
just wondering how much help do they have to be able to do the
things that are necessary to come before a subcommittee and get
in line to be able to get assistance. Should we consider
possibly setting aside a fund or creating a fund to deal with
Indian water right claims? Because it is going to hopefully be
more available to more tribes as we go forth.
Mr. Connor. Well, I certainly don't have a position from
the Administration on whether a new fund should be established
for any water rights settlements.
I do know based on existing law there are a couple of
opportunities that exist already out there as part of the
Navajo settlement that was enacted in the last Congress. There
is a provision there that establishes a Reclamation Indian
water rights trust fund to help pay for Reclamation's role in
implementing Indian water rights settlements. And that comes
into effect in the resources available to implement those
settlements as of the year 2020.
There is also as part of the Global AIDS Package the bill
known as PEPFAR that was enacted by Congress last year. There
is a provision there that would also establish a fund to be
used to meet certain needs on Indian lands in three areas, law
enforcement, healthcare and the implementation of Indian water
rights settlements. And I know there has been discussion in the
Legislative Branch about putting resources in there.
So I guess I just note we don't have a position on a new
fund, but there are some existing situations that are under
provisions already in law that Congress I know is looking at.
Mrs. Napolitano. OK. But that brings to mind then is there
enough money in those funds to be able to adequately address
the concerns that most of the tribes have, one. Two, maybe
having a hearing with all those agencies, the different areas
where those funds are, to sit at table and find out what is
there so that we know and be able to refer as they come to a
subcommittee to request assistance.
Mr. Connor. Well, I think getting all of that information
out on the table would be a very good first step. We are
certainly concerned from the Bureau of Reclamation's
perspective about the backlog that exists presently with
respect to authorized Indian water rights settlements, which is
in the tune of about a billion dollars. And certainly, this
bill and other bills that are currently before Congress would
add to that overall backlog of expectations of coming up with
the money to implement those settlements that the parties are
looking to implement.
Mrs. Napolitano. We look forward to working with you on
that, Commissioner. Mr. Chaffetz?
Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you, Madame Chair, I appreciate it. I
would just ask unanimous consent to insert into the record my
statement regarding the Magna Water District Water Reuse and
Groundwater Recharge Act of 2009.
Mrs. Napolitano. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you.
[The statement submitted for the record by Mr. Chaffetz
follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Jason Chaffetz, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Utah
Thank you Madam Chairwoman and Ranking Member McClintock for
holding this hearing on H.R. 2265, The Magna Water District Water Reuse
and Groundwater Recharge Act of 2009''. H.R. 2265 is the House
companion bill to S. 745 sponsored by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT).
I want to formally welcome, Ed Hansen, the manager of the Magna
Water District. This is his first time testifying before a
congressional committee. He's a good man. Go easy on him.
H.R. 2265 amends the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study
Facilities Act, also known as Title XVI. This legislation authorizes
$12 million in federal funding. Total cost of the project is $51
million.
The Magna Water District is located in Salt Lake County and
includes the Magna Township, western areas of West Valley City, and a
corner of south west Salt Lake City.
Project Description
This project achieves the following:
Restoration of a currently contaminated drinking water
supply.
Implementation of water reuse and groundwater recharge.
Reduction in high quality drinking water usage for
irrigation.
A new electrodialysis facility is being built to remove perchlorate
and arsenic from the Barton Well Field resulting in two products: high
quality drinking water and a concentrated waste stream.
The drinking water will be pumped directly into the District's
potable water system. The concentrated waste stream will flow by
gravity to the existing wastewater treatment plant where a bioreactor
is being constructed to treat the waste stream.
The bioreactor will produce high quality effluent that will be
disinfected and combined with the effluent from the existing wastewater
treatment plant to be used for irrigation, eliminating the need to use
a high quality drinking water for outdoor irrigation uses. The project
will result in a projected annual reduction of 580 million gallon of
high quality, potable water used for outdoor irrigation.
The existing wastewater treatment plant effluent is discharged into
the Great Salt Lake where it is unrecoverable. With this new project,
the areas being irrigated are also within the recharge zone for
groundwater recovery wells that provide water for the District's
expanding secondary water irrigation system.
Justification for Federal Funding
Federal funding for this project is justified so that the Magna
Water District may comply with federal environmental mandates.
Moreover, this federal funding is justified since the district is
addressing water contamination caused by the Department of Defense and
its contractors.
The Bureau of Reclamation has reviewed the project and has found
the project to be feasible.
I look forward to hearing the Administration's testimony and
addressing their concerns.
Thank you, again, Madam Chairwoman and Ranking Member McClintock,
for holding this hearing. I look forward to working with you and
members of your staff to move this needful project forward.
______
Mr. Chaffetz. If I may, my understanding regarding the
Magna project is that, again having not seen the testimony that
came this morning, and my apologies for being late with other
committee assignments, that the project is feasible, but the
question is much more in tune with resources and other projects
that are in line before this one.
Can you help summarize that for me?
Mr. Connor. I think you have characterized the issue
correctly. We look at these projects, and I think in each of
the written statements it weighs this out. There are two
aspects from which Bureau of Reclamation is evaluating these
authorizations. One is the basic feasibility, and the
directives and standards that Reclamation has to evaluate
project feasibility, which were really new, not new but revised
last year and put in place, and which we have been applying to
these new authorizations.
As you know, the Magna project that is in your bill as of
last week was certified as feasible, having gone through that
process. But even in that context, then we have to look at the
existing backlog of projects that we have. And to summarize
there, we have basically a $600 million backlog in authorized
Title XVI projects. And that is after the $135 million of
Recovery Act money that we just announced on July 1 to be
applied to those projects.
So, given that backlog and given the available resources at
this time, that is the basis for the position that we are not
supporting new project authorizations.
Mr. Chaffetz. Understood. Just one other brief comment.
Having visited the facility in Utah recently for the first
time, I appreciate the fine men and women who are serving
there, that are serving our country and, by all evidence, are
doing a great job. It is a wonderful facility. So I thank you,
and I yield back, Madame Chair. Thank you.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you for your statement. And now just
a couple questions, Commissioner.
Public Law 109-451 authorized Reclamation to establish
comprehensive programmatic criteria, including prioritization
and eligibility criteria as well as criteria to evaluate
appraisal and feasibility studies for the rural water program.
In your opinion, are similar criteria needed for Title XVI
programs? And has the development of these directives and
standards negated the need for legislative criteria?
Mr. Connor. Well, I think the promulgation of the
directives and standards are sufficient to evaluate project
feasibility. And we have been applying those directives and
standards as I mentioned. And based on that application, I
think over the last two years, 2008 and 2009, there have been
20 new projects that have been authorized by Congress, most, if
not all, that have been evaluated and certified under those
directives and standards. So that, in my mind, addresses the
feasibility aspect of this.
In moving forward and in tough budgetary times, in
evaluating the priorities for funding under Title XVI, there
may be room to look at projects and develop criteria under
which we would allocate the limited resources and prioritize
the projects that should be funded.
We did some aspect of that in the Recovery Act funds, the
$135 million, although I should note that we certainly looked
at the projects themselves and evaluated them. But also we had
to apply the criteria that was established as part of the
Recovery Act, a lot of which involved shovel-readiness, when we
could get the money obligated, when it could be used by the
project sponsors. So those were some other criteria that were
specific to the Recovery Act.
Mrs. Napolitano. But when you talk about the feasibility
study, are you referring to the feasibility study that applies
to a Title XVI program not under the principals and guidelines,
is this true? Is this correct?
Mr. Connor. That is correct.
Mrs. Napolitano. OK.
Mr. Connor. They are specific feasibility criteria that
have been developed for the Title XVI program itself. Although
there are similarities and there are certain aspects that are
pulled out of the general principal and guidelines for larger
water projects, the feasibility directives and standards are
customized to the Title XVI project based on the local
sponsor's input and our role.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. And I would like to ask that a
list of those projects that have met the feasibility be
provided to this Subcommittee.
Mr. Connor. Yes, Madame Chairwoman, we can do that.
Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. McClintock.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Madame Chairwoman. The first
question I have is just over the cost-effectiveness issues.
What criteria are used to evaluate whether these things make
financial sense?
Mr. Connor. Well, we do have economic considerations as one
aspect. There are nine different categories as part of the
directives and standards. Economic considerations and analyses
are part of those.
I can get back to you on the written record as far as all
elements of those economic considerations. I do know that they
look at project alternatives as one aspect of that, so there is
some comparison that is done as part of that analysis. But as
far as the whole level of details in evaluating cost-
effectiveness, that is actually one of the items in there. They
look at cost-effectiveness.
Mr. McClintock. I am looking at some of the numbers before
us, and I find them absolutely stunning. Just the projects that
are on the agenda today, even amortizing the costs over 30
years, it comes to nearly $1,000 per acre-foot. That just
doesn't seem to me to make any sense at all.
Mr. Connor. Well, I haven't looked at them, at the
projects, as far as a cost per acre-foot. I guess in looking at
the projects, one perspective that I can give is the Title XVI
program uses a 25 percent Federal cost share and leverages a
lot of local community money to develop those projects. And
those communities it seems safe to say have evaluated their
options for providing additional water supply to their
communities and have determined that this is one of the most
cost-effective options for them to come up with a drought-
resistant supply.
Mrs. Napolitano. A thousand dollars per acre-foot? I mean,
the most expensive I have ever heard imported water to run is
about $400 per acre-foot, and that includes moving it about 500
miles. So $1,000 per acre-foot just sounds completely off the
scale. I just wonder why in the world would we be interested in
encouraging that? I mean, if a local community wants to
squander its citizens' money in that way, that is between them
and the local citizens. But why should the rest of the
taxpayers of America be pulled into that silly decision?
Mr. Connor. Well, I think I would want to go back and,
before answering that question, go back and evaluate these
projects and see whether in fact they are $1,000 per acre-foot
and evaluate why those communities believe that that is the
best investment that they can provide water supply through.
Mr. McClintock. Have you found any of these recycling
projects under Title XVI to be less expensive per acre-foot
than the alternative of importing or harvesting water?
Mr. Connor. That is a part of our analysis of the Title XVI
projects. I can get back to you on details of what we found.
Mr. McClintock. Have you ever determined a recycling
project that is producing water for less than the cost of
importing it?
Mr. Connor. I will have to get back to you with the
details.
Mr. McClintock. OK. It seems to me that is a pretty basic
question if you are evaluating cost-effectiveness and
particularly if you are giving any kind of serious
consideration to cost-effectiveness. Don't you agree?
Mr. Connor. That is a fundamental question. I do agree with
that.
Mr. McClintock. If I can move to the question of the
Federal nexus, why is it that a taxpayer in Alturas,
California, for example, should be called upon to finance a
water project in Downey, California, for example?
Mr. Connor. Well, I think going back to the initial
authorization of the Title XVI program, the view is that there
was a direct Federal nexus in helping local communities in
California I guess be less reliant on imported water supplies
from the Colorado River and elsewhere.
Mr. McClintock. But Alturas doesn't get any of its water
from the Colorado or from any other sources that Downey draws
from. They are two entirely separate water systems. Why should
one be forced to subsidize the cost of the other?
Mr. Connor. Well, I guess there are Federal issues in a lot
of different river basins, et cetera. This was viewed as a
Federal objective to help people, communities be able to
develop local supplies and get off the Colorado River.
In that situation, which was the basis for the original
authorization, there is a Federal interest in California Bay
Delta and water recycling projects there as part of an overall
solution to help address the serious water issues that exist in
the northern California area. In other areas of the country, I
know Title XVI projects have been used which have helped
forestall, address new water supplies in other water-short
basins such as the Middle Rio Grande.
And the development of these projects certainly has helped
at least delay, and maybe negate, the need for additional
surface water supplies, which has helped alleviate some of the
environmental issues that exist in other river basins.
Mr. McClintock. My concern is to me it sounds like the
government's attitude is cost is no object and fairness is no
object.
Two more questions if I may, Madame Chairwoman.
First, the feasibility issue. You said that these projects
are evaluated on a much different set of criteria in terms of
feasibility than say a dam project. What are those differences?
Mr. Connor. Well, once again, the details of those
differences of how the feasibility criteria for Title XVI
projects differ from the overall P and Gs, I am going to have
to get back to you on the written record. I am happy to do
that.
I think what is driving the differences, though, is
recognizing that this is a 75 percent local cost share and the
Federal government is a contributor of up to 25 percent of the
cost. So we are not shouldering the burden of developing these
projects, so the analysis is a little different. But there is
still an analysis to ensure that the Federal investment for
these projects is a good and legitimate one.
Mr. McClintock. Final question going to the Uintah bill. I
was stunned as I pulled out a pocket calculator and realized
that the water allocation is 2.1 million gallons for every one
of the 15,000 residents. What is the justification for that?
Mr. Connor. That is the White Mountain Apache Tribal
Settlement Bill?
Mr. McClintock. Pardon me, I am sorry. I am sorry, White
Mountain Apache.
Mr. Connor. Well, I know that the allocation of water in
that particular settlement was negotiated by not only the Tribe
and the State but a lot of water users in the area, in fact all
of the water users that perceive themselves at risk from the
unquantified tribal water rights. So that was an agreement that
was developed by the parties in allocating Arizona's water
resources, and those parties thought that that was a legitimate
allocation.
The Federal team that participated in some of the
negotiations has done a preliminary analysis, viewing that as a
legitimate allocation of water, based on the tribal claims and
other criteria that they have looked at, including the fact
that the water is available from Arizona.
Mr. McClintock. What is the Tribe going to use all of that
water to do?
Mr. Connor. I am not aware of all the tribal water needs.
Certainly the centerpiece of the settlement is utilizing a
portion of that water for its rural water supply project, so
M&I needs basically. And I am sure the Tribe has agricultural
uses and other opportunities to use water in addition to that.
Mr. McClintock. Thanks.
Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Miller.
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Madame Chair.
Commissioner, let me just follow on here. As I look at your
testimony, it suggests that you can't support the authorization
of these new projects because there is a backlog of projects
already.
Mr. Connor. That is correct.
Mr. Miller. Have you thought about the reverse of that on
how you work on the backlog in terms of the budget allocations?
I know you have come with this budget, the first one of this
Administration. And I recognize that there was money, the $135
million that was in the stimulus bill. But when we look forward
to 2011, I would assume that backlog would suggest that there
is some priority here by the Congress, by local water users,
that this is a viable way to go.
So how do we turn that notion around that because there is
a backlog we can't support it--as opposed to how are we going
to get the backlog whittled down, especially when we have some
anticipation of the continuation of the drought in a good chunk
of the West and certainly in California?
Mr. Connor. To answer your initial question, I have given
that a lot of thought. Quite frankly, that is the heart of the
matter of how are we going to address the backlog that exists.
I would just note part of my testimony also is we strongly view
that we should be evaluating the feasibility of projects, and
some of these projects have not achieved that feasibility
determination. So that is part and parcel.
But the heart of your question, how are we going to whittle
away at this backlog and do we not understand that this is a
priority for Congress and a priority because these are good
water projects, we are looking very closely at that question.
As I noted in my statements, Secretary Salazar has a water
conservation initiative which did have significant resources in
the 2010 budget. We view the Title XVI program to be part of
that initiative. Granted, it was $9 million in the 2010 budget
that was a couple-million-dollar increase over previous
budgets, and we are going to be evaluating the whole water
conservation initiative taking this data as part of that
discussion that there is this huge backlog that produces good
results in addressing a lot of water supply issues.
Mr. Miller. May I assume from your answer then that we have
moved on from what a lot of people have speculated that the
Bureau just didn't see this as part of their mission? They just
didn't see water recycling and reuse as part of their mission?
That that is now incorporated as part of when you look at the
overall mission of the Bureau and the Department of the
Interior?
Mr. Connor. Title XVI is an important part of the Bureau of
Reclamation's mission.
Mr. Miller. Well, that is very helpful to know that,
because I think that what we see here is, I would say to my
colleague, Mr. McClintock, it is not just a question of whether
the price of the water, the recycled water, the reuse of the
water versus delivered water, the reason many of these projects
are being considered is because the delivered water isn't being
able to be delivered.
A lot of this is about water stability and whether or not
people will be able to rely on those supplies for economic
decisions that local communities have to make, either about
creating jobs. In some cases, some manufacturing in our state,
a fair amount of manufacturing in our state is very water-
intensive and whether or not that water will be available or
whether it is building new communities if California continues
to gain in population as it sort of has over the historical
past.
So I think that when we look at this as a component of the
water development in the West this is significant. In terms of
what we like to think we would build on is a system that is
flexible to move water for competing economic needs, for
competing environmental needs, for competing demands from
growth and also take into accommodation that we do go through
and we have gone through these cycles of water availability.
And I expect that in some instances, if you compare this
water to water that people are talking about developing behind
new dams or reworked dams or whatever the project we are going
to use, when you look at the actual yield and the availability
on a consistent basis, this is probably a fair comparison.
But that is your job. You will have to look at those
comparisons and the feasibility, because obviously if the
projects just are not feasible, we shouldn't be funding them.
That is the test that I think most of the local entities have
thought about as they decide to commit local resources. That is
one of the initial screens that you go through--that there is
some determination by the local individuals.
The question of what happens to the people in Alturas, the
same question is true whether you raise Shasta Dam or you build
Temperance Flat or you build something else or a new canal or
rework the pumps. Those are shared expenses of trying to keep
California water use together and sustainable and hopefully
somewhat predictable.
So I think that these are a very important component of the
traditional mission of the Department of the Interior in terms
of water development and allocations and uses throughout the
West. And certainly, when it comes to times of scarcity that we
are now experiencing, I think that many of these projects
really let us--the second use of the water or third use of the
water becomes very valuable when you look at the water budget
in many of these geographical areas. It is not just in
California but throughout much of the West.
So I would hope that we could work with you to develop a
consistent policy, a priority of this policy, as a component of
the traditional mission of the Department of the Interior in
the programs of water development throughout the West.
I think that the match, I would like other people to have
the skin in the game. You know, in the past, we did an awful
lot of water development in the West where other people didn't
have much skin in the game. They are beneficiaries and they are
interested in it and all the rest of it, but those bills still
have not been paid.
So I think this is a much better way to go. The Chairwoman
has been an absolute champion of recycling and reuse. And while
there were a lot of doubters I think in the beginning, when we
look at the water predicament in our state, you start to see
the urgency of trying to figure out how we can build this kind
of flexibility, whether it is increased storage in normal or
perhaps wet years or whether it is the ability to draw on that
water or to recycle that water or reuse that water in whatever
mix of components people have in their plans, become very, very
important to try to provide some sustainability and
predictability for the economy of our state and other regions
of the West.
So I would hope that with this hearing and with an
opportunity with this Committee to work with you that we could
incorporate this into a major component and priority of the
Department as it considers going forward in the West.
In my years here, when we reconfigured the Central Utah
project and the Garrison project, we recognized that a lot of
those uses didn't make much economic sense, given the way the
West has developed. There were other competing economic
interests where that water was more valuable, more viable, and
the rest of that. And that should be a continual process within
the Department of the Interior, within the Congress, and within
the states as our states' populations and economies change over
time.
And I would hope that we would also be willing to add new
technologies, new sources of the use of water, to help us get
through that.
And so I look forward to working with you. I have a great
sense of urgency about these projects that we are seeking to
authorize in this Committee. We look forward to your screening
them for their feasibility.
I think I had a couple of projects the first time that
really went through a real feasibility study. We got through
it, and so I welcome that process. And I think all of those who
testify today know that they are going to have to meet that
test.
So thank you very much for your time. My apologies, I have
a markup. Mr. McClintock, are you coming to my markup? No.
Mr. McClintock. Not after the last one, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Miller. The last one is not over yet in the Education
Committee. But I just want you to know I am very, very
interested in the success of this program, and I mean success
in all ways, for the taxpayers, for water users in the West.
Thank you.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Miller, and I
couldn't have said it any better.
The one thing I would like to ask the Commissioner to
clarify in response to continuing a little bit of your
question, Mr. Miller, and to Mr. McClintock's point, it isn't
just about the cost, it is about certainty of water delivery.
Do you agree, sir?
Mr. Connor. Certainly. I think one of the motivating
factors for communities in looking at water reuse is certainly
its drought resistance, its certainty as far as supply. And
given other issues ongoing in the West now, I can see why that
is a high priority that local communities place on developing
water.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, sir. Mr. Walden.
Mr. Walden. Thank you, Madame Chairwoman. And again, I find
myself in agreement with the gentleman from California. The
only question I ask is, did you want Mr. McClintock at your
markup? I won't go there.
Mr. Miller. That crossed through my mind.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Walden. I know we want him there, but I am going to
leave all that California stuff to you all. But I thank you for
your comments.
Mr. Connor, thank you, and I look forward to getting some
time with you down the road. I know this is your first time
before this Committee, and while I am not a member of it, I was
for a number of years. And my district, 70,000 square miles in
eastern Oregon, has just a couple of water issues going on.
It seems to me on this legislation and legislation like it,
while I understand the Administration's opposition or
acknowledge it, I guess I would look at it from this
perspective. There are a lot of projects in the queue, and you
don't have enough money right now to fund them all. I get that.
But it looks to me like it is not harmful for this Committee to
move forward and put another one in the queue, to go through
the process to determine this is worthwhile so that when
funding does come you are ready to go.
I mean, we do that all the time in all kinds of other
committees I am on. We authorize things and say no, the
authorizing committee has reviewed the project and determined
it makes sense. Then those higher up in Appropriations decide
is the money there to pay for it.
And so I would hope you would think about that. I
understand you have already testified in OMB and all that
stuff. But it just seems to me that the duty of this Committee
is to say no, this is a good project and when the money is
there, this should happen. And then people can go ahead and
kind of begin to plan.
There is another one coming in the Rogue Valley, southern
Oregon, that is upwards of 30,000 acre-feet of water that would
go back into the Rogue River that could displace--it is a very
complex one, but anyway, they end up using the recycled water.
It solves an irrigation issue, it puts more water in the river,
I mean, all of that, and the water going in is more pure than
the water in the river.
And so I think these are the kinds of projects that make a
lot of sense and help us get ahead of the curve on our water
needs and our recycling needs and frankly improving the water
quality.
At some point, I hope to sit with you and have a discussion
about the Administration's views on the Klamath Basin
Restoration project. I know you will be deeply engaged in that.
I know Secretary Salazar has made it clear that the
Administration intends to move forward. There are obviously a
lot of complex issues involved in the KBRA and a lot of
controversy surrounding it.
And so I look forward to an opportunity sometime to sit
down and have that discussion with you, sir.
Mr. Connor. I would welcome the opportunity.
Mr. Walden. And I thank you for being here today. And after
my stirring remarks, I am sure you will reconsider your
opposition to my bill.
Thank you, Madame Chairwoman.
Mrs. Napolitano. You are welcome. Do we have any other
questions for the Commissioner?
Mr. McClintock. I just want to address the question of
reliability. It seems to me that the reason that California is
now suffering from unreliable water supplies is the fact that
half of our water is being diverted to meet various
environmental regulations and only a portion of the state water
project was ever completed, which gets back to my concerns that
the last generation has dropped the objective of abundance as
the principal objective of water and power policy and has
instead moved now to rationing shortages that are caused by the
abandonment of abundance as a national object.
Mr. Miller. If the gentleman would yield, I just would say
I think you will find that half of the water is not being
diverted for environmental reasons. In fact, when you look at
the shortage this year, a very small percentage of the water is
related to environmental reasons.
But understand that those environmental reasons are also
linked to economic reasons. In fact, a lot of this discussion
over the fish, for a lot of small businesspeople up and down
the north and central coast, that environmental reason is
whether or not they will have a livelihood. For the people who
do the dockside supplies, whether it is ship channel reefs or
whether it is icemakers or fish salespeople or the trucking
firms and all the rest of that, hook onto those issues.
So this isn't just throwing away jobs in one area for jobs
in the other areas. But I think when you examine this, you will
find out that in fact very little of that is--we have an
overall--we have much more demand on water than the water that
is available in the current system. And this is one way that we
think we can better manage that and get a greater yield out of
that water.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. I will stop the discussion at
this moment. We need to move over for them. I wish they were
true because I also have my own two cents on it, and I don't
want to get started. When you put in enough water meters, I
will start with that. Thank you, sir.
With that, Commissioner, thank you so much. I would love to
have you sit around and listen, and possibly we may want to
bring you up to answer a question or two. But thank you so very
much. I look forward to working with you. And so with that, we
dismiss you, and we will call up our next panel.
Mr. Connor. Thank you.
Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Desi Alvarez, Deputy City Manager for
the City of Downey, California, testifying on H.R. 1738; Mr.
Edwin Hansen, General Manager at Magna Water District, Magna,
Utah, H.R. 2265; Mr. Gary Darling, General Manager, Delta
Diablo Sanitation District, Antioch, H.R. 2442; Susan Mulligan,
General Manager of Engineering, or Manager of Engineering,
Calleguas Municipal Water District, Thousand Oaks, California,
on H.R. 2522; Ed Brookshier, City Manager, Hermiston, Oregon,
H.R. 2741; Scott Ruppe, General Manager, Uintah Water
Conservancy District, Vernal, Utah, H.R. 2950.
Welcome. And we will begin with Mr. Alvarez from Downey.
STATEMENT OF DESI ALVAREZ, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER, DOWNEY,
CALIFORNIA [H.R. 1738]
Mr. Alvarez. Madame Chairwoman and honorable members of the
Committee, my name is Desi Alvarez, Deputy City Manager of the
City of Downey. On behalf of the City of Downey, I would like
to express our gratitude to Congresswoman Roybal-Allard for
introducing this legislation and to Chairwoman Napolitano for
co-sponsoring the bill.
I would also like to publicly thank all of the cities that
have written letters in support of this project, which is vital
to the City of Downey and, we believe, to the region as a
whole. I appreciate the opportunity to testify on H.R. 1738,
the Downey Regional Water Reclamation Project, and will be
happy to answer any questions you may have.
The proposed legislation is associated with the
construction of an advanced water treatment facility that will
improve water supply and water reliability in southeast Los
Angeles County by ensuring a local, reliable, safe, cost-
effective and energy-efficient source of drinking water for
five cities serving approximately 450,000 people.
The project will eliminate dependence on expensive imported
water from the Sacramento San Joaquin Delta, and it is of
utmost importance because of environmental and economic
considerations. And that is why the City of Downey has proposed
to build this project.
The ability to treat recycled water and put it to
beneficial use enhances the region's drinking water reliability
and security. And in these economic times, this project will
provide tangible benefits through the creation of approximately
650 jobs.
The Cities of Cerritos, Downey, Norwalk, Pico Rivera and
South Gate are located in southeast Los Angeles County and rely
on pumped water from the Central Basin for the majority of
their potable water needs, which is approximately 50 million
gallons of water per day.
The Cities' reliance on the local groundwater supply is
economically preferable to meet 100 percent of their water
needs. However, that is not possible since the amount of water
each city can pump in any given year is limited to the
sustainable yield of the basin, which limits each city's
extraction rights. Since annual potable water demands are
currently greater than the Cities' extraction rights, any
increase in water demands will further stress the already-tight
water situation.
Presently the difference between the allowable extractions
from the basin and greater water demands leaves the Cities
dependent on using imported water, the main source being from
the northern California through this delta, a less-than-viable
long-term solution for providing water to the region.
Our increase in demand for water has resulted in the need
for a project like this. Importing northern California water
which was to be moved through the delta is an unfavorable
option due to the high cost and its unreliability as to the
long-term supply source, due to the impacts of pumping on the
ecosystem of the delta, thus the alternative of providing for
water needs for the local sustainable reliable water supply
from highly treated recycled water.
This project is consistent with the California Water Plan
update, which promotes regional water supply diversification
and increased use of recycled water. The project will provide 5
million gallons per day of net new potable water, which may be
delivered through pipeline connections far more efficiently, as
we are proposing, by injection into the groundwater basin for
extraction by participating cities using regular groundwater
pumping wells.
The project will be built at the City of Downey's utilities
yard, selected because it is located near an existing recycled
water transmission main, has space available to house the
facility, has an existing five-million-gallon storage tank
which will be dedicated to the project.
A new 18-inch influent recycled water pipeline will be
constructed to connect to an existing recycled water
transmission line at Firestone Boulevard, and the project will
consist of an advanced treatment plant using microfiltration,
ultrafiltration, and reverse osmosis, as well as ultraviolet
light with hydrogen peroxide for disinfection. The project has
environmental water security and economic benefits on our local
region and on a national level.
The use of the local water supplies will also help us be
much more independent in our future as our water demands
continue to increase. On behalf of the Cities of Cerritos,
Norwalk, Pico River and South Gate, the City of Downey is
requesting support for H.R. 1738, which authorizes funds for
the design and construction of a five-million-gallon-per-day
advanced recycled water treatment plant.
The project is essential to ensure the sustainability of
the Cities' drinking water supplies. The City of Downey has
invested significant time and funds in preparation of this
project and is ready to proceed with project implementation.
In light of the numerous economic, environmental and
regulatory benefits the project affords the Central Basin in
Los Angeles County, I ask for your continued support of this
important legislation. I thank the Committee and you, Madame
Chairwoman, for your time and consideration. I am available to
answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Alvarez follows:]
Statement of Desi Alvarez, Deputy City Manager,
City of Downey, California, in support of H.R. 1738
Introduction
Madame Chair and Honorable Members of the Committee, my name is
Desi Alvarez, and I am the Deputy City Manager of the City of Downey,
California. On behalf of the City of Downey, I'd like to express our
gratitude to Congresswoman Roybal-Allard for introducing this
legislation and to Chairwoman Napolitano for co-sponsoring the bill.
I'd also like to publicly thank all of the cities that have written
letters in support of this project, which is vital to the City of
Downey and, we believe, to the region as a whole. I appreciate the
opportunity to testify on H.R. 1738, the Downey Regional Water
Reclamation and Groundwater Augmentation Project and to answer any
questions you may have.
The proposed legislation is associated with the construction of a
water treatment and groundwater storage facility that will dramatically
improve water supply and water reliability in Southeast Los Angeles
County. The Downey Regional Water Reclamation and Groundwater
Augmentation Project will ensure a local, reliable, safe, cost-
effective and energy-efficient source of drinking water for five cities
and nearly 450,000 people. Eliminating dependence on expensive imported
water from the vulnerable Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is of utmost
importance, environmentally and economically, and that is why the City
of Downey has proposed to build this regional project. The ability to
treat recycled water and store it in the groundwater basin directly
enhances the region's drinking water reliability and security.
Furthermore, in these tough economic times, this project provides
tangible benefits to the region before the project is completed,
through the creation of approximately 648 jobs.
Project Need
The Cities of Cerritos, Downey, Norwalk, Pico Rivera, and South
Gate are located in the Central Groundwater Basin in Southeast Los
Angeles County and rely on water pumped from the Basin to meet the
majority of their potable water needs. The combined population of the
five cities is approximately 450,000, with a current demand of nearly
50 million gallons of water per day. The cities' reliance on
groundwater supply is economically preferable and would be sustainable,
except that the amount of water each city can pump in any given year is
limited by the sustainable yield of the basin, which limits each city's
extraction rights. Since annual potable water demands are currently
greater than each city's extraction rights, any increase in water
demand will further stress the already tight water situation.
Presently, the difference between the allowable extractions from
the Basin and the greater water demands leaves cities dependent on
using imported water, the main source being from Northern California
through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta), a less than viable
long-term solution for providing water to the region. Increasing
populations throughout the Central Groundwater Basin have led to
increased water demand overall. Importing Northern California water,
which must be moved through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, is an
unfavorable option due to the high cost; unreliability as a long-term
source of water; excessive carbon footprint and energy usage resulting
from pumping water up the 8,000 foot Tehachapi Mountains; and adverse
impacts on the ecosystem of the Delta, of which this subcommittee is
well aware, based on the proceedings of the CalFed Bay Delta Program.
Thus, the alternative of providing for water needs with a local,
sustainable, reliable water supply from highly treated recycled water
is highly desirable. This alternative capitalizes on two local and
underutilized resources: the dewatered space in the Central Groundwater
Basin and the millions of gallons of unused recycled water produced
each year by the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County.
Treating the locally-produced recycled water and storing it through the
use of groundwater injection wells will augment the water supply
available to pumpers in the Central Groundwater Basin. It also enhances
the quality of the groundwater, as in many cases the extensively
treated recycled water has fewer total dissolved solids (TDS) than the
water naturally occurring in the Basin. Furthermore, this Project is
consistent with the California Water Plan Update, which promotes
regional water supply diversification and increased use of recycled
water.
Project Description
The Downey Regional Water Reclamation and Groundwater Augmentation
Project would provide advanced treatment of recycled water for
injection and storage in the Central Groundwater Basin. Product water
capacity of the advanced recycled water treatment plant will produce
five million gallons per day of net new potable water which would be
injected into the groundwater basin for extraction by participating
Cities via regular groundwater pumping wells.
The project will be built at the City of Downey's Utilities Yard,
selected because it is located near an existing recycled water
transmission main, has space available to house the facility, and has
an existing five million gallon storage tank which will be dedicated to
the project. A new 18-inch influent recycled water pipeline will be
constructed (see Figure 1. Project Area Map) to connect the existing
recycled water transmission main at Firestone Boulevard and the San
Gabriel River to the new treatment plant at the Utilities Yard. The
influent pipeline would convey tertiary treated recycled water from the
County Sanitation District's Los Coyotes Water Reclamation Plant to the
proposed advanced water treatment plant. Physical components of the
advanced treatment plant include an influent tank, an inter-process
storage tank, pump stations, filters, and strainers and process streams
and pipelines (see Table 1. Project Components). The recycled water
would be further filtered with microfiltration and ultrafiltration
membranes; treated with a reverse osmosis system; and disinfected using
ultraviolet light with hydrogen peroxide treatment.
The resulting high-purity reclaimed water would then be introduced
into the Central Groundwater Basin through three aquifer storage and
recovery wells. Following injection, the stored water would be
available for extraction to augment the local water supply.
Project Benefits
The Downey Regional Water Reclamation and Groundwater Augmentation
Project has environmental, water security, and economic benefits on a
local, regional and national level (summarized in Table 2. Project
Benefits). The project is consistent with state and federal objectives
that aim to reduce reliance on water imported from the Delta, to
promote regional water supply diversification and to increase the use
of recycled water. Augmenting the water supply so that local water is
more available than imported water reduces reliance on the Delta and
``drought-proofs'' the local water supply.
The use of local water supplies will also reduce energy consumption
and greenhouse gas production because local water, unlike imported
water, does not need to be pumped up and over the 8,000 foot Tehachapi
Mountains. Another environmental benefit of the project is an
improvement in water quality in the San Gabriel River and in the
Central Groundwater Basin because the production of ultra-high quality
recycled water through treatment with reverse osmosis will result in
reduced total dissolved solid contaminant levels. Finally, this project
will benefit the local, state, and national economy through the
creation of approximately 648 jobs resulting from increased
construction (direct), manufacturing (indirect), and consumer spending
(indirect) labor (based on the IMPLAN Model Input/Output Data from the
Los Angeles County Economic Roundtable).
Conclusion
On behalf of the Cities of Cerritos, Norwalk, Pico Rivera, and
South Gate, the City of Downey is requesting support for H.R. 1738,
which authorizes funds for the design and construction of a five
million gallon-per-day advanced recycled water treatment plant with
groundwater storage wells. The Downey Regional Water Reclamation and
Groundwater Augmentation Project is essential to ensure the
sustainability of the Cities' drinking water supplies. The
participating cities and the Southeast Water Coalition actively support
this project. The City of Downey has invested significant time and
funds in preparation of this project, and is ready to proceed with
project implementation, pending completion of final plans and
specifications. It is anticipated that the environmental impact report
could be completed by the end of September 2010, a construction
contract could be awarded by October of 2011, and project close-out
could be completed by September 2013.
In light of the numerous economic, environmental, and regulatory
benefits the Downey Regional Water Reclamation and Groundwater
Augmentation Project affords the Central Groundwater Basin in Los
Angeles County, I ask for your continued support of this important
legislation.
I thank the committee and you, Madame Chair, for your time and your
consideration.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Alvarez.
And now we will move on to Mr. Edwin Hansen, General
Manager at Magna Water District, Magna, Utah.
STATEMENT OF EDWIN J. HANSEN, GENERAL MANAGER, MAGNA WATER
DISTRICT, MAGNA, UTAH [H.R. 2265]
Mr. Hansen. Madame Chairwoman and members of the Committee,
I thank you for the opportunity to address you this morning.
I am the General Manager of the Magna Water District. We
serve the Magna Township, the northwest quadrant of the Salt
Lake Valley, along with West Valley City and parts of the
southwest section of Salt Lake City.
I want to thank Representative Chaffetz for his support of
this bill, Representatives Matheson and Bishop for co-
sponsoring this bill on our behalf. All three of the
representatives' districts bound Magna's area.
Magna serves a population of approximately 28,000 people.
The Title XVI project now before the Committee has a unique
opportunity to restore drinking water supply by removing
arsenic and perchlorate from the Barton Well Field while
implementing a water reuse groundwater recharge project.
Over the past century, the historic uses of the nearby land
have been for copper mining and rocket fuel production. We also
have a DOD facility that is located just south of the district.
Both of these facilities necessitated an aggressive response
from our district from the contamination and from the unfunded
mandated arsenic safe drinking water rule. The District
invested and is investing in a new EDR, electrodialysis
treatment facility, which will remove the contaminants from the
drinking water and provide the population safe drinking water.
The facility after producing the drinking water will produce a
highly concentrated brine stream with the contamination in it.
The District over the past decade has been looking at
alternative treatments for handling this concentrated brine
stream. The District along with a couple of engineers has
developed a BIOBROx treatment system that will remove and
destroy the contaminated in the concentrated brine stream.
The concentrated brine stream leaves the facility and is
entered into the wastewater collection system, which in turn is
delivered to our wastewater treatment plant. The BIOBROx
process allows this high-concentrated brine along with the
contamination to pass through these bioreactors. These
bioreactors are 12 foot in diameter, 15 feet high. There are
six of them. When constructed, they will treat just under four
MGD a day.
The effluent coming off these bioreactors will be type I
reuse irrigation water and will be ready for treatment and then
allowed to be pumped back out into the reuse/recharge system.
The District has master-planned over the last 20 years and
looked at alternative costs for water and import water. They
felt with the District's support and the community's support
that the alternative was to treat the water and have invested
$36 million in this project.
The cost of import water is projected to be over $1,000 per
acre-foot. So we feel that this concentrated brine stream,
rather than being discharged directly out to the environment,
our option was better to treat it and reuse the water as a
sustainable water source for this area of Salt Lake County.
I thank you for the opportunity. If you have any questions,
I will be happy to answer them.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hansen follows:]
Statement of Edwin Hansen, Magna Water District (Utah), on H.R. 2265
Good Morning. My name is Ed Hansen. I am the General Manager of the
Magna Water District, which is comprised of Magna Township, located in
the western areas of West Valley City, and a corner of South West Salt
Lake City in Salt Lake County, Utah
I want to thank Representatives Chaffetz, Matheson and Bishop for
sponsoring this bill on our behalf. All three of there Congressional
Districts intersect at our near the area which serves the 28,000 people
who reside in our service area.
Through this Title XVI project now before the committee, the Magna
Water District has a unique opportunity to restore a drinking water
supply by removing arsenic and perchlorate from the Barton Well Field
while implementing a water reuse and groundwater recharge project. Over
the past century, the historic uses of the nearby land are copper
mining and rocket fuel production, both of which has necessitated an
aggressive response by our district.
A new electrodialysis reversal (EDR) facility is currently being
constructed to remove perchlorate and arsenic from the Barton Well
Field resulting in two products: high quality drinking water and a
concentrated waste stream.
The drinking water will be pumped directly into the District's
potable water system while the waste stream will flow by gravity to the
existing wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) site where a bioreactor is
being constructed to treat the waste stream.
The bioreactor will produce high quality effluent that can be
disinfected and along with the effluent from the existing WWTP and used
for irrigation through a reuse and secondary water irrigation system,
thus eliminating the need to use high quality drinking water for
outdoor irrigation uses.
The existing WWTP effluent is currently discharged into the Great
Salt Lake where it is unrecoverable by the District. There is synergy
in the proposed system where as the areas being irrigated are also
within the recharge zone for groundwater recovery wells that provide
water for the District's expanding secondary water irrigation system.
This reclamation project will result in a projected annual
reduction of 580 million gallons (1,780 acre-feet) of high quality,
potable project water used for outdoor irrigation
Magna Water District is seeking funds, on a matching basis, to
implement this project that will generate a several benefits to its
water users:
1. It will reduce the current use of treated high quality project
water thus cutting operating costs,
2. It will preserve an 8 cubic feet second (cfs) water right
located at the WWTP outfall,
3. It will preserve and sustain their valuable water resources,
and to promote water conservation.
Utah ranks as the second driest state in the nation following
Nevada, but is number one in per capita water use (municipal and
industrial) at about 300 gallons of water per person per day. The
residents of Magna are willing to invest in a portion of the project
that they know will benefit the District as well as other surrounding
communities.
In fact, as a part of this reclamation project, the District and
its water users have already invested more than $20 million in
treatment facilities to remove arsenic and perchlorate from their water
supply.
The high cost of water treatment has forced the District to
evaluate water usage and to investigate possibilities for reducing
nonpotable water use. In 2004, recognizing the demand for high quality
drinking water for outdoor irrigation in their existing system, the
District planned, designed and installed the first phase of a secondary
water system.
Phase I of this system targets all of the District's large water
users such as schools, churches, golf courses, and parks.
As a result of the secondary water system planning and
implementation efforts, District reports show a dramatic drop in
potable usage for those using the secondary system. Private residences
that connected to the secondary water system showed similar results; in
most cases, nearly a 98% reduction in potable water usage for outdoor
watering was achieved.
The District continues to master plan to address the growing needs
of its population by maximizing the use of its potable water supply for
domestic, in-home uses and using expansion of the secondary water
system for outdoor purposes thereby preserving its valuable potable
water resources.
A key element of this Phase II is to utilize the high quality
product (reuse) water from the bioreactor at the District's wastewater
treatment facility to increase the supply of water available for
outdoor use. Reuse of water from the District's bioreactor will control
potable water capital and operating costs and enhance water
conservation efforts.
In addition, all new development within the District boundary is
currently required to install secondary water piping and infrastructure
that complies with District standards to further maximize the
District's ability to preserve potable water resources. This policy
allows funding for this system to primarily benefit existing users and
requires new development to bear the cost of secondary and reuse
systems that are to its benefit.
The total cost of the project is estimated to be approximately $51
million. Project funding sources include approximately $3 million in
Federal funding and $36 million funded by the District. Passage of this
legislation will allow the District to fund the remaining $12 million
through the Bureau of Reclamation's Water Reclamation and Reuse (Title
XVI). When this happens, the people of Magna and our larger service
area will be able to rely on a sustainable water supply that continues
to be clean, safe and dependable. Thank you for this opportunity to
testify. I would be happy to answer any questions.
______
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you for your testimony.
Now we turn to Gary Darling, General Manager of Delta
Diablo Sanitation District, Antioch, California.
STATEMENT OF GARY DARLING, GENERAL MANAGER, DELTA DIABLO
SANITATION DISTRICT, ANTIOCH, CALIFORNIA [H.R. 2442]
Mr. Darling. Good morning, Madame Chairwoman. My name is
Gary Darling, and I am the General Manager of Delta Diablo
Sanitation District in the Bay Area, Antioch, California. I
appreciate the invitation to appear today to present testimony
on behalf of the Bay Area Recycled Water Coalition and our
strong support of H.R. 2442.
At the outset, I want to extend the Coalition's deepest
appreciation to Congressman George Miller for his vision and
leadership in introducing this much-needed water legislation,
which will help eight Bay Area communities increase their
municipal water supplies.
I also want to commend the co-sponsors, Representatives
Eshoo, Lofgren, Tauscher, Speier, Honda, Stark, McNerney and
Woolsey.
I last appeared before your Subcommittee in May of 2007. At
that time, I sought support for H.R. 1526, which was signed
into law in May 2008. This resulted in the authorization of
seven new recycled water projects for the Bay Area, and I want
to commend you, Madame Chairwoman, for your leadership in that
effort. You have always taken a personal, direct interest in
California's water supply issues, and many recognize your
invaluable contributions.
I am proud to report that our coalition's objective of
working together in collaboration rather than pursuing
individual agency interests is successfully producing recycled
water projects.
As you are aware, California has serious water supply
challenges. In February, Governor Schwarzenegger warned that
California faces its third consecutive year of drought, and it
must prepare for the worst, a fourth, fifth or even sixth year
of a drought.
As our state's water needs continue to grow, so do our
responsibilities to secure long-term sustainable water options.
An increasing population coupled with decreasing Sierra
snowpack make it imperative that we act very actively, seek
conservation and water recycling programs to withstand the
impacts of climate change and drought.
As you correctly point out on your website, Madame
Chairwoman, our nation's water infrastructure is aging and
deteriorating. Huge quantities of water that could be recycled
are instead flushed out to the sea.
Now the Bay Area uses a little over a million acre-feet of
water per year, which is about one fourth of the storage
availability in Shasta Reservoir. Half of that ends up in our
sewer system, and that water is practically drought-proof and
it is available for recycled water projects.
The projects undertaken to date by the Bay Area Recycled
Water Coalition have resulted in over 22,000 acre-feet of
recycled water being developed, and there are more
opportunities to develop additional water supplies, but we
cannot do it alone.
Federal funding and support is the strongest foundation we
have to guarantee the successful implementation of water-
efficient technologies. As Secretary of the Interior Ken
Salazar indicated during his visit to the Delta this past
April, it is time to modernize, it is time to make hard
choices, and it is time for the Federal government to reengage
in full partnership with the 21st century water system for the
State of California.
The six new projects in H.R. 2442 will generate over 8,000
acre-feet of brand-new water supply for the Bay Area. That is
enough water to meet the needs of nearly 24,000 homes. These
projects help answer President Obama's call to ensure the
safety of our environment and to rebuild our economic vitality
and investments for future generations.
Congressman McClintock asked three specific questions that
I will try to address very briefly. What is the Federal nexus?
The Federal nexus is all six of these projects draw water out
of the Delta. Three of them are specific Federal water
contractors. There are 126 Federal contractors in the State of
California, and the Bureau is never able to meet the full
allocation of water for those contractors. So this is a new
water supply. It is water that was called upon under the
previous legislation, the Central Valley Project Improvement
Act, called on the Bureau to identify new water sources. This
is a new water source.
Feasibility, all of our projects are committed to going
through the feasibility project. One of the projects that is in
my district was the very first in the Nation to gain complete
acceptance through the feasibility process, and we are
committed to that.
Cost-effectiveness, that is a very good question. Our board
members of all the Bay Area agencies ask exactly that.
You had asked is there a project out there that produces
recycled water less than $1,000 an acre-foot. Our project costs
to deliver recycled water, the operating cost is less than $300
an acre-foot for operating and maintenance of those facilities.
The capital costs to put that new infrastructure in needs
to be compared to the capital costs for any new water supply.
So building a reservoir or desalination plant, an inter-tie
groundwater project, if you compare the cost of new
infrastructure for those facilities versus these type of
facilities, it is extremely competitive.
So, with that, we are asking for your support of H.R. 2442
to build on an already progressive and proven partnership
between the Federal government and local communities to expand
the successful regional water recycling program across the San
Francisco Bay area.
Accordingly, the Coalition urges support for H.R. 2442.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Darling follows:]
Statement of Gary W. Darling, General Manager, Delta Diablo Sanitation
District, City of Antioch, California, on H.R.2442
Madam Chairwoman, good morning. My name is Gary Darling and I am
the General Manager of the Delta Diablo Sanitation District in Antioch,
California.
I appreciate the invitation to appear today to present testimony on
behalf of the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Coalition (BARWC), a
partnership of Bay Area regional water recycling agencies, in strong
support of H.R.2442, the ``Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program
Expansion Act of 2009.''
At the outset, I want to extend the Coalition's deepest
appreciation to Congressman George Miller for his vision and leadership
in introducing this much-needed water legislation which will help eight
Bay Area communities increase their municipal water supplies through
innovative water recycle projects. I also want to commend
Representatives Eshoo, Lofgren, Tauscher, Speier, Honda, Stark,
McNerney, and Woolsey for being original cosponsors of the bill, which
also affects critical projects in their Districts.
Madam Chairwoman, as a matter of background, the Coalition has
projects authorized under Title XVI of Public Law 102-575 as amended
through the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program. This Program is
a partnership of Federal, State and local agencies focused on feasible
use of recycled water in the San Francisco Bay Area--home to one-sixth
of California's population. Since 1999, when our Bay Area Water
Recycling Master Plan was completed, our agencies have invested over
$280 million planning, designing and building water recycling projects.
With continued State and Federal funding assistance, including the
President's American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, we can continue to
successfully develop recycled water projects that provide new
sustainable dry weather supplies to the Bay-Delta area, benefitting not
only our region, but also the State of California and the nation.
I last appeared before this Subcommittee in May 2007. At that time,
as spokesperson for BARWC, I sought support for H.R.1526, which was
signed into Public Law 110-229 in May 2008. This resulted in
authorization of seven new projects and subsequent funding for five of
these. I want to commend you, Madam Chairwoman, for your leadership in
that effort. You have always taken a personal, direct interest in
California's water supply issues, and many recognize your invaluable
contributions.
I'm proud to report that our Coalition's objective of working
together in collaboration rather than pursuing individual agency
interests is successfully producing water reuse projects focused on
creating long-term sustainability and drought-tolerant water supplies.
Reuse projects with regional and statewide benefits have received
priority funding and implementation support.
To give you a brief example, one of the projects where the
Subcommittee's support has made a difference is the Redwood City
Recycled Water Project, which recently completed construction of
recycled water treatment, storage, pumping and distribution facilities,
providing recycled water for landscape irrigation, commercial, and
industrial uses. Through this authorized BARWC project, Redwood City is
currently saving approximately 50 million gallons of drinking water per
year. The City is currently seeking authorization for a new project to
meet its goal of saving 300 million gallons of drinking water by 2010.
This is just one project in the BARWC.
There is still much work to be done around the important issues of
water efficiency and conservation. We have an urgent need to address
the issues of water stress and scarcity which plague much of the
western region of our great nation.
According to the Natural Resources Defense Council, water will be
one of the major environmental issues of the 21st century. It's a
natural resource that is already in short supply across parts of the
United States and the world--and it will become even scarcer as our
population grows and our climate changes.
As you are already aware, California has serious water supply
challenges. Currently two-thirds of the San Francisco Bay Area's water
supply is imported. In February, Governor Schwarzenegger warned that
``California faces its third consecutive year of drought and [it] must
prepare for the worst--a fourth, fifth or even sixth year of drought.''
As our State's need for water continues to grow, so too does our
responsibility to secure long-term sustainable water options. An
increasing population coupled with decreasing precipitation and Sierra
snowpack make it imperative that we actively seek conservation and
water recycling programs to withstand the effects of climate change and
drought.
Water recycling and reuse enables us to address these challenges.
Research indicates recycled water could meet thirty percent of the
projected increase in 2030 regional water demands. Water sourced from
storage reservoirs is equivalent of up to five times more than that
which is produced by water recycling. Using virtually drought-proof
recycled water for irrigation, landscaping and industrial purposes
dramatically reduces dependence on freshwater.
However, water sourcing is only one component of the challenge we
face. As you correctly point out on your website Madam Chairwoman,
``Our nation's water infrastructure is aging and deteriorating. Huge
quantities of water that could be recycled are instead flushed out to
sea.'' Lack of adequate infrastructure remains one of our biggest
obstacles to offering more recycled water, faster and more efficiently
across our communities. Installation of designated ``purple'' pipeline
remains one of the largest costs associated with recycled water.
Our Coalition is actively working to implement viable water
recycling programs. Projects have been undertaken by Coalition members
resulting in over 22,000 acre-feet of recycled water being supplied to
Bay Area communities and businesses. And there are many more
opportunities for us to be active leaders in addressing the growing
issues of water conservation and reuse.
But we can't do it alone. Federal funding and support is the
strongest foundation we have to guarantee the successful adoption and
implementation of water-efficient technologies and practices. Federal
support enables us to stretch limited water supplies and protect
precious ecosystems to the benefit of citizens in a far broader
geography than simply the communities our agencies serve.
As Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar indicated during his visit
to the Delta this past April, ``It is time to modernize, it is time to
make hard choices and it is time for the Federal government to reengage
in full partnership with the 21st century water system for the State of
California.'' Water recycling and reuse technology must be a large
component of this new system.
Today I'm asking your support for H.R.2442 which builds on the
success of last Congress by making six additional recycled water
projects eligible for a 25% federal cost-sharing investment. This will
enable more cities across the Bay Area to connect with the recycled
water network by installing new pump stations, piping and storage
tanks. This will directly result in reduced demand from six Bay Area
communities on scarce fresh water from the Bay-Delta.
These six new projects will generate over 8,000 acre-feet per year
of new sustainable water supply. That's over 2.6 billion gallons per
year or 7.2 million gallons per day. That's enough to meet the needs of
nearly 24,000 homes. It will reduce wastewater discharges to aquatic
environments, and reduce the demand for limited fresh water from our
fragile Bay-Delta system.
Water recycling is a responsible water supply option that is less
energy-intensive than almost all other water supply options. As there
is a steady supply of wastewater, recycled water is virtually drought-
proof. However, without Federal partnership providing vital 25%
capital, we risk these valuable projects not being developed. H.R.2442
will enable us to build six new projects and fully fund two more. It
will allow for valuable financial support in these difficult economic
times to public agencies being challenged with decreasing revenue and
increasing expenditures. Without these cost sharing measures, many of
our projects risk not being completed or may fail to get started at
all.
These six innovative water recycling projects covered under
H.R.2442 answer President Obama's call to ensure the safety of our
environment and to rebuild our economic vitality and investments now
for future generations. Because when we protect our resources, we
protect our future.
California's water supply continues to be precious, but limited. In
the San Francisco Bay Area, our Coalition is actively undertaking
unprecedented collaborative water recycling projects which answer the
challenge of ensuring we have sufficient freshwater supplies to
maintain a good quality of life and sustain our much needed economic
growth--not just for today or tomorrow, but in the future as well.
I'm here today to ask the Subcommittee to join with our Coalition
once again to lead a new direction of water recycling initiatives which
can directly benefit millions of Californians and the Bay-Delta
ecosystem. These projects offer the Federal government an opportunity
to leverage Federal funds for significant benefit. These projects help
achieve the objectives of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act
and the Bay Delta Conservation Plan. Investing in the work being
undertaken by our Coalition will result in advanced technologies which
protect the health of our communities and environment, while providing
long-term economic benefits.
Your support for H.R.2442 will build on an already progressive and
proven partnership between the Federal government and local communities
to expand the successful regional water recycling program across the
San Francisco Bay Area.
Accordingly, the Coalition urges support for H.R.2442. Thank you.
______
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, sir, for your testimony.
And we move on to Susan Mulligan, Manager of Engineering,
Calleguas Municipal Water District in Thousand Oaks,
California. Ma'am.
STATEMENT OF SUSAN MULLIGAN, MANAGER OF ENGINEERING, CALLEGUAS
MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, THOUSAND OAKS, CALIFORNIA [H.R. 2522]
Ms. Mulligan. Chairwoman Napolitano, members of the
Subcommittee and staff, good morning. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify today on this very important issue.
My name is Susan Mulligan. I am the Manager of Engineering
for Calleguas Municipal Water District, which provides water to
about 75 percent of the population of Ventura County or 650,000
people about 50 miles northwest of Los Angeles, California.
I want to thank you for holding this hearing on H.R. 2522,
which proposes to raise the ceiling on the Federal share of the
cost of the Calleguas Municipal Water District Recycling
project.
I also want to thank Congressman Elton Gallegly for
sponsoring this important bill that will provide much-needed
additional water supplies to our region and improve the quality
of our local natural resources.
Calleguas Municipal Water District is a public agency
created in 1953 to provide southeastern Ventura County with a
reliable supply of high-quality supplemental water. Calleguas's
service area faces serious water supply and water quality
challenges.
Calleguas imports about 120,000 acre-feet per year from the
State Water Project, as you know, a system of reservoirs,
aqueducts and pumping facilities that convey water from the
Sacramento Bay Delta in northern California to southern
California.
The ability of the State Water Project to convey reliable
supplies has been hampered by an ongoing drought and decisions
which have mandated that significantly more water remain in the
Bay Delta for habitat needs. Climate change is expected to
further reduce available supplies as precipitation decreases
and less water is stored in snowpack. Calleguas needs to
develop additional supplies if it is to reliably sustain its
existing residents, businesses and agriculture.
In addition to the water supply challenge, the quality of
the region's local water supplies is deteriorating. The
Calleguas service area has experienced increasing salinity
levels since its supplies were first put to use by farmers in
the 1880s. Much of the local groundwater is now too saline for
use as drinking water and is harmful to the county's billion-
dollar-a-year agricultural industry, particularly for sensitive
crops like berries and avocados.
This project resolves both of those problems. It will
improve water supply reliability and reduce imported water
supplies by making it possible to put the local brackish water
supplies to beneficial use. The project is a regional pipeline
that will collect salty water generated by groundwater
desalting facilities in the region, allowing them to produce
higher-quality water for municipal, industrial and agricultural
uses instead of using imported supplies.
The salty water from these facilities and excess recycled
water from other sources will be conveyed for reuse elsewhere.
Potential uses near the coast include wetlands restoration,
irrigation of salt-tolerant crops such as sod and coastal game
preserves. The use of this nonpotable water source will help
reduce groundwater pumping near the coast and imported water
use. Any surplus supplies will be safely discharged to the
ocean where natural salt levels are much higher.
In addition to its water supply and water quality benefits,
the project will also benefit the environment by improving the
quality of flows in local creeks, reducing greenhouse gas
emissions by using less intensive local water resources instead
of imported sources which require substantial pumping and
reducing dependence on imported water from the sensitive Bay
Delta ecosystem.
The project is being built in phases. Phase 1 is largely
complete and includes 48-inch-diameter pipe extending nine
miles through the Cities of Oxnard and Port Hueneme and
unincorporated areas of Ventura County. This phase also
includes a 30-inch-diameter ocean outfall extending 4,500 feet
into the ocean, which is currently under construction. Phase 1
will facilitate the reclamation and reuse of about 15,000 acre-
feet per year of water.
Phase 1 was authorized by P.L. 104-266 and will be
completed at an estimated cost of $83.8 million. Once complete,
the cost of Phase 1 will cause Calleguas to reach the $20
million cap in our Federal authorization.
H.R. 2522 will authorize the Bureau's support for Phases 2
and 3 of the project, which will extend pipe an additional 26
miles through the Cities of Simi Valley, Moorpark and
Camarillo. Completion of Phases 2 and 3 will facilitate the
reclamation and reuse of about 43,000 acre-feet per year of
water in addition to that facilitated by Phase 1.
Federal support for these phases through the Bureau would
be limited to the lesser of $40 million or 25 percent of the
construction costs. Implementation of the project will
facilitate recycled water use, reduce the demand on import of
water, remove salt from the watershed, facilitate restoration
of coastal wetlands, help sustain important agricultural
operations and provide overall benefits to Ventura County and
the State of California.
Thank you again, Chairwoman Napolitano, for your time and
consideration. I am ready to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Mulligan follows:]
Statement of Susan Mulligan, Manager of Engineering,
Calleguas Municipal Water District, on H.R. 2522
Chair Napolitano, members of the Subcommittee, and staff, good
morning and thank you for the opportunity to testify today on this very
important issue.
My name is Susan Mulligan and I am the Manager of Engineering for
Calleguas Municipal Water District, which provides water to about 75
percent of the population of Ventura County, or 650,000 people, about
50 miles northwest of Los Angeles, California.
I want to thank you for holding this hearing on H.R. 2522, which
proposes to raise the ceiling on the Federal share of the cost of the
Calleguas Municipal Water District Recycling Project which funds the
construction of a 35 mile brine line.
I also want to thank Congressman Elton Gallegly for sponsoring this
important bill that will provide much needed additional water supplies
to our region and improve the quality of our natural resources.
Calleguas Municipal Water District (Calleguas) is a public agency
created in 1953 to provide southeastern Ventura County with a reliable
supply of high quality supplemental water. The District serves an area
of approximately 350 square miles that includes the cities of
Camarillo, Moorpark, Oxnard, Port Hueneme, Thousand Oaks, and Simi
Valley, as well as surrounding unincorporated areas. Calleguas' service
area faces serious water supply and water quality challenges.
Calleguas' imported water supply is dwindling. Calleguas imports
about 120,000 acre-feet per year (AFY) from the State Water Project
(SWP), a system of reservoirs, aqueducts, and pumping facilities that
conveys water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay-Delta in northern
California to southern California. The ability of the SWP to convey
reliable water supplies has been hampered by an on-going drought and
regulatory decisions which have mandated that significantly more water
remain in the Bay-Delta for habitat needs. Climate change is expected
to further reduce available supplies as precipitation decreases and
less water is stored in snowpack. Calleguas needs to develop additional
water supplies if it is to reliably sustain its existing residents,
businesses, and agriculture. Water conservation alone cannot provide
sufficient savings to avert potential future water supply shortages.
The quality of the region's local water supplies is deteriorating.
Calleguas' service area generally overlies the Calleguas Creek
Watershed. Calleguas Creek and many of its tributaries are listed as
``impaired'' for salinity under the Clean Water Act. The Calleguas
service area has experienced increasing salinity levels since its water
supplies were first put to use by farmers in the 1880s. Contributing
factors include naturally occurring minerals, agricultural runoff, and
lack of surplus water to flush salts from the environment. Salinity
levels have increased with each cycle of urban use for municipal and
industrial purposes. Groundwater over-draft along the coastline has led
to seawater intrusion into coastal groundwater basins, impairing the
quality of freshwater aquifers. Much of the local groundwater is too
saline for use as drinking water and is harmful to the County's billion
dollar a year agricultural industry, primarily for sensitive crops like
berries and avocados. High salinity levels in soils and surface water
can also be detrimental to sensitive habitat. Without a means of
removing salt, the area will continue to experience long-term increases
in salinity levels as the salts are cycled and concentrated.
Solutions to these supply and quality problems are being
implemented through a collaborative process. Beginning in 1996, a broad
coalition of local property owners, water and wastewater agencies,
environmental groups, agricultural parties, governmental entities, and
other private interests joined together to develop the Calleguas Creek
Watershed Management Plan, which is centered around implementation of
the Calleguas Municipal Water District Recycling Project (Project).
The Project will improve water supply reliability and reduce
dependence on imported water supplies by making it possible to put
local brackish water supplies to beneficial use. The only way to remove
salinity from water is through a membrane treatment process, such as
reverse osmosis, which produces a highly saline waste concentrate which
must then be managed and disposed. If the concentrate were to be
discharged to wastewater or creeks, it would perpetuate the cycle of
salt build up.
The Project is a regional pipeline that will collect salty water
generated by groundwater desalting facilities and excess recycled water
and convey that water for reuse elsewhere. Any surplus supplies will be
safely discharged to the ocean, where natural salt levels are much
higher. The Project is being built incrementally in phases, as shown on
the attached map. Phase 1 is largely complete, with one pipeline
section and an ocean outfall currently under construction. Once
complete, the cost for Phase 1 will cause Calleguas to reach the $20
million cap in their federal authorization.
Much of the local wastewater is treated to a high level of
bacteriological quality but is too saline for discharge to local
creeks. The Project will either provide a means for that wastewater to
be demineralized for use as a high quality irrigation supply or a means
of conveying that wastewater to potential users near the coast which
can tolerate saline water. Potential uses include wetlands restoration,
irrigation of salt-tolerant crops (such as sod), and coastal game
preserves.
The use of this non-potable water source will help reduce
groundwater pumping and imported water use. The Project will also
export salts out of the watershed to help achieve compliance with
regulatory requirements for salts in local groundwater and surface
water resources. Additionally, the Project will facilitate the
development of new, local water supplies through treatment of brackish
groundwater.
The Project is vital to the region's water reliability as imported
supplies become increasingly vulnerable to drought, climate change,
catastrophic levee failures from flood and/or seismic events, and
regulatory shutdowns of pumping facilities for habitat protection.
The Project will improve surface water and ground water quality by
moving salts out of the watershed. Salt will be removed from
groundwater and the concentrate from the treatment process sent to the
Project. Tertiary treated wastewater which is too saline for discharge
to local streams will be sent to the Project during wet periods when it
is not needed for irrigation. Ventura County has abundant sources of
groundwater, but much of the water is too high in salts for municipal
and agricultural use. By treating groundwater to remove salts and
moving those salts away from surface waters and groundwater, water
agencies in Ventura County solve a water quality problem, while
improving local water supply reliability.
In addition to its water supply and water quality benefits, the
Project will also benefit the environment by improving the quality of
flows in local creeks, reducing greenhouse gas emissions by using less
energy-intensive local water resources instead of imported sources
which require substantial pumping, and reducing dependence on imported
water from the sensitive Bay-Delta ecosystem in Northern California.
Phase 1 of the project was authorized by P.L. 104-266, Section 2,
and will be completed at an estimated cost of $83.858 million (maximum
Federal share of $20 million). Phase 1 includes 48 inch diameter pipe
extending nine miles through the cities of Oxnard and Port Hueneme and
unincorporated areas of Ventura County, and also includes a 30 inch
diameter ocean outfall extending 4,500 feet into the ocean. Phase 1
will facilitate the reclamation and reuse of about 15,000 acre-feet per
year of water.
H.R. 2522 will authorize Bureau of Reclamation support for Phases 2
and 3 of the Project, which will extend the 18-inch through 30-inch
diameter pipe an additional twenty-six miles through the cities of Simi
Valley, Moorpark, and Camarillo, and unincorporated areas of Ventura
County. Completion of Phases 2 and 3 of the Project will facilitate the
reclamation and reuse of about 43,000 acre-feet per year of water.
Federal support for these phases of the project through the Bureau
would be limited to the lesser of $40 million or 25 percent of the
construction costs.
The Project is the only truly reliable, environmentally-sensitive,
and cost-effective solution to the water supply and water quality
issues in the Calleguas service area. Implementation of the Project
will facilitate recycled water use, reduce the demand on imported
water, remove existing salts, reduce salinity loadings, facilitate
restoration of coastal wetlands, help sustain important agricultural
operations in Ventura County, and provide overall benefits to Ventura
County and the State of California.
Calleguas Municipal Water District takes its role as water supply
manager for the County very seriously. Calleguas, local cities and
retail water agencies, and the local community, are all looking for
water supply and water supply reliability solutions. Local brackish
groundwater and recycled municipal wastewater are good solutions. H.R.
2522 can be the tool that enables us to achieve this water supply and
we very strongly urge your support for this legislation.
Thank you again, Madame Chair, for your time and consideration and
I am here ready to answer any questions you may have.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Ms. Mulligan.
Mr. Brookshier, City Manager of Hermiston, Oregon. Sir.
STATEMENT OF ED BROOKSHIER, CITY MANAGER, HERMISTON, OREGON
[H.R. 2741]
Mr. Brookshier. Chairwoman Napolitano and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for holding this hearing and allowing
me to testify in support of H.R. 2741.
My name is Ed Brookshier, and I am the City Manager for the
City of Hermiston, Oregon, a rural agricultural community of
16,000 on the state's east side.
I wish to publicly thank Congressman Greg Walden for
introducing this important piece of legislation that is crucial
to the city's reclamation and reuse of its municipal
wastewater. This reclamation effort will provide high-quality
recycled water for reuse as a source of irrigation supply.
The city's recyclable water production is estimated to be
3,600 acre-feet annually, of which 1,800 acre-feet will supply
irrigation and 1,800 acre-feet will be discharged to the
Umatilla River for winter use.
This new partial source of drought-proof irrigation water
will provide an added supply to the Bureau of Reclamation-owned
and locally operated West Extension Irrigation District.
The benefits of developing a high-quality source of
recycled water followed by its use as a source of irrigation
are numerous and extend to the West Extension Irrigation
District, the City of Hermiston, the Confederated Tribes of the
Umatilla Indian Reservation and the region as a whole.
The West Extension Irrigation District benefits from this
project by obtaining an additional source of supply which is
both high in quality and drought-proof. Since water is
delivered to the District, energy required for pumping is also
reduced by approximately $13,000 a year. In addition, the 1,800
acre-feet of irrigation water provided annually will supply
water to 600 acres, reducing the demand on the District's
surface water supply sources.
Finally, this added source of partial irrigation water
improves the District's operational flexibility.
The City of Hermiston benefits primarily through meeting
its upcoming national pollutant discharge elimination system
permit. This permit requires the city to develop high-quality
recycled water and remove its discharge from the Umatilla River
continuously from April 1 to October 31 of each year.
The West Extension Irrigation District provides the long-
term, multifarm discharge option that allows the city to remove
its discharge from the river during this period of each year.
If the city is unable to discharge to the District, it will be
in continuous violation of current temperature standards and
periodic violation of the ammonia standard contained within the
city's permit.
Secondary benefits to the city include a reduction in
energy costs from reduced pumping, estimated to be $42,000 a
year, and the certainty that this solution, though expensive,
will serve for decades to come.
The Confederated Tribes of Umatilla Indian Reservation will
also benefit from development of high-quality recycled water
throughout the year. These benefits include a significant
improvement in the quality of recycled water discharged to the
Umatilla River in winter, further protection of sensitive
salmon habitat during summer when the recycled water is used
for irrigation in lieu of river discharge, increased
environmental monitoring at the recycled water treatment
facility and the long-term nature of this solution.
The region as a whole also benefits from treatment that
develops high-quality recycled water. This water source is
protective of the environment in both summer and winter and
provides an added source of irrigation supply to agriculture,
which is the backbone of the Hermiston economy.
The Hermiston Water Recycling Project is estimated to be
completed and on line in two and one half years. This effort
will have an immediate economic impact to our local economy as
much-needed jobs will be created through an infrastructure
project of this size.
More importantly, the addition of the new and reliable
water source created by this project will have a profound long-
term impact on the farming industry in our area, which faces an
uncertain future due to dwindling water supplies.
Madame Chairman, while I understand and appreciate the
strict budgetary limitations that your Committee and Congress
as a whole are faced with, I believe the Hermiston Recycled
Water Facility is a worthwhile Federal investment. Combined
with the serious regulatory issues the City of Hermiston is
faced with and the need for added drought-proof sources of
recycled water in the Hermiston area for irrigation, it is
essential that we complete construction of this project in a
timely manner. Federal participation in this endeavor is
vitally important to ensure that this becomes a reality.
This concludes my testimony. I will be happy to answer any
questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Brookshier follows:]
Statement of Ed Brookshier, City Manager, City of Hermiston, Oregon,
on H.R. 2741
Chairwoman Napolitano and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you
for holding this hearing and allowing me to testify in support of H.R.
2741. My name is Ed Brookshier and I am the City Manager for the City
of Hermiston, Oregon. I wish to publicly thank Congressman Greg Walden
for introducing this important piece of legislation that is crucial to
the City's reclamation and reuse of its municipal wastewater. This
reclamation effort will provide a high quality recycled water for reuse
as a source of irrigation supply. The City's recycled water production
is estimated to be 3,600 acre-feet annually, of which 1,800 Acre-feet
will supply irrigation and 1,800 acre-feet will be discharged to the
Umatilla River in winter. This new partial source of drought proof
irrigation water will provide an added supply to the Bureau of
Reclamation owned and locally operated West Extension Irrigation
District.
Hermiston, Oregon is a progressive, growth-oriented urban center
with a total trade area population of 320,900. Located in a relatively
dry section of the state of Oregon, positioned between the Cascade
Mountains to the west and the Blue Mountains to the East, Hermiston is
placed in a unique geographical area that offers an extended growing
season and a variety of agricultural crops and products. The immediate
Hermiston area has been able to diversify its economy with food
processing, cold storage and warehousing and distribution facilities.
The benefits of developing a high quality source of recycled water
followed by its use as a source of irrigation are numerous and extend
to: The West Extension Irrigation District, the City of Hermiston, The
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation and the region
as a whole.
The West Extension Irrigation District benefits from this project
by obtaining an additional source of supply, which is both high in
quality and drought proof. Since water is delivered to the District,
energy required for pumping is also reduced by approximately $13,000
annually. In addition, the 1,800 acre-feet of irrigation water provided
annually will supply water to 600 acres, reducing the demand on the
District's surface water supply sources. Finally, this added source of
partial irrigation water improves the District's operational
flexibility.
The City of Hermiston benefits primarily through meeting its
upcoming National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit
(NPDES). This permit requires the City to both develop a high-quality
recycled water and remove its discharge from the Umatilla River
continuously from April 1 to October 31 of each year. The West
Extension Irrigation District provides the long term, multi-farm
discharge option that allows the City to remove its discharge from the
River during this period of each year. If the City is unable to
discharge to the District it will be in continuous violation of current
temperature standards and periodic violation of the ammonia standard
contained within the City's NPDES Permit. Secondary benefits to the
City include a reduction in energy cost from reduced pumping, estimated
to be $42,000 annually, and the certainty that this solution, though
expensive, will provide service for decades to come.
The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation will
also benefit from development of high-quality recycled water throughout
the year. These benefits include a significant improvement in the
quality of recycled water discharged to the Umatilla River in winter;
further protection of sensitive salmonid habitat during summer when the
recycled water is used for irrigation in lieu of River discharge;
increased environmental monitoring at the recycled water treatment
facility and the long-term nature of this solution.
The region as a whole also benefits from treatment that develops
high-quality recycled water. This water source is protective of the
environment in both summer and winter and provides an added source of
irrigation supply to agriculture, which is the backbone of the
Hermiston economy. The Hermiston Water Recycling Project is estimated
to be completed and online in 2 1/2 years. This effort will have an
immediate economic impact to our local economy as much needed jobs will
be created through an infrastructure project of this size. More
importantly, the addition of the new and reliable water source created
by this project will have a profound long-term impact to the farming
industry in our area which faces an uncertain future due to dwindling
water supplies.
Madam Chairman, while I understand and appreciate the strict
budgetary limitations that your Committee and Congress as a whole are
faced with, I believe that the Hermiston Recycled Water facility is a
worthwhile federal investment due to the numerous federal objectives
that will be advanced through this project. Combined with the serious
regulatory issues the City of Hermiston is faced with and the need for
added drought proof sources of recycled water in the Hermiston Area for
irrigation, it is essential that we complete construction of this
project in a timely manner. Federal participation in this endeavor is
vital to ensure that this becomes a reality.
This concludes my testimony. I will be happy to answer any
questions that you may have.
______
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, sir.
We move on to Mr. Scott Ruppe, General Manager at Uintah
Water Conservancy District in Vernal, Utah.
STATEMENT OF SCOTT RUPPE, GENERAL MANAGER, UINTAH WATER
CONSERVANCY DISTRICT, VERNAL, UTAH [H.R. 2950]
Mr. Ruppe. Thank you very much, Madame Chairwoman and
members of the Subcommittee. I am grateful to be able to appear
here today and testify in support of H.R. 2950. I want to thank
Representative Jim Matheson for introducing this bill on behalf
of the Uintah Water Conservancy District.
The District was formed in 1956 for the purpose of
conserving, developing and stabilizing supplies of water for
domestic, irrigation, power, manufacturing, municipal and other
beneficial uses and for the purpose of constructing drainage
works.
The District operates and maintains the Vernal and Jensen
units of the Central Utah Project, which was authorized by
Congress as part of the Colorado River Storage Project Act of
1956. The District encompasses almost all of Uintah County,
Utah, in eastern Utah adjacent to the Colorado border.
At the time of its construction in 1984 to 1987, the Jensen
unit was to provide 18,000 acre-feet of municipal and
industrial water to the residents of Uintah County. Six
thousand acre-feet were to be developed with the construction
of the Red Fleet Dam, which was built, and another 12,000 acre-
feet were to be developed at a later date with the construction
of the Burns Bench Pump station on the Green River near Jensen,
Utah.
Due to the economic bust in the mid- to late eighties, the
demand for water that had been foreseen was no longer there.
Also in 1989, an amendatory contract was signed with the Bureau
of Reclamation reducing the amount of water subscribed to by
water providers to 2,000 acre-feet.
The Bureau desires to do a final cost allocation in the
Jensen unit. If that allocation were done without developing
the remaining 12,000 acre-feet, the cost per acre-foot would be
approximately two and a half times as much as if the 12,000
acre-feet were developed. At this time, not all of the 6,000
acre-feet of water in Red Fleet Dam have been subscribed to
even though the demand for that water has increased recently.
A block notice was issued to the District from the Bureau
of Reclamation for the 2,000 acre-feet, and the District
contracted with municipalities, water improvement districts and
a private company for all of that water.
Since that time, the additional 4,000 acre-feet of
municipal and industrial water has remained unsubscribed. The
Bureau of Reclamation took 700 acre-feet to increase the
conservation pool in the reservoir, which leaves 3,300 acre-
feet of available water. The Burns Bench Pump station will not
be constructed until all of the municipal and industrial water
available in Red Fleet is subscribed to.
In the past year, due in large part to the projected
growth, the District had received requests for all of the
remaining municipal and industrial water available in Red
Fleet. Five entities, Vernal City and Ashley Valley Water and
Sewer, have requested 1,000 acre-feet each; Maeser Water has
requested 675 acre-feet; Jensen Water has requested 175 acre-
feet; Uintah County in conjunction with Jensen Water has
requested 150 acre-feet, and a private company has requested
300 acre-feet.
The price of the water was set by the amendatory contract.
The amount per acre-foot was based on the cost of the Jensen
unit, including an estimated cost of the pump station divided
by the 18,000 acre-feet. The resulting cost is $5,555.21 per
acre-foot and is payable by dividing that amount by the number
of years remaining until 2037, with the last payment being made
in 2037. Water purchased in 2006 would be paid for at a rate of
$179.07 per acre-foot per year for 31 years. In 2009, it would
be $198.40 for 28 years.
The District approached the Bureau about the possibility of
discounting those payments at either the 3.222 rate used by the
Bureau to calculate the repayment or the Federal funds rate at
the time of the discounting. According to the Bureau, the
amendatory contract does not allow for prepayment.
The District then determined that it would ask legislation
similar to that used by Central Utah Water Conservancy District
that has allowed for prepayment of the repayment contracts for
the Bonneville unit. Prepayment of our contract with the Bureau
will substantially reduce the cost to the District and will
also produce substantial payment to the Federal Treasury, which
we estimate between $4 and $5 million.
H.R. 2950 directs the Secretary of the Interior to allow
for prepayment of the specified contract between the United
States and the Uintah Water Conservancy District, providing for
prepayment, repayment of municipal and industrial water
delivery facilities under terms and conditions similar to those
used in the implementing provisions of the Central Utah Project
Completion Act. It also provides that the prepayment may be
provided in several installments to reflect a substantial
completion of the delivery of facilities and shall be adjusted
to conform to a final cost allocation, and it may not be
adjusted on the basis of the type of prepayment.
The Administration has suggested that the bill be amended
to clarify that the District intends to pay the entire present
value of future cash flows. That was always our intention, and
we agree to work with the Administration to develop the
language that will clarify that intent.
Again, I thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I
will be happy to respond to any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ruppe follows:]
Statement of Scott Ruppe, General Manager, Uintah Water Conservancy
District, In Support of H.R. 2950
Madame Chairwoman and members of the Subcommittee, I am grateful to
be able to appear here today and testify in support of H.R. 2950. I
want to thank Rep. Jim Matheson for introducing this bill on behalf of
the Uintah Water Conservancy District (District). The District was
formed in 1956 for the purpose of ``conserving, developing and
stabilizing supplies of water for domestic, irrigation, power,
manufacturing, municipal and other beneficial uses, and for the purpose
of constructing drainage works.'' The District operates and maintains
the Vernal and Jensen Units of the Central Utah Project, which was
authorized by Congress as part of the Colorado River Storage Project
Act of 1956. The District encompasses almost all of Uintah County, Utah
in eastern Utah adjacent to the border of Colorado.
At the time of its construction (1984-1987), the Jensen Unit was to
provide 18,000 Acre Feet (AF) of M&I water to the residents of Uintah
County. Six thousand AF were to be developed with the construction of
Red Fleet dam (which was built) and another 12,000 AF were to be
developed at a later date with the construction of the Burns Bench Pump
station on the Green River in Jensen, Utah. Due to the economic bust in
the mid to late 80's, the demand for water that had been foreseen was
no longer there. Also, in 1989 an amendatory contract was signed with
the Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau) reducing the amount of water
subscribed to by water providers to 2,000 AF.
The Bureau desires to do a final cost allocation on the Jensen
Unit. If that allocation were done without developing the remaining
12,000 AF, the cost per AF would be approximately 2.5 times as much as
if the 12,000 AF were developed. At this time, not all of the 6,000 AF
of water in Red Fleet Dam has been subscribed to even though the demand
for that water has increased recently. A Block Notice was issued to the
District from the Bureau of Reclamation for the 2,000 AF and the
District contracted with the municipalities, water improvement
districts, and a private company for all of that water. Since that time
the additional 4,000 AF of M&I water has remained unsubscribed. The
Bureau of Reclamation took 700 AF to increase the conservation pool in
the reservoir which leaves 3,300 AF of available water. The Burns Bench
pump station will not be constructed until all of the M&I water
available in Red Fleet is subscribed to. In the past year, due in large
part to the projected growth, the District has received requests for
all of the remaining M&I water available in Red Fleet. Vernal City and
Ashley Valley Water and Sewer have each requested 1,000 AF, Maeser
Water has requested 675 AF, Jensen Water has requested 175 AF, Uintah
County in conjunction with Jensen Water has requested 150 AF, and a
private company has requested 300 AF.
The price of the water was set by the amendatory contract. The
amount per AF was based on the cost of the Jensen Unit (including an
estimated cost of the pump station) divided by 18,000 AF. The resulting
cost is $5,555.21 per AF and is payable by dividing that amount by the
number of years remaining until 2037 with the last payment being made
in 2037. Water purchased in 2006 would be paid for at a rate of $179.07
per AF per year for 31 years. The District approached the Bureau about
the possibility of discounting those payments at either the 3.222% rate
used by the Bureau to calculate the repayment or the federal funds rate
at the time of the discounting. According to the Bureau, the amendatory
contract does not allow for prepayment. The District then determined
that it would seek legislation similar to that used by the Central Utah
Water Conservancy District that has allowed for prepayment of the
repayment contracts for the Bonneville Unit. Prepayment of our contract
with the Bureau will substantially reduce the cost of water to the
District. H.R. 2950 will also produce a substantial payment to the
federal treasury, which we estimate to be between $4-5 million.
H.R. 2950 directs the Secretary of the Interior to allow for
prepayment of the specified contract between the United States and the
Uintah Water Conservancy District providing for repayment of municipal
and industrial water delivery facilities under terms and conditions
similar to those used in implementing provisions of the Central Utah
Project Completion Act. It also provides that the prepayment: (1) may
be provided in several installments to reflect substantial completion
of the delivery facilities being prepaid; (2) shall be adjusted to
conform to a final cost allocation; and (3) may not be adjusted on the
basis of the type of prepayment financing utilized by the District.
Again I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify today and
will be happy to respond to any questions.
______
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you for your testimony. And now we
will begin with some of the questioning.
Before I do that, I will give two minutes to Mr. Baca for
an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOE BACA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Baca. Well, thank you very much, Madame Chair, and
thank you for your leadership. And I want to welcome my new
Ranking Member, Tom McClintock, that I happened to work with at
the State Legislature in California. Congratulations on your
new appointment. I hear it is quite fast you got here. I don't
know how you did that, Tom, but that was quite fast. So
congratulations. I don't know if they are punishing you. I
think you are doing it for the right reasons, especially as it
pertains to California and the crisis that we have and as we
deal with our nation.
Let me begin by saying that the world's water crisis is one
of the largest public health issues of our time, and I state
that it is one of our time. Nearly 1.1 million people roughly
or 20 percent of the world population lack access to safe
drinking water.
Ensuring clean and safe drinking water is a top priority.
Clean drinking water is the right that all families deserve. It
impacts not only the family, the children and all of us as we
begin to grow, and especially as we look at many of the women
that are having babies as we look at perchlorate, which is one
of the areas that has affected the Illinois Park quite a lot.
So clean water becomes very important. The bill we are
discussing today will help shed light on various water issues
in our nation.
Today we will hear about of course the water issues found
in California, Arizona, Utah, Oregon and Michigan. By
addressing Title XVI authorization and providing directions to
the Bureau of Reclamation and by helping settle the tribal
water rights, we will bring us one step closer to finding a
solution to many of our water problems. And I hope that we
continue to work together.
I commend Congresswoman Grace Napolitano, our Chair, for
her leadership on water, and I look forward to working with her
and our new Ranking Member, Tom McClintock, on an important
issue impacting all of us. Thank you.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Baca, for keeping within
time for your comments.
Mr. Costa, two minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. JIM COSTA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Madame Chairwoman. Again, I
want to commend you for putting this hearing together. It is an
important issue. I too as Congressman Baca served with
Congressman McClintock, and welcome. We have a whole California
gathering here it seems.
But the issue at hand really is how we balance the needs of
our current water needs not only in the Southwest but
throughout the country and its long-term applications to
conjunctive use programs that balance our groundwater usage
with our surface water supplies and how we use all the water
management tools in our water toolbox to get there.
I am particularly interested, Madame Chairwoman, in terms
of the balance of our needs of our various communities because
larger communities, larger service agencies, have more
resources to deal with cleanup and recycling of groundwater as
we apply the conjunctive use efforts. Smaller communities,
smaller service areas, don't have the resources to meet various
standards, and how we provide cost-effective ways in terms of
health and safety is always a concern.
I think partnerships are very critical. We have had some
very important partnerships in California with both urban and
agricultural water agencies and how they share resources for
long-term water usage.
So I look forward to listening to the hearing, and I thank
you again for putting this effort together.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Costa. And I will start the
round. It looks like we may have a vote, so we will have to cut
it short.
To Mr. Alvarez, Mr. Hansen, Mr. Darling, Ms. Mulligan, and
Mr. Brookshier, has a feasibility study been completed for your
projects--and I would like yes or no answers, and we won't go
into detail--including compliance with all state, Federal,
environmental requirements? Yes or no, please. If no, do you
expect for your feasibility study to be completed and
construction started?
Third question, are you working with Reclamation to
complete your projects? Yes or no. And have you experienced
obstacles? Mr. Alvarez.
Mr. Alvarez. Madame Chairwoman, no, we have not completed
all of our feasibility and planning work. We have made
significant efforts in that area.
And I am sorry, your second question?
Mrs. Napolitano. Do you expect your feasibility study to be
completed and construction started?
Mr. Alvarez. Our planning horizon is for four years to
complete all of the environmental final design and
construction.
Mrs. Napolitano. And you are working with Reclamation?
Mr. Alvarez. We are working with the Bureau of Reclamation.
Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Hansen?
Mr. Hansen. Yes, we have completed all requirements, and
the project is ready to go, it is shovel-ready, ready to
implement.
Mrs. Napolitano. And you are working with Reclamation?
Mr. Hansen. Yes.
Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Darling.
Mr. Darling. All six new projects have the Title XVI
feasibility determination process--it is in process. They are
not complete.
Mrs. Napolitano. When do you expect completion?
Mr. Darling. They will be complete as soon as we have
enough staffing availability with the Bureau Staff. We
literally only have one person for the mid-Pacific Region that
works full-time on this, so it is a matter of staffing
actually. That impacts the timing. But I do like to point out
that the bill is to authorize for the planning, design and
construction. So this is for the planning. That is why we need
this authorization, in order to tell the Bureau to help plan
this project.
Mrs. Napolitano. OK.
Ms. Mulligan. Our feasibility is complete. It was complete
before we began construction on Phase 1. And we are working
with Reclamation to complete the project. The feasibility is
already complete.
Mrs. Napolitano. OK. Was the original authorizing bill for
Phase 1 including expansion?
Ms. Mulligan. It was for Phase 1 and included expansion to
Phase 2 and 3, yes.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. Mr. Brookshier.
Mr. Brookshier. All of our feasibility is complete. We have
one environmental review that we are still working on. That is
with the National Marine Fisheries Service. We are in
consultation with the Bureau.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. Mr. McClintock.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Madame Chairwoman. The first
question I would have, the first observation I would make is we
have five districts here that want to get into a relationship
with the Federal government. We have one here that has been in
such a relationship and wants to get out because of all the
regulatory burdens and costs that are associated. So you might
all want to gather outside the hearing room here and kind of
exchange notes because maybe there is somebody among you who is
sadder but wiser for their relationship with the Federal
government. That is just an observation.
The question I would like to pose to each of you along the
lines of cost-effectiveness is simply this. What is the
estimated cost per acre-foot of water under the recycling
project that you are proposing, and what is the overall cost to
your district of water per acre-foot?
Mr. Alvarez. Congressman McClintock, the estimated cost for
our facility would basically be capital costs, about $7,000 an
acre-foot.
Mr. McClintock. How much?
Mr. Alvarez. Seven thousand dollars an acre-foot.
Mr. McClintock. Seven thousand dollars per acre-foot.
Mr. Alvarez. Yes. And if the City of Downey tried to
acquire some additional water rights earlier this year that
became available in our Central Basin, those water rights went
for $7,000 an acre-foot. So the capital costs of providing this
would be equivalent to basically what the market price for
water in our region is today.
Mr. McClintock. And what is the market price for water in
your region today?
Mr. Alvarez. Seven thousand dollars an acre-foot.
Mr. McClintock. Is the market price?
Mr. Alvarez. That was the price of the most recent sale of
water in the Central Basin of which the City of Downey
participated in. It went through a bid process, and we were not
the high bidder, although we were close to that $7,000 an acre-
foot.
Mr. McClintock. And that is the overall cost of water to
your agency?
Mr. Alvarez. That is the cost of acquiring the water
rights. In addition to that----
Mr. McClintock. No, no, what is the overall cost per acre-
foot to your agency of your water supply? I am just trying to
get a sense of whether rates are going to be going up.
Mr. Alvarez. To answer your question, am I looking at what
am I going to need to pay for water to meet my water demands,
and that would be $7,000 an acre-foot plus the cost of
production, treatment and distribution.
Mr. McClintock. What is the cost, overall cost, of water
for your district per acre-foot?
Mr. Alvarez. Today?
Mr. McClintock. Today.
Mr. Alvarez. If we discount the cost of the water we
already have access to----
Mr. McClintock. No, no, no, I am talking about the water
you currently have access to. What are you paying for it? What
is the average cost of water to your district per acre-foot?
Mr. Alvarez. Our overall treatment production cost is about
$350 an acre-foot.
Mr. McClintock. Three hundred fifty dollars per acre-foot,
OK. Magna Water District?
Mr. Hansen. Our cost per acre-foot for our water is just
under $400 an acre-foot. That is the treated cost for drinking
water.
Mr. McClintock. What is the purchase cost? What do you buy
it for?
Mr. Hansen. That is. We have purchased all of our water
rights. We have our own water rights. We have some surface
water.
Mr. McClintock. And what is the cost of water for this
particular recycling project?
Mr. Hansen. Our estimated cost to recycle this water
through the new technology we have is a little over $100 an
acre-foot.
Mr. McClintock. So it is going to be $100 per acre-foot for
the recycling water as opposed to $400 for your overall costs?
Mr. Hansen. For drinking water, yes.
Mr. McClintock. OK. Now is that $100 added to the cost or
$100 for the recycled water?
Mr. Hansen. They are two separate systems. They are both a
metered, three-tiered water system with rates. And secondary
reuse water is a little over $100 an acre-foot.
Mr. McClintock. OK. How about Diablo?
Mr. Darling. Wet water, wet-year water supplies in the Bay
Area range anywhere from $200 to say $600 an acre-foot with
infrastructure that was built in the 1920s and 1930s. Our
recycled water projects range anywhere from $300, as I
mentioned earlier, up to over $1,000 an acre-foot.
But I think an important distinction is wet-year versus
dry-year water supply, if dry-year was even available, during
this drought period, one of the water districts in the Bay Area
imposed surcharges on its customers for $14,000 an acre-foot.
So the cost of a dry-year water supply is astronomical. This
recycled water is an on-demand water supply available 365 days
a year at a very competitive price.
Mr. McClintock. Right. When something is scarce, it becomes
expensive. When it is plentiful, it is cheap. That is true of
anything, and that gets back to that central issue of
abundance. The more abundant the water supply, the cheaper it
will be. And it has gotten a lot more expensive since we
dropped abundance as the principal object of our public policy.
Calleguas.
Ms. Mulligan. Our imported water supply is purchased from
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. Their price
right now is just over $900 an acre-foot to us. And we are
currently in allocations from them so that if a 15 percent
reduction isn't achieved, they have penalties that go as much
as two times to four times that for water again to scarcity.
Mr. McClintock. And what is the overall cost of water right
now to Calleguas?
Ms. Mulligan. Calleguas, $900 per acre-foot, just over
$900. And then under these allocations, there are severe
penalties, two to four times that amount for the water.
Mr. McClintock. And under this project?
Ms. Mulligan. Under this project, which is largely capital,
is the costs are very little O&M costs because it is a
pipeline, is if you amortize the capital over 30 years at about
5 percent, you get $1,500 an acre-foot for the water. But with
the rising price of imported water, we think that it will catch
up within the next decade so that it equals the cost of
Metropolitan Water.
Mr. McClintock. And then finally Hermiston.
Mr. Brookshier. Our costs, our current operating costs
would work out to about $7,000 per acre-foot. If I am
calculating this correctly, it would appear that the project
costs that we are looking for here would be in the neighborhood
of $4,000 per acre foot.
Mr. McClintock. See, now again $7,000, I think that amount
seems astronomical.
Mr. Brookshier. We are a municipal system, and that is what
it costs to operate.
Mr. McClintock. That is the overall cost of----
Mr. Brookshier. Overall cost to operate based on our
current use.
Mr. McClintock. OK, thank you. Just a moment.
Yes, let me just ask one other question. One of the
principal propositions that has been put forward in support of
these projects is that it reduces--this would be what I have to
tell rate peers in Alturas. You don't get any benefit from
these projects, but you are going to be called to pay for them
through your taxes. But the argument that is being made is,
well, this does reduce the draw from many Federal water
systems, including the Delta system, for example.
Would you accept a proviso in this legislation that
requires the District to reduce its draw on the Federal system
for every gallon that is generated by these Federally financed
recycling projects?
Ms. Mulligan. Yes, we would.
Mr. McClintock. You would actually agree to reduce your
draw on the system on a gallon-per-gallon basis?
Ms. Mulligan. Yes. Growth would need to be calculated into
that to the extent there were growth. But since all of our
water comes from the imported supply, it would be easy to
document that this acre-foot-for-acre-foot reduces the amount
we would take from northern California.
Mr. McClintock. OK. Other districts?
Mr. Darling. As I mentioned earlier, all of our projects
directly draw out of the Delta, and the Delta is in a process,
as you are aware, between Judge Wagner's decisions and the
Endangered Species Act of basically shutting down. So these
projects are in lieu of--this already is taking place that the
amount of water available from the Delta is decreasing by
itself. So these are replacement supplies. These are insurance
policies.
So, if there were a certainty that the water was there to
begin with, that might be something that would be acceptable.
But there is no certainty in terms of Delta water supplies.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. Very quickly, we need to move
on.
Mr. Alvarez. We would and I would like to qualify that to
the extent that right now there are agencies that would be
participating in this that are importing water, that would be
easy to document. There are other agencies that would not be
looking for an alternative water supply, which would then put a
stress on the imported water system. And that would be a more
difficult one to document because it would be an indirect
transfer.
Mrs. Napolitano. Anybody else?
Mr. Hansen. I think Magna is unique where we have a
pristine water supply. We are in the second driest state in the
Union, and we have developed a technology that I believe may be
utilized throughout the country. So I do think it is a wise
investment.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, sir. Mr. Baca.
Mr. Baca. Thank you, Madame Chair.
Mr. Darling, H.R. 2442, regarding your response to the
Federal nexus, would you go a step further and explain how it
is not only a Federal issue but a global issue?
Mr. Darling. Well, thank you, I absolutely will. I think
long-term sustainability is extremely important in water and
power issues and water particularly in the State of California
and globally. The ocean has risen seven inches in the past 100
years at the Golden Gate Bridge. All models show that it is not
going to decrease in terms of the amount that the ocean's level
is increasing. It is actually accelerating.
And so the climate change issues for the Bay Area, the
declining snowpack, all water resource options need to be on
the table. All need to be developed. The writing is very clear
on the wall that this investment is necessary on all fronts.
Mr. Baca. Thank you. And then saving water or the 7.2
million gallons per day, will it go a long way? Is that
correct?
Mr. Darling. I am sorry?
Mr. Baca. Saving water or 7.2 million gallons per day, will
that go a long way? Is that correct? Just a yes or no answer.
Mr. Darling. Yes, that will go a long ways toward helping
the Bay Area water supply portfolio.
Mr. Baca. Thank you. Mr. Hansen, you responded to the costs
associated with the project, but do you have a choice?
Mr. Hansen. No.
Mr. Baca. Perchlorate is not going away, is that correct?
Mr. Hansen. That is correct.
Mr. Baca. So we need to invest and clean that because we
need to have good quality of water for every individual
impacted, especially when we look at women that are really
affected by that water itself if it is not clean because of the
thyroids and children and others that drink that water. Is that
correct?
Mr. Hansen. That is correct.
Mr. Baca. Thank you. Mr. Hernandez, what will happen in the
long run if H.R. 1739 does not pass? That is Question No. 1.
And what if the project is not funded? How will your community
prepare for a shortage in water supply and water reliability?
Mr. Alvarez. If H.R. 1738 does not move forward, the City
of Downey and participating cities will be faced with the issue
of how we do meet our existing and long-term water demand
needs. That need is not going to go away. It is an existing
need today, and we are living with a very limited available
water supply.
If we do not get funding here, we will probably continue to
develop this project and look for alternative funding sources.
But without additional funding, it makes the viability of this
project much more difficult.
Mr. Baca. Right. And definitely, will it have a greater
impact if we don't, based on California's deficit of 26-point-
some million dollars that we have right now and based on the
agreement that they have come up with and not the additional
dollars that would be available, so it would have a great
impact in terms of the lack of ability of the state to provide
any kind of funding if the Federal does not provide so.
Mr. Alvarez. Absolutely. And if you look at the California
budget, in at least at our understanding today, our ability to
meet our existing obligations are going to be much more
difficult at the municipal level because of the requirements to
balance the state budget.
Mr. Baca. Right. And especially as I looked at it as a
reduction even on the educational perspective of it where a lot
of our students are impacted by the quality of water that they
have too as well in each one of our educational institutions.
Isn't that correct?
Mr. Alvarez. Yes.
Mr. Baca. Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. Mr. Walden.
Mr. Walden. Madame Chair, I have no questions at this time.
I appreciate your courtesy.
Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Chaffetz?
Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you, Madame Chairwoman, I appreciate
it.
I appreciate the bipartisan support for the Magna project
for Mr. Matheson and Mr. Bishop. Just two brief questions in
the essence of time.
There is a Federal nexus, a Federal component to this that
I think this makes worthy of Federal investment of taxpayer
dollars. Can you spend just a moment talking about why this
Federal component is needed and justified given that that is
partly what created the problem?
Mr. Hansen. I believe the Safe Drinking Water Act which
required us to remove the arsenic out of the water was an
unfunded mandate. I also believe that the rocket industry and
the Department of Defense and the issue of contaminating our
water supply, our sole water supply, I believe that along with
the technology that has been developed by the District warrants
the support of the Federal government.
Mr. Chaffetz. And just review again for us the investment
that has already been made by the local state community there.
Mr. Hansen. The local rate-payers have already invested $36
million in this project and this technology.
Mr. Chaffetz. I just wanted to note for the record--and
thank you, Mr. Hansen, for being here and for that--I just want
to note for the record the significant investment that has been
done at the local level, and with that, I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you so very much.
Mr. Alvarez, we have had a discussion on this in my office
in regard to the program that water replenishment district and
the sanitation district and that whole basin are working on.
You indicated to me there are two basins.
In working with the cities that are part of your bill, are
you looking at working with the other entities? I understand
there is going to be litigation or is litigation that might
delay or put in question moving forward on something. So would
you clarify that, please?
Mr. Alvarez. We have worked with a number of agencies, and
we will be working with the water replenishment district to
work on both projects.
Just for further clarification, the water replenishment
district is a district that is there to replenish the
groundwater basin, which is the difference between the
sustainable yield of the basin and the overpumping that has
been allowed by a court-adjudicated judgment that has been
issued in the basin.
Their project basically will create net new water to make
up for that replenishment. That is net new water above and
beyond what the basin already yields; that is just basically to
make up the difference between the sustainable yield of the
basin and the adjudicated pumping rights in the basin.
Our project will be net new water that will go beyond the
yield of the basin. So they are complementary projects. I think
that we can work something out. I think that the litigation
that has been raised has been an issue with respect to the
adjudications. There are parties, including the water
replenishment district, in court to amend those judgments.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you.
Mr. Rupee, does repaying the debt the Conservancy District
owed the Federal government imply that you would not need to
comply with the environmental laws and regulations that you
must comply with while in repayment?
Mr. Ruppe. No, no, Madame Chairman, we would still need to
comply with all of those regulations.
Mrs. Napolitano. Great.
Ms. Mulligan, how many more phases of the project? You
answered that there is a second phase. How many more phases do
you expect before you complete or do you think you need before
you complete? And what would the Federal government need to
provide to fund those additional phases?
Ms. Mulligan. The only phases which we envision are what we
call Phases 2 and 3. We have built about eight miles, soon to
be about 10 miles, of the 35-mile pipe, and it was the most
expensive. It is the largest diameter which is near the ocean
which also includes the ocean outfall.
These Phases 2 and 3 extend the pipe the full 35 miles into
the watershed. The estimated cost of that is an additional $120
million, which is why the requested authorization is the $40
million, which would be 25 percent of that amount.
Mrs. Napolitano. And that is just for the brine.
Ms. Mulligan. That is just for the pipeline. The desalters
are being funded locally.
Mrs. Napolitano. OK. Do you have any other questions? Mr.
Walden, do you have any questions? No?
Well, I believe that wraps up most of the questions that we
had. We thank all of the witnesses for your insightful
testimony and for being open to this Committee, the
Subcommittee, in regard to the issues that are before us. And
we look forward to continuing working with you. Thank you very
much. You are dismissed.
Ms. Mulligan. Thank you.
Mrs. Napolitano. I would like to call up the last panel,
Honorable Ronnie Lupe, Chairman of the White Mountain Apache
Tribe from White River, Arizona, and Mr. John Sullivan,
Associate General Manager of the Salt River Project from
Phoenix, Arizona. If you would take your seats, we will begin
the next panel.
Commissioner Connor, would you like to join us at the
table? Where are you, Commissioner? OK.
Chairman Lupe, you may start your testimony, sir. If you
will put your mic on, and we will move right along. Thank you
very much for being so patient.
And thank you, Commissioner, for staying with us.
STATEMENT OF RONNIE LUPE, TRIBAL CHAIRMAN,
WHITE MOUNTAIN APACHE TRIBE, WHITERIVER, ARIZONA
Mr. Lupe. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before
your honorable Subcommittee. We are here to ask the
Subcommittee to support the quantification agreement that we
have signed with the Phoenix Valley Cities, Salt River Project,
State of Arizona, Central Arizona Water Conservation District
and other downstream parties representing millions of people.
We are at the headwaters of the Salt River system and that
we and everyone else depends upon to live. Years ago we
traveled to Washington, D.C. and asked for funding to build a
safe and reliable drinking water system for our people.
Although we have hundreds of miles of streams on our land, we
do not have enough drinking water for our people. The reason is
Mother Nature.
We are 100 percent dependent upon a well field that was
built in 1999. Over 14,000 people on our reservation depend
upon it, almost our entire population. The well field is
failing. Production is half of what it was in 1999. We have
shortages. There is no recharge. There is natural arsenic in
the water. We have to blend it to meet EPA standards. Water
must be hauled by hand in one community and piped to another
one 30 miles from the well field.
Drilling more wells will only place more straws in a
failing system. It does not receive water from nature anywhere
near the amount we are removing. Everyone agrees that our needs
can only be met by storage of surface water from our streams
and rivers.
When we came to D.C. to seek funding to build a drinking
water reservoir project, we were politely told that it was
impossible unless we agreed to quantify and settle our water
rights. We took heed of this advice and asked the Secretary of
the Interior to appoint a Federal negotiation team to help us
quantify and settle our reserve water rights. We prepared a
water budget based on our historic, present and future water
use needs.
Intense and hard negotiation followed with the Valley
Cities, the Salt River Project and other state parties. This
year all of the parties signed a quantification agreement that
would settle our reserve water rights claims and fund
facilities needed to put part of our water use in accord with
all national environmental laws and regulations. We would
receive funding for our drinking water storage dam, treatment
plant and pipeline to serve our communities. The drinking water
system would be held in trust by the United States.
An OM&R Trust Fund in the amount of $50 million is included
in the H.R. 1065 to fund OM&R costs after the drinking water
system is in full operation, estimated to be about $2.1 million
annually. H.R. 1065 authorizes funding for other wet water
economic development for parts of our water budget that will
not only benefit our tribe but our entire White Mountain
region. Specifically I am referring to the funding
authorization in 16[c]-[f] of H.R. 1065.
Finally we have agreed to lease our entire 25,000 acre-feet
cap water allocation received from the Secretary of the
Interior to nine Valley Cities in the Phoenix metropolitan area
and CAWCD for the next 100 years to make them whole for the
water we use upstream.
We respectfully ask this Subcommittee's help to make our
drinking water reservoir a reality for our people and to
protect the water rights we have agreed upon in the
quantification agreement. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lupe follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Ronnie Lupe, Tribal Chairman,
White Mountain Apache Tribe, Fort Apache Indian Reservation, Arizona
To: The Honorable Grace F. Napolitano, Chairwoman, and The
Honorable Tom McClintock, Ranking Member, and members of the
Subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of the White
Mountain Apache Tribe Water Rights Quantification Act of 2009, H.R.
1065, (``Quantification Act''). My name is Ronnie Lupe and I am the
Tribal Chairman of the White Mountain Apache Tribe. We number about
15,000 people. We live on the Fort Apache Indian Reservation
(``Reservation''), established November 9, 1871, on 1.66 million acres
of aboriginal lands which we have occupied since time immemorial. Our
Reservation is located about 200 miles Northeast of Phoenix in the
White Mountain Region of East Central Arizona. (See attached map).
Origin of Tribe's Vested Property Rights to Water
The White Mountain Apache Tribe has retained actual, exclusive, use
and occupancy of its aboriginal lands within Reservation boundaries
designated by the Executive Orders dated November 9, 1871 and December
14, 1872, without exception, reservation, or limitation since time
immemorial. The Tribe's vested property rights, which include its
aboriginal and other federal reserved rights to the use of water, often
referred to as Winters Doctrine Water Rights, that underlies, borders
and traverses its lands, have never been extinguished by the United
States and are prior and paramount to all other rights to the use of
water in the Gila River drainage, of which the Salt River is a major
source.
Headwaters of Salt River System on Tribal Land
Except for a small portion of the Reservation that drains to the
Little Colorado River Basin, virtually the entire Reservation drains to
the Salt River. See attached location map referenced above. The
headwaters and tributaries of the Salt River arise on our Reservation
and are the principal sources of water for the Tribe, the downstream
Cities of Avondale, Chandler, Gilbert, Glendale, Mesa, Peoria, Phoenix,
Scottsdale and Tempe; the Salt River Reclamation Project and the
Roosevelt Water Conservation District, among other parties to the Gila
River and Little Colorado Adjudication Proceedings.
United States in Capacity as Tribe's Trustee Files Reserved Water
Rights Claim
In 1985, the United States, acting in its capacity as the trustee
of the Tribe's water rights, filed a substantial reserved water rights
claim in the name of the White Mountain Apache Tribe to the Salt River
System as part of the Gila River Adjudication Proceedings still pending
before the Maricopa County Superior Court, State of Arizona. It also
filed claims for the Tribe in the Little Colorado River Adjudication
Proceedings, also still pending before the Apache County Superior
Court, State of Arizona.
Tribe's Reserved Water Rights Claim Inclusive of Base Flow
At the urging of, and in collaboration with the Tribe, the United
States amended its water rights filings for the Tribe in the Little
Colorado River and the Gila River General Stream Adjudications in
September 2000, to assert the Tribe's prior and paramount, aboriginal
and federal reserved rights to the transbasin aquifer sources that
sustain the base flow of the Tribe's Reservation springs and streams.
The amended claim filed by the United States in its capacity as trustee
for the Tribe, specifically recognizes the Tribe's unbroken chain of
aboriginal title and time immemorial priority rights to the base flow
of the springs and streams, and the contribution to those surface
waters by rainfall and snowmelt runoff on the Tribe's Reservation.
Historical Conflict
For decades, the White Mountain Apache Tribe has asserted its right
to preserve, protect, use and develop its aboriginal and federally
reserved water rights. As late as the 1950s, a physical confrontation
became imminent between the Tribe and downstream water claimants when
the Tribe began to develop outdoor recreation lakes on its Reservation
by impounding water from streams within the Reservation's exterior
boundaries. This activity was considered a threat to water supplies in
the Salt River System by downstream water users in the Phoenix
Metropolitan area and was vigorously opposed. A litany of water right
controversies involving the White Mountain Apache Tribe, the United
States in its role as the Tribe's conflicted trustee, and the Salt
River Valley Reclamation Project, characterized the relationship the
Tribe had with the Salt River Reclamation Project and downstream water
users throughout the 20th century.
The Tribe's sizable and senior water rights claims in the pending
Gila River and Little Colorado River Adjudication Proceedings generated
considerable uncertainty regarding the availability of Salt River water
supplies used by the downstream Salt River Project, which serves the
greater Phoenix Metropolitan area. As many as 3.5 million people
downstream depend in large part upon the water sources that arise on
the Fort Apache Indian Reservation to which the White Mountain Apache
Tribe claims sufficient water to meet its present and future needs.
Tribe's Aboriginal and Reserved Water Rights Quantified by 2009
Agreement
This year, the White Mountain Apache Tribe Water Rights
Quantification Agreement, (``Quantification Agreement'') was formally
approved and signed by the White Mountain Apache Tribe and by the
downstream parties' respective governing bodies, including the Governor
of the State of Arizona, Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement
and Power District, Salt River Valley Water Users Association,
Roosevelt Water Conservation District, Arizona Water Company, the
Cities of Avondale, Chandler, Glendale, Peoria, Mesa, Phoenix, Show
Low, Scottsdale, Tempe, Gilbert, Buckeye Irrigation Company, Buckeye
Water Conservation and Drainage District, and the Central Arizona Water
Conservation District (CAWCD). The Quantification Agreement is an
honorable, dignified and equitable quantification and settlement of our
Tribe's reserved water rights.
The Quantification Agreement that was approved and signed by all
the parties except the United States, (the United States does not sign
the Quantification Agreement until H.R. 1065 is enacted by Congress),
provides that the Tribe is permitted to divert for beneficial use,
approximately 99,000 + acre-feet annually, so long as the depletion
from any diversion does not exceed 52,000 acre-feet annually.
This water use right was negotiated by the Tribe and state parties
and reflects a water budget that will provide sufficient water to
satisfy the Homeland purpose of our Reservation. The water budget
includes present and future water needed for domestic and commercial
purposes through the year 2100, irrigation, stock ponds, recreation
lakes, storage reservoirs, federal fish hatcheries on our land,
livestock, our sawmill, outdoor recreational resort housing
development, and mineral development.
H.R. 1065
H.R. 1065 will authorize, confirm, and implement the Quantification
Agreement and will thereby resolve uncertainties among all of the
parties and claimants in both the Gila River and Little Colorado River
Basins. The Act will quantify, preserve, recognize, and settle the
reserved water rights of the White Mountain Apache Tribe in perpetuity,
provide Tribal waivers and releases of claims regarding all State law
water users in the Gila River and Little Colorado River basins,
including the United States (except for the United States acting as
trustee on behalf of other Indian Tribes).
Tribal Claims Waived by Quantification Agreement Outlined in Liability
Paper
H.R. 1065 will also resolve potential claims by the White Mountain
Apache Tribe against the United States for water related breach of
trust damage claims that could potentially result in liability far in
excess of the funding authorized by H.R.1065. Specifically, beginning
with the completion of Roosevelt Dam for the Salt River Reclamation
Project in 1911, the trustee United States, acting by and through its
principal agent, the Secretary of the Interior, has as a matter of
policy, suppressed, neglected, ignored, and opposed the reserved water
use rights of the White Mountain Apache Tribe. These policies, fostered
by an inherent conflict of interest on the part of the Secretary,
favored development of the non-Indian Salt River Project at the expense
of the welfare of the White Mountain Apache Tribe.
For example, as set forth in greater detail in the Tribe's
Liability Paper, that has been submitted to the Department of Interior
and to appropriate House congressional staff, the Secretary of the
Interior in the 1950s and early 60's intentionally destroyed thousands
of Cottonwood trees and other riparian vegetation along the Tribe's
streams to increase water runoff to the Salt River Valley and Roosevelt
Reservoir. The Secretary also cleared thousands of acres of Juniper
trees under the auspices of rangeland restoration for the purpose of
increasing runoff, not for the benefit of the White Mountain Apache
Tribe, but for the benefit of the downstream water users in the Phoenix
Metropolitan area. The ecosystem damage from this action continues and
is ongoing. The cost of riparian restoration is in the hundreds of
millions of dollars.
Another example of a water related, breach of trust damage claim
that will be waived by the Tribe in H.R. 1065, are damages to water
rights resulting from the doubling of the annual allowable cut of the
Tribe's commercial forests by the Secretary for the purpose of
increasing water runoff from the Tribe's Reservation to Roosevelt
Reservoir for the benefit of the Salt River Reclamation Project.
Other potential water related, breach of trust damage claims, inter
alia, which are discussed in the Liability Paper and that will be
waived by H.R. 1065, will be claims arising from:
an historic failure to maintain approximately 90 miles of
irrigation ditches on the Reservation (waived after federal funding
received to repair),
failure to support future OM&R expenses for the Miner
Flat Dam Project Rural Water System (waived after OM&R Trust Fund
established),
an historic failure to meet the trust obligation to
provide a safe drinking water supply for the Tribe,
suppression of irrigation development,
expense of litigating the Tribe's reserved water rights
claims,
failure of the Secretary to reserve Tribe's water from
contracts issued downstream for storage after Roosevelt Dam was
originally built in 1911,
failure of the Secretary to set aside New Conservation
Storage (NCS), for the White Mountain Apache Tribe in the 1995-96
enlargement of Roosevelt Reservoir (result is that Tribe was compelled
to obtain 25,000 acre-feet of CAP instead of retaining Salt River Water
valued by SRP at $6,000 per ac ft),
failure of the United States to assert the reserved water
rights of the White Mountain Apache Tribe in the EIS for the
reallocation of CAP water, and
holding the trustee United States harmless by
relinquishing 26,000 acre-feet diversion annually (valued by SRP at
$6,000 per acre-foot), that had been earmarked for economic development
on the Reservation's Bonito Prairie area.
Value of Tribal Waivers
The value of tribal waivers of potential water related breach of
trust claims against the United States, as outlined in the Tribe's
Liability Paper, far exceeds the authorization in H.R. 1065 for a dam,
reservoir and drinking water system ($127 million) (``Miner Flat
Reservoir Project''), the OM&R Trust Fund ($50 million) for the Miner
Flat Reservoir Project, and the $116 million authorized for ``wet water
economic development, supported by all parties (except the United
States), for: (1) existing lakes infrastructure enhancement
($23,675,000); (2) fish hatchery repair, rehabilitation and expansion
($7.5 million); (3) a fisheries center ($5 million); (4) repair of
existing, but neglected BIA irrigation systems ($4.95 million); (5)
forest management study and Sawmill retooling to accommodate smaller
diameter trees and reduce forest fire risk ($25 million); (6)
snowmaking infrastructure ($25 million); and (7) future recreational
lake development ($25 million).
Drinking Water Crisis
The Tribe and Reservation residents are in urgent need of a long-
term solution for their drinking water needs. Currently the Tribe is
served by the Miner Flat Well Field. Well production has fallen sharply
and is in irreversible decline. Over the last 8 years, well production
has fallen by 50%, and temporary replacement wells draw from the same
source aquifer that is being exhausted. The Tribe experiences chronic
summer drinking water shortages. There is no prospect for groundwater
recovery. The quality of the existing water sources threatens the
health of our membership and other Reservation residents, including the
IHS Regional Hospital and State and BIA schools. The only viable
solution is replacement of failing groundwater with surface water from
the North Fork of the White River. A small water diversion system along
the White River (North Fork Diversion Project) will help the Tribe's
short term drinking water needs, but this is only a temporary measure
to replace the quickly failing well field.
Reservoir Storage a Necessity
Without reservoir storage behind Miner Flat Dam, a feature
authorized by H.R. 1065, the stream flows of the North Fork of the
White River, supplemented by short-term capacity of the Miner Flat Well
Field, are together inadequate to meet community demands of the White
Mountain Apache Tribe for the Greater Whiteriver Area, Cedar Creek,
Carrizo and Cibecue and to maintain a minimum flow in the North Fork of
the White River. The demands of the Tribe for its Rural Water System as
proposed in H.R. 1065 will dry up the North Fork of the White River by
2020 or earlier, even in combination with a supplemental, diminished
water source from the Miner Flat Well Field. Therefore, Miner Flat Dam
is necessary to store 6,000 acre-feet of water during runoff periods
for release and enhancement of the North Fork of the White River to
meet demands of the Reservation rural water system and maintain a
minimum flow for aquatic in riparian habitat preservation and
enhancement. The Miner Flat Project will meet the increasing drinking
water needs of the Reservation for a future population of nearly 40,000
persons in the decades to come. See attached Miner Flat Reservoir and
Pipeline Location Map.
Environmental Impact
The dam and reservoir will be environmentally beneficial. The flow
at the site of the proposed miner flat dam and reservoir averages
60,500 acre-feet annually. The dam will not alter the average annual
flow of the North Fork of the White River at the dam or along the first
15 miles of river below the dam. It will only regulate the flow,
storing water during periods of runoff and releasing like amounts of
water during periods of seasonal low flow. The project can store and
release a maximum of 6,000 acre-feet (the active conservation storage)
on a seasonal, annual or multi-year basis. These releases are
beneficial between the dam and the Alchesay National Fish Hatchery
because they enhance the quantity of flow during low flow periods, such
as May and June, and enhance the quality by lowering temperature, which
has been historically problematic for the hatchery. The temperature is
lowered by releasing cold water at depth in the reservoir. Miner Flat
Dam will not stop the annual flow of the North Fork of the White River,
but will only regulate the River's annual flow. The operating plan for
the releases will meet environmental requirements.
Funding Consideration for Quantification Agreement
Funding for the WMAT Rural Drinking Water System, including the
Miner Flat Dam Storage Facility, water treatment plant, and pipeline to
deliver drinking water to Reservation communities is an indispensable
component of the Quantification Act and Quantification Agreement.
The language approved by all of the signing parties declares that
the entire Drinking Water System, including the Miner Flat Dam,
reservoir, treatment plant and pipeline, pumping stations and other
infrastructure, shall be held in trust by the United States for the use
and benefit of the White Mountain Apache Tribe. This is consistent with
other authorized Bureau of Reclamation Indian rural water projects such
as: Garrison Diversion Unit, Mni Wiconi, Fort Peck, North Central/Rocky
Boy's, Santee Sioux, and Cheyenne River.
The Quantification Agreement and H.R. 1065 also provide that the
Tribe waives any future OM&R cost claims against its trustee, the
United States, upon establishment of a OM&R Trust Fund, the interest of
which will be used to pay for the annual estimated OM&R cost of $2.1
million for the Miner Flat Project. This is the deal the Tribe made
with the signing parties in consideration for quantifying its
substantial reserved water rights claim in the Salt River and Little
Colorado River systems, waiving substantial damage claims, and
relinquishing a considerable reserved water right in exchange for, and
in reliance upon, funding for a safe drinking water system and for
``wet water'' economic development.
Conclusion
The White Mountain Apache Tribe is thankful for the opportunity to
present testimony before this important Subcommittee and expresses its
appreciation to Congresswoman Ann Kirkpatrick for introducing H.R.
1065, the companion bill to S.313, which was co-sponsored by our United
States Senators Jon Kyl and John McCain. The Tribe also thanks the
signing parties to the White Mountain Apache Water Rights
Quantification Agreement for their continuous support of H.R. 1065.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sullivan.
STATEMENT OF JOHN F. SULLIVAN, ASSOCIATE GENERAL MANAGER, SALT
RIVER VALLEY PROJECT
Mr. Sullivan. Chairwoman Napolitano, Ranking Member
McClintock, members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify in support of H.R. 1065, the White
Mountain Apache Tribe Water Quantification Act of 2009. My name
is John Sullivan. I am the Associate General Manager of the
Water Group at the Salt River Project or SRP.
Over the past four decades, SRP has worked with numerous
tribes and stakeholders to resolve Indian water rights disputes
in a manner that benefits both Indian communities and their
non-Indian neighbors. In fact, last year I testified before
this Subcommittee regarding Indian water rights settlements,
and I identified some of the challenges and benefits associated
with settling water rights disputes rather than litigating.
Thanks to the dedication of Chairman Lupe, the White
Mountain Apache Tribal Council and all of the settling parties
over the past several years, we have worked through many of the
same challenges that I described last year to negotiate this
quantification agreement. I am confident that, in turn, passage
of H.R. 1065 and implementation of this agreement will allow
the fundamental and direct benefits I also referenced in my
testimony, in particular a reliable and certain water supply
for all the parties to the settlement.
The agreement provides this long-term reliable supply for
the Tribe by building infrastructure to deliver desperately
needed drinking water to communities on the White Mountain
Apache's Fort Apache Reservation. That is why the centerpiece
of this legislation and quantification agreement is the Miner
Flat Dam and Pipeline Project. This project will allow the
Tribe to put their quantified water right to beneficial use in
the communities and provide a healthy living environment and
economic opportunity.
The need for a sustainable and permanent water supply on
the reservation is undeniable, and the analysis done by SRP
came to the same conclusion as the studies done by the White
Mountain Apache experts that the Miner Flat Dam & Pipeline is
the best and most cost-effective solution to meet the municipal
needs for the next 100 years for the Tribe.
The agreement's permanent quantification of water rights
and conclusive settlement of outstanding claims on water
originating on the Fort Apache Reservation gives SRP and the
state parties water supply certainty. Four of the seven
reservoirs operated by SRP are located on the Salt River
downstream of the Fort Apache Reservation. They are at the
headwaters of the Salt River.
Approximately 42 percent of the water delivered by SRP to
Phoenix metropolitan area stakeholders originates there. Absent
approval of this negotiated settlement, resolution of the
pending claims could take many years, entail great expense and
prolong water supply uncertainty. The effective implementation
of the quantification agreement would allow SRP and the other
settling parties to make better long-term decisions regarding
their water supply, water usage and potential need for future
water supplies.
Madame Chairwoman and members of the Subcommittee, this
bill provides a win-win solution to a longstanding dispute and
has widespread support in Arizona. It has now been approved by
the appropriate boards and counsels of all of the state
settling parties and many of the cities and water districts
have sent this Subcommittee letters of support.
I would also like to thank Representative Kirkpatrick for
introducing this bill and for all of her work on this issue. As
we move forward, I look forward to working with this
Subcommittee and the Department of the Interior to address any
outstanding issues. Thank you, and I am happy to answer
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sullivan follows:]
Statement of John F. Sullivan, Associate General Manager, Water Group,
Salt River Valley Water Users Association and Salt River Project
Agricultural Improvement and Power District, on H.R. 1065
Chairwoman Napolitano, Ranking Member McClintock, and members of
the Subcommittee,
Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of H.R. 1065,
the White Mountain Apache Tribe Water Rights Quantification Act of
2009. I also thank Representative Ann Kirkpatrick for her introduction
and continued support of this important legislation. My name is John F.
Sullivan. I am the Associate General Manager, Water Group, of the Salt
River Project (``SRP''), a large multi-purpose federal reclamation
project embracing the Phoenix, Arizona metropolitan area. SRP has a
history of negotiating and settling Indian water rights disputes in
Arizona. Over the past four decades, SRP has worked with numerous
tribes and stakeholders to resolve Indian water rights disputes in a
manner that benefits both Indian communities and their non-Indian
neighbors. Most important among the benefits is water supply certainty,
which is a fundamental outcome of any water rights settlement.
SRP is composed of the Salt River Valley Water Users' Association
(``Association'') and the Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement
and Power District (``District''). Under contract with the federal
government, the Association, a private corporation authorized under the
laws of the Territory of Arizona, and the District, a political
subdivision of the State of Arizona, provide water from the Salt and
Verde Rivers to approximately 250,000 acres of land in the greater
Phoenix area. Over the past century, most of these lands have been
converted from agricultural to urban uses and now comprise the core of
metropolitan Phoenix.
The Association was organized in 1903 by landowners in the Salt
River Valley to contract with the federal government for the building
of Theodore Roosevelt Dam on the Salt River, located some 80 miles
northeast of Phoenix, and other components of the Salt River Federal
Reclamation Project. SRP was one of the first multipurpose projects
approved under the Reclamation Act of 1902. In exchange for pledging
their land as collateral for the federal loans to construct Roosevelt
Dam, which loans have long since been fully repaid, landowners in the
Salt River Valley received the right to water stored behind the dam.
In 1905, in connection with the formation of the Association, a
lawsuit entitled Hurley v. Abbott, et al., was filed in the District
Court of the Territory of Arizona. The purpose of this lawsuit was to
determine the priority and ownership of water rights in the Salt River
Valley to the natural flow of the Salt and Verde rivers and to provide
for their orderly administration. The decree entered by Judge Edward
Kent in 1910 adjudicated those water rights, provided water supply
certainty to existing water users and, in addition, paved the way for
the construction of additional water storage reservoirs by SRP on the
Salt and Verde Rivers in Central Arizona.
Today, SRP operates six dams and reservoirs on the Salt and Verde
Rivers in the Gila River Basin, one dam and reservoir on East Clear
Creek in the Little Colorado River Basin, and 1,300 miles of canals,
laterals, ditches and pipelines, groundwater wells, as well as numerous
electrical generating, transmission and distribution facilities. The
seven SRP reservoirs impound runoff from multiple watersheds, which is
delivered via SRP canals, laterals and pipelines to municipal,
industrial and agricultural water users in the Phoenix metropolitan
area. SRP also operates approximately 250 deep well pumps to supplement
surface water supplies available to the Phoenix area during times of
drought. In addition, SRP provides power to nearly 900,000 consumers in
the Phoenix area, as well as other rural areas of the State.
SRP holds the rights to water stored in these reservoirs, and for
the downstream uses they supply, pursuant to the state law doctrine of
prior appropriation, as well as federal law. Much of the water used in
the Phoenix metropolitan area is supplied by these reservoirs.
The White Mountain Apache Tribe is located on the Fort Apache
Reservation in eastern Arizona, established by Executive Order in 1871.
The headwaters of the Salt River originate on the Fort Apache
Reservation. Four of the seven reservoirs operated by SRP are located
on the Salt River downstream of the Fort Apache Reservation, and
approximately 42% of the water delivered by SRP to Phoenix metropolitan
area customers originates on the Reservation. The United States, acting
on behalf of the Tribe, has asserted claims in the pending Gila River
Adjudication to the depletion of 179,000 acre-feet of water from these
headwaters. These claims are based on the federal reservation of rights
doctrine and largely encompass potential future uses of water by the
Tribe on its Reservation.
Because resolution of the pending claims could take many years,
entail great expense, and prolong water supply uncertainty, a group of
Arizona water users began settlement negotiations with the White
Mountain Apache Tribe about three years ago. In addition to the Tribe,
the settlement parties include the United States, State of Arizona,
Central Arizona Water Conservation District (``CAWCD''), Salt River
Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District, Salt River Valley
Water Users' Association, Roosevelt Water Conservation District,
Buckeye Irrigation Company, Buckeye Water Conservation and Drainage
District, Arizona Water Company, and the Arizona cities and towns of
Phoenix, Mesa, Tempe, Chandler, Glendale, Scottsdale, Avondale, Peoria,
Show Low, and Gilbert.
The negotiations culminated in a comprehensive settlement
(``Settlement'') that resolves the longstanding water disputes and is
embodied in the White Mountain Apache Tribe Water Rights Quantification
Agreement and H.R. 1065, the White Mountain Apache Tribe Water Rights
Quantification Act of 2009 currently before this Subcommittee. At this
time, all of the state parties have formally approved and signed the
Settlement through their boards and councils. The Settlement
legislation confirms and approves the Tribe's settlement, specifies
water reallocations to implement the Settlement, and authorizes a CAP
water delivery contract with the Tribe. It provides parameters for
Tribal CAP water leases and authorizes the Secretary to execute those
leases. Furthermore, H.R. 1065 authorizes the Miner Flat Dam Project
and funding for its construction, operation and maintenance, and
repayment of the loan for planning and engineering that was authorized
last year in P.L. 110-390.
Under the Settlement, the Tribe's water rights are quantified at a
total diversion right of 99,000 acre-feet per year through a
combination of surface water and Central Arizona Project (``CAP'')
water sources. The Tribe's surface water rights, the first component of
the Tribe's quantified water rights, include the ability to divert
67,000 acre-feet per year from the Salt River system 1 and
another 7,000 acre-feet per year from either the Salt River or Little
Colorado River system. Maximum depletion amounts of 23,000 acre-feet
per year from the Salt River system 2 and 4,000 acre-feet
per year from either the Salt River or Little Colorado River system are
also quantified by the Agreement. The second component of the Tribe's
quantified water rights is a right to CAP water. The Tribe may deplete
and put to its own use up to 25,000 acre-feet per year of CAP water or
choose to lease some or all of this water to others. The Tribe has
negotiated CAP water leases with the CAWCD and the valley cities of
Avondale, Chandler, Gilbert, Glendale, Mesa, Peoria, Phoenix, and
Tempe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Included within this total diversion right is 3,000 acre-feet
per year which may be diverted beginning in the year 2100.
\2\ Included within this total depletion right is 1,200 acre-feet
per year which may be depleted beginning in the year 2100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For their part, the Tribe has committed to providing waivers and
releases of claims benefiting all State law water users in the Gila
River and Little Colorado River basins and the United States (except on
behalf of other Indian Tribes), as part of the Settlement and in return
for the quantified water rights described above.
Establishment of an adequate water storage and distribution system
to meet the domestic and industrial water requirements of the Tribe and
its members is a critical component of the parties' efforts to settle
all existing disputes regarding the White Mountain Apache Tribe's water
rights. The Tribe's existing system is supported by a wellfield, but
the aquifer's supply is limited and insufficient to serve the
reservation's municipal water needs. As an interim measure, the Tribe
plans to construct a small temporary water diversion system along the
White River. However, this is only a short-term solution. The Tribe and
the settling parties have determined that construction and operation of
the Miner Flat Dam Project would best address the Tribe's growing
municipal, rural and industrial water diversion, storage and delivery
demands. The Project, which is estimated to cost approximately $128
million, would include a dam and pipeline for water distribution within
the Reservation's boundaries including the growing communities of White
River, Cedar Creek, Carrizo, and Cibecue. As part of the Project,
pipelines would be constructed to connect water treatment plants to
existing Whiteriver, Carrizo, and Cibecue area water distribution
systems. Associated water system connections, access roads, buildings,
and electrical transmission and distribution facilities would also be
included within the Project's scope.
As part of the Settlement and in recognition of the Tribe's
sustained efforts to provide a reliable drinking water source to its
people, the non-federal settlement parties have agreed to support the
Tribe in developing a long-term solution to this challenge. As an
initial step, the White Mountain Apache Tribe Rural Water System Loan
Authorization Act was introduced by Representative Pastor in the House
and Senator Kyl in the Senate last year. This legislation (H.R. 6754
and S. 3128) was approved by Congress and signed into law by President
Bush as P.L. 110-390. It authorized $9.8 million in the form of a loan
to the Tribe to be repaid beginning in 2013. The Act established the
groundwork to begin Project construction once the Settlement is
approved, allowing inflationary costs to be minimized, potentially
saving millions of dollars and providing much needed water to the
communities on the Fort Apache Reservation years earlier. We greatly
appreciate this Committee's work and leadership in passing this
legislation to allow work to begin on this important project.
H.R. 1065 will continue the progress made last year toward
providing a sustainable water supply for the White Mountain Apache
Tribe and certainty for water users in Arizona, and has the strong
support of the settlement parties and numerous water users in the
Little Colorado River Basin. We look forward to working with the
Subcommittee on this bill. Chairwoman Napolitano and Ranking Member
McClintock, thank you again for the opportunity to testify and for
considering our views. I am happy to answer any questions.
______
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Sullivan. I appreciate your
testimony.
There are several questions that come up in regard to the
project itself and, Chairman Lupe, the 99,000 diversion right,
what is used by the Tribe and you release what amount down to
other needs and what do you sell the water for, cost?
Mr. Sullivan. If I might, Madame Chairwoman, the water
budget that was developed for the White Mountain Apache Tribe,
we started with the claim that was filed by the United States
quite some time ago, which was almost 180,000 acre-feet. That
was based on various current and potential uses by the Tribe.
We then looked at studies done by the Tribe on uses and
concluded that their total diversions would be more appropriate
at I believe the number is around 99,000 acre-feet. In fact,
they will only deplete something in excess of 50,000 acre-feet
from the watershed.
The water that comes from the headwaters of the Salt River
flows in those rivers naturally, so really the Tribe is not
charging for the water. It is a matter of quantifying the
rights between the downstream users and the White Mountain
Apache Tribe. So there is no charge currently for water that
flows into the dams that the Salt River Project operates if
that is answering your question.
Mrs. Napolitano. Is there an expected future charge though?
Mr. Sullivan. Pardon me?
Mrs. Napolitano. Is there an expected future charge?
Mr. Sullivan. There is no expected future charge. It is a
matter of defining among the parties how much water will be
used by the White Mountain Apache Tribe for basically forever.
Mrs. Napolitano. OK. In testimony, Chairman Lupe, you state
the Secretary of the Interior's 1950 and early '60s
intentionally destroyed thousands of cottonwood and juniper
trees as well as other riparian vegetation for the benefit of
the downstream users in the Phoenix metropolitan area. What
impact have these actions caused on the White Mountain Apache
Tribe?
Mr. Lupe. I did not understand your question, ma'am. I am
sorry.
Mrs. Napolitano. Well, apparently according to what we were
reading is the thousands of cottonwood and junipers and other
riparian vegetation was intentionally destroyed for the benefit
of downstream users in the Phoenix metropolitan area. What
impact did these actions back in the '50s and '60s have on your
tribe?
Mr. Lupe. The impact up to this time has been tremendous in
terms of the area of my reservation on the west end. We had
tremendous economic loss from one of the biggest forest fires
that we ever had on the reservation and in the State of
Arizona.
Mrs. Napolitano. I am sorry. We can barely hear you, sir.
Would you pull the mic up please? I am having a hearing
problem.
Mr. Lupe. I am referring to the forest fire that was one of
the biggest in the State of Arizona. It took more than half of
our economy, which is forestland itself. And that really
devastated the economy on our reservation. And also, it
affected all of our water development and other development.
So at the present time, we are struggling now to get to the
power that we had before. And this is part of the water
settlement that we are initiating, so that we can get back some
of the plentiful living that we had on the reservation is now
not there.
Maybe the trial attorney who is here with me can answer
some of that, also, Bob Browkley.
Mr. Browkley. Thank you. My name is Robert Browkley, Madame
Chairwoman.
During the 1950s and sixties, there was a deliberate policy
of the United States, which is well documented in our liability
paper we just touched on the many thousands of our tribal
documents, documented that there was a policy to increase water
runoff to Phoenix Valley by defoliating the reservation.
So what the Bureau of Indian Affairs did, together with a
committee from Phoenix, acting with the Department of the
Interior, was to kill thousands of cottonwoods, because one
cottonwood will take 300 gallons of water a day. So they killed
thousands of cottonwoods by girdling them with chainsaws,
poisoning them. And they did this on all of the major
tributaries that feed into the Salt River.
This went over the--they put stream gauges in there to
measure the success of the runoff. And in conjunction with this
program, there also was the beginning of a proscribed burning
program, which was to reduce or to replicate wildfires to
reduce the threat of forest fires. But another purpose that
emerged from the proscribed burning was to increase water
runoff by burning off the duff, and having the water not
saturate, but run off.
A third thing they did was they doubled the annual
allowable cut of the forest from about 55 million board feet to
110 million board feet. The primary purpose was to increase
water runoff to Phoenix.
Now, the devastation to the Tribe is well documented in
terms of the erosion, the cost of riparian restoration, some
estimated, we have done some already through a permanent fund
when the Tribe filed a claim for damages up to 1946. They set
aside 20 percent of the money in a permanent fund to kind of
restore these riparian areas.
It is in the hundreds of millions of dollars to restore the
riparian areas from the erosion, the channeling of the rivers
by bulldozers to increase water runoff, to restore the thermal
barriers to fish habitat caused by the defoliation, the
invasion of salt cedar and other species caused by the
eradication of the juniper and the cottonwood trees.
Our experts have estimated that the cost of restoration
could be a million dollars for half a mile of stream. So, the
long-term damage continues--and runoff.
Now, the interesting thing about this experiment, which
lasted for about a decade, is that the runoff and the erosion
and the washing away of millions of tons of topsoil canceled
out any immediate benefit from the runoff, so it was abandoned.
But the environmental damage due to the fact the sedimentation
that washed down to Roseville Dam in part contributed to having
to raise Roseville Dam by 36 feet in order to accommodate the
sedimentation that washed out on the reservation.
So that is just one claim that the Tribe would be waiving
in its water right settlement, in addition to relinquishing
85,000 acre-feet a year which the United States had put in as a
claim in 1985.
So Salt River project estimates that the value of that
water is about $6,000 an acre-foot. So take $6,000 times 85,000
acre-feet annually, and there is a stupendous benefit. Not only
did the United States did not have to defend that claim, but
the benefit to the Salt River Valley is immeasurable.
And in exchange, the Tribes, we have waived certain claims
in exchange for and in consideration for the water right we
retained, the vested property rights that we retained to the
use of water. We would like to have money to develop those
water rights, since we are giving up so much. And since 1912,
it has been the official policy of the United States to
suppress any development of the reservation. So that was just,
route water development is for the retooled sawmill----
Mrs. Napolitano. We have to move forward.
Mr. Browkley. OK.
Mrs. Napolitano. You have answered the question.
Mr. Browkley. OK, thank you.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. And I guess to Mr. Sullivan,
the settlement provides a water supply certainty for how many
people?
Mr. Sullivan. The service area that we supply route water
to probably has a population of around 4 million people.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Madame Chairwoman.
I want to focus in on the 99,000 acre-feet of water. Who
currently owns that water?
Mr. Sullivan. Well, I will take a shot at answering that
question.
Currently in the State of Arizona, we are undergoing
litigation over who actually has rights to waters in the Gila
River Watershed. And the Salt River is a tributary of the Gila
River.
So, for the last 35-plus years, we have been in litigation
over the water rights in the Salt River Valley.
The United States filed a claim as a part of that
adjudication for, I believe it was just shy of 180,000 acre-
feet, on behalf of the White Mountain Apache Tribe. In looking
at----
Mr. McClintock. Those are claims. Who currently owns it?
Mr. Sullivan. Ownership in the State of Arizona of surface
water rights, it is currently owned by the people of Arizona.
Mr. McClintock. OK. So the people of Arizona----
Mr. Sullivan. The water rights, however, are claimed by the
Salt River Valley water users.
Mr. McClintock. Claims are different. Claims have to be
adjudicated, I understand that.
Mr. Sullivan. Right.
Mr. McClintock. But right now that water is owned by the
people of Arizona.
Mr. Sullivan. And is currently being used by----
Mr. McClintock. Now, you are transferring, in this
settlement you are transferring 99,000 acre-feet per year to
the residents of the White Mountain Apache Tribe, correct?
Mr. Sullivan. Under this settlement, where the diversions
of the Tribe will be 99,000, they actually will only deplete
about 52,000. The remainder will come back to the river.
Mr. McClintock. Well, but they will be selling that, will
they not?
Mr. Sullivan. No. Net use by the Tribe will be 52,000 acre-
feet.
Mr. McClintock. But the entitlement is 99,000.
Mr. Sullivan. Pardon me?
Mr. McClintock. The entitlement is 99,000.
Mr. Sullivan. The entitlement to divert out of the river.
Mr. McClintock. Right. So again, you are transferring water
rights to 99,000 acre-feet from the people of Arizona to the
residents of the White Mountain Apache Tribe.
Mr. Sullivan. Correct.
Mr. McClintock. Now, again, pull out a pocket calculator.
That comes to a mind-numbing figure of 2.1 million gallons per
resident per year.
Mr. Sullivan. Correct. That includes uses beyond just
domestic use. That includes agricultural use by the Tribe. They
do have agricultural use currently, and have development plans
for additional agricultural use. It includes use for their
recreational projects. It includes a reservation for some
industrial use. They operate a timber system, two sawmills on
the reservation.
So there are a number of other uses beyond the----
Mr. McClintock. Well, I am going to have to go back and
read the Winters decision. But it seems to me that goes far
beyond anything contemplated in the Winters decision.
Particularly when, by your own testimony, you are telling me
the Tribe can't even use that 99,000 acre-feet currently.
Mr. Sullivan. Well, we believe that they will, over time,
be able to----
Mr. McClintock. Well, given enough time, I am sure they can
figure out other ways of using it; but it is a stunning figure.
The other question I would raise is the $116 million in
economic development projects that the taxpayers are being
asked to fund. Isn't that what investors normally do?
For example, I see one of the uses of this $116 million is
the planning, design, and construction of snow-making
infrastructure repairs and expansion at Sunrise Ski Park.
Now, it seems to me that what would normally be done is you
would go out and seek private investors, and say we have this
great ski park here that we want to design and build; will you
invest in it.
Instead you are asking the taxpayers to do so. Do I have
that correctly? Am I understanding that correctly?
Mr. Browkley. Madame Chairwoman, may I be heard on this?
Mrs. Napolitano. Certainly, if you have an ability to
answer. Yes.
Mr. Browkley. With respect to what Mr. Sullivan said, the
water on the reservation that borders, underlies, and traverses
the reservation, is not state water.
The Tribe has an aboriginal right to the use of water, so
it is not the state giving anything to the Tribe. Under the
Winters doctrine, the Tribe has vested property rights to the
use of water.
And to answer the Ranking Member's question, no one owns
water. What you have is a right to use water. And the big
question under the Winters doctrine is, when reservations were
established, the Tribes conferred and held back for themselves
sufficient water for a permanent homeland purpose. And that is
what the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted and stated as such,
and the Arizona Supreme Court followed those line of decisions
and said the big question is how much do they get.
We put a team of experts together and now the 185,000
diversion claim, which was actually filed by the United States,
arrived at a figure of 99,000 acre-feet diversion, 52,000 acre-
feet maximum depletion.
So the State of Arizona is giving nothing to the Tribe. In
fact, the Tribe has a priority bid that goes back thousands of
years, way before the State of Arizona even dreamed of being
existing.
So the question is, we came up with a use of the water, and
it is very clear. We went out 100 years, the same as the State
of Arizona, and for the 35,000 acre-feet diversion for
agriculture, that is old, historic use, current use, and future
use; 8,000 for evaporation. You are charged for evaporation
from your lakes. They have 2,000 stock ponds--a 17,000 acre-
feet diversion for the Federal hatcheries. And that is not
depletion. It just passes through--24,000 acre-feet a year for
drinking water, up to 100 years. That is a hundred-thousand-
person population that we estimate.
Four-hundred-and-twenty-three acre-feet for livestock.
There are 20,000 livestock--8,790 for resort and industrial
development, and 5,800 acre-feet a year for mineral
development. There is some coal there, and there is an iron
mine that might be commercially feasible.
So altogether, that is 99,000 acre-feet diversion. And the
Tribe is not using that much now. But when you have a reserved
water right, you don't just look at the historic use or the
current use; they have a reserved right to how much water they
need as a permanent homeland. That is why you go out about 100
years. Beyond 100 years it is speculative.
So this is how we arrived at--we hired experts. We spent $1
million on a 2500-page water budget, the Salt River project.
They vetted it, and they had their experts. That is why the
Tribe agreed, after looking at what was economically feasible,
we agreed that 99,000 annual diversion, 52,000 acre-feet total
depletion. It can never exceed that.
Mr. McClintock. All right. May I just ask, what does the
Administration think about these claims? What is the
Administration's position?
Mr. Connor. Well, the Administration filed the claim on
behalf of the Tribe as part of its trust responsibility. So
recognize that the 180,000 acre-foot figure was a legitimate
claim filed as part of the adjudication process there.
As I think I said earlier, with respect to the settlement
for 99,000 acre-feet, we are still doing an in-depth analysis
of that. But the preliminary analysis by the Federal
negotiating team was that it was a legitimate figure in
recognition of the claim that had been filed, and in
recognition of the negotiated aspects of the agreement and the
different sources of water for the various uses.
So, it does appear to be a very legitimate number by which
to settle this claim.
Mr. McClintock. Does that include the $116 million in
economic development projects for Sunrise Ski Park, among other
things?
Mr. Connor. The Administration has not endorsed the $116
million for economic development projects as part of the
settlement. I would, that is something that we are still
looking at.
Historically, there has been some level of, as part of a
tribal trust fund--historically, settlements that establish
some level of precedent that there has been a tribal trust fund
to help facilitate some payment of OMB as the Tribe gets its
water project up and going, as well as some economic
development activities. So we are still looking at that number,
and have not endorsed that figure or those projects as part of
this settlement.
Mr. McClintock. Final question. Would the Tribe agree to a
proviso in the bill that would forbid it from reselling the
water?
My concern is that there is such a huge amount of water
coming in. There is some intention of simply taking that water
from the people of Arizona, and then selling it back to them.
Mr. Browkley. I can answer that question, Congressman. The
Tribe is, under this Act, the Tribe is forbidden, and in all
Arizona Indian water settlements, a tribe cannot sell this
water. It cannot sell their land. All the water is held in
trust by the United States. Legal title is held in the United
States, fair legal title, beneficial title to the waters for
the benefit of the White Mountain Apache Tribe.
So they can't sell it. They are prohibited by law. They
couldn't sell their trust land, either.
Now, the only thing that happens is that the Tribe gave it
up. They have an 1871 priority date for a 74,000 acre-feet
diversion. That is about 27,000 acre-feet depletion, because
every time you divert water, you don't deplete equal amounts. A
lot of it is returned back to the stream.
After that, after they exhaust that, the only way they can
get water is through an exchange. And they have an allocation
of 25,000 acre-feet of CAP water, with a 1968 priority date.
And they have to share in shortages, just like everybody else,
when there is a shortage in the Colorado River.
So, if they want to divert more than 75,000 acre-feet--in
other words, another thousand feet above the 74,000--they have
to do it through an exchange. They have to give 1,000 acre-feet
of water down to Phoenix through CAP, so they can take another
thousand acre-feet out of their streams.
And now currently, because eventually there will be
depletion, 100 years from now, or 50 or 60 years from now, when
the Tribe has fully developed its water rights, there may be
depletion of up to 99,000 acre-feet.
Well, 25,000 acre-feet, that will be CAP water. So,
currently Valley City said, ``We want to lease that from you.
We can't buy it from you; you can't buy it, but we can lease it
from you temporarily.'' So, we can bank that water underground,
or use it right away, because it is cheaper to do that and use
it for their development. They can't develop unless they have a
100-year water supply.
And so we give them a 100-year water supply through the CAP
lease.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you so very much. I would like to
ask a question. You brought up an interesting point about
aquifers.
Has one been identified so that you can store water for dry
years? Are you working with USGS? Mr. Commissioner, is there
anything that you know that might help begin to look at that in
the future, so that there is storage, underground storage?
Anybody.
Mr. Connor. At this point in time, I am happy to check our
sources and supplement the record for you with respect to that.
I am not aware, off the top of my head, of opportunities
for aquifer recharge and storage that exist now on the
reservation, and don't know that that is a part of the
settlement.
Mr. Browkley. Is this a question about drought and climate
change?
Mr. Sullivan. It is really about the ability to store water
for drought underground.
In our evaluation of the reservation and its ability to
pump groundwater, that ability is very limited. We did not do
any evaluation that I know of, unless the Tribe has done some,
of the ability to store groundwater, or store surface water for
future use in droughts.
Based on what I know, it would be very difficult. But it is
certainly something that we should explore with the Bureau of
Reclamation in terms of long-term supply. But they have very
limited, they are at the edge of the bowl. If you think of an
aquifer as a bowl, the reservation is actually at the edge of
the bowl. And so it is very difficult for them to find
groundwater that they can use.
Mr. Browkley. I think I understand the question now, Madame
Chair.
When I was talking about storage, the cities in the Valley
Cities, 200 miles to the southwest of us will be storing the
CAP water, or using it. Because the CAP water will not be piped
out to the reservation, of course. It comes into Phoenix from
Lake Havasu, from the western border, the Colorado River.
But in terms of the Tribes storing water, that is really
not possible for the Tribes to store any groundwater, because
all the groundwater leaches out into the springs and streams.
That is why they don't have any.
Mrs. Napolitano. OK.
Mr. Browkley. North of the reservation, the Coconino
Aquifer, which is the base flow of the Little Colorado and
other streams, that has a huge basin. But unfortunately, on the
reservation itself, all the Coconino that is the base flow
supplemented by snowfall and precipitation, all of that just
discharges into the rivers. So you have no groundwater.
We found one lens, and we have 15 wells there. And as the
Chairman testified, those wells are now at 50 percent capacity,
and they are failing fast. There is no recharge. So all the
water that you see on the reservation--all the groundwater--has
already discharged to the streams.
Now, the City of Phoenix and all that, they are storing up
to a million acre-feet of CAP water, because they know there
will be shortages some day. And so they lease water from all of
the other tribes. And the only way a tribe can get CAP water is
if you settle your water rights. That is the incentive that the
Secretary of the Interior came up with many years ago to
encourage Indian tribes to settle. And also to compensate the
valley people of non-Indian population for water that they
won't get any more, because the Indians are asserting their
reserve water rights.
Mrs. Napolitano. Understood. And I guess my point is that
because we have climate change, you have longer heat periods,
that you are going to have more dry-year cycle, and you are
going to have more evaporation of your canals and your rivers
and your dams.
So, storage underground in aquifers is going to be
something that we need to start entertaining and look at to see
how they are, and how we can add to them to prepare. It is not
something that we like to think is going to be a necessity.
But if we are going to try to prevent drought in some
areas, or as you are saying, the Phoenix metropolitan area is
gearing for a future drought, I think more communities need to
start looking at that as a possible assist in, one more tool,
one more idea to be able to utilize in case of continued
drought.
Mr. Sullivan. I couldn't agree more, Madame Chairwoman. The
Phoenix metropolitan area, all of the water municipalities and
water districts in the three-county area served by the Central
Arizona Project, have been very aggressive in underground
storage projects.
There are a number of them within the service area of the
Central Arizona project. And I also agree with Bob, there
probably are, if any, very limited opportunities on the
reservation itself.
The good news for the White Mountain Apache Tribe is they
sit at the headwaters. And so the diversions and depletions
that the Tribe will make out of the Salt River are a very small
percentage of the total flow of the river system, of the Salt
River system. And because of that, they will have a very
reliable supply over time.
And their consultants looked at percentage cuts due to
severe drought or climate change, whatever you want to call it.
They did factor that into their evaluation.
Mrs. Napolitano. And one more maybe comment, is that I am
looking more and more, or asking whether the communities are
looking at utilization of photovoltaic solar panels to run
pumps to be able to save on electricity, and thereby saving
some of that water.
Mr. Commissioner, do you have any comment on what has been
transpiring?
Mr. Connor. No. I thank you for the opportunity with
respect to your last comments about integrating renewals and
water supply systems. I think it is a great idea, one that we
need to look into very closely. I think there are opportunities
there.
I think, in my experience, from water utilities themselves
are already looking at this because of some flexibility in
pumping times, et cetera. So I look forward to working with you
and your Subcommittee.
Mrs. Napolitano. I really appreciate it. And because the
Subcommittee has jurisdiction over the grid energy also, that
we, I consider this one of the other areas of conserving that
energy by utilization of solar power, leaving more water in the
dams and the rivers so that you can generate the electricity.
So if we recycle, we have that ability to expand that water
usage of recycling.
So I thank all the panel and Commissioner for staying with
us, and for helping us out.
This concludes the Subcommittee's legislative hearing on
H.R. 1738, H.R. 2265, H.R. 2442, H.R. 2522, H.R. 2741, H.R.
2950, and H.R. 1065. Our thanks to all of our witnesses for
appearing before the Subcommittee. Your testimony and expertise
have been very enlightening and helpful.
Under Committee Rule 4[h], additional material for the
record should be submitted within 10 business days after the
hearing. And the cooperation of all the witnesses in replying
promptly to any questions submitted to you in writing would be
greatly appreciated.
And so this Subcommittee is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gallegly follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Elton Gallegly, a Representative in Congress
from the State of California
I would first like to thank Chairwoman Napolitano and Ranking
Member McClintock for calling this legislative hearing today on my
legislation H.R. 2252. My legislation would raise the ceiling on the
federal share of the cost of completing the Calleguas Municipal Water
District Recycling Project.
I believe we all know about the water shortage problems plaguing
the state of California. In my district, adequate water supplies have
become difficult to develop and maintain. Especially as traditional
imported water sources have become increasingly unreliable. Thus, the
necessity for my district to develop new sources of water through H.R.
2252.
H.R. 2252 would authorize $40 million in additional funding for the
Bureau of Reclamation to support the completion of the Calleguas
Municipal Water District Recycling Project.
To date, the federal government has expended approximately $18
million for this project, bringing it close to the current $20 million
cap. The additional authorization provided in this bill will allow for
the Bureau of Reclamation to continue funding its share of this
project.
The main focus of this project is the construction of the salinity
management pipeline, also known as a brine line. This pipeline would
collect and convey brackish groundwater and recycled water for direct
use, stretching local water supplies. This project would transport
brine and high quality saline wastewater and brine to either an ocean
discharge facility or salt tolerant water users such as sod farms, game
preserves or coastal wetlands.
The use of this new water source will reduce the demand for
imported water, improve local water resources, and provide a dependable
source of water for much of my district.
More specifically, this legislation would allow Calleguas to expand
the water delivery capabilities for roughly 600,000 of my constituents.
And in the era of droughts and water shortages throughout California,
as a resident of Southern California, I believe we need to do all we
can to reduce our dependence on imported water.
I look forward to the testimony of Susan Mulligan, the Manager of
Engineering for Calleguas and a true expert on this project who can
explain in great detail, the specific benefits of what this additional
funding from my legislation will accomplish.
Again, thank you Madame Chair for your time and allowing for the
consideration of H.R. 2252.