[Senate Hearing 111-91]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-91
WATER AND POWER BILLS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
S. 637 S. 1080
S.789 S. 1453
__________
JULY 23, 2009
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
53-392 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) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
RON WYDEN, Oregon RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
EVAN BAYH, Indiana JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan BOB CORKER, Tennessee
MARK UDALL, Colorado
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
Robert M. Simon, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
McKie Campbell, Republican Staff Director
Karen K. Billups, Republican Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Water and Power
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan Chairman
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JOHN McCAIN, ARIZONA
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
EVAN BAYH, Indiana JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
Jeff Bingaman and Lisa Murkowski are Ex Officio Members of the
Subcommittee
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Cantwell, Hon. Maria, U.S. Senator From Washington............... 1
Connor, Michael L., Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation,
Department of the Interior..................................... 6
Garfield, Ryan, Chairman, Tule River Tribe, Porterville, CA...... 25
Kasten, Tod, Treasurer, Dry-Redwater Regional Water Authority,
Circle, MT..................................................... 16
Sullivan, John F., Associate General Manager, Water Group, Salt
River Project, Phoenix, AZ..................................... 32
Tester, Hon. Jon, U.S. Senator From Montana...................... 5
APPENDIXES
Appendix I
Responses to additional questions................................ 39
Appendix II
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 49
WATER AND POWER BILLS
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 23, 2009
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Water and Power,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Maria
Cantwell presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, U.S. SENATOR FROM
WASHINGTON
Senator Cantwell. Good afternoon. We are going to convene
this Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Energy Committee.
I thank the Honorable Michael Connor for being here today
to give testimony to this legislation and to the other
witnesses who are going to be here.
It is my pleasure to welcome everyone.
The bills we are going to cover today are in the area of
water resource management.
S. 637, introduced by Senators Baucus and Tester,
authorizing the construction of regional water systems in
eastern Montana and a portion of North Dakota.
S. 789, introduced by Senator Feinstein, requires the
Bureau of Reclamation to conduct a study of feasibility and
sustainability of a reservoir that would be a key component of
an Indian water rights settlement in California.
S. 1080, introduced by Senators McCain and Kyl, will
clarify the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior with
respect to C.C. Cragin Dam and Reservoir in Arizona.
S. 1453, introduced by Senators Bingaman, Tom Udall, Mark
Udall, Bennett, and Hatch. I do not know if that has ever
happened before in that order.
[Laughter.]
Senator Cantwell. To maintain base funding for the Bureau
of Reclamation of the Upper Colorado River and San Juan fish
recovery programs through 2023.
These bills involve important issues that impact most
western States such a rural water supply needs, endangered
species concerns, and Indian water rights.
The subcommittee will look closely at these bills and work
with the sponsoring members to try to make progress toward
enactment.
I know my colleague, the ranking member, Senator Brownback,
will be here shortly, and when he does, we will turn to him for
his opening statement.
I see my colleague, Senator Tester, here, and if he would
like to join us and make comments about this legislation that
he is here to address, this would be a welcome time for doing
that. Then at that point, we will turn to Mr. Connor for his
testimony. Welcome, Senator Tester.
[The prepared statements of Senators Feinstein, Baucus,
McCain, and Kyl follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Dianne Feinstein, U.S. Senator From
California, on S. 789
Madam Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
taking the time today to hold a hearing on the Tule River Tribe Water
Development Act, which would authorize a water feasibility study for
the Tule River Tribe from California.
California is currently in the third year of a severe drought.
Drought is cyclical in our State.
The State needs solutions now to help meet water supply needs for
agriculture, fish and wildlife, and human use. Without prudent and
expedient consideration of feasibility studies like this one, the
situation will only get worse.
For the Tule River Tribe, the concerns of the future have become
the reality of today. The Tribe has inadequate water for even the most
basic daily activities such as drinking, cooking, cleaning, bathing,
and firefighting.
This legislation will help the tribe move one step closer to
realizing its legitimate water rights.
Specifically, this bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to
complete and report to Congress on options for a domestic, commercial,
municipal, industrial, and irrigation water supply for the Tule River
Tribe.
In addition, at my request, this legislation prohibits any future
project relating to the study from providing water for the Tribe's
casino or other gaming-related activities.
Identical bipartisan legislation was introduced by my California
colleagues, Devin Nunes and Jim Costa, in the House of Representatives.
That legislation passed the House Committee on Natural Resources by
unanimous consent, and passed the full House by a vote of 417-3 earlier
this month.
The Tribe has been in negotiations on this settlement for over ten
years, signing an agreement in 2007 with all parties except the Federal
government. While the Federal government was a party to those
negotiations, the Bureau did not sign the final agreement. When that
settlement was signed, legislation to provide an authorization for a
feasibility study was introduced by my colleagues in the House of
Representatives.
Subsequently, the Bureau has had ample time to conduct an appraisal
of the project and to work with the Tribe to reach a conclusion to
settlement negotiations.
The Bureau's testimony acknowledges that:
[T]he Tribe has conducted a substantial amount of technical,
planning, and environmental work over the past decade; however,
Reclamation has not reviewed these documents nor determined how
they may affect the scope, cost, or schedule of a feasibility
study.
This is similar to testimony provided by the Bureau almost two
years ago during a House Natural Resources Subcommittee hearing in
September 2007.
The Department of the Interior and the Tule River Tribe already
have spent over one million dollars on technical studies and evaluation
toward completion of the proposed feasibility study. This includes
extensive research on hydrology, geology, and possible sites for
storage. It is clear that the Bureau will not move forward without
Congressional direction.
A feasibility study authorization from Congress will encourage the
parties complete settlement negotiations quickly, move forward with a
plan to bring water to this water-poor region of California, and
provide the Tribe with the water to which it is equitably entitled.
This is not a water project that falls under traditional Federal
water guidelines; rather, it is a resolution of claims by the Tule
River Tribe for breach by the Federal government of its obligations to
the Tribe.
As a result of the Federal government's action, the Tribe has been
severely constrained by a 1922 agreement and has missed out on its
water rights for the past 90 years.
Madam Chairman, it is important to note that the Tule River Tribe
went about this process in a responsible manner.
The Tribe did not pursue litigation, but spent ten long years in
negotiations with the local community and the Federal government. The
Tribe should be applauded for its efforts and willingness to resolve
their differences at the negotiating table, not in the courtroom.
A water feasibility study is the next logical step toward a
resolution of a long-standing inequity.
With regard to subsection 2(c) restricting the use of water for
gaming-related purposes, I believe this clause is a necessary and
important part of the legislation. All the provisions in this bill were
carefully negotiated to best fit the needs of the community and
subsection 2(c), agreed to by the Tribe and its elected
representatives, is appropriate for this particular set of
circumstances.
Finally, I would note that the legislation before you today enjoys
universal support from the Tribe and nearby communities. I appreciate
the time you have given today to consider the merits of this bill and
encourage the Committee's prompt consideration and passage of the Tule
River Tribe Water Development Act.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Max Baucus, U.S. Senator From Montana,
on S. 637
Good afternoon! I want to want to thank you for the opportunity to
speak today in support of S. 637, a bill to authorize the Dry--Redwater
Regional Water System in Montana. I introduced this legislation with my
colleague, Senator Tester, on March 18, 2009. This water project is a
critical lynch-pin our long-term efforts to ensure that all Americans,
regardless of location, receive the clean, fresh water to which they
are entitled. This legislation will bring the reality of clean, safe,
reliable water one step closer to thousands of residents in eastern
Montana.
S. 637 authorizes the construction of the Dry Redwater Regional
Water System in the State of Montana and a portion of McKenzie County,
North Dakota. The Dry Redwater Regional Water System will provide a
municipal and industrial water supply for rural communities in Montana
and North Dakota. The project will ultimately serve 15,000 people in a
service area covering approximately 9,400 square miles. In comparison,
the city of Los Angeles covers 1,682 square miles and is home to over
11 million people.
Today, these rural communities rely heavily on groundwater, and are
facing water quality issue ranging from high levels of fluoride, to
high total dissolved solids and high sodium. The bottom line is that
the current system is not up to par and fails to meet the basic needs
of Montanans.
The project will include 1,220 miles of pipeline, 38 pump stations,
and 20 water storage reservoirs. The total cost is expected to be about
$115M over 10 years, with the Federal government paying up to 75% of
the total project cost.
The non-Federal interests are ready to go on their share of this
project. I am very pleased to have Mr. Tod Kasten, from Circle, Montana
here testifying today on behalf of this project. Mr. Kasten is a member
of the board of the Dry--Redwater Regional Water Authority System which
was established to manage this project and will bear the responsibility
for the operation and maintenance of this project over the long-term.
The Dry-Redwater Regional Water System is exactly the type of
project that the Bureau of Reclamation was established to create. The
Bureau was established in 1902 and constructed water projects
throughout the West leading to economic development. It is hard to
believe that there are still Americans in this region who lack basic
water services--but there are. I greatly appreciate this Committee's
time and attention to this matter which is so critical to thousands of
Montanans, and I look forward to working with you to move this bill to
enactment.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. John McCain, U.S. Senator From Arizon,
on S. 1080
Madam Chairman, I appreciate you holding today's hearing on S.
1080, legislation introduced by myself and my colleague from Arizona,
Senator Kyl. A companion measure has been introduced in the House of
Representatives by Congresswoman Ann Kirkpatrick. Simply put, this
legislation would clarify that the ``C.C. Cragin Dam and Reservoir
Project'' in northern Arizona is under the jurisdiction of the Bureau
of Reclamation (BOR) and not the Forest Service. Resolving this
uncertainty is necessary for the development of several critical water
supply projects in northern Arizona.
The C.C. Cragin Project, formerly known as the Blue Ridge Dam and
Reservoir, is located within the Coconino and Tonto National Forests.
The project consists of a relatively modest dam, reservoir and 10-mile
pipeline that was constructed during the 1960's by Phelps Dodge to
supply water to the Morenci Mine Complex under an agreement with the
Salt River Project (SRP). Several years ago, Phelps Dodge relinquished
the Cragin Project to SRP, and consequently, it was transferred to the
Bureau of Reclamation's Salt River Federal Reclamation Project under
the Arizona Water Settlements Act of 2004.
Unfortunately, the Act failed to expressly divest the Forest
Service from managing the National Forest lands underlying the Cragin
Project. This oversight has resulted in an interagency struggle between
the Bureau of Reclamation and the Forest Service concerning approval
authority over SRP's maintenance activities. The Bureau of Reclamation
correctly interprets the Act to mean they have authority over SRP's
repair work, while the Forest Service insists it has ultimate authority
for the entire Cragin Project, and has even argued that the Bureau must
obtain a special use permit in order to operate the dam.
This bureaucratic disagreement frequently disrupts SRP's ability to
maintain the integrity of the aging Cragin pipeline. There have been
numerous delays-sometimes lasting months--as the Forest Service forces
SRP to duplicate environmental assessments and comply with various
regulatory hurdles which Congress clearly intended to be under the sole
jurisdiction of the Bureau of Reclamation.
Over the past 4 years, SRP and the Bureau have made every attempt
to resolve this jurisdictional dispute with the Forest Service without
success Meanwhile, the ongoing bureaucratic infighting is complicating
efforts by several communities in Northern Gila County that plan to
utilize the Cragin Project to address a chronic regional water
shortage. I've heard from several local elected officials in Gila
County who are outraged at how this dispute has delayed and may
eventually derail several of their most critical water delivery
projects.
This internal bureaucratic squabbling is totally indifferent to the
greater needs of Arizona taxpayers. The C.C. Cragin Project is just
like any other Salt River Federal Reclamation Project facility located
within a National Forest in that the Bureau of Reclamation, not the
Forest Service, is responsible for approving all work plans and
maintenance activities. That's why this legislation would put to rest
any confusion over the Bureau of Reclamation's authority to approve
management activities for the Cragin Project. I want to be clear that
this bill does not release either the BOR or SRP from complying with
applicable federal laws, including NEPA and the Endangered Species Act,
nor does it impose additional costs on the federal government.
Again, Madam Chairman, after four years of negotiations, the Forest
Service and the Bureau of Reclamation have yet to produce an agreement
on this matter. A speedy resolution to this jurisdictional issue is
needed in order to provide certainty in SRP's repair work as well as to
advance the water development plans of the Town of Payson and other
northern Arizona communities. Thank you for holding this hearing and I
look forward to working with the Committee and the Administration to
advance this bill through the legislative process.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jon Kyl, U.S. Senator From Arizona, on S.
1080
Chairman Stabenow, Ranking Member Brownback, and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for holding this hearing on S. 1080, which
would clarify the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior with
respect to the C.C. Cragin Dam and Reservoir (the ``Project''). Along
with Senator McCain, I introduced this legislation in May 2009 to
resolve a dispute among the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Forest
Service, and the Salt River Project (SRP) concerning the exercise of
jurisdiction by the two federal agencies over the operation of the
Project in Northern Arizona. A legislative fix is necessary because the
agencies have been unable to resolve this conflict. S. 1080 would (1)
withdraw for eclamation purposes the lands at issue and (2) clarify
that the Secretary of interior has exclusive jurisdiction with respect
to the covered lands.
By way of background, under the Arizona Water Settlements Act
(AWSA), up to 3,500 acre feet of water per year may be made available
from the Project for municipal and domestic uses in northern Gila
County. AWSA also authorized the Department of Interior to accept from
SRP the transfer of title to the Project. Section 213(i) of AWSA
provides: (1) ``the United States shall hold title to the (Project) for
the exclusive use and benefit of (SRP)'' and (2) ``(SRP) shall be
responsible for the care, operation, and maintenance of the project
pursuant to the contract between the (U.S.) and (SRP) dated . . . 1917,
as amended.'' The intent of AWSA was to give Interior, through
Reclamation, the exclusive jurisdiction over the Project.
The Forest Service has argued that AWSA did not expressly divest it
of jurisdiction over the and associated with the Project. Consequently,
the Forest Service maintains it must ``authorize'' all of the
activities associated with the Project, including but not limited to,
its care, operation, and maintenance. Last year, the Forest Service
proposed entering into a project supplemental agreement (PSA) to
resolve this issue. Regulating the Project through a PSA, however,
would undermine the legislative intent of AWSA and result in the
piecemeal administration of the Project and duplication of effort by
the three entities.
Reclamation already possesses sufficient authority, under both an
existing contract with SRP and Section 213(i) of AWSA to regulate both
the dam and reservoir and all other improvements associated with the
Project. It also possesses sufficient expertise to regulate the
operation of the Project. Indeed, Reclamation already exercises such
expertise in its regulation of similar facilities that are part of the
Salt River Federal Reclamation Project and other reclamation projects
in the West.
The practical concern is that these unresolved disputes have
resulted in delays in needed repairs to a pipeline and other
improvements to the Project, which, according to SRP, are necessary for
the Project's continued operation.
In sum, the legislation would resolve an ongoing dispute among
Reclamation, SRP, and the Forest Service and give Reclamation
jurisdiction over the Project as AWSA intended. Given the legislation's
bipartisan nature, I hope the Subcommittee will work with me in
securing its swift passage in the 111th Congress.
STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER, U.S. SENATOR
FROM MONTANA
Senator Tester. Thank you, Chairwoman Cantwell. I
appreciate the opportunity to say a few words, and I appreciate
the opportunity that you are taking to hear these projects on
the panels today.
They are critically important projects. I can talk about
the one in particular, the Dry-Redwater Regional Water
Authority. This is a project in eastern Montana that is going
to require some significant resources, but it is a project that
is much needed in eastern Montana.
As has been said and as you guys deal with on a daily basis
in this committee, water is so critically important for not
only survival but economic growth and the ability to maximize
the economic opportunities as they come down the pipe. That is
what this project is about. It is about not only economic
development and growth into the future, but in the short term,
simple economic stability and sustainability because, quite
frankly, without water, communities are not going to survive.
That is just the way it is.
So I appreciate you having this hearing, and I would hope
that you would give this very favorable consideration when it
goes to the committee.
With that, I just want to express my appreciation. Thank
you, Senator Cantwell.
[The prepared statement of Senator Tester follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jon Tester, U.S. Senator From Montana
Thank you Mr. Chairman, Thank you for holding this hearing and
including Montanan, Tod Kasten on a panel.
Mr. Chairman, it is an honor to introduce my fellow Montanan Mr.
Tod Kasten who has traveled all the way from Circle, Montana to share
his work with the Dry-Redwater Regional Water Authority.
This project has been in the works since 2002 and Mr. Kasten's
leadership brings this issue to your chambers today.
I feel local organization and community involvement in projects
like this is fundamental to providing a strong rural water structure
and I laud Mr. Kasten's work.
As I am sure you know, these projects are critical to securing
clean water in our rural communities. Clean water promotes health and
economic development and this bill helps to ensure that Montanans from
communities across Eastern Montana are given that benefit.
Thank you for taking the time to listen to Mr. Kasten and Thank you
again for your consideration of this issue.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Senator Tester. You, I am
assuming, have worked with our colleagues from North Dakota on
this as well.
Senator Tester. We try to stay away from those guys in
North Dakota, but absolutely.
Senator Cantwell. All right. Thank you. Thank you for
stopping by to lend your support for what is important
legislation for the State of Montana and the region.
Before I call up our first panelist, I would like to make
sure that we know that the subcommittee has received additional
written testimony on the bills before us today, that the
testimony, as well as the written submissions from today's
witnesses, will be made part of the official record.
So with that, I think, Mr. Connor, we will turn to you.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL L. CONNOR, COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF
RECLAMATION, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Connor. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I am Mike Connor,
the Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation, and I am pleased
to provide the Department of the Interior's views on the four
bills pending before the subcommittee today. In the interest of
time, I will quickly summarize my written statements, which
have been submitted for the record.
The first bill I will speak to is S. 637, the Dry-Redwater
bill. S. 637 would authorize construction of the Dry-Redwater
Regional Water Authority System in Montana. The Department has
significant concerns with S. 637. While we concur in the need
for a safe and reliable water supply for the citizens of
eastern Montana, the Department is concerned about the strain
on Reclamation's budget, the cost share requirement proposed in
the bill, the accuracy of the existing cost estimates, and the
proponents' capability to pay for all aspects of the project.
Of Reclamation's eight rural water projects, six are in
Reclamation's Great Plains region and are currently being
constructed in the Dakotas and Montana. All of these projects
pre-date Public Law 109-451, the Rural Water Supply Act. This
act authorizes the Secretary to create a rural water supply
program to address rural water needs in the 17 western States.
The fiscal year 2010 rural water project construction request
is $64 million. The remaining construction ceiling for these
six projects total over $1.2 billion. That is our backlog in
rural water projects.
Given that backlog, we are concerned about the accuracy of
the cost estimates upon which appropriations are authorized in
S. 637. Being asked to consider requests for authorization of a
project's construction, Reclamation typically has had an
opportunity to do an appraisal-level study prior to that
authorization. As such, we would like to suggest that the
project sponsors work with Reclamation's regional office to
complete appraisal-and feasibility-level studies consistent
with the Rural Water Supply Act of 2006 prior to an
authorization taking place.
We appreciate that the project sponsors have approached
Reclamation in this regard and pledge to provide them clear
guidance that will help facilitate a meaningful review of the
project.
The second bill I will speak to is S. 789, the Tule River
bill. S. 789 would direct the Department to complete a
feasibility study for construction of a storage reservoir and
delivery system for the Tule River Indian Tribe in California.
The Department does not support S. 789.
This bill directs that the Department's feasibility study
be completed within 2 years after the funds are appropriated.
Reclamation has not reviewed and is not in a position to verify
the accuracy of the costs estimates upon which the
appropriations are authorized in the bill. Before being asked
to consider a request for authorization or funding of a
feasibility, Reclamation typically has had the opportunity to
conduct an appraisal-level study. Without that study, the
Department believes it is premature to authorize the
feasibility work.
For several years, settlement negotiations have been
conducted between the tribe, downstream water users, and the
Federal negotiating team regarding the tribe's federally
reserved water rights. Not all issues between the tribe and the
Federal negotiating team have been resolved. Moreover, despite
some level of Federal participation, the Department has not
analyzed the settlement needs of the tribe and other parties,
including the question of whether the proposed storage
reservoir, outlet works, and delivery system are a cost
effective approach to accomplishing the parties' goals. Until
the Department has completed its analysis of the proposed
settlement, it is premature to take a position on the scope,
schedule, and cost of the feasibility study that is proposed in
the legislation.
Having said this, the Department understands the importance
of a reliable water supply. We will continue to work with the
tribe, including evaluating the option of allocating some
amount of resources toward addressing the issues I have just
raised.
The Department supports the resolution of Indian water
rights claims through negotiated settlements. Good settlements
require good information and a solid technical review of the
available water supply options.
The third bill is S. 1080, the C.C. Cragin bill. S. 1080
deals with an issue that has occupied the time of field staff
at Reclamation and U.S. Forest Service since enactment of the
Arizona Water Settlement Act in 2005. This bill seeks to
clarify Federal jurisdiction with respect to the C.C. Cragin
project operated by the Salt River Project and located within
the Coconino National Forest in Arizona.
The administration appreciates the interest of the Salt
River Project in reaching a prompt resolution of the management
responsibilities of the Departments of Agriculture and Interior
and understands SRP's interest in promoting this legislation.
However, the administration believes that a sound approach for
future management of the project could be arrived through
further negotiations. Both Departments are fully committed to
working expeditiously with SRP to ensure needed work for the
project, including both emergency and nonemergency repairs, and
replacement of improvements are completed, as well as the
management issues that are pending right now.
The final bill is S. 1453, the Upper Colorado River-San
Juan fish recovery program. S. 1453 would extend the
authorization for the Upper Colorado and San Juan Rivers fish
recovery implementation programs to use Colorado River storage
project hydropower revenues through the year 2023. The
Department supports S. 1453.
These programs share the dual goals of recovering
populations of endangered fish while water development
continues to meet current and future human needs. The program
actions provide Endangered Species Act compliance for more than
1,600 Federal, tribal, and non-Federal water projects using
more than 3 million acre-feet of water per year in the Colorado
and San Juan River basins. These programs have been nationally
recognized for their cooperative approach to recovering native
fish species, avoiding litigation, and providing ESA compliance
to Federal and non-Federal water users.
Reauthorization for the continued use of CRSP hydropower
revenues is essential to the ability of these programs to
realize their goals. The stakeholders involved in these
programs are to be commended for their cooperation, as well as
the successes they have achieved to date.
That concludes my prepared remarks. I will be happy to
answer questions at the appropriate time.
[The prepared statements of Mr. Connor follow:]
Prepared Statements of Michael L. Connor, Commissioner, Bureau of
Reclamation, Department of the Interior
s. 637
Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Mike Connor,
Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). I am pleased
to provide the views of the Department of the Interior (Department) on
S. 637, legislation authorizing construction of the Dry-Redwater
Regional Water Authority System in the State of Montana. The
Administration has significant concerns with this bill that we want to
work with Congress to address.
S. 637 would authorize the planning, design, and construction of
the Dry-Redwater Regional Water Authority System (System) in eastern
Montana and would authorize appropriations of at least $115 million for
the System. The bill would require that the Federal government pay for
75 percent of the project's overall cost.
The Department concurs in the need for a safe and reliable water
supply for the citizens of eastern Montana, but we have a number of
concerns with the legislation. In particular, the Department is
concerned about the strain on Reclamation's budget, the cost share
requirement proposed in the bill, the accuracy of existing cost
estimates, and the proposed use of project use power from the Pick
Sloan Missouri Basin Program (PSMBP) for non-irrigation purposes.
Of Reclamation's eight authorized rural water projects, six are in
Reclamation's Great Plains (GP) region and are currently being
constructed in the Dakotas and Montana. All of these projects pre-date
Public Law 109-451, which authorized the Secretary of the Interior to
create a rural water supply program to address rural water needs in the
17 western States. Within the GP region, more than 236,750 people are
presently being served by the six partially completed projects
(approximately 38,750 on Indian reservations and 198,000 off
reservations). The fiscal year (FY) 2010 rural water project
construction request is $64 million. This includes $15.3 million for
the operation and maintenance of tribal systems and $47.7 million for
construction. In addition, the Department of the Interior allocated
$200 million to these rural water projects with funding from the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The remaining
construction ceiling for these six projects totals over $1.2 billion.
In view of these existing authorizations, the Department is
concerned about the non-Federal cost share for the System. S. 637
contemplates that the United States would fund 75 percent of the cost
of constructing the system for the benefit of Montana citizens of
Dawson, Garfield, McCone, Prairie, and Richland Counties, and North
Dakota citizens of McKenzie County.
While this has been the cost share level proposed in other rural
water projects enacted into law, it represents the very maximum Federal
cost share allowed under the Rural Water Supply Act of 2006 (Public Law
109-451), which includes a requirement for a Feasibility Report that
includes an analysis of the sponsor's capability-to-pay and identifies
an appropriate contribution by the local sponsors.
Reclamation has not reviewed and is not in a position to verify the
accuracy of the cost estimates upon which appropriations are authorized
in S. 637. Before being asked to consider a request for authorization
or funding of a feasibility study, Reclamation typically has had an
opportunity to conduct at least appraisal-level analysis of a project.
This practice is confirmed in Section 106(a) of the recently enacted
Rural Water Supply Act of 2006.
Section 5 of S. 637 authorizes the delivery of Pick Sloan Missouri
Basin Program ``project use'' pumping power to be used and delivered
for the benefit of this project at the firm power rate. The bill
requires that the project be operated on a ``not for profit basis'' in
order to be eligible to receive power under those terms. The bill is
silent as to whether this authorization provides for seasonal power vs.
year-round power. The legislation should specify in order for
Reclamation and the Western Area Power Administration to know how much
preference pumping power from PSMBP will be available to the system
during the non-irrigation season in order to meet existing contractual
obligations.
In addition to those concerns mentioned above, we have yet to
verify whether or not water rights issues associated with the project
have been adequately addressed. Without an opportunity to thoroughly
review the proposed project at an appraisal or feasibility study level,
we are not in a position to verify that other technical issues do not
also exist. We would like to suggest that the project sponsors work
with Reclamation's Great Plains Regional Office and the Montana Area
Office to complete appraisal and feasibility-level studies consistent
with the Rural Water Supply Act of 2006 prior to an authorization for
construction.
That concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer any
questions.
s. 789
Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Michael
Connor, Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). I am
pleased to provide the views of the Department of the Interior
(Department) on S. 789, the Tule River Tribe Water Development Act. For
reasons discussed below, the Department does not support S. 789.
The proposed legislation would direct Interior ``to conduct a study
on the feasibility and suitability of constructing a storage reservoir,
outlet works, and a delivery system for the Tule River Indian Tribe of
California to provide a water supply for domestic, municipal,
industrial, and agricultural purposes, and for other purposes.'' The
Act would authorize $3 million for Reclamation to conduct a feasibility
study to be completed within 2 years after funds are appropriated.
Reclamation delivered testimony on similar legislation (HR 2535)
during the 110th Congress on September 25, 2007. While S. 789 contains
some notable changes in Section 2, the Department's concerns with this
bill remain.
Reclamation has not reviewed and is not in a position to verify the
accuracy of the cost estimates upon which appropriations are authorized
in S. 789. Before being asked to consider a request for authorization
or funding of a feasibility study, Reclamation typically has had an
opportunity to conduct appraisal-level analysis of a project. Without a
completed appraisal level study, the Department believes it is
premature to authorize this feasibility study. The authorization of $3
million for this study would further compete with the funding needs of
other already authorized projects. Reclamation generally requires
completion of an appraisal level study before considering whether the
project warrants continuing to a feasibility-level analysis.
Reclamation understands that the Tribe has conducted a substantial
amount of technical, planning, and environmental work over the past
decade; however, Reclamation has not reviewed these documents nor
determined how they may affect the scope, cost, or schedule of a
feasibility study.
In addition, the proposed legislation does not specify a local non-
Federal cost-share partner or a cost share requirement for the
feasibility study. Reclamation typically shares feasibility study costs
with the non-Federal partners paying 50 percent of study costs. There
is ample legislative precedent which supports this approach. For
several years settlement agreement negotiations have been conducted
between the Tribe, downstream water users, and the Federal negotiation
team regarding the Tribe's federally reserved water rights. However,
not all of the issues between the Tribe and the Federal negotiating
team have been resolved. Moreover, the Department has not analyzed the
settlement needs of the Tribe and other parties including the question
of whether the proposed storage reservoir, outlet works, and delivery
system are a cost effective approach to accomplishing the goals of the
settling parties. Nor have issues of cost and cost sharing with other
settlement parties been negotiated. Until the Department has completed
its analysis of the proposed settlement, it is premature to take a
position on the scope, schedule, and cost of the feasibility study that
is proposed in this legislation.
Typically, a feasibility study of this size and shape, including
National Environmental Policy Act compliance, requires several years to
complete with significant costs. Actual costs for this study would be
determined after study authorization and appropriations are provided
followed by a Plan of Study and public scoping processes. The time and
cost to complete the feasibility study and environmental documentation
for the Tule River Tribe Water Development Project could be shortened
if the Tribe's technical and environmental analyses and documentation
are sufficient and compatible with Federal requirements. The costs of a
feasibility study are significant and may exceed the $3 million
authorization in this bill.
This bill also includes a new subsection 2(c) that would restrict
the use of water from any project ``relating to the feasibility study''
authorized in this legislation, prohibiting the use of water supplies
provided by this project for the casino of the Tule River Tribe or any
other tribal casino or facility designed to support gaming activity.
The Department opposes conditioning support for tribal water
development upon restrictions on permissible activities. This bill, if
enacted, will place a restriction upon any project that may be
authorized as part of a comprehensive water rights settlement even if
the exact feasibility study authorized by the bill is never carried
out. We understand that the Tribe supports this legislation, but we
believe that it raises serious precedent and fairness problems.
Although we do not support this bill, the Department understands
the importance of a reliable water supply and will continue to work
with the Tribe toward this goal in addressing the issues described
above.
That concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer any
questions.
s. 1080
Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Mike Connor,
Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). I am pleased
to be here today on behalf of the Department of the Interior
(Department) to discuss S. 1080, the Land Withdrawal and Reservation
for C.C. Cragin Dam and Reservoir. The legislation seeks to clarify
Federal jurisdiction with respect to the C.C. Cragin project, which
includes a dam, reservoir, and 11.5-mile utility corridor containing a
transmission line and high-pressure pipeline. The project is located
nearly entirely within the Coconino National Forest in north-central
Arizona.
The Administration appreciates the interest of the Salt River
Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District (SRP) to reach
prompt resolution of the management responsibilities of the Departments
of Agriculture and the Interior, and understands SRP's interest in
promoting this legislation. However, the Administration would like to
pursue an administrative resolution among the parties. The two federal
agencies (Reclamation and the Forest Service) have recently reengaged
on this issue and would like an opportunity to explore further
discussions with SRP to that end. As this effort proceeds, we would
commit to keep the Committee updated on the progress of those
discussions.
Reclamation and the Forest Service hope to be able to negotiate and
enter into an agreement with SRP for operation and maintenance of the
Cragin project in a manner that will fulfill the roles, obligations,
and responsibilities of all three parties. This approach would
accommodate Reclamation and SRP by ceding full control of the lands
underlying the dam and reservoir to Reclamation and by expressly
acknowledging SRP's right to operate and maintain the dam, reservoir,
and utility corridor pursuant to the Arizona Water Settlement Act
(AWSA, Public Law 108-451) and the 1917 agreement between the
Department of the Interior and SRP. In addition, this approach would
accommodate the Forest Service by allowing the agency to manage the
lands underlying the utility corridor for recreation, wildfire, law
enforcement, and other activities consistent with the Forest Service's
authorities and responsibilities, the AWSA, the 1917 agreement, and the
existing right-of-way over the corridor held by another party. In
particular, this approach would allow for integrated management of tens
of thousands of acres of ecosystems across National Forest System lands
underlying and adjacent to the Cragin project, including watershed,
wildlife habitat, range, and vegetation management.
The Administration recognizes that S. 1080 is intended to hasten
the development of a workable management agreement. The Administration
believes, however, that a sound approach for future management of the
project could be arrived upon through further negotiations. Both
Departments are committed to working expeditiously with SRP to ensure
needed work for the project, including both emergency and non-emergency
repairs and replacement of improvements.
Reclamation's long-standing experience working with SRP over nearly
a century has been very productive. SRP has proven to be a responsible
and reliable operator and caretaker of U.S. interests and resources.
Reclamation and SRP have nearly a century of responsible stewardship in
regard to both the technical operation of project works and protection
of the ancillary natural resources. It is our hope that combining that
history with the Forest Service's land management authorities and
expertise would result in even more effective stewardship.
That concludes my prepared remarks. I would be pleased to answer
any questions.
s. 1453
Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Mike Connor,
Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). I am pleased
to be here today to provide the views of the Department of the Interior
(Department) on S. 1453, the ``Bureau of Reclamation Fish Recovery
Programs Reauthorization Act.'' The Department supports S. 1453.
The Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and San
Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program (Programs) share the
dual goals of recovering populations of endangered fish while water
development continues to meet current and future human needs. Program
actions provide Endangered Species Act compliance for more than 1,600
federal, tribal, and non-federal water projects depleting more than 3
million acre-feet of water per year in the Colorado and San Juan rivers
and their tributaries. The Programs, authorized by Public Law 106-392,
as amended, were established under cooperative agreements in 1988
(Upper Colorado) and 1992 (San Juan). Program partners include the
states of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming; the Bureau of
Reclamation, Western Area Power Administration, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, and Bureau
of Indian Affairs; Native American tribes; environmental organizations;
water users; and power customers.
Public Law 106-392 authorized the use of $6 million per year
(indexed for inflation) of Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP)
hydropower revenues from Glen Canyon Dam and other CRSP facilities to
support the base funding needs of the Programs through 2011. Base
funding is used for program management, scientific research, fish
population monitoring, fish stocking, control of non-native fish, and
operation and maintenance of capital projects. The bill, as introduced,
would simply extend the authorization to utilize CRSP hydropower
revenues at the current level (up to $6 million per year adjusted for
inflation, or approximately $7 million in 2009 dollars) through 2023 to
support the base funding needs of both Programs.
These Programs have been nationally recognized for their
cooperative approach to recovering aquatic native fish species,
avoiding litigation, and providing Endangered Species Act compliance to
federal and non-federal water users. Reauthorization for the continued
use of CRSP hydropower revenues is critical to the ability of these
Programs to realize their goals. There appears to be strong support for
this legislation from the Program's non-federal stakeholders.
That concludes my prepared remarks. I would be pleased to answer
any questions.
Senator Cantwell. Commissioner Connor, thank you for your
testimony, and thank you being here.
How long have you been at the Bureau now?
Mr. Connor. I am now in week 7 of my tenure.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you. I knew it was a short time.
We have been joined by the ranking member, Senator
Brownback. Would you like to make a statement before we
continue with questions and other witnesses?
Senator Brownback. Thank you very much. I will not. I do
want to have my full statement put into the record.
I appreciate the hearing. I am sorry for being late. I got
captured in my office in a longer meeting. I appreciate your
testimony and look forward to some of the questioning, but I
would just put the statement in the record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Brownback follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Sam Brownback, U.S. Senator From Kansas
Senator Cantwell, it's a pleasure to be here today, and I thank you
for chairing this important hearing.
I am pleased to join you in welcoming the witnesses and members of
the public. We have a number of bills to get through that are important
to various members on this committee, and other members as well.
All of the bills in this hearing today hold a certain importance
for our states in the West:
Providing safe municipal and industrial water supplies for
rural communities in Montana and North Dakota;
Carrying out a feasibility study for the construction of a
storage reservoir and delivery system for the Tule River Indian
Tribe in California;
Conferring exclusive jurisdiction of land in Northern
Arizona to the Department of Interior for better maintenance of
vital land and water projects; and
Funding essential endangered fish recovery programs in the
Upper Colorado River and San Juan River basis.
So while the underlying purpose of each bill is different, they all
share the critical goal of providing all people within the United
States access to a reliable, safe and secure water supply, while at the
same time maintaining and preserving the natural habitats of some of
our nation's most valuable wildlife. It is essential, though, to
balance this need in a manner that addresses the economic climate our
nation currently faces.
While none of these pieces of legislation directly affect my home
state, the ability to access clean, abundant sources of water is an
issue that transcends physical boundaries.
The United States government and its agencies should recognize
water resources are the purview of the individual state, and the
citizens and groups within that state, for allocation decisions and
recommendations on all water resources projects and their management.
Each federal agency, including the Bureau of Reclamation, should
recognize and work within the state's own water resources planning
structure.
In Kansas, and most states in our region, there are multiple
federal agencies with a role in water issues. These agencies,
unfortunately, are often not well coordinated in their efforts. In
fact, in some cases there are statutory or regulatory prohibitions
preventing those agencies from being able to cooperate and share
resources. This fact is limiting the ability of my state to adequately
address issues within its borders. If the states are truly to lead
planning and management of water resources, federal agencies must be
willing and able to work cooperatively with each other and those states
seeking assistance. Otherwise, significant time and funding is expended
to overcome artificial and unreasonable barriers to cooperation.
While there have been significant impediments to more robust water
development and modernization, there are definite areas of progress
that have moved our region of the country towards greater utilization
of this most valuable natural resource.
One such example in my home state has been the development of a
Reservoir Sustainability Initiative. This initiative, made possible by
the collaborative efforts of the Kansas Water Office, several state
agencies, local government and citizen stakeholders has implemented
plans for needed improvements and an overall framework for protecting
Kansas' valuable reservoir system--a system that provides a water
supply to 2/3 of the state population.
My understanding of the importance of water conservation and
utilization was ingrained into my mind at an early age growing up on my
family farm in Parker, Kansas. As you all may know, Kansas is fortunate
enough to have access to one of the most abundant and shallowest
sources of ground water in the whole Midwest. The Ogallala-High Plains
aquifer is the dominant, often sole, source of water in western Kansas,
and has been an essential factor in positioning my state as a leader in
agriculture production. But like so many sources of water throughout
the west, and the world, the Ogallala aquifer is limited in source.
Therefore, as we continue to address growing demand for clean sources
of potable water, we must also continue to pursue initiatives for water
conservation and technologies that will allow us to better use all
available sources of water.
Once again, I thank the witnesses for your presence and thank you,
Senator Cantwell, for conducting this hearing. I look forward to
hearing the testimony today.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
If we could turn to these particulars on the various
legislation. On S. 637 what are the alternatives that you would
suggest to addressing the water supply needs since you are
saying you do not support S. 637?
Mr. Connor. I think that is the key aspect of our
testimony, quite frankly. Appraisal-level and feasibility-level
studies that we participate in would be required to look at a
various range of alternatives as part of those programs. That
has not been done, so quite frankly, I cannot suggest that
there are alternatives at this point in time. This, indeed, may
be the most effective and cost efficient way to address the
obvious critical water needs that exist in eastern Montana, but
until we have gone through that appraisal and feasibility
analysis, as called for in the Rural Water Supply Act, we have
not evaluated those options at this point in time.
Senator Cantwell. But with your backlog, when would that
happen?
Mr. Connor. I mean, there is the study aspect, and if we
move forward, if Congress moves forward with an authorization,
then there would be the authorization for construction. We,
admittedly, are behind in getting the rural water supply
program up and running. We produced an interim rule to
establish the program in December 2008 and now have to do the
directives and standards, which I anticipate will be done in
September of this year.
At that point in time, we have some resources, $1 million
in the 2009 budget, $2.3 million requested in the 2010 budget
to start moving the program forward. I anticipate that we will
do a grant announcement and start making awards so that we can
pursue some of this appraisal and feasibility work.
Senator Cantwell. So the project needs authorization
anyway. Correct?
Mr. Connor. The project will ultimately need an
authorization. The question, I think, and what was contemplated
in the Rural Water Supply Act is that before authorizing these
projects, Congress would have an established set of criteria
from which to make a decision on whether to move forward with
this project or some various form of the project. I guess the
position I am here to express today is that seems like a
reasonable way to go forward so that we all make a decision
about authorization with the best available information base to
make that determination.
Senator Cantwell. My guess is being a westerner and knowing
a little bit about the water problems of our region, that my
colleagues are now submitting legislation because they cannot
get this resolved through the normal process. So I think it
raises questions about what we need to do. So the Tule
feasibility study--I mean, what are the administration's plans
for getting a settlement in that situation?
Mr. Connor. With respect to the Tule River situation?
Senator Cantwell. Yes.
Mr. Connor. I think, quite frankly, we are behind the gun
on where the parties are in the Tule River situation. So from
that standpoint, I think Reclamation is committed to reviewing
our available resources right now. My understanding is the
tribe here in this situation has done a substantial amount of
engineering-level work.
So we need to come to the table, do our assessment of the
completeness of that work and give them some feedback on what
we view is the feasibility of the project that they have put
forward and allow the negotiations to continue with some input
from the Bureau of Reclamation as to the project and hopefully
from the Federal negotiating team in general. So I am committed
to do that, to going back and trying to find some resources so
that we can be a little bit more active participants in the
review of this project.
Senator Cantwell. OK.
On the C.C. Cragin Dam and Reservoir, the administration's
testimony represents the coordinated view between the Bureau of
Reclamation and the Forest Service. Is the administration
committed to working quickly to finalize the interagency
agreements necessary to ensure that the dam and pipelines can
be maintained?
Mr. Connor. Absolutely. I think the bill has, obviously,
spurred a lot of discussions between Reclamation and the Forest
Service about how to move forward, what is the best way to move
forward. Based on that input, while I certainly think it is
reasonable to question why there has not been progress made,
with a new administration, new people in place, and the goal of
facilitating good cooperation between Federal agencies, I think
both agencies are fully committed to moving forward and re-
initiating discussions with SRP related to the repairs that
they need to do now, as well as the overall management needs of
the project, both from the Forest Service's perspective,
Reclamation's perspective, and obviously, SRP's perspective.
Senator Cantwell. On the Upper Colorado and the San Juan
recovery programs, you indicated support for this. Do you think
that this recovery plan is a model that will work in other
places?
Mr. Connor. I do think it is a model. It has all the
appropriate stakeholders at the table. It has been a process
that has been in place now for well over a decade, probably 15
years, having demonstrated results on the ground and improving
the populations of the endangered species at issue. That has
allowed water projects to move forward, and I think all of
that, with appropriate resources to move forward. I think the
parties have done a good job of being very cost effective in
identifying the projects and the resources that they need. So I
think overall this has been viewed as a huge success story.
2023 is the projected date for recovery. So that is our goal
and that is the basis for extending the authorization.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you. I see my time has expired.
Senator Brownback, do you have questions for Commissioner
Connor?
Senator Brownback. Not many. But thanks for being here.
If I am understanding this correctly--and this is my first
time on this committee and on this subcommittee--you are saying
that two of these projects you are just not ready to comment on
yet. Do you know at what point in time you will be, or are you,
code language, saying we really do not want to do these? Where
are you on this?
Mr. Connor. No code language involved, Senator Brownback. I
think honestly we need to weigh in and do an assessment of the
existing work that is the basis for the project authorizations,
whether it be the Dry-Redwater rural project or the Tule River
project that is critical to their settlement.
Senator Brownback. When do you think that will be done?
Mr. Connor. With respect to the Tule River settlement, I am
going to go back and see if we cannot find some resources right
now so that Reclamation can start doing their review of the
engineering studies that have been produced by the parties to
the settlement out there. The tribe has done a substantial
amount of technical work, and we need to weigh in. So
hopefully, that can be done within this fiscal year, if we can
find some additional resources and start our design,
engineering, and construction review, or what we call our DEC
reviews.
So I will be happy to report back to the committee if there
is a question for the record. That will give me a little bit
more time to assess what resources we might be able to produce
to get on that one sooner rather than later.
With respect to the Dry-Redwater project, I think the key
there is for us to get back with the parties right now and give
them a documented feedback on those information items that we
think are lacking based on the work that has been done. I know
our Great Plains region has done an assessment of some of the
information items that are lacking. That process would begin
immediately.
Then if we are going to work this project through our Rural
Water Supply Act program, hopefully we will be in a position
when we have our directive and standards for assessing
appraisal-level and feasibility analysis--that will be in
place, hopefully, by September of this calendar year. After
that, we have got resources in place to start making grant
announcements, and they will have to compete with others. There
are a number of other folks who are looking to get some
resources to do appraisal-and feasibility-level analysis of
their rural water supply projects.
Senator Brownback. Thank you.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Commissioner Connor. We
appreciate you being here today and we will look forward to
hearing more about the work of the Bureau of Reclamation on
important water issues. So thank you very much.
Mr. Connor. Thank you.
Senator Cantwell. I am going to call up our second panel:
first, Tod Kasten, Board Member of the Dry-Redwater Regional
Water Authority from Circle, Montana; Ryan Garfield, Chairman
of the Tule River Tribe, Porterville, California; and John
Sullivan, Associate General Manager of the Water Group,
Phoenix, Arizona.
Gentlemen, thank you all for being here and for giving your
testimony this afternoon. We can start with you, Mr.--is it
Kasten? Am I saying that right?
Mr. Kasten. Kasten.
Senator Cantwell. Kasten. Thank you. We will start with
you, Mr. Kasten, whenever you are ready.
I will just advise you to turn on your microphones. There
is a button there and pull it close to you so we can hear your
comments.
We would like to observe a 5-minute rule, if you can keep
your comments to that. You can, obviously, submit longer
statements for the record. But welcome and thank you for being
here.
STATEMENT OF TOD KASTEN, TREASURER, DRY-REDWATER REGIONAL WATER
AUTHORITY, CIRCLE, MT
Mr. Kasten. Madam Chair and Ranking Member Brownback and
members of the subcommittee, my name Tod Kasten. I am Treasurer
of the Dry-Redwater Regional Water Authority. Thank you for
this opportunity to testify before the subcommittee in support
of authorizing the Dry-Redwater project. I would like to thank
Senator Max Baucus and Senator Jon Tester for their strong and
continuing support of this project.
The Dry-Redwater will provide a safe and dependable
municipal and rural water supply for all the people that
comprise the system. I can assure you that our agricultural
based communities in eastern Montana strongly support this
project. Good, reliable water is not only vital to our health,
but our very existence.
The Dry-Redwater service area is plagued by problems with
water quality and quantity. The primary source of the drinking
water in the area is groundwater. This water source has high
levels of primary contaminants which are a hazard to your
health and very high levels of secondary contaminants which
have detrimental effects on those drinking it and can render
the water undrinkable.
Two public water supply systems are out of compliance with
the Federal Clean Water Act. One system is currently in
violation with the State of Montana. The public water supply
systems within our boundaries are unable to meet the
requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act without using
inefficient and expensive energy-intensive treatment options.
Rural residents have not had the opportunity or the luxury
to be connected to safe, high-quality water. They report water
problems which are evidenced by this chart. The yellow and red
indicate unhealthy levels of contaminants with the red being
four times that of the allowed limits.
The project is located in eastern Montana and western North
Dakota, and the effort began 7 years ago in 2002 with a
committee of volunteers. Over 7 years of hard work and time
have been invested by the local people. About half of the
households in the area have already paid sign-up fees to show
their financial commitment to the project. The State of
Montana, the Federal EDA and locally raised funds have totaled
over $500,000 in our efforts to date. These funds have been
used to determine the feasibility of the project and complete
environmental reviews. No fatal flaws have been found.
The 3,500 acre-feet of water needed for this project will
come from the Fort Peck Lake which is managed by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers. The project as conceptualized will consist
of about 1,200 miles of pipeline, 40 pumping stations, and 20
major water storage reservoirs. The estimated project cost is
$115 million. The bill proposes the Federal share to be 75
percent. In addition to the local cost share, the Dry-Redwater
will pay all operation, all maintenance, and all replacement
costs of the system. By working together, we can provide
affordable and safe water for the people in this project area.
There are many benefits to regional water projects. The
communities will not bear the costs of upgrading and
maintaining numerous small systems that lie within the area,
and by combining together, the users in the region can provide
good water to all of the individuals in that whole area
affordably and efficiently.
The system will provide jobs too, not only during
construction, but also for ongoing operation and maintenance.
The proposed treatment facility will conserve water and
electricity. By eliminating three inefficient water treatment
plants, 80 percent less electricity will be used and 50 percent
less water would be used in these systems.
A dependable high-quality drinking water source provides a
basic need for business and community development.
Reduction in chemical usage as a result of increased crop
spraying efficiency also takes place.
Rural fire protection is a very important thing for us, and
this would help in that aspect.
A reliable water supply also is important during
emergencies when the power goes out and wells cannot be pumped.
Finally and perhaps more importantly we believe are the
health benefits of safe water that will reduce water-related
medical problems and thus decrease medical costs in the area. A
rural resident, L. Taylor from McCone County stated, my doctor
told me not to drink my well water because it may be the cause
of my numerous bladder infections.
In summary, people in eastern Montana presently do not have
a reliable source of high-quality water. The proposed regional
water system will provide water to an area afflicted by water
supply and quality problems. The positive health benefits of
safe household drinking water is critical to the well-being of
the people of eastern Montana and will provide the required
infrastructure for the region and State's economy.
We ask the subcommittee's support in passing this important
legislation to protect the health, social, and economic future
of our region.
Thank you again for this opportunity to testify in support
of the Dry-Redwater Regional Water Authority, and I would be
pleased to answer any of your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kasten follows:]
Prepared Statement of Tod Kasten, Treasurer, Dry-Redwater Regional
Water Authority, Circle, MT, on S. 637
Madam Chair and members of the subcommittee, my name is Tod Kasten.
I am Treasurer of the Dry-Redwater Regional Water Authority. Thank you
for the opportunity to testify before the subcommittee in support of
authorizing the Dry-Redwater Regional Water System. I would also like
to thank Senator Max Baucus and Senator Jon Tester for their strong and
continuing support for this project.
The Dry-Redwater will provide a safe and dependable municipal and
rural water supply for the public water supply systems and rural users
that comprise the Dry-Redwater Regional Water Authority. Speaking on
behalf of the Dry-Redwater, I can assure you that our primarily
agricultural based frontier communities in eastern Montana strongly
support all components of the project as a good, clean, reliable source
of water is vital to our existence.
This great local support is evidenced by over 3,100 good intention
fees collected. These pre-paid fees show the financial commitment of
the area users for this project. This financial support represents an
equivalent population of nearly 7,000 users which is nearly 50% of the
potential users already financially committed to this project.
need for the project
The Dry-Redwater service area is plagued by problems with water
quality and adequate supply. The public water supply systems within our
boundaries are unable to meet the requirements of the Safe Drinking
Water Act without expensive energy intensive treatment options.
According to the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), one
of the public water supply systems who would be served by the proposed
regional system is out of compliance with the Federal Clean Water Act
due to levels of secondary contaminants--sodium and total dissolved
solids.
Many of the existing systems treat their water with chlorine which
in turn has caused problems with elevated levels of disinfection by-
products. Other systems have problems with bacterial contamination and
elevated levels of total dissolved solids, iron, manganese, lead,
copper, sulfate and sodium that render the water nearly undrinkable.
The rural residents in the proposed project area currently obtain
their water, in the majority of instances, from private wells drilled
into shallow aquifers, gravel pockets or deep confined aquifers. Some
rural residents are hauling all of their drinking and cooking water
used either because their well water is undrinkable or there is not a
sufficient quantity to be usable. Many rural residents do report water
quality and/or quantity problems, which is evidenced by the chart of
private well water quality attached at the end of this testimony. There
is a Montana Department of Transportation rest stop at Flowing Wells
that is categorized as a public water supply system. This rest area is
located at the junction of MT Highways 200 and 24; which is a main
route to Fort Peck Lake. This rest area is heavily used by tourists and
recreationist visiting Fort Peck Lake. The water source for this public
area has signed for non-use as a potable system--do not drink the water
due to high levels of nitrates and high levels of coliforms. This
system has had to be renovated several times to correct those
deficiencies, but due to the depth of the well and proximity to on-site
sewage disposal facilities this will be a chronic problem.
The majority of the proposed communities to be served are currently
operating their own municipal water systems; all of the communities are
using wells as a source of water. Three communities must treat their
water because of high levels of fluoride which is a health hazard and a
regulated contaminant. A fourth community--Jordan--does not treat its
water but it is high in sodium and total dissolved solids which are not
currently regulated, but has detrimental effects on those drinking it.
A fifth system--Fairview--has high organic levels in its water that has
lead to a disinfection by product violation. The Town operates an iron
and manganese removal water treatment facility that uses chlorine as
the oxidizer; which while effective at removing the iron and manganese,
does have the problem of forming disinfection byproducts.
Based upon preliminary review of the water quality in the wells of
rural users in the proposed service area it indicated that the majority
of them do not have access to the quality of water needed for a healthy
existence. One of the wells, in the project area, serves Garfield
County School District No. 15 and it shows that the sodium level is 447
parts per million (ppm) which exceeds the recommended level of 250 ppm,
the fluoride is 3.35 ppm which exceeds the recommended level of 2 ppm
and it has 1049 ppm of total dissolved solids which is over twice the
recommended level of 500 ppm. This well and the other private wells are
not regulated by National Drinking Water Standards but the detrimental
effects of the water on their users are not any less because they are
not regulated. The treatment of water in a private well is costly and
sometimes complicated depending on what is in the water. A regional
rural water system will allow the rural user to have access to a
reliable, safe, high quality water supply. The public water systems in
the service area are regulated by Drinking Water Standards and must
treat the water they provide to their user to these standards. The use
of a membrane type water treatment facility (reverse osmosis or nano-
filtration) are not typical systems found in smaller towns, but due to
the limited alternatives to remove the regulated contaminates
(fluoride) Circle, Richey and Lambert were forced to use this energy
intensive system that requires a high pressure pump to force the water
through a membrane in order to remove the contaminates. The
requirements for safe drinking water are getting more stringent every
year and these increased regulations equal increased costs to all
public water systems. A small system that currently treats their water
such as Circle, Richey, Fairview and Lambert will be greatly impacted
financially for even minor modifications needed to meet new drinking
water treatment standards.
These costs will be in treatment, distribution and operator
certification costs. The Town of Jordan currently does not treat its
ground water source but does provide disinfection by means of
chlorination. The Town of Jordan, like other public drinking water
systems, must publish an annual drinking water report and following is
an excerpt from the latest report: ``We're pleased to report that our
drinking water is safe and meets federal and state requirements.
However, as many of you know, although our water is labeled as safe to
drink under the Safe Drinking Water Act, some of the unregulated
parameters affect the taste and may affect the health of a limited
population. The concerns are sodium and the total dissolved solids in
the water. The sodium level is high enough that people with high blood
pressure may want to consider a separate source of drinking water. The
total dissolved solids are high enough to have a laxative effect on
people that have not become conditioned to the water. We are aware of
these problems with our source of drinking water, but have been unable
to find a solution that is financially feasible.'' The drinking water
standards for sodium and total dissolved solids will be addressed in
future regulations and the Town of Jordan will need to address these
regulation changes and the costs that will be associated with meeting
those new regulations. By belonging to a regional water system these
small systems will be part of a larger user base, so future
improvements will not have as great of financial impact to the
individual user. In the proposed regional water system there is one
source of water treatment which will replace 5 existing central water
treatment systems. This will greatly reduce the costs, improve
efficiency and effectiveness in the delivery of safe water to all area
users.The installation of a single conventional water treatment plant
will greatly reduce the energy consumption utilized in the treatment
process since the 3 energy intensive reverse osmosis system will be
retired. Another benefit of the regional water treatment facility is
the reduced volume of wastewater generated during the treatment
process. A reverse osmosis facility must reject 35% to 50% of the water
that comes into it to remove the fluoride and sodium down to acceptable
levels. This reject water must be stored and treated in the Town's
wastewater system which in Richey, Circle and Lambert causes storage
problems. A conventional water treatment plant will waste 5% to 10% of
the incoming water to clean the filters of the contaminants removed
during the treatment process. Unlike the waste stream from a reverse
osmosis treatment facility that has high concentrations of sodium,
fluoride and other deleterious chemicals the waste stream from the
surface water plant can be placed in a settling pond and after a period
of 2 to 3 weeks over 80% of the waste water could be reused for
irrigation or stock watering. The landowner that is selling the land
for the proposed water treatment facility has expressed a great
interest in being able to utilize this water. A regional water system
also mitigates the potential negative impacts of migration from one
small community. For example, if 15 users leave Richey that is 10% of
their user base, but if Richey joins the Dry-Redwater project and
Richey loses 15 users; it is less than 1% of the total user base.
town of circle
The Town of Circle has a municipal water distribution system which
consists of 2 deep (1,500 ft) water wells, an elevated 50,000 gallon
water storage tank, a 250,000 gallon on-ground water storage tank and a
reverse osmosis water treatment plant with a 50,000 gallon clearwell.
The Town has experienced heterotrophic bacterial growth in their wells
that has required extensive rehabilitation work and replacement of one
well. This bacterial growth is starting to build up on a second well
and in several years will become problematic and will require
replacement. This well screen problem is chronic and is on going. The
current groundwater raw water supply is over the Maximum Contaminant
Level (MCL) established in the Safe Drinking Water Act for fluoride and
above the secondary limit for sodium. The Town of Circle must remove
these contaminants and since conventional treatment processes won't
remove fluoride they must utilize an energy intensive reverse osmosis
treatment process. If the current treatment process has mechanical
problems the Town would be forced to put water into the distribution
system that is a documented health hazard. The Town of Circle will
benefit in the long term by connecting to the Dry-Redwater. The
uncertainty of the life of their wells, the cost to replace a well
(over $150,000) and the cost to treat the water are all items that
strengthen their commitment to this project.
town of jordan
The Town of Jordan has a municipal water distribution system which
consists of 2 water wells and a 200,000 gallon on-ground water storage
reservoir. There is no treatment of the water but it is disinfected by
being chlorinated. The quality of the water exceeds many of the
secondary limits, such as sodium and total dissolved solids, of the
amendments to the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act. The potential for
increased regulation of the groundwater rule (GWR) and disinfection by
products rule would cause an additional cost to each user in Jordan in
order to be in compliance with the rule. The Town of Jordan will
benefit from the Dry-Redwater project by having a water supply that is
treated to the most current water quality standards and delivered at a
consistent volume and pressure.
town of richey
The Town of Richey has a municipal water system that consists of
two deep water wells ( 1400 ft), an on-ground 100,000 gallon steel
water storage reservoir and a reverse osmosis water treatment facility.
The raw water source for Richey is identical to Circle in that exceeds
the MCL for fluoride and the secondary limits for sodium so that is why
the Town of Richey also utilizes the energy intensive reverse osmosis
treatment process. If the current treatment process has mechanical
problems the Town would be forced to put water into the distribution
system that is a documented health hazard. The water treatment facility
reduces the levels of each contaminant to below the limits. The Town of
Richey will benefit from inclusion in the Dry-Redwater project since
its current raw water source is in violation of the drinking water
standards if not treated and the current system has a fairly high cost
to operate when compared with conventional treatment. The replacement
costs of membranes and increased electrical costs in the future will
also make connecting to the regional system more economical.
lambert county water and sewer district
Lambert County Water and Sewer District has a central water
distribution system. This unincorporated town has two deep water wells
( 1,200 ft), a 50,000 gallon on-ground steel water storage tank and a
nano-filtration (membrane) water treatment facility. The water supply
exceeds the MCL for fluoride and exceeds the secondary limit for sodium
that is why the District utilizes an energy intensive nano-filtration
treatment process. If the current treatment process has mechanical
problems the Town would be forced to put water into the distribution
system that is a documented health hazard. The District will benefit
from connection to the Dry-Redwater for the same reasons as Circle and
Richey.
fairview
The Town of Fairview draws its water from two wells approximately
240 feet deep. The central distribution system has a 100,000 gallon
elevated water storage tank and a 300,000 gallon on-ground steel water
storage tank. The ground water source is high in tannins, lignens, iron
and manganese. The Town utilizes an iron and manganese removal process
and gas chlorine for disinfection. The Town has recently received a
notice from the Montana Department of Water Quality that they had a
test for haloacetic acids (HAAS) and total trihalomethanes (TTHMs)
(disinfection by product contamination) that exceeded the limits set by
the Safe Drinking Water Act. The Town is now studying and determining
what changes in their disinfection process they need to make to meet
the Disinfection by Products Rule. The high organic content of their
raw water is a significant factor in the creation of the by products.
The Town of Fairview will benefit greatly by receiving its water from
the Dry-Redwater Regional Water Authority system.
new rural users
New users would include rural residents who have not had the
opportunity to be connected to a high quality treated source of water
as provided by a regional water system. These residents use individual
wells for domestic and agricultural needs, haul water from other
sources or purchase bottled water for drinking purposes. The water
quality varies greatly throughout the project area but generally has
levels exceeding the U.S. EPA Secondary Health Standards with high
levels of total dissolved solids, hardness, sulfates, sodium, iron,
manganese and areas of high fluoride. The majority of these wells are
constructed in glacial till materials typical of the project area,
resulting in wells which have varying abilities to provide a sufficient
quantity and adequate quality of water supply. The cost to install new
water well has been determined, based on information provided by NRCS,
to be over $90 / month when you factor in the replacement cost of the
various components of a well system. The box on the next page shows how
this cost was determined:
Drill and case well: $35.00/ft average depth 200-250 ft Cost:
$7,000-$8,750. If a well lasts 15 years the monthly cost is
$39.00 to 48.00 per month.
Pump and Motor: $1,000.00 If a pump lasts 5 years the monthly
cost is $16.70.
Control pit/pressure tank: $2,800 with a 15 years life has a
monthly cost of $15.60.
Annual stock well electrical base rate is $240.00 per year or
$20.00/month before electrical use.
The cost to run electricity to a new well site is $17,160.00/
mile or $3.25/ft. This cost was provided by McCone Electric.
For a new well that already has electric service the monthly
costs before any water is pumped is $91.30 to $100.30.
When you have bad groundwater to start with, treatment doesn't
improve its quality, it only reduces some of the chemical components to
meet regulation standards, and this does not necessary mean the water
is free from taste and odors. Second, maintaining the individual
systems does not address the benefits of providing a firm water supply
that protects the communities against future drought. The individual
user also relies on a well pump and small pressure tank to provide
water, and when the power is out they lose the ability to access their
domestic water source. The regional system will have storage tanks that
will pressure the system and backup power systems.
From a regulatory aspect a regional water system has significant
benefits. At the present time, there are six different regulated public
water systems within the region that are part of the Authority. Meeting
regulatory requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act must be
currently demonstrated by each system. When a rule changes, all those
systems must react to the change individually. Many of the systems
serve small municipalities or county water districts, some with fewer
than 150 connections, there is a reduced capacity on their part to
maintain and operate a water system. That means that the Montana
Department of Environmental Quality is perennially facing problems with
compliance issues in these smaller public water systems. A regional
water system would provide one point of regulation for all of the
member systems. If a rule were changed, it would only affect one
treatment plant and due to economies of scale, a regional system can be
upgraded and operated at a higher level of oversight and management at
a smaller per user cost than smaller individual municipal water supply
systems. An increased degree of compliance can be expected from a
regional water system which further assures the water users of a safe
and reliable source of water.
the project
The effort began in 2002 with a steering committee of volunteers,
with the Dry-Redwater Regional Water Authority becoming a legal entity
in 2005. The Dry-Redwater has enjoyed strong support from the local
people and the State of Montana. Currently about 50% of the households
in the area, which is in excess of 3,100 hookups, have already paid a
`good intention' fee to show their financial commitment. Over $59,000
of locally raised funds have been put toward the project and thousands
of hours of volunteer efforts have helped move the proposed regional
water system forward. The State of Montana thru the Department of
Natural Resources has committed $350,000 to the studies and
organizational efforts of the project to date. The Montana Department
of Commerce provided $40,000 of CDBG funds and the Federal Economic
Development Administration provided $40,000 used to help pay for the
completed feasibility study. This current investment of over $489,000
does not include the thousands of hours of volunteer time and effort.
The project as conceptualized will consist of 1,220 miles of
pipeline, 38 pump stations and 20 major water storage reservoirs. It is
projected to cost $115,116,000. By working together, the communities in
the area can more efficiently provide affordable safe and reliable
water to people in the project area. The water for this project will be
obtained from the Dry Arm of Fort Peck Lake near Rock Creek. The
water---approximately 3,500 acre feet, of the 18 million acre feet
available---will be leased from the Corp of Engineers. The in-take and
conventional treatment facility will be located at North Rock Creek on
the Dry Arm of Fort Peck Lake. The process to find a location for the
intake facility was done as a joint effort with the Corp of Engineers
and the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge.
The feasibility study and addendum, completed in 2007, and as well
as significant public participation in over 20 public meetings show
that the need for safe and reliable water is a priority for the area's
residents. The project is financially feasible given the funding
packages used by the rural water systems in Montana and in comparison
to rural water system costs in our three state region of Montana, South
Dakota and North Dakota. The completed feasibility study includes
preliminary engineering analysis of the system. The Dry-Redwater has
also completed some preliminary cultural and environmental reviews.
There are no fatal flaws found in these preliminary studies which
included contacts with State, Federal and Local officials on NEPA
compliance.
PROPOSED RATE STRUCTURE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bulk Rural
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base $24.50 $24.50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water Treatment/Pump $1.80 / 1000 $1.80 / 1000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pipeline Maintenance ** $1.21 / 1000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROPOSED FINANCING STRUCTURE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
75%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grant from Federal Government $86,337,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grant from TSEP $14,389,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loan Required $14,389,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Debt Service (40 yrs, 4.5%) $776,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Loan Reserve $77,600
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Operation & Maintenance WTP / Booster Station $710,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Operation & Maintenance / Pipelines $212,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TYPICAL MONTHLY USER RATE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Study
-----------------
8,000 5,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural/City User Base Rate (minimal) $24.50 $24.50
Water Treatment/ $14.40 $9.00
Booster
Pipeline Maintenance
or
Water Maintenance Fee $9.68 $6.05
-----------------
Total Monthly $48.58 $39.55
Bill:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The median household income for the service area is $28,917 and
using a 1.6% factor estimating a reasonable cost of water the average
monthly rate is calculated at $38.55. The rates proposed for the Dry-
Redwater shows that utilizing the typical rural water funding package
the project is affordable to the users. The cost to the rural residents
of $39 to $48 a month is significantly less than $90 to $100 for
operating a rural well.
Dry-Redwater has been working closely with the Billings office of
the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) to move the project thru its
brand new process as stipulated in the Rural Water Supply Act of 2006,
and as expressed in the Interim Final Rules. However, given the
investment made in time and money and the fact that the system's
authorization bill was introduced by Senator Baucus in 2008 and again
now as Senate Bill 637, it has been agreed by the Authority Board and
other supporters of the regional concept that the project must move
forward. In April 2009 Reclamation finally provided the Dry-Redwater a
preliminary draft outline of the requirements for the Appraisal
Investigation and Report under the Rural Water Supply Act of 2006. The
Dry-Redwater Feasibility Study and addendum completed in 2007 will
substantially satisfy the requirements of Appraisal and Investigation
Report as provided by the Reclamation Billings office. The 2007
Feasibility Report is being reformatted into reclamations required
format and will be submitted to them by the end of August. It has
always been Dry-Redwater's intent to work with Reclamation to advance
our project. Thus the request for Congressional Authorization of the
project was considered the correct and timely process, as the system
planning has reached a point beyond which it cannot easily move
forward, without the ability to work formally with Reclamation, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife and other federal agencies.
The Engineers that completed our study made the following finding
in our feasibility efforts. ``Based upon preliminary review of the
water quality in the wells of rural users in the proposed service area
it indicated that the majority of them do not have access to a quality
of water needed for a healthy existence.''
Many area residents are not served by any public water system. Due
to the limited availability and poor quality of groundwater, these
residents must haul their own water. The available water supply fails
to meet water quality standards and poses real health risks to the
area's population.
By working together all of the communities in the area can better
provide affordable good quality water to all of the people. Currently,
the primary source of drinking water in our service area is
groundwater. It is generally of very poor quality and quantity. The
drinking water in most groundwater wells in the area exceeds the
secondary standards and in some cases are four times the recommended
EPA standards. Water quality problems are exacerbated by water supply
issues and because of the general lack of good quality groundwater;
most of the area's larger public water systems use expensive energy
intensive treatment methods to produce clean water. The positive health
benefits of good quality drinking water will without a doubt be a
tremendous benefit to the area citizens and to the overall economy of
the region.
economic benefits
A dependable supply of water is essential to ongoing efforts to
attract new businesses and people to this primarily agricultural based
frontier area of Montana in order to provide for future economic
growth. In addition to long term benefits, the regional water project
will provide an immediate economic boost for eastern Montana. Assuming
labor costs for the project at 25 percent of the total construction
budget, the project will generate approximately $30 million in wages.
These construction dollars will provide a much needed stimulus to the
regional economy of McCone, Garfield, Dawson, Richland, Prairie
Counties and the statewide economy.
The Dry-Redwater's service area has many natural resources that
could be developed to help the United States become more self reliant
when it comes to energy. The area has tremendous resources in water,
ground to grow crops for bio-fuels, one of the nation's largest on
shore oil reserves in the Bakken Formation Oil Field, the largest
lignite coal reserve in the United States and a huge potential for wind
farm development. There are a number of energy related projects that
have been and are proposed within the Dry-Redwater service territory.
An example is a nationally important oil transmission pipeline known as
the TransCanada Keystone XL project will pass through the area. A good
source of safe and reliable water supply is critical infrastructure to
support the development of any of these nationally important energy
sources.
The regional pipeline will provide one of the key resources that
enterprising businesses and people look for when they locate in an
area--a safe water supply. Ranch/farm operations will benefit from the
stock water available through the system. This will immediately improve
their bottom line, as increased weight gain can be achieved with higher
quality water. Efforts to diversify the agriculturally based economy
with tourism, wildlife enhancement, hunting, fishing, dinosaur
discoveries, outdoor recreation has been somewhat successful but a high
quality water source will help its development to improve recreation
facilities owned by the COE, the State of Montana and the counties of
the Dry-Redwater Service area. This project will not resolve all of the
economic problems that eastern Montana faces; however, it will serve as
a cornerstone to future success upon which the people in the area can
build.
Finally and perhaps most importantly, we believe the health
benefits of safe water will help save the citizens by reducing water
related medical problems and thus decreasing medical costs. A rural
resident L. Taylor from McCone County stated ``that her doctor told her
not to drink their water as they attributed their well water to her
numerous bladder infections''.
alternate sources
The Dry-Redwater Regional Water Authority has studied possible
alternatives to supply water to the region. The option of updating the
six existing public water supply systems to comply with the Safe
Drinking Water Act was rejected due to the high cost and multiple water
sources to test and monitor. The use of additional groundwater sources
was also investigated. This option was not feasible because there is
very little groundwater physically available in the quantity needed,
and the groundwater that is available is of very poor quality and would
require an expensive treatment process. Of all the alternatives
reviewed, the proposed regional water project found that utilizing the
high quality surface water found in the upper Missouri River basin
proved to be the best. The water impounded in Fort Peck Lake provides a
very dependable water supply while offering the lowest capital project
and life-cycle costs to treat and deliver water to the end user. The
cooperative efforts of the USACOE staff at Fort Peck and the staff of
the CMRNWR provided an excellent location for the intake structure that
is in a deep water portion of the lake and will have minimal impacts on
the wildlife found in the refuge.
A water treatment plant, using conventional filtration, will be
located near the intake in the Dry Arm of Fort Peck Lake near North
Rock Creek. The water will be treated to meet both the primary and
secondary requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act standards. A
series of transmission pipelines will provide water to smaller
distribution lines belonging to the area's public water supply systems
and to the rural users. The regional water system will take advantage
of the infrastructure of the existing distribution systems. When
completed, the regional water system will provide a safe and dependable
water supply for over 15,000 people. Water will be provided to all or
parts of six counties which includes an 11,100 square mile area.
Without the proposed centralized water treatment plant, most of the
participating systems would be required to build new or to
significantly upgrade existing high energy use, water treatment plants
as the Safe Drinking Water Standards are made more stringent. The low
population densities and limited income potential in eastern Montana,
individual communities will not be able to afford own and operate their
own water treatment plants. A central water treatment plant will allow
these existing systems to economically meet both the current and future
requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act and continue to provide
their users with safe, reliable and affordable water.
The estimated total project cost is $115.1 million. The Bill
proposes the federal share of the construction to be 75 percent. The
Dry-Redwater Regional Water Authority will be responsible for the cost
of operating, maintaining and repairing the overall system.
There are distinct benefits of a regional water system:
Communities will not absorb the costs of upgrading numerous
smaller water facilities to keep up with water quality
standards.
A greater number of regional system users helps defray the
cost of good water for every individual in the area.
This system will provide jobs, not only during construction,
but also for ongoing operation and maintenance.
Economic and community development opportunities with the
ability to attract businesses and people that need a reliable
water source are greatly enhanced.
Total water and energy consumption by all communities will
be substantially less than if each community provides water
treatment.
A dependable, high-quality drinking water sources provides
an incentive for business and industry to consider relocation
to eastern Montana.
Reduction in chemical usage and cost as a result of
increased crop spraying efficiency.
Rural area fire protection capacity
Increased property values
An alternative water sources for livestock.
Safe and reliable household drinking water to improve the
health and existence of the people.
Many people in eastern Montana presently do not have a reliable
source of high quality water. The proposed regional water system will
provide water to an area historically afflicted by water supply and
quality problems. The positive health benefits of safe household
drinking water is critical to the well being of the people of eastern
Montana and will provide the required infrastructure for the regions'
and State's economy. We ask this subcommittee's support in passing this
important legislation to protect the health, social and economic future
of our region.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify in support of the
Dry-Redwater Regional Water Authority. I would be pleased to answer any
questions.
[Graphs and additional tables have been retained in subcommittee
files.]
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Kasten.
We will turn to Mr. Garfield for his testimony, and when we
are finished with all the witnesses, then we will go to our
questions.
Mr. Garfield.
STATEMENT OF RYAN GARFIELD, CHAIRMAN, TULE RIVER TRIBE,
PORTERVILLE, CA
Mr. Garfield. Yes, ma'am. Thank you, Chairwoman Cantwell
and fellow members of the subcommittee. My name is Ryan
Garfield. I am currently the Chairman of the Tule River Tribe
of Tulare County, California. We thank the subcommittee and its
staff for the opportunity to provide testimony in support of S.
789, the Tule River Tribe Water Development Act.
Prior to becoming the Chairman of our tribe, I served in
the United States military for 11 years. I am a husband and
father of 3, with one on the way. In these capacities, I have
served my community and my country.
Today I come before the subcommittee to humbly request
assistance of the United States Government in resolving an
issue that has plagued my community for over 125 years, that
issue being the lack of adequate water supply to meet the basic
needs.
There are over 900 people living on the reservation.
Although the poverty rate of the reservation is higher than
counties surrounding us, we are a proud people and we work
diligently every day to improve the well-being of the
community.
Over 30 years ago, we identified the need to secure a
reliable water supply in order to build a strong community
where we could grow and prosper. We are proud to inform the
subcommittee that in September 2007, we developed a settlement
agreement that secures us a reliable water supply.
Today we are here to discuss S. 789, which is the first
step in the implementation of the settlement agreement. It
authorizes a feasibility and suitability study of constructing
a storage reservoir, outlet works, and a water delivery system
to our reservation. The storage reservoir is the cornerstone of
the settlement agreement as it provides the tribe with the
water supply without disrupting non-Indian water users
downstream.
In order to understand the importance of this bill, please
allow me to share a bit of history of the Tule River people. We
are descendants of the past Yokuts Indians, a large group of
Native Americans who occupied the San Joaquin Valley in
California for thousands of years prior to contact with
settlers. Following California becoming a State in 1850,
Congress refused to ratify 18 treaties negotiated with
California tribes, including our treaty, the Treaty of Paint
Creek.
In 1856, a small reservation, the Tule River Farm, was
established on prime San Joaquin Valley farmland in Tulare
County. The location of this original reservation was
purposefully selected by the Government to provide the tribe
with good farmland and water resources necessary to establish a
self-sufficient homeland for our people.
Within a few years, however, the reservation was stolen
from us under fraudulent circumstances by two Federal agents,
and this I still cannot understand today because back in that
time, men were supposed to stand behind their word. You know,
their word was their bond, and I still cannot understand that
today why that happened.
In January 1873 President Grant issued an executive order
creating a new reservation for the Tule River Tribe to which we
were forcibly removed to the reservation located on the western
slope of the Sierra Nevada Mountains east of Porterville, away
from our cultivated fields on the reservation to land not
suitable for agriculture. The reservation includes most of the
South Fork Tule River water basin. For over 125 years we have
lived on that reservation.
In 1922, the non-Indian farming community entered into an
agreement with the Secretary of the Interior that limited the
ability of the tribe to divert water. Although we had some of
the most senior rights to the water source, we were not made
party to the agreement. Water, to which we had a meritorious
claim, was appropriated and we were left without a secure water
supply for the reservation.
Over the past 100 years, we have watched our non-Indian
neighbors build family fortunes off the land and water that was
fraudulently taken from us while we have struggled to provide
basic human needs, such as water and homes, schools, jobs, and
community infrastructure.
Some days when I was young--I came from a good family and
my mother and my father both worked, and some days we would run
out of water for days. When school come up Monday, I would have
to make the decision, which is the cleanest dirty clothes I had
to wear to school that day. It was frequent. I thought about it
a lot and I just wondered how some of the elders at that time
made it. But I am sure it was rougher for them in the earlier
days. So I had to deal with it.
Although we have relied upon this history to inform us, we
have not allowed it to imprison us. Instead, we began
evaluating our water supply to determine how we could best meet
the future needs.
Our current water supply consists of limited groundwater
and springs. These sources have barely managed to serve the
current needs of the tribal community and reservation. We will
need a larger supply to build more housing, fight fires,
develop community and economic infrastructure so desperately
needed on our reservation.
We have completed several technical studies and spent
roughly $1.1 million Federal and tribal dollars that have
concluded the tribe will not and could not meet its current
long-term water needs without the construction of at least one
reservoir on the reservation.
Given that our reservation sits at the headwaters of the
South Fork Tule River, it made perfect sense to build a water
storage unit to capture most of the high flows of the river
when downstream users were not diverting those flows.
To quantify our rights, we decided the best strategy was to
negotiate with our downstream neighbors and the Federal
Government. After 10 years of negotiations, we are very proud
of the settlement agreement we have reached. I will point out
the fact that we avoided the cost delays and disruptions of
water litigation, and I am very proud of that fact and I think
my water team deserves recognition for that fact.
The cornerstone of this agreement is the construction of a
water storage project that will enable us to meet our current
and future domestic, commercial, municipal, industrial, and
agricultural needs without disrupting the current water uses of
the South Fork Tule River.
This bill is the first step in enabling the tribe to bring
water to the land in sufficient quantities to make our
reservation a viable homeland now and in future years.
I would like to take this time to thank the subcommittee
for the opportunity to express the Tule River Tribe's support
of S. 789, and I would also like to notify the committee that
this bill had passed the House 417 to 3.
In closing, I would like to ask that my testimony and
supporting materials* be made part of the record of this
hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Supporting materials have been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I or my associates at this time would be happy to respond
to any questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Garfield follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ryan Garfield, Chairman, Tule River Tribe,
Porterville, CA, on S. 789
introduction
Good afternoon Chairwoman Maria Cantwell and fellow members of the
Committee. My name is Ryan Garfield, and I serve as the Chairman of the
Tule River Tribe. I am a graduate of Citrus High School, Porterville
California, Class of 1993. After graduation, I joined the military,
where I served for 11 years, 4 months and 2 days and achieved the rank
of Sergeant E5. While in the military I was a UH-60 tactical transport
helicopter repairer/crew chief/ and gunner. I was stationed overseas in
Giebelstadt Germany, were I participated in operation K-FOR (Kosovo
stabilization force) in Balkans, along with numerous training missions
throughout Europe and Tunisia Africa from 1997-2000. In 2004 I was
deployed to Kandahar in the Southern province of Afghanistan, where I
flew over 500 combat flight hours and completed countless missions in
support of Operation Enduring Freedom. I returned in April of 2005 and
was honorably discharged from the service in October of that same year.
Currently, I am married with three children and one more to arrive in
the coming months. In these capacities, I humbly serve my community and
Country as a tribal leader, soldier, father and husband. I come before
you today to respectfully request the support of the United States
government in securing a permanent water supply for the Tule River
Reservation.
I send greetings and best wishes from all the members of the Tribal
Council. We are very grateful for the expeditious scheduling of this
hearing on 5.789, the Tule River Tribe Water Development Act. We also
appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee on Water
and Power of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to
present testimony supporting S. 789. This bill authorizes funding
necessary for the Secretary of Interior to conduct a study on the
feasibility and suitability of constructing a storage reservoir, outlet
works and a water delivery system on our Reservation in Tulare County,
California. S. 789 is consistent with, and an effectuation of the
United State's trust responsibility to Indian tribes, to protect and
advance their reserved water rights under the Winters doctrine. Winters
v. United States, 207 U.S. 564 (1908).
For over ten years the Tribe has negotiated with the
representatives of the Departments of Interior and Justice, including
Interior's Bureau of Reclamation, and local water interests represented
by the Tule River Association and the South Tule Independent Ditch
Company. In September 2007 the Tribe and the local water users signed a
settlement agreement which embodies the shared goals and visions for
the future of the community of parties who live together in the South
Fork Tule River watershed. The agreement provides a stable water supply
for both Indians and non-Indians relying on the South Tule River. This
settlement is unique--indeed, it is one of the very few Indian water
settlements ever achieved without a Tribe or the United States, on its
behalf, filing litigation to enforce its federal water rights. Once the
settlement is fully carried out, the Tribe will join other Indian
nations in the United States, by turning its ``paper'' federal reserved
rights to water from the South Fork Tule River into actual ``wet''
water. We anticipate that this settlement agreement will also be
considered in the forthcoming months for Congressional approval. The
Tule River Water Development Act is the first step in implementing that
settlement agreement and it will enable the Tribe and its neighbors to
complete the necessary technical background work to bring the final
settlement agreement to life. We ask the Subcommittee to favorably and
swiftly mark-up and pass S. 789 on to the full Committee.
the struggle of the tule river tribe to secure a sustainable homeland
Prior to discussing the temis of the bill, I would like to briefly
educate the Subcommittee about the history of the Tule River Tribe and
Reservation, to help illustrate the need for The Tule River Water
Development Act in our community. I have also attached a two-page
historical timeline which chronicles our efforts to secure a
sustainable homeland with the necessary water supplies. (Exhibit A.)
The Tule River Reservation is the homeland of the Tule River Tribe.
We are descendants of the Yokuts Indians, a large group of
linguistically-related people who occupied the San Joaquin Valley in
California for thousands of years prior to contact with Euroamerican
settlers. Following the discovery of gold, and California statehood in
1850, there was enormous pressure on Congress to reject the 18 treaties
negotiated with the several hundred Indian tribes found there. Congress
succumbed to this pressure and in 1852 rejected these 18 treaties,
including the Treaty of Paint Creek of June 3, 1851, signed by leaders
from our Tribe. In 1853, however, Congress established the
Superintendency of Indian Affairs in California, to relocate Indians to
reservations. In 1856, the California Superintendency established our
reservation pursuant to the 1853 authority, on approximately 2,240
acres of prime San Joaquin Valley farmland in Tulare County. The land
was transected on the southwest corner by the mainstem of the Tule
River. It included part of what is today the eastern portion of the
City of Porterville. The location of this original Reservation was
purposefully selected by the federal government to provide our Tribe
with the arable land and water resources necessary to establish a self-
sufficient homeland for its people. Upon being promised this land as
our homeland--ostensibly forever--we built homes and began to actively
cultivate crops.
Despite our relative prosperity in those years, two of the federal
Indian agents assigned to reservations in the area nonetheless saw fit
to capitalize upon the distance and ignorance of the Indian officials
in Washington, D.C. Thomas Madden, a federal Indian agent assigned to
the neighboring Tejon Indian Reservation, applied for and was issued a
land patent under fraudulent circumstances to 1,280 acres of the Tule
River Reservation land from the State of California. Four years later
under a similar arrangement a land patent for 1,160 acres of Tule River
Reservation land was issued to Mr. John Benson, another Indian Agent.
These two state land grants encompassed all of our Reservation lands.
The federal government was fully aware that these lands were expressly
reserved to us, but it made no effort to challenge the Madden and
Benson land grants. Because the lands had been set aside for the Tribe,
the State of California, had no legal basis upon which to issue the
patents. The land transfers were also a violation of the federal Trade
and Intercourse Act, which expressly prohibited Indian agents from
having ``any interest or concern in any trade with the Indians.''
Rather than setting aside the issuance of these patents, the federal
government actually paid rent to Messrs. Madden and Benson for at least
a dozen years to enable my ancestors to continue farming what was in
actuality our land.
Gradually, over the years, hostility increased between the Indian
farmers and the settlers in the area. In response to the tension, and
rather than enforcing our rights to what should have been our
Reservation land, in January 1873, President Grant issued an Executive
Order creating a new reservation for the Tule River Tribe. It was
comprised of mostly mountainous lands located about fifteen miles to
the east of our original Reservation. The Tule River Indians and the
Indian agent protested the removal; as the new lands would be difficult
to cultivate. The Indian agent, J.B Vosburgh, stated ``The new
reservation is not suited to the wants of the Indians for whose benefit
it has been set apart, if the intention be, as heretofore, to teach
them to become self supporting by means of agriculture, the soil of the
reservation being insufficient both in quantity and quality for their
need.'' He further requested that the government inquire into the
legality of Madden and Benson land patents and, if necessary, requested
the federal government to purchase the property from them for the
benefit and use of the Indians. However, no such action was taken, and
our people were forcibly removed from their homes and cultivated
fields.
The removal was very hard on our people. The new Reservation,
though it contained 48,000 acres, was determined by the federal agents,
based on the knowledge and technology of the time, to have scarcely 100
acres of arable land. Even that land was deemed by the agents to be of
poor quality, and thought to be able to support only six families--far
below the needs of our people. An Indian agent reported, ``Year by year
our number has decreased by death and removal, until now there are only
143 Indians, embraced in 30 different families, residing on the
reservation.'' Our situation was so dire that, in response, President
Grant, in October 1873--just 9 months after the initial Executive
Order--signed another Executive Order almost doubling the Reservation's
size to 91,837 acres. Again, very little of these additional lands was
deemed by the federal agents to be suitable for agriculture, and the
few acres which were proven arable were coveted or settled by settlers,
and history repeated itself. In August 1878, President Hays issued an
Executive Order reducing the reservation back to the January 1873 size.
For over a century, then, we have lived on the Reservation
established in 1873, a mountainous land where, because of the failure
of the United States to provide adequate water storage and irrigation
facilities, we have been unable to fully reap the benefits of the
agricultural homeland promised to us through the original 1856
Reservation. The Tule River people are a proud people, and I tell this
story not to complain or to blame anyone for these past injustices.
They do, however, argue that now is the time for the United States to
help begin the healing process through the enactment of S. 789. S. 789
is the first step in enabling the Tribe to bring water to our lands in
sufficient quantities to make our new homeland--a viable homeland now
and forever.
the modern-day tule river indian reservation
Today, our current Reservation includes about 58,000 acres. The
reservation is located in south-central California, approximately 75
miles south of Fresno and 45 miles north of Bakersfield in Tulare
County. The Reservation is situated on the western slope of the Sierra
Nevada Mountains, east of Porterville, and lies almost entirely within
the South Fork Tule River drainage basin. The topography is generally
steep, with elevations ranging from about 900 to 7500 feet above sea
level. Most of the inhabited land is along the lower reach of the South
Fork Tule River on the western side of the Reservation. The Reservation
is drained by the South Fork Tule River. The South Fork Tule River
flows into the Tule River at Success Reservoir, at a distance of about
ten miles west of the Reservation. There are no significant uses of
water upstream of the Reservation. (Exhibit B.)
The estimated average annual flow of the South Fork Tule River at
the western boundary of the Reservation is 34,100 acre-feet per year,
with a probability of 23,000 acre-feet over 50% of the time, and 11,800
acre-feet available over 80% of the time. Surface water supplies
consist of the flow available from the South Fork Tule River and its
tributaries on the Reservation, while underground supplies consist of a
groundwater aquifer and springs. The groundwater sources barely serve
the current needs of the Tribal community on the Reservation. There are
growing concerns about the long-term reliability of these sources, both
in terms of quantity and quality. The hydrology of the South Fork is
similar to most western rivers in that the flows are generally much
higher in the spring months than the rest of the year, other than
occasional high water events following rainstorms. The hydrology of the
South Fork is also marked by periods of drought during which the entire
flow of the river is significantly reduced long periods of time,
sometimes spanning several years. These two general characteristics are
depicted on the two graphs attached to this testimony. (Exhibit C.)
The injustices and inequities of the past are still present and are
still affecting our people. We have been plagued with unemployment and
mortality rates substantially higher, and a standard of living
substantially lower, than is experienced by the surrounding non-Indian
communities. While the on-Reservation socio-economic conditions have
improved over time, as recently as 1999, the estimated poverty rate on
the Reservation was still 50% higher than Tulare County as a whole. To
this day, the Reservation residents generally continue to suffer from a
relatively low standard of living in substantial part due to the
absence of an adequate and reliable potable water supply and system.
contemporary negotiations to secure a reliable source of water
for the tribe
To address the inter-related issues of lack of water and resulting
economic, political and social limitations facing the Tribe, we have
spent several years assessing its future water needs for domestic,
commercial, municipal, industrial and agricultural purposes. We
concluded that, in view of existing uses downstream of the Reservation,
the Tribe could not meet its water needs, especially over the long-
term, without the construction of a reservoir or reservoirs on the
Reservation. Given that our Reservation sits at the headwaters of the
South Fork Tule River, it made perfect sense to us to build a water
storage project to capture the high flows of the river when downstream
users were not capturing or using those flows.
We approached the solutions to our problems with the attitude that
we wanted to work with our downstream non-Indian neighbors. Too often--
in the more typical situation where a general stream adjudication is
commenced--the Indian and non-Indian interests are pitted against one
another. By reaching out to our neighbors and respecting their needs
while seeking solutions to our own, we were able to avoid the costs,
delays and disruptions of water rights litigation. We entered into
negotiations with interested parties seeking to establish the Tribe's
reserved water rights through an agreement settling our federal
reserved water rights claims.
For 10 years, the settling parties have diligently negotiated the
terms of a settlement agreement which, upon Congressional approval,
will finally establish the federally reserved water rights of the Tule
River Tribe. In 2007, a settlement agreement was signed. The agreement
includes the quantity of the Tribe's reserved water right, the Tribe's
rights to use water both on and off the Reservation, and the operating
rules of on-Reservation storage reservoirs, including the near-term
Phase I Reservoir primarily intended to serve municipal and domestic
water needs. We are very proud of the settlement agreement we have
reached, which allows the South Fork Tule River water users to continue
their historic uses while providing the Tribe with a firm water supply,
primarily for its domestic, commercial, agricultural and municipal
needs.
The remaining major issue prior to submitting the settlement
agreement to Congress is securing the support of the Department of the
Interior, and the Administration, to authorize and fund the
construction, operation and maintenance facilities anticipated by the
settlement agreement and to compensate the Tribe for releasing water
related claims against the United States. To date we have not heard if
the new administration will support the settlement agreement or S. 789.
Two years ago Congress considered H.R. 2535, a bill that authorized the
feasibility study and appropriated funding for the study. The previous
Administration opposed it claiming it was premature because the
settlement agreement had not been signed and was too expensive. We were
disappointed that after ten years of federal involvement and commitment
to resolving my community's water issues that we were left standing
alone in the final hour. But we are hopeful that the new administration
will support S. 789 and the forthcoming settlement legislation. We are
please that Mr. Michael Connor has been appointed as the Commissioner
of the Bureau of Reclamation, as he was a instrumental in establishing
our federal negotiation team assigned to us over ten years ago. We know
that individuals like him understand that the federal government
created several of our water related problems, as was previously
explained, and that the federal government has an obligation, as our
trustee, to help us resolve these issues. We look forward to working
with Mr. Connor and his colleagues to move the settlement legislation
forward in a timely fashion.
All the parties to the settlement agreement are anxiously waiting
its implementation. Lack of federal support for the past two years has
delayed any progress. The delay is now harming the day to day life of
people living on the Tule River Reservation. Unfortunately, the
problems created by a lack of a viable water supply have increased
since the beginning of the negotiations. Families living on the
Reservation do not have consistent running water in their homes and are
forced to collect buckets of water from the South Tule River for
cooking, drinking and cleaning Water supplies in local schools have
been dramatically reduced causing increased illnesses and creating
cleanliness issues. Problems stemming from an unreliable water supply
will continue to increase absent the implementation of the settlement
agreement. The people of the Reservation can wait no longer to have
access to a clean, reliable water supply. They too deserve what every
American should have--a sanitary water supply to grow their crops, feed
their families and provide a clean safe home.
s. 789 lays the foundation for moving forward with the settlement of
the tule river indian tribe's water rights
Moving to the terms of the bill under consideration today, S. 789
authorizes the Secretary of Interior to conduct a study on the
feasibility and suitability of constructing a storage reservoir, outlet
works, and delivery system on the Reservation. S. 789 also authorizes
the appropriation of $3 million to the Bureau of Reclamation to fund
the study. The House passed H.R. 1945, S. 789's counterpart in May of
2009. The storage facility feasibility study is the most recent step in
a several-decades-long effort by the Tribe to secure both title to and
quantification of its federal reserved water rights, and to actually
deliver ``wet'' water to our members for domestic, agricultural,
municipal, commercial and industrial purposes. Notably, the eventual
construction of a water storage project will enable us to meet our
needs without disrupting the current water uses of the South Tule
River.
As part of our lengthy and detailed negotiations with our neighbors
and with the United States spanning the past decade, we commissioned
technical studies of the South Fork Tule River watershed within our
Reservation boundaries. This analysis by the firm of Natural Resources
Consulting Engineers of Ft. Collins, Colorado and Oakland, California,
led us to the present site of a proposed water storage project at the
confluence of Cedar Creek and the mainstem of the South Fork Tule
River. The site of the proposed project, and the existing and proposed
expansion to the Tribe's water service area, are depicted on the map
marked as Exhibit D. The Bureau of Reclamation has reviewed this work
and found that the dam site was acceptable.
The analysis we have commissioned to date, while rigorous and
thorough, is not sufficiently detailed to support and justify a final
decision to authorize and appropriate federal funds from which to
initiate actual construction activities. Thus, the authority and
funding delivered through S. 789 would enable the Tribe, acting in
concert with the Department of the Interior and its Bureau of
Reclamation, to ensure that this Cedar Creek site is the optimal site
at which to build the project.
Although S. 789 is a separate bill from the larger settlement
legislation that will be forthcoming, it is the first step toward
implementing the final settlement agreement. While the study is under
consideration we will be working to pass the authorizing settlement
agreement legislation. The parties to the settlement agreement and
indeed, the people whose water needs will be met through this agreement
have worked to hard and for too long to delay any longer.
As previously mentioned, Congress considered H.R. 2535 in 2007, a
bill that authorized a feasibility study and appropriated $3 million to
complete the study. This bill was virtually identical to S.789. We had
secured resolutions in support of H.R. 2535 from the National Congress
of American Indians and the Southern California Tribal Chairman's
Association. Copies of the resolutions of these organizations are also
attached to my testimony to be made a part of the record. (Exhibits E
and F.) We had also secured letters of support from the City of
Porterville, CA; the Tulare County, CA Board of Supervisors, the Tule
River Association and the South Tule Irrigation Ditch Company in
support of H.R. 2535 and we believe these documents are being made a
part of the record of this hearing. We were also able to secure letters
of support for S. 789 from the Tule River Association (Exhibit G) and
the South Tule Irrigation Ditch Company (Exhibit H) which we understand
were submitted directly to the committee and are to be made a part of
the record. We submit the letters and resolutions to demonstrate
unanimous support for the feasibility study and appropriations to
complete the study.
conclusion
It is now time for our federal partners to join us in securing a
brighter future for the Tule River Tribe and its people by supporting
S. 789. The House overwhelmingly passed H.R. 1945. We respectfully
request that the Subcommittee follow suit by swiftly marking up and
passing S. 789 to the full Committee. I thank the Subcommittee for the
opportunity to express the Tule River Tribe's support of S. 789.
In closing, I would ask that my testimony and supporting materials
be made a part of the record of this hearing by unanimous consent.
I, or my associates here at the witness table with me, would be
happy to respond to any questions which the members of the Subcommittee
might have.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Garfield, and we will make
the accompanying information a part of the record.
We are going to turn to Mr. Sullivan now to give his
testimony, and then, as I said earlier, we will go to questions
for each of you. Mr. Sullivan, thank you for being here.
STATEMENT OF JOHN F. SULLIVAN, ASSOCIATE GENERAL MANAGER, WATER
GROUP, SALT RIVER PROJECT, PHOENIX, AZ
Mr. Sullivan. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman Cantwell and
Ranking Member Brownback and members of the subcommittee. Thank
you for the opportunity to testify in support of S. 1080. My
name is John Sullivan, and I am the Associate General Manager
for the Water Group at the Salt River Project, or SRP, as we
are known.
Beginning with the construction of Roosevelt Dam in the
early 1900s and our continuous management of the Salt River
Federal Reclamation project since 1917, SRP has had a good
working relationship with the Bureau of Reclamation that has
allowed effective water management and environmental
stewardship for nearly a century. This relationship continues
today as we operate and maintain the seven dams and reservoirs
and hundreds of miles of canals and pipelines that now make up
the project.
The C.C. Cragin Dam, reservoir, and pipeline are located
within the Coconino and Tonto National Forests in northern
Arizona. In 2004, as part of the Arizona Water Settlements Act,
Congress authorized Reclamation to assume title of the Cragin
facilities so that it could be managed as a part of the Salt
River Federal Reclamation project and primarily used for
municipal drinking water in the town of Payson and in the
Phoenix metropolitan area.
However, the Cragin pipeline has numerous serious leaks
that need immediate repair to be suitable for the use as a
reliable drinking water source. Since 2004, we have been
working with the Bureau of Reclamation and the United States
Forest Service on these repairs and other operational needs of
the project. From the beginning, it was clear the Bureau and
Forest Service disagreed about who had responsibility for
approving operation, maintenance, and repair of the facilities.
This bill clarifies that since C.C. Cragin project is now being
operated as a component of the Salt River Federal Reclamation
project, the Bureau of Reclamation is responsible for approval
of operation and repair activities just as it does with all the
other components of the Salt River Project located on lands
within the national forests.
This clarification does not relieve either the Bureau or
SRP from compliance with all requirements of Federal law and
has no cost to the Federal Government.
The jurisdictional dispute with the Forest Service has now
extended over 4 years and has resulted in dueling approval
requirements causing delays and increased repair costs. In
addition, the Town of Payson was recently approved for an
allocation of some $10.6 million from the State of Arizona's
stimulus grant money to assist in paying for repairs to their
share of the pipeline and other related projects. Any major
delays could place a portion of those stimulus funds at risk.
SRP has effectively operated and maintained six Reclamation
dams and reservoirs within the Tonto National Forest for
decades. Throughout this time, we have worked collaboratively
with the Bureau and Forest Service to ensure proper management
of the land and water resources, and the relationship has been
extremely successful. We operate under a three-party agreement
in the Tonto National Forest.
Despite this record of success, the current circumstances
have created an inefficient and costly process that leaves us
beholden to two separate Federal agencies. As I have mentioned,
S. 1080 will not relieve SRP or the Bureau of Reclamation from
any obligation under Federal law. It would simply make our
rehabilitation efforts and future operations more certain and
efficient by clarifying which agency has jurisdiction for
approving work.
In Commissioner Connor's testimony today, he mentioned that
the two agencies would be happy to sit down and try and work
out some type of an agreement. I would just say we would be
happy to do that, but we have already been working on that for
4 years, and I think the committee may want to set some pretty
strict timelines for the two agencies to get this done.
Madam Chairwoman, members of the subcommittee, I want to
thank you for this opportunity to testify before you today, and
I would be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sullivan follows:]
Prepared Statement of John F. Sullivan, Associate General Manager,
Water Group, Salt River Project, Phoenix, AZ, on S. 1080
Chairwoman Stabenow, Ranking Member Brownback, and Members of the
Subcommittee,
Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of S. 1080, A
Bill to Clarify the Jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior with
Respect to the C.C. Cragin Dam and Reservoir, and for Other Purposes.
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. S. 1080 will simply clarify that since the C. C. Cragin Project
is now being operated as a component of the Salt River Federal
Reclamation Project, the Bureau of Reclamation is responsible for
approval of all operation, maintenance and repair activities as is the
case with all of the other federal reclamation projects, including all
of the other Salt River Project facilities located on lands within the
boundaries of the National Forests in Arizona. This clarification does
not relieve either the Bureau or SRP from compliance with all
requirements of federal law and has no cost to the federal government.
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 and the raw water
that serves over 2 million residents 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.
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.
S. 1080 concerns the C.C. Cragin Project, which is located within
the Coconino and Tonto National Forests in northern Arizona. The C.C.
Cragin Project consists of a number of facilities including a 147-foot
high dam, 15,000 acre-foot reservoir, diversion tunnel and pump shaft,
pumping plant, priming reservoir, a10 mile long pipeline, electrical
transmission line, and small generating plant which supplies power to
the Project's pumping plant. Originally known as Blue Ridge Project,
the dam, reservoir, and associated facilities were constructed by
Phelps Dodge in the 1960's to supply water to Phelps Dodge's Morenci
Mine Complex through a water exchange with SRP. Phelps Dodge was issued
a certificate of water right by the State of Arizona for the Blue Ridge
Reservoir to effectuate this exchange. In 2005, Phelps Dodge no longer
needed the Blue Ridge Project for the exchange and consistent with the
existing exchange agreement with SRP, Phelps Dodge transferred
ownership of all of the Blue Ridge Project facilities to SRP. On June
8, 2007, the Arizona Department of Water Resources approved the
transfer of the water right for the reservoir to SRP for municipal,
irrigation and other beneficial uses within the Salt River Federal
Reclamation Project.
In 2004, at the urging of SRP and with support from Phelps Dodge
and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and as part of the Gila River
Indian Community Water Rights settlement, language was included in
Section 213(i) of the Arizona Water Settlements Act, Public Law 108-
451, 118 Stat. 3478, 3532, authorizing title transfer of the Blue Ridge
Project from SRP to the Bureau of Reclamation (``Bureau'') to be
operated and managed by SRP pursuant to its September 6, 1917 contract
with the Bureau of Reclamation as part of, and for the exclusive use
and benefit of, the Salt River Project Federal Reclamation Project.
Section 213 also changed the name from the Blue Ridge Dam and Reservoir
to C.C. Cragin Dam and Reservoir. On September 30, 2005, SRP officially
transferred title to the C.C. Cragin Dam and Reservoir together with
all of its associated facilities, including approximately 77 acres of
fee land previously owned by Phelps Dodge, to the Bureau.
In accordance with the 1917 contract with the Bureau and as
directed by Section 213 (i)(5) of the Arizona Water Settlements Act in
2005, SRP began operating and maintaining the C.C. Cragin Project. As
part of its maintenance efforts, SRP identified numerous serious leaks
present in the existing pipeline needing immediate repair. I have
attached several photographs showing some of the leaks in the pipeline.
Not only is the pipeline's integrity important to the general operation
of C.C. Cragin Project and SRP's water supply for the Phoenix
metropolitan area, but it also has special significance to the Town of
Payson and neighboring communities in Northern Gila County who will
rely on the Project to supply municipal drinking water to their
residents. As part of this effort, the Town of Payson was recently
approved for an allocation of $10.6 million from the State of Arizona's
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) stimulus grant money to
assist in paying for the repairs to the pipeline and other water-
related projects.
Once SRP began working with the Bureau of Reclamation and the
United States Forest Service on repairs and other operational needs for
the C.C. Cragin Project, it became evident that the Bureau and the
Forest Service disagreed as to who had responsibility for approving the
requested operation, maintenance and repair functions associated with
the Reclamation Project. The Forest Service asserted that the Bureau
needed to obtain a special use permit from the Forest Service prior to
Project operation by SRP and that all maintenance and repairs needed
prior approval by the Forest Service. The Bureau and SRP maintain that
under the terms of the Arizona Water Settlements Act, the C.C. Cragin
Project is just like all of the other Salt River Federal Reclamation
Project facilities located on Forest Service land. On those facilities,
jurisdiction over approvals of work plans, maintenance, repairs,
environmental compliance, and other permitting associated with Project
operation and maintenance belongs to the Bureau, while jurisdiction
over recreation, fire suppression and some additional management
aspects is with the Forest Service. Not only is this approach
consistent with the other Salt River Federal Reclamation Project
facility agreements among the Bureau, the Forest Service and SRP
applicable to the other six SRP dams and reservoirs located on National
Forest lands in Arizona, it is also consistent with the existing
approach for Reclamation Projects across the western United States
pursuant to a 1987 Memorandum of Understanding between the Departments
of Agriculture and Interior. I have attached a copy of this Memorandum
of Understanding to my testimony.
Although SRP and the Bureau have attempted to resolve the
jurisdictional dispute with the Forest Service over the past four
years, such efforts have been unsuccessful. Despite the direction of
section 213 of the Arizona Water Settlements Act and the 1987
Memorandum of Understanding between the Departments of Agriculture and
Interior, the Forest Service has insisted on having ultimate approval
authority for the operation, maintenance, and repair work necessary for
the C.C. Cragin Project, notwithstanding that these facilities are
components of the Salt River Federal Reclamation Project. Meanwhile,
the resulting dueling approval requirements between the two Departments
have delayed and created uncertainty in planning much needed repairs to
the Cragin facilities, increased repair costs, and placed a portion of
the Town of Payson's $10.6 million stimulus grant at risk.
The bill before you, S. 1080, would withdraw from entry and
disposition approximately 512 acres of National Forest lands which
comprise the Cragin Project and clarify that the Secretary of Interior
shall have exclusive jurisdiction to manage the Cragin Project on these
lands in accordance with the terms of section 213(i) of the Arizona
Water Settlements Act. In managing the Cragin Project, the Secretary of
Interior and SRP are required to ensure the compliance of their
activities with all applicable federal laws, including regulations. The
Secretary of Interior is authorized to enter into a contract with the
Secretary of Agriculture to undertake the management of recreation,
wildland fire activities, public conduct and law enforcement, cultural
and other resources, and any other appropriate management activity,
provided that the management of these activities does not conflict
with, or adversely affect, the operation, maintenance or repair of the
Cragin Project as determined by the Secretary of Interior. In addition,
the employees of the Department of Interior and SRP are authorized to
use all necessary roads under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service to
carry out the operation, maintenance and repair of the Cragin Project
without the necessity of obtaining any permit or license from the
Forest Service. In summary, S. 1080 would clarify the jurisdiction over
C.C. Cragin Project which would allow the needed pipeline repairs to
proceed under the Bureau of Reclamation's oversight and in compliance
with all applicable laws.
Chairwoman Stabenow and Members of the subcommittee, thank you once
again for the opportunity to testify before you today. I would be happy
to answer any questions.
[Graphs and additional documents have been retained in subcommittee
files.]
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Sullivan.
Let me start back with Mr. Kasten on the S. 637. Your
testimony indicated that there was an urgent need. You did a
good job of describing what was going on in the community. You
also indicated that you have been working with the Bureau of
Reclamation. I am sure you heard their testimony earlier. So
what do you think needs to happen to be successful in working
with the Bureau on this project?
Mr. Kasten. Madam Chair, we have been working informally
with the Bureau of Rec from the very beginning of this project,
and we want to and will work with the Bureau. We are working
really right now to prepare to reorganize the studies that we
have done to fit within the informational requirements that
have been preliminarily asked of us. But we are stuck in the
middle. We have spent much time and 7 years of time and much
money.
Our completed feasibility study followed the same processes
used by federally funded projects since 1985, like the North
Central Rural Water in North Dakota and the recent Fort Peck
and Dry Prairie projects in Montana. Our feasibility is a full
analysis of all the alternatives and payment abilities, and in
our opinion meets the Bureau of Rec's preliminary draft
guidelines that we just received here in April 2009.
The Bureau has told us that they are really not ready to
implement the Rural Water Act and are frustrated also, and they
want us to wait and go through the new process, even though the
rules are not final and they are not quite exactly sure when
they will be.
The Dry-Redwater we believe should not be penalized for
following a proven process in good faith, and given that the
Bureau has no process in place to comply with yet in the Rural
Water Act, Senator Baucus introduced our bill in 2008, the same
bill that is here today, S. 637, and we really believe that the
delay and the uncertainty and the unnecessary costs related to
that are not what the people need. Good water is what we need.
Senator Cantwell. You indicated that there has been a good
amount of money--I think you said $500,000--that has already
been basically gathered from local interested parties. What is
the local plan to pay for the portion of the project?
Mr. Kasten. Thank you, Madam Chair.
The funding mechanisms that we are proposing are the same
that have followed the other rural water systems in the State
of Montana and North Dakota, as far as we understand, 75
percent Federal cost share, 25 percent State.
The State of Montana is very committed to rural water. We
have only two projects in the State which were the first two.
This would be the third. I know that we are going to work to
probably move to try and do this for all of the people of
Montana at some point in time.
Right now today, we have over $180,000 committed from the
State to be used for our efforts in the next 2 years, 18 months
to be exact. Governor Schweitzer and the State of Montana and
the legislature have been very strong in its support. Just this
past legislative year, they passed a new program that is
starting with $15 million that will be set aside for regional
water development with one requirement, that the project is an
authorized project. Those moneys can be used.
Authorization is the next reasonable step in the process
that we have--the journey we have taken for safe water.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you. I will come back to you in a
minute.
I want to turn to Chairman Garfield. Thank you for your
compelling testimony.
You have said that the planning for this project has been
underway for 10 years.
Mr. Garfield. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Cantwell. The settlement has not been agreed to. I
mean, it has been agreed to by many people except for the
United States. So why is it important to move forward on the
feasibility study before you have the negotiations with the
United States Government completed?
Mr. Garfield. Our feasibility study--our reservation is
placed on a fault line, and for the feasibility study, we want
to make sure that when we do put a reservoir up, it is in a
spot adequate for a reservoir to avoid catastrophic incidents
such as earthquakes.
Actually, Mr. Paul Homay, my assistant right here, would
probably be best to answer that question for you, ma'am.
Senator Cantwell. OK. Is there a non-Federal cost share
requirement associated with the feasibility study or
settlement?
Mr. Garfield. Could you repeat that question please?
Senator Cantwell. Is there a non-Federal cost?
Mr. Garfield. Non-Federal cost? No, ma'am.
Senator Cantwell. So the United States is going to be
responsible for 100 percent?
Mr. Garfield. Yes, ma'am. As far as I know, the Federal
cost is waived for tribes, ma'am, and as far as I know, the
United States Government has a fiduciary responsibility to the
Tule River Indian Tribe, which is a federally recognized tribe.
Senator Cantwell. Will there not be some non-Indian water
users who will benefit?
Mr. Kasten. There is some non-Indian water users. As a
matter of fact, this came up in numerous meetings. They are
still saying today that they really receive no benefit of us
getting our water rights quantified. That is coming from the
South Tule Independent Ditch Company and the Tule River
Association.
Senator Cantwell. So I think we will probably have to have
some follow-up on that. Are those the only beneficiaries that
you know of, other non-Indian beneficiaries to the development
of this?
Mr. Garfield. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Cantwell. Mr. Sullivan, your testimony indicates
that one of the goals of the legislation is to provide a
uniform system of management. Obviously, you have had this
ongoing dispute that stopped this from moving forward. Would
agreements involving the Forest Service still be necessary even
if this legislation is enacted. If 1080 is enacted, do you
still need that cooperative agreement?
Mr. Sullivan. Madam Chairwoman, actually the legislation
contemplates an agreement, much like the agreement we already
have with the Tonto National Forest. So there would be a
memorandum of an agreement that outlines the relationships
where there is an interface between the two agencies. But it
would provide for decisionmaking by the Bureau of Reclamation
related to the operations and maintenance of those facilities
that the Bureau owns and controls.
Senator Cantwell. What would the form of that be moving
forward?
Mr. Sullivan. We would hope it would be very similar to the
agreement we already have with the Forest Service and the
Bureau of Reclamation for the 6 dams that we operate on the
Salt and Verde River systems. There is already an agreement
that was executed back in the 1970s that for some reason the
National Forest does not want to use for the C.C. Cragin
project, even though it is part of the Salt River Federal
Reclamation project.
Senator Cantwell. What do those agreements entail?
Mr. Sullivan. They usually define the area that makes up
the Federal Reclamation project. So it describes metes and
bounds within which the Bureau of Reclamation would do
environmental assessments and would make decisions related to
maintenance activities by Salt River Project under its
agreement with the Bureau to operate the Federal Reclamation
project.
It also deals with land issues that may come up from time
to time between the Forest Service and the Bureau of
Reclamation. They could be related to recreational use of
rights-of-way, forest fire fighting, those types of
responsibilities. Those issues are dealt with in this
memorandum.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you.
Mr. Kasten, back to your talking about local plans and
participation. Have those been approved by the local
government's participation in the cost of the project?
Mr. Kasten. Yes, they have, Madam Chair. We have had, I
believe, about 28 public meetings over this, and a number of
those have been with the county commissioners and city
officials. Our feasibility analysis has been looked at by all
of them.
Senator Cantwell. So they have either committed to those
public funds or taken action to commit to those?
Mr. Kasten. Yes, but in concept, yet not contractually to
the project that is still a vision of ours.
Senator Cantwell. OK, good.
I want to thank the three witnesses for their testimony
today. As I said earlier, I am sure we will have more questions
and information from my colleagues. You are also encouraged to
submit any additional testimony that you brought today to be
part of the official record. So thank you for being here and
for your attention on this legislation.
This subcommittee hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:19 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIXES
----------
Appendix I
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Responses of Ryan Garfield to Questions From Senator Cantwell
Question 1. The Administration's testimony states that it does not
support S. 789, in part, because there is no non-federal cost-share
identified for the proposed feasibility study or the 2007 Settlement
Agreement. Please explain why you view the cost-share set forth in S.
789 and the Settlement agreement as appropriate.
Answer. The project addressed by the feasibility study and the
Settlement Agreement is not being constructed under traditional federal
water guidelines. Rather, this project in large part represents a
resolution of claims by the Tule River Tribe against the United States
government for breach of its fiduciary duty and trust obligations
related to water. Thus the funding responsibilities for this project
fall upon the United States, as has been the case in the two dozen
other Indian water settlements approved and funded by Congress over the
past quarter-century. Mr. Alec Garfield, Director of the Tribe's Water
Resources Department, made these same points in his written response to
Chairwoman Napolitano of the House Water and Power Subcommittee
following the September 25, 2007 hearing on H.R. 2535 (a bill similar
to S. 789). A copy of Mr. Garfield's responses is attached.
The benefit received by the local non-Indian parties under the
Settlement Agreement is certainty with regard to the water rights on
the river, not enhanced water supply. In fact, the proposed water
project would allow the Tribe to utilize more of its water right,
thereby decreasing the amount of water that has historically been
available to other parties. The operation rules of the proposed water
project do contain some considerations for downstream parties, but
these considerations are only designed to mitigate project impacts and
do not provide those parties with additional water supply benefits
beyond their current rights.
The Tribe acknowledges that the Settlement Agreement achieves a
resolution of water rights in the basin, which benefits everyone.
However, asking for a local cost-share in this situation where there
are no actual water supply benefits to local parties would be
unprecedented as far as we are aware. If this Congress and
Administration are willing to ask local communities to bear a portion
of the cost, particularly in these severe economic times, that has
enormous implications for this and all future water settlements.
Regarding the lack of local cost share in the feasibility study,
there is nothing in Reclamation law which requires a cost share from
the constituents in a feasibility study. The cost share is a policy
which Reclamation has followed for a number of years. However, in every
case that we know of, Reclamation has waived the cost share when the
constituent is an Indian tribe--which is the circumstance in this case.
Question 2. Has the Tule River Tribe shared the technical studies
that have been prepared regarding the proposed water storage project
with the Administration? What has the Administration's response been?
Answer. The Tribe has shared all of its technical studies that were
developed in support of its settlement with the federal government.
These studies, performed at a reconnaissance level, include a water
needs assessment, hydrologic analysis of the South Fork Tule River,
groundwater investigation, land classification study, damsite
assessment, biological evaluation of a proposed reservoir project,
reservoir sizing computer model, Phase 1 water project design and cost
estimate, and overview of potential damages claims. These studies were
prepared over the course of several years from 1998 to 2008. The Tribe,
the BIA and BOR have spent over half a million dollars on these
studies. To date, the Tribe has not received any formal response to
these studies from the Administration and only minimal feedback.
Responses of Ryan Garfield to Questions From Senator Brownback
Question 1. Please describe the role the United States has played
in the current water settlement negotiations.
Answer. The United States was a participant in the Tule River
Tribe's water settlement negotiations, first in the form of a Federal
Assessment Team and then later as a Federal Negotiation Team, from
inception to conclusion. This participation began with the first
negotiation meeting in 1999 and continued at numerous meetings over the
next nine years. Members of the Federal Team included representatives
from the Bureau of Reclamation, Depaitment of Interior Solicitor's
Office, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and Department of Justice. During
these meetings, the Federal Team advised the Tribe and other settlement
parties on the position of the United States with regard to what the
settlement must achieve, how the settlement would be evaluated in terms
of costs and benefits, what legal waiver of claim requirements were
required, how water settlements are typically funded, and other related
information. The Tribe and other parties were appreciative and
respectful of this information and it helped shape the ultimate
Settlement Agreement.
However, in the final hour the federal team refused to sign the
settlement agreement, claiming it needed to complete an internal review
of the damages report and other information prior to taking a position
on the settlement. It also informed the Tribe that it required
congressional authorization to become an actual party to the settlement
and assist in the effectuation of its terms. The team has been dormant
since 2007 and has not completed its internal review over this two year
period.
Question 2. Has the Department of the Interior provided any
financial or technical assistance to the Tribe to improve water supply
reliability?
Answer. The Department of Interior has not provided the Tule River
Tribe with any financial or technical assistance to directly improve
water supply reliability of the current water infrastructure. However,
the Tribe did secure DOI funding during the course of the negotiations
to help fund its water attorney and technical consultants, gather
streamflow data, and perform technical studies in support of the
settlement. Should the Settlement Agreement be implemented and the
proposed water project constructed, the Tribe's water supply
reliability will be greatly enhanced. The Tribe has received some
funding from the Indian Health Service (Department of Health and Human
Services) to improve its existing water supply and wastewater
infrastructure. However, these improvements are independent from, and
not duplicated by, the Settlement Agreement.
Comment to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources:
In our discussions with the Bureau of Reclamation, the Tule
River Tribe has discovered that the Administration apparently
misunderstands the purpose for the use of the term
``feasibility study'' in S. 789, as well as its companion bill
H.R. 1974. It is to not the intent of Tribe, the other parties
to the settlement agreement, or our legislative sponsors that
the term be interpreted within the context of traditional
Reclamation law and policy.
This unfortunate misunderstanding has the unintended
consequence of requiring the Tribe to be bound by over 100
years of Reclamation law and policy which was not the Tribe's
original intent for the bill--and is not the expressed intent
of the bill language.
While the Tribe has every intention of conducting a study
which will meet the clear meaning of the bill language--to
study the feasibility and suitability of constructing a storage
reservoir, outlet works, and delivery system of 5,000 of of
water per year--the broader policies and practices of a
feasibility study provided for under Reclamation law and policy
envisioned by Reclamation would have the potential effect of
frustrating the terms and conditions of the Tule River Water
Settlement, and adding unnecessary cost to the study over the
$3.0 million provided for in the bill.
We believe that the current bill language states the
necessary and sufficient extent of the proposed feasibility
study. Therefore, we recommend that the Committee report, which
will accompany the bill, make clear that the feasibility study
prescribed in the bill is not a feasibility study as
anticipated under Reclamation law and policy, but rather a
study to determine the feasibility of the features for the Tule
River Water Settlement, as expressly provided in the bill.
attachment.--response of alec garfield
Tule River Tribal Council,
Tule River Indian Reservation,
Porterville, CA, October 8, 2007.
Hon. Grace Napolitano,
Chairwoman, Committee on Natural Resources, Water and Power
Subcommittee, 1522 Longworth HOB, Washington, DC.
Re: H.R. 2535, the Tule River Tribe Water Development Act
Chairwoman Napolitano: My sincerest thanks again to your leadership
in assisting us in moving H.R. 2535 as swiftly as possible through the
legislative process. I enjoyed meeting you very much last week and look
forward to our continued association on this very critical project for
the Tule River Tribe.
The following responses are provided to the follow-up questions
sent electronically to me by Emily Knight, your Clerk, after the
hearing on Tuesday, September 25, 2007, on H.R. 2535.
Question 1. Mr. Garfield, will the Tribe be able to afford a cost
share, to this project?
Answer. It would be precedent-setting for the Tribe to be asked or
required to fund a portion of the water storage and related works,
given that the settlement agreement to be ratified by the Congress,
once a bill is introduced and enacted for that purpose in the coming
session of Congress, is in significant part a resolution of the Tribe's
claims against the United States for failure since 1873 to protect and
advance the Tribe's water rights recognized under the Winters doctrine.
The Tribe believes that the funding responsibilities fall upon the
United States as trustee, and this obligation is clearly borne out in
the two-dozen other Indian water settlements approved and funded by
Congress over the past quarter-century.
Question 2. Is this study necessary in completing the settlement?
Answer. The settlement agreement is complete; all that remains is
for the parties to execute the final documents. The completion of the
feasibility study is absolutely critical to enabling the Interior
Department and the Congress to have the necessary details on the cost
of the water storage and delivery facilities which are the cornerstone
of the settlement agreement between the Tribe and the downstream
stakeholders. It is this water infrastructure which drives the entire
agreement, and which forms the basis from which the Tribe and its
neighbors have been able to fashion a settlement without the necessity
of contention, expensive and time-consuming litigation.
Question 3. Is there a signed agreement between the parties,
including the Federal Team? Why or Why Not? When will this be
completed?
Answer. The final settlement agreement will be executed by all of
the parties in the next 30 days, following formal action by their
respective governing bodies. The United States has for several years,
since the appointment of the Federal Team, been a supporter of a
negotiated resolution of the problem [of a lack of a dependable water
supply for the Tribe], and in fact has provided funding several times
to enable the Tribe to perform critical studies. The United States,
however, told the parties that it could not be a party to and sign the
agreement without Congressional authorization, which the parties will
hopefully secure in the coming session of Congress through legislation
ratifying the agreement and authorizing appropriations for the water
infrastructure and related purposes. The Tribe has asked the United
States to continue to review the terms of the agreement, with the
understanding that in time it would become a party thereto, but the
Tribe has also made it clear to the United States Department of
Interior and Justice representatives on the Federal team that it and
the other signatories to the agreement were proceeding without the
United States to execute the agreement.
Question 4. The Bureau testified that the two year window for
completing this project [is too short, or is insufficient]. How will
this delay affect the Tribe?
Answer. The Tribe and its technical consultant believe that two
years is sufficient time to complete the feasibility study, provided
that the study is fully funded and that the Tribe is able to administer
the funding through the P.L. 93-638 process. If the Bureau receives the
funding and performs the feasibility study, it may take longer than the
specified two year window. Every year that passes without a new water
project presents a hardship for the Tribe, in that the current water
supply is inadequate to serve existing needs during the summer months.
It also drives up the eventual costs of the project, when finally
approved, authorized and funded by Congress.
Question 5. Mr. Garfield, what will the study consists of, and how
long do you think it will take for the study to be completed?
Answer. Subjects that we anticipate being included in this
feasibility study are:
Damsite selection and preliminary dam design (relies on
other studies)
Investigation of environmental impacts (including mitigation
measures, if necessary)
Archeological study
Geologic analysis (mapping, seismic evaluation)
Geotechnical analysis (foundation testing, drilling, field
and laboratory tests, dam materials; soils analysis)
Hydrologic analysis (including flood flow determination)
Hydraulic design (mainly spillway and outlet works design)
Water quality analysis for treatment
Diversion demand analysis
Distribution system design
Design alternatives
Reservoir operation studies
Site civil (evaluation of roadway, drainage, site security,
utilities, and recreation facilities associated with the
project)
Construction cost estimates
The estimated time required to complete the feasibility study is
two years following appropriation of funding.
Question 6. Are there any state or federal listed species in the
proposed project area?
Answer. In 2004, the Tribe hired an environmental consulting firm
to conduct a preliminary biological resource survey and evaluation of
the proposed dam project. The findings from this study were:
The proposed project site is not included as designated
critical habitat for any federally listed species.
One federal-listed plant, three state-listed plants, and
three federal-listed animals (valley elderberry longhorn
beetle, California red-legged frog, and southwestern willow
flycatcher) have the potential to occur in the project-affected
area.
None of these listed species were observed during the
biological survey site reconnaissance; protocol-level surveys
would likely be required to verify this result in order to
comply with federal and state endangered species acts, if
applicable.
State or federal species of special concern, including the
southwestern pond turtle and several bird species, were
observed at the site during field surveys.
Question 7. How will the Tribe ensure that there will be no adverse
affects to the environment, and to current, downstream users?
Answer. Regarding environmental impacts from the proposed project,
as part of the feasibility study the Tribe intends to conduct protocol-
level environmental surveys of the project area to identify any plant
and animal species of concern. If necessary, proper mitigation measures
will be undertaken, which may include transplanting special-status
plants, seasonal and/or areal work restrictions for certain activities
adjacent to sensitive sites, fencing, and habitat enhancement. A
preliminary environmental survey has already been conducted.
The proposed reservoir will be operated in such a way that there is
always a minimum flow being released downstream. During the dry part of
the year, this minimum release is equal to or greater than the
reservoir inflow. Changes to reservoir releases will be timed in such a
way that they do not disturb downstream habitat critical for fish
species.
Regarding impacts to current downstream users, a primary feature of
the water rights settlement is that releases from the proposed
reservoir will be managed in such a way that minimizes any such
impacts. This is achieved through the reservoir operation rules, which
essentially call for all low flows to be passed through the reservoir
instead of being stored or diverted. In addition, the operation rules
call for the sharing of water during low flow years.
In closing, I would be happy to address any other questions which
you, other members of the Subcommittee, or your staff might have.
Sincerely,
Alec Garfield,
Director, Water Resources Department.
______
Responses of the Dry-Redwater Regional Water Authority to Questions
From Senator Cantwell
estimated energy savings
Question 1. Do you have an estimate of the amount of energy
consumption that could be saved by utilizing the water treatment
process that is contemplated by the Dry-Redwater Regional Water System
in consolidating at least five existing treatment systems into one
system?
Answer. There are 5 municipal type water treatment systems existing
within the DRWA service area. All use a pressurized treatment process
that require pumps to force the water through a treatment medium. The
proposed surface water treatment system for DRWA utilizes a gravity
treatment process where a small horsepower pump lifts the raw water up
to a treatment vessel that filters the water in an open un-pressurized
manner. Energy consumption on a pressure vs. a non-pressure type of
system has been determined with the cost to treat and produce 1,000,000
gallons of finished water, as follows:
Under a pressure system, the unit has a 300 gallons per minute
(gpm) input stream through a pressurized filtering system that rejects
30 gpm of the raw water, for every 300 gallons put in, 270 gallons come
out. To produce 1,000,000 gallons of finished water the system must run
62 hours. The pump to pressurize the system is a 10 horsepower (hp)
which at 62 hours of runtime, which equals 463 kw-hrs. The process
requires 1,111,600 gallons of raw water to produce the 1,000,000
gallons of finished water.
Under a gravity system the unit has a 700 gpm input stream that all
flows through the treatment system using a filtering system that relies
upon gravity and settling. To produce 1,000,000 gallons of finished
water utilizing a non-pressurized system, the facility must run 24.5
hours. The pump lifting the water into the gravity filters is a 7.5 hp,
hence the 24.5 hours of runtime equals 137.1 kw-hr. The table below
summarizes the savings per million gallons of treated water.
FINAL OUTPUT OF 1,000,000 GALLONS TREATED WATER
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing Pressure Proposed Gravity
Filtering System Filtering Surface
Ground Water Water
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Raw Water Pumped (Gallons) 1,116,000 1,028,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kilowatt Hrs / MG 463 137.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kwh Savings / MG -- (325.9)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kwh % Savings -- 70.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water Conserved (Gallons) -- 83,600
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MG = Million Gallons
Estimated annual water use of DRWA is 400 million gallons, thus a
potential annual savings of 130,360 Kwh.
Additionally, there exist as many as 40 other Public Water Supply
Systems and 5000 individual wells for domestic and livestock uses
within the District Boundaries. The consolidation of individual wells
along with Subdivision Associations, Multi-Family, Commercial
Operations, Trailer Courts, Public Rest Areas along with State and
Federal Recreation Areas would all contribute to energy savings within
our region.
reclamations interim guidelines
Question 2. What efforts has the Dry-Redwater Regional Water
Authority taken to meet the requirements of Reclamation's interim
guidelines for the rural water program? What has the response been from
Reclamation?
Answer. Bureau of Reclamation has provided guidance in regards to
key issues and processes that DRWA undertook and moved the project
forward. The DRWA followed the general guidance and processes used by
other rural water projects in the Montana, North Dakota and South
Dakota region since 1985 that ultimately were Reclamation rural water
projects. For example scoping meetings, feasibility investigation,
alternative resources and public education/participation have
systematically been used to help shape the progress of our efforts.
The Bureau of Reclamation has initiated a draft of their Appraisal
Investigation Report guidelines which has just recently been made
available to us. Within these guidelines is the Section titled
Suggested Format and Contents which outlines 6 Chapters proposed to be
part of the document to be submitted for Appraisal. Upon review of the
Chapters we have found the vast majority of these suggestions have been
followed by DRWA for the same purposes that the Bureau purports to
accomplish with the administration of the Rural Water Act of 2006. The
DRWA Feasibility Study of June 2006 contains 12 Chapters that cover as
many of the pertinent issues with respect to a rural water project as
has been foreseen.
Our response will not delve too deeply into the substance of the
2006 Study verses the BOR Guidelines; however a cursory review and
comparison of the proposed guideline's Planning Process and DRWA Study
Chapters may be helpful as follows:
BOR Draft Guidelines
Planning Process
The six steps are:
1) Indentify Problems, Opportunities
and Constraints
2) Inventory and Forecast Resource
Conditions
3) Formulate Alternative Plans
4) Evaluate Alternative Plans
5) Compare Alternative Plans
6) Select Recommended Plan
The Submittal for Appraisal would consist of:
Chapter 1, Introduction
Chapter 2, Problems and Opportunities
Chapter 3, Inventory and Forecast
Resource Conditions
Chapter 4, Alternatives
Chapter 5, Consultation and
Coordination
Chapter 6, Conclusions and
Recommendations (includes requirements
from ``traditional planning process'')
DRWA Feasibility Study 2006
Chapter 1, Introduction
Chapter 2, Project Resources
Chapter 3, Existing Facilities
Chapter 4, Need for Project
Chapter 5, Permit Requirements & Responsibilities
Chapter 6, Preliminary Design
Chapter 7, Cultural & Environmental Issues
Chapter 8, Project Alternative Cost Estimates
Chapter 9, Plan Selection
Chapter 10, Public Involvement
Chapter 11, Project Financial Plan
Chapter 12, Implementation
Appendices
Executive Summary
Addendums
The cursory comparison of the two documents indicates that,
although the process may be changing, the substance required by
BOR in evaluating a given project remains intact. The
conclusions made from the 2006 Feasibility Study, with respect
to the Guidelines, are sound ones that will produce a
successful project.
As outlined above, the Bureau of Reclamation has had
knowledge of and input in the DRWA project. Though not
discouraging, their ability to perform as intended has been
exacerbated by the non-existence of a playing field.
In 2004, Lenny Duberstein of the BOR was involved in early
discussions of a regional water project and attended subsequent
scoping meetings in 2006.
In September of 2007 The Great Plains Office responded to our
inquiry of BOR's potential role in our project. The response is
in a letter dated September 24, 2007 anticipating the
finalizing of administrative rules by the summer of 2008. It
must be pointed out that one year has passed since or expected
receipt of such rules.
Stephanie Hellekson of the Bureau's Billings Office attended
a Board meeting on October 1, 2007. In the spring of 2009 Ms.
Hellekson participated in one of our Board meetings via
telecommunications. She was very supportive and indicated that
there was a ``parallel process'' that might allow for continued
involvement. She also suggested that we expand on our current
NEPA Study to include the overall scope of the proposed
project. Currently, the Environmental Report Phase for this
expanded scope, along with the associated agency comments, is
nearly ready to be submitted to the Billings Area Office of the
Bureau so the EA process can be initiated. (e-mail
correspondence is attached in the Appendix).
Just prior to our original testimony at the Sub-Committee
Hearing on June 23, 2009, the DRWA Washington delegation met
with officials of the Bureau. As the Commissioner's testimony
at that hearing bears out, the Bureau indicated to us that they
would not recommend denial of our request for authorization and
that administrative rules are forthcoming. They pointed out the
difficulties created by the Bureau's lack of administrative
rules for the 2006 Act and that a definitive time frame for
completion of such Rules was unknown. At that time DRWA again
agreed that we would be happy to work with BOR in whatever
capacity they could provide.
In conclusion to Senator Cantwell' second question, it can be seen
that the DRWA Project has made every effort to conform to the
established procedures for such a project with respect to the Bureau of
Reclamation and that all are in agreement the Project warrants
attention. The ability of the Project to move forward hinges on its
becoming a Federally Authorized Project, at which time, we feel, great
strides will be made.
______
Responses of the Dry-Redwater Regional Water Authority to Questions
From Senator Brownback
role of the bureau of reclamation
Question 1. Please describe the role the Bureau of Reclamation has
played in assisting your project to date.
Answer. As can be seen from our response to Senator Cantwell's
inquiries, Bureau of Reclamation has a large influence upon our
efforts. Similar rural water projects throughout the region that have
been administered through the BOR have been our ``road map'' as we have
navigated through, for example, public scoping meetings, feasibility
studies, preliminary engineering, costs alternatives, resource
assessment and environmental concerns. These issues are traditionally
fleshed out by Bureau Staff in order to assure successful projects. The
communication with Bureau Staff referred to above signifies their
involvement with the Project. We did not wish to `reinvent the wheel'
nor be perceived as an independent water system startup that could work
outside of the traditional process. Authorization of the DRWA would
define the playing field and allow for a more intensive communication
process among all Federal, State and Local agencies.
involvement of other federal agencies
Question 2. What other Federal agencies have you worked with to
identify both funding opportunities and technical advice to construct
your facilities?
Answer. We have been in contact with the US Army Corp of Engineers.
Their involvement has been three-fold:
i) A letter from the Corp dated August 30, 2006, the Fort
Peck Lake Operations Manager showed their interest in the
Project as a potential User. The system would greatly enhance
their ability to implement the Charles M. Russell National
Wildlife Refuge Enhancement Act of 2000 wherein proceeds from
land sales would be made available to the Fish and Wildlife
Service Agency for Refuge enhancement.
ii) A letter dated October 25, 2006 reflects their
involvement in the deliberation of where to locate the intake
structure for the system. Their input, in part, led us to the
current proposed intake location.
iii) In the letter dated April 29, 2009 the Corps Chief
Operations Officer showed no objection to the Project and
explained the process for entering into an agreement with the
Corp to administer the storage of our proposed 4000 acre feet
of water source as they are federally mandated to administer
all waters held within the Fort Peck Reservoir.
The Fish and Wildlife Service has been involved as a review agency
and also as a beneficiary of a new source of potable water in the
region. Agency representative (Refuge Manager) was present at a scoping
meeting with the Corps of Engineers in 2007 as Fish and Wildlife has
administrative authority over lands proposed for the intake and
portions of the location of pipelines. In a letter from the Manager
dated April 23, 2007, their input was supportive and their involvement
was used to site the Intake and Treatment Plant. Further interaction
with Wildlife is anticipated with respect to environmental requirements
(NEPA), Right-of-Way issues and actual construction.
The U.S. Department of Commerce Economic Development Administration
(EDA) has provided funds towards planning and administration under a
potential large economic development project in our area. Great
Northern Properties, the largest coal mineral holder in the U.S., has
been working to develop a potential coal gasification facility within
the area.
Western Area Power Administration has been involved with the
language in our Legislation concerning electrical power usage. Our Bill
contemplates usage of power generated under the Pick-Sloan Act. They
have shown support for the project and an interest in how we manage the
power requirements of our system.
The regional office of the Bureau of Land Management has been made
aware of our Project in that we will be crossing Federal Lands to
distribute water. They also may directly benefit from access to potable
Water.
We hope that the information contained herein clarifies the issues
brought forth by Senators Cantwell and Brownback. We are most grateful
for their interest and are at their disposal during their
deliberations.
______
Responses of John F. Sullivan to Questions From Senator Brownback
Question 1. If this is to be completed administratively, what is a
reasonable timeframe to have it completed?
Answer. SRP has maintained that they are happy to continue working
with the Forest Service and the Bureau of Reclamation to resolve their
dispute over jurisdiction of the C.C. Cragin. However, we have been
working for a resolution for over 4 years to date, and prior to the
testimony before your Subcommittee, we hadn't received any follow-up to
our offers to continue negotiations since January, 2009. An additional
30 days seems a reasonable amount of additional time to reach an
administrative solution. At the same time, I feel that a legislative
solution is the best option in this situation.
Question 2. Please describe the impact of having this issue not
resolved on the project.
Answer. If the Forest Service and Bureau of Reclamation are unable
to reach an agreement, the continuing disagreement over jurisdiction
and dueling approval processes will continue to delay work and increase
costs to SRP and the federal government. In addition, we understand
from the Town of Payson that any extended delays could jeopardize the
stimulus funds allocated from the state of Arizona, which will be used
for repairs to the C.C. Cragin pipeline and other water related
projects.
______
[Responses to the following questions were not received at
the time the hearing went to press:]
Questions for Michael L. Connor From Senator Cantwell
regarding s. 637, dry-redwater regional water authority system act of
2009
Question 1. The Administration testified that it has significant
concerns about S. 637. How does the Administration propose to work with
Congress to address the Administration's concerns?
Question 2. Please identify the eight existing rural water projects
and provide a brief summary of their status.
Question 3. What is the timeframe for completion of the guidelines
for the Rural Water Program? Will those guidelines contain guidance for
determining a project sponsor's capability to pay? How would you advise
a project proponent to proceed in the absence of completed guidelines?
Question 4. What is the best way of ensuring an accurate cost
estimate for a project like the Dry-Redwater Regional Water Authority
System? Has Reclamation prepared an information assessment of the
feasibility of the project?
Question 5. What are the Administration's concerns regarding the
use of project power from the Pick Sloan Missouri Basin Program for
non-irrigation purposes? Can the Administration provide suggestions to
remedy those concerns?
Question 6. Is Reclamation aware of the April 29, 2009 letter from
the Department of the Army Corps of Engineers to the Dry-Redwater
Regional Water Authority regarding the project's ability to withdraw up
to 4,000 acre-feet of water per year from the Fort Peck Lake? What are
the Administration's concerns regarding water rights for the project?
regarding s. 789, tule river tribe water development act
Question 1. What does BOR think the next steps should be for
proceeding with the Tule River Settlement and the feasibility study of
the proposed project? When will BOR be able to complete an appraisal
level study of the proposed project? When will BOR be able to determine
what amount of appropriations are necessary to complete the feasibility
study authorized by S. 789?
Question 2. Why does the Administration believe that a non-federal
cost-share partner is necessary for the completion of the feasibility
study identified in S. 789? How will the Administration determine the
appropriate level of non-federal cost-share for the feasibility study?
Question 3. How does the Administration propose to resolve the
outstanding issues between the Tribe and the federal negotiating team
regarding the Tule River settlement?
Questions for Michael L. Connor From Senator Brownback
regarding s. 637, dry-redwater regional water authority system act of
2009
Question 1. Please describe the process you are undertaking to
develop programmatic criteria for the Rural Water Program. In addition,
please describe where you are in your assessment of the status of
authorized rural water supply projects and the role that other Federal
programs can play in addressing rural water supply issues.
Question 2. Please describe whether the Dry-Redwater Regional Water
Authority System would meet your criteria.
Question 3. Please describe the assistance, if any, Reclamation has
provided to the water users participating in the regional water
authority. In addition, what additional assistance can you provide the
sponsors in helping them complete appraisal and feasibility-level
studies for their proposed project?
Question 4. Out of Reclamation's eight authorized rural water
projects, can you identify the cost share for each project? How many of
these projects propose or are utilizing project use power from the Pick
Sloan Missouri Basin Program (PSMBP) for non-irrigation purposes?
Question 5. Please describe the process that Reclamation undertakes
to determine a sponsor's capability-to-pay.
regarding s. 789, tule river tribe water development act
Question 1. Please describe the role the United States has played
in settling the water rights claims of the Tule River Tribe.
Question 2. Has Reclamation provided any assistance to the tribe
over the last ten years in analyzing their water supply issues? If so,
what type of assistance has been provided?
Question 3. Within your statement, you indicate that the type of
project considered by the tribe would require several years to complete
with significant costs. Please describe this process and the costs
associated with completing a feasibility study.
Question 4. You also indicate in your testimony the need for
Reclamation to conduct an ``appraisal-level ``analysis of a project
before moving forward with funding of any feasibility study. As you of
course know, almost identical legislation was introduced in the 110th
Congress, yet it appears Reclamation has made little progress in moving
forward with this analysis. When will your proposed ``appraisal level''
analysis be completed?
Question 5. Please describe how this bill will place a restriction
upon any project that may be authorized as part of a comprehensive
water rights settlement, even if the exact feasibility study authorized
by the bill is never carried out.
regarding s. 1080, c.c. cragin dam
Question 1. What is your anticipated timeframe to resolve this
issue administratively?
Questions for Michael L. Connor From Senator McCain
regarding s. 1080, c.c. cragin dam
Question 1. Your testimony indicates that our hearing today will
``hasten the development of a workable agreement'' between the Bureau
and the Forest Service. Negotiations between the two agencies have been
occurring sporadically since 2005. When can the people of Northern Gila
County expect a final resolution to this matter?
Question 2. It's been seven months into the new Administration.
What's the status of interagency negotiations for this year?
Question 3. In a letter November 27, 2007, from the BOR Phoenix
Area Office to the Coconino National Forest, the Bureau of Reclamation
states that pursuant to the Arizona Water Settlements Act: ``we
continue to hold the view that Forest Service approval for SRP to
conduct repairs to the water pipeline was not needed.'' Is this still
the Bureau's position?
Question 4. Do you think it is necessary to have two federal
agencies reviewing and approving work on this project?
Question 5. Does the Bureau of Reclamation feel that they have the
capability to approve and oversee compliance with federal law on the
C.C. Cragin project?
Appendix II
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
Colorado River Energy Distributors Association (CREDA),
Tempe, AZ, July 17, 2009.
Hon. Debbie Stabenow,
Chair,
Hon. Sam Brownback,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water and Power, Senate Energy and
Natural Resources Committee, 304 Dirksen Senate Building,
Washington, DC.
Subject: S. 1453--Amendment to P.L. 106-392
Dear Chair Stabenow and Senator Brownback: The Colorado River
Energy Distributors Association (CREDA) represents the majority of firm
power customers of the Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP). CREDA
supports passage of S.1453 that provides for continued annual funding
of the Upper Colorado and San Juan endangered fish recovery programs at
current levels through fiscal year 2023. This funding is provided by
CRSP power revenues.
Continued annual base funding at the currently authorized levels is
essential for the programs to provide continuing ESA compliance and to
recover the endangered fish species in the basin.
CREDA appreciates the Subcommittee's support for this amendment to
Public Law 106-392.
Sincerely,
Leslie James,
Executive Director.
______
Statement of Adam J. Gartner, Dawson County Commissioner, Glendive, MT
I would like to express my support for the Dry Redwater project.
This project would greatly improve our county's ability to grow
economically. Our city limits basically ends at the Yellowstone River.
The area on the west side of the river is a rural developed area called
West Glendive with a population between two and three thousand. There
are two subdivision that rely on wells that need storage tanks to
service the residents which has a high maintenance cost for the county.
The rest of the residents rely on their own personal wells. In Eastern
Montana most well water is potable but not acceptable for gardens and
lawns. The residents are personally responsible for the maintenance on
their wells. I just had to have a new well drilled due to a collapsed
wall. This cost me nine thousand seven hundred dollars. The Redwater
project would allow the West Glendive area to grow with the
accessibility to the water provided by the project. The water would
also be much healthier for consumption by residents.
Please consider supporting this project.
______
Orchard Mesa Irrigation District,
Palisade, CO, July 14, 2009.
Hon. Debbie Stabenow,
Chair,
Hon. Sam Brownback,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water and Power, Senate Energy and
Natural Resources Committee, 304 Dirksen Senate Building,
Washington, DC.
Subject: Support for S. 1453--An Amendment to P.L. 106-392 Re:
Continuation of Annual Base Funding for the Upper Colorado River and
San Juan River Endangered Fish Recovery Programs
Dear Chair Stabenow and Senator Brownback, I am writing to support
passage of S.1453 that provides for continued annual funding of the
Upper Colorado and San Juan fish recovery programs at current levels
through fiscal year 2023. These highly successful and widely supported
programs are recovering endangered fish species in the Upper Colorado
River and San Juan River basins while providing compliance with the
Endangered Species Act for more than 1,800 federal, tribal and non-
federal water projects.
Continuation of annual base funding from Colorado River Storage
Project hydroelectric power revenues at the currently authorized levels
is essential for the programs to provide continuing ESA compliance and
to recover the endangered fish species in the basin.
I would appreciate the Subcommittee's support for this essential
amendment to Public Law 106-392.
Sincerely,
Max Schmidt,
District Manager.
______
South Tule Independent Ditch Company,
Porterville, CA, July 21, 2009.
Hon. Debbie Stabenow,
Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Water and Power, Senate Committee on Energy
and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Re: Support of S.789, Tule River Tribe Water Development Act
Dear Senator Stabenow: I am writing on behalf of South Tule
Independent Ditch Company in support of Tule River Tribe's efforts to
secure funding for a feasibility study to determine the design and
location for a water storage facility on the Tule River Indian
Reservation. The passage of the Tule River Tribe Water Development Act
(S.789) will provide this need.
The Tule River Tribe, Tule River Association and South Tule
Independent Ditch Company have successfully finalized and executed an
historic water rights settlement agreement, absent litigation, which
quantifies the amount of water the Tribe is entitled to receive from
the South Fork of the Tule River. The parties have worked diligently
and cooperatively to develop a water rights plan that will provide a
stable water supply for the Tribe, as well as for its downstream
neighbors who own water rights that pre-date the 1873 establishment of
the Reservation. Additionally, the Tribe has committed to honor the
provisions of a 1922 agreement between South Tule Independent Ditch
Company and the Department of the Interior, acting in behalf of the
Tribe, regarding the relative water rights of these two entities. The
parties are in agreement that the only method to secure a stable water
supply is for the Tribe to impound water during the high flow season.
Thus, a significant storage facility will be required to facilitate the
agreement and supply the rapidly growing demand for water on the
Reservation.
We therefore encourage your support for the Tule River Tribe Water
Development Act (S.789).
Thank you for your interest and support in this matter.
Sincerely,
Philip G. Larson,
President.
______
The Gunnison Tunnel Project,
The Uncompahgre Valley Water Users Association,
Montrose, CO, July 20, 2009.
Hon. Debbie Stabenow,
Chair,
Hon. Sam Brownback,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water and Power, Senate Energy and
Natural Resources Committee, 304 Dirksen Senate Building,
Washington, DC. 20510.
Subject: Support for S. 1453--An Amendment to P.L. 106-392 Re:
Continuation of Annual Base Funding for the Upper Colorado River and
San Juan River Endangered Fish Recovery Programs
Dear Chair Stabenow and Senator Brownback, I am writing to support
passage of S.1453 that provides for continued annual funding of the
Upper Colorado and San Juan fish recovery programs at current levels
through fiscal year 2023. These highly successful and widely supported
programs are recovering endangered fish species in the Upper Colorado
River and San Juan River basins while providing compliance with the
Endangered Species Act for more than 1,800 federal, tribal and non-
federal water projects.
Continuation of annual base funding from Colorado River Storage
Project hydroelectric power revenues at the currently authorized levels
is essential for the programs to provide continuing ESA compliance and
to recover the endangered fish species in the basin.
I would appreciate the Subcommittee's support for this essential
amendment to Public Law 106-392.
Sincerely,
Marcus W. Catlin,
Manager.
______
Grand Valley Water Users' Association,
Grand Valley Project, Colorado,
Grand Junction, CO, July 16, 2009.
Hon. Debbie Stabenow,
Chair,
Hon. Sam Brownback,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water and Power, Senate Energy and
Natural Resources Committee, 304 Dirksen Senate Building,
Washington, DC. 20510.
Subject: Support for S. 1453--An Amendment to P.L. 106-392 Re:
Continuation of Annual Base Funding for the Upper Colorado River and
San Juan River Endangered Fish Recovery Programs
Dear Chair Stabenow and Senator Brownback, I am writing to support
passage of S.1453 that provides for continued annual funding of the
Upper Colorado and San Juan fish recovery programs at current levels
through fiscal year 2023. These highly successful and widely supported
programs are recovering endangered fish species in the Upper Colorado
River and San Juan River basins while providing compliance with the
Endangered Species Act for more than 1,800 federal, tribal and non-
federal water projects.
Continuation of annual base funding from Colorado River Storage
Project hydroelectric power revenues at the currently authorized levels
is essential for the programs to provide continuing ESA compliance and
to recover the endangered fish species in the basin.
The Grand Valley Project, Colorado (Project) is owned by the United
States of America, Department of Interior, Bureau of Reclamation
(Reclamation) and is operated and maintained by the Grand Valley Water
Users' Association (Association), a Colorado nonprofit corporation.
Reclamation, on behalf of the Recovery Program, implemented capital
construction structures on the Project as part of the Upper Colorado
River endangered fish recovery program. Therefore, the Association
supports the continued funding of annual operations of these recovery
program structures.
I would appreciate the Subcommittee's support for this essential
amendment to Public Law 106-392.
Sincerely,
Richard L. Proctor,
Manager.
______
Statement of Rep. Dave Kasten, Brockway, MT
Please pass senate bill 637.
As State Representative of Montana House Dist 30. The largest House
District in Montana. I can assure you that the Dry Redwater Regional
Water Project (5637) is needed. The project will solve many water
quality problems in some of our schools, some that are still one room
schools. The project will be a major energy saver replacing several
outdated water systems. The local support for the project is
overwhelming. The Dry Redwater project area includes A large part of
the very productive Bakken oil fields. The Trans Candada oil line from
Canada to Houston Texas, 50+ miles goes through the project. The Fork
Peck Dam, recreation and Electric Generation area will be greatly
enhanced by the project. The entire project area lays over millions of
Tons of recoverable coal. Thank you for positive consideration for
senate bill 637.
Thank You.
______
Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Reclamation,
Glendale, AZ, August 17, 2006.
Subject: C.C. Cragin Dam and Reservoir
Dear Ms. Rasure: This letter is in reference to our meeting of
August 2, 2006, with members of your staff and staff from the Salt
River Project (SRP). At that meeting, we discussed the options to
document the relationship between the Bureau of Reclamation
(Reclamation) and the Forest Service with respect to the presence,
operation, and maintenance of the C.C. Cragin Dam and Reservoir.
Specifically, we discussed the options of continuing with the
development of a Special Use Permit versus development of a Project
Supplemental Agreement under the 1987 Master Interagency Agreement
between Reclamation and the Forest Service. Reclamation's relationship
with the SRP is already established through a contract between the
United States and the Salt River Valley Water Users' Association dated
September 6, 1917, as amended. The Arizona Water Rights Settlement Act
enacted on December 10, 2004, specifically states that this contract
will apply to SRP's operation and maintenance of C.C. Cragin Dam and
Reservoir.
After careful review of the 1987 Master Interagency Agreement, and
the existing Management Memorandum among SRP, Forest Service, and
Reclamation dated April 27, 1979, (also known as the Tri-Party
Agreement) for Reclamation facilities managed by SRP on the Tonto
National Forest, we have concluded that a Project Supplemental
Agreement under the 1987 Master Interagency Agreement is the most
appropriate way to proceed. If you agree, I suggest we assemble a team
to proceed with development of a Project Supplemental Agreement. This
could take the form of a separate Agreement for C.C. Cragin or could be
an amendment to the existing Tri-Party Agreement. We think the latter
may be preferable, since the existing agreement is in need of amendment
anyway, and one agreement between the Forest Service and Reclamation
for SRP facilities seems to make sense. Please let me know your
thoughts about proceeding with a Project Supplemental Agreement. If you
are in agreement, we would like to proceed as expeditiously as
possible. If you have any questions or would like to discuss this
matter, please call me at 623-773-6210, or Mr. Peter Castaneda at 623-
773-6240.
Sincerely,
Carol Lynn Erwin,
Area Manager.
______
Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Reclamation,
Glendale, AZ, November 27, 2007.
Subject: Forest Service Authorization for the Repair of a Portion of
the C.C. Cragin Project (Your Letter to Mr. Peter Castaneda Dated
November 5, 2007)
Dear Ms. Roth: Thank you for your letter dated November 5, 2007,
indicating that the Forest Service has authorized Reclamation and the
Salt River Project (SRP) to conduct pipeline repairs to Reclamation's
C.C. Cragin facility. We appreciate the Forest Service's work to review
and provide input into the repair project.
As you are aware, we are continuing discussions among Reclamation,
SRP, and the Forest Supervisor's Office to arrive at a consensus
regarding the appropriate vehicle to document our relationships
regarding the operation and maintenance of the C.C. Cragin Project.
Your November 5 letter acknowledges that since we have not yet reached
agreement in those discussions, you believed it was necessary to
provide written authorization for the pipeline repairs. While we truly
appreciate the cooperation of you and your staff, we continue to hold
the view that Forest Service approval for SRP to conduct the repairs to
a section of the water pipeline was not needed.
The Arizona Water Settlements Act of 2004 (Act) provided for the
transfer of title of the Blue Ridge Project, subsequently renamed C.C.
Cragin Dam and Reservoir (C.C. Cragin Project), to the United States,
acting through the Secretary of the Interior.\1\ Upon such transfer,
the Act provided that, with minor exceptions, the United States shall
hold title to the C.C. Cragin Project ``for the exclusive use and
benefit of the Salt River Federal Reclamation Project'' (P.L. 108-451,
Section 213(i)). The Act further provided that SRP is ``responsible for
the care, operation, and maintenance'' of the C.C. Cragin Project
pursuant to a contract between the Salt River Valley Water Users'
Association and the United States, dated September 6, 1917. Id. As a
consequence, we believe that no authorization by the Forest Service was
needed for SRP to conduct this maintenance activity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Act described the Blue Ridge Project as including ``Blue
Ridge Dam and all pipelines, tunnels, buildings, hydroelectric
generating facilities, and other structures of every kind,
transmission, telephone and fiber optic lines, pumps, machinery, tools,
and appliances'' and ``all real or personal property, appurtenant to or
used, or constructed or otherwise acquired to be used, in connection
with Blue Ridge Reservoir.'' P.L. 108-451, Section 213(iX1)(A).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reclamation and SRP look forward to resolving this outstanding
issue, and we are committed to continue full and open coordination with
the Forest Service concerning the C.C. Cragin Project.
Please do not hesitate to contact me or Mr. Bruce Ellis at 623-773-
6250 with any questions.
Sincerely,
Peter O. Castaneda,
Chief, Water and Lands Division.
______
APS Four Corners Power Plant,
Fruitland, NM, July 16, 2009.
Hon. Debbie Stabenow,
Chair,
Hon. Sam Brownback,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water and Power, Senate Energy and
Natural Resources Committee, 304 Dirksen Senate Building,
Washington, DC.
SUBJECT: Support for S. 1453--An Amendment to P.L. 106-392 Re:
Continuation of Annual Base Funding for the Upper Colorado River and
San Juan River Endangered Fish Recovery Programs
Dear Chair Stabenow and Senator Brownback, I am writing to support
passage of S.1453 that provides for continued annual funding of the
Upper Colorado and San Juan fish recovery programs at current levels
through fiscal year 2023. These highly successful and widely supported
programs are recovering endangered fish species in the Upper Colorado
River and San Juan River basins while providing compliance with the
Endangered Species Act for more than 1,800 federal, tribal and non-
federal water projects.
Continuation of annual base funding from Colorado River Storage
Project hydroelectric power revenues at the currently authorized levels
is essential for the programs to provide continuing ESA compliance and
to recover the endangered fish species in the basin.
I would appreciate the Subcommittee's support for this essential
amendment to Public Law 106-392.
Sincerely,
David L Saliba,
Plant Manager.
______
Central Utah Water Conservancy District,
Orem, UT, July 21, 2009.
Hon. Debbie Stabenow,
Chair,
Hon. Sam Brownback,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water and Power, Senate Energy and
Natural Resources Committee, 304 Dirksen Senate Building,
Washington, DC.
Subject: Support for S. 1453--An Amendment to P.L. 106-392 Re:
Continuation of Annual Base Funding for the Upper Colorado River and
San Juan River Endangered Fish Recovery Programs
Dear Chair Stabenow and Senator Brownback, I am writing to support
passage of S.1453 that provides for continued annual funding of the
Upper Colorado and San Juan fish recovery programs at current levels
through fiscal year 2023. These highly successful and widely supported
programs are recovering endangered fish species in the Upper Colorado
River and San Juan River basins while providing compliance with the
Endangered Species Act for more than 1,800 federal, tribal and non-
federal water projects.
Continuation of annual base funding from Colorado River Storage
Project hydroelectric power revenues at the currently authorized levels
is essential for the programs to provide continuing ESA compliance and
to recover the endangered fish species in the basin.
I would appreciate the Subcommittee's support for this essential
amendment to Public Law 106-392.
Sincerely,
Don A. Christiansen,
General Manager.
______
City of Aurora,
Water Department Administration,
Aurora, CO, July 21, 2009.
Hon. Debbie Stabenow,
Chair,
Hon. Sam Brownback,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water and Power, Senate Energy and
Natural Resources Committee, 304 Dirksen Senate Building,
Washington, DC.
Subject: Support for S. 1453--An Amendment to P.L. 106-392 Re:
Continuation of Annual Base Funding for the Upper Colorado River and
San Juan River Endangered Fish Recovery Programs
Dear Chair Stabenow and Senator Brownback, I am writing to support
passage of S.1453 that provides for continued annual funding of the
Upper Colorado and San Juan fish recovery programs at current levels
through fiscal year 2023. These highly successful and widely supported
programs are recovering endangered fish species in the Upper Colorado
River and San Juan River basins while providing compliance with the
Endangered Species Act for more than 1,800 federal, tribal and non-
federal water projects.
Continuation of annual base funding from Colorado River Storage
Project hydroelectric power revenues at the currently authorized levels
is essential for the programs to provide continuing ESA compliance and
to recover the endangered fish species in the basin.
I would appreciate the Subcommittee's support for this essential
amendment to Public Law 106-392.
Sincerely,
Mark Pifher,
Director.
______
Colorado River District,
Glenwood Springs, CO, July 20, 2009.
Hon. Debbie Stabenow,
Chair,
Hon. Sam Brownback,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water and Power, Senate Energy and
Natural Resources Committee, 304 Dirksen Senate Building,
Washington, DC.
Subject: Support for S. 1453
Dear Chair Stabenow and Senator Brownback, The Colorado River Water
Conservation District respectfully requests your support for S.1453.
S.1453 provides for continued annual appropriations for the Upper
Colorado and San Juan endangered fish recovery programs through fiscal
year 2023. These highly successful and widely supported programs are
recovering endangered fish species in the subject basins while
providing compliance with the Endangered Species Act for more than
1,800 federal, tribal and non-federal water projects.
Continuation of annual base funding from Colorado River Storage
Project hydroelectric power revenues at the currently authorized levels
is essential for the programs to provide continuing Endangered Species
Act compliance for literally thousands of water projects and hundreds
of thousands of water users while successfully recovering the
endangered fish species in the basins.
I respectfully request your and the subcommittee's support for this
essential amendment to Public Law 106-392 and these exemplary recovery
programs.
Sincerely,
R. Eric Kuhn,
General Manager.
______
Colorado Springs Utilities,
Colorado Springs, CO, July 23, 2009.
Hon. Debbie Stabenow,
Chair,
Hon. Sam Brownback,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water and Power, Senate Energy and
Natural Resources Committee, 304 Dirksen Senate Building,
Washington, DC.
Subject: Support for S. 1453--An Amendment to P.L. 106-392 Re:
Continuation of Annual Base Funding for the Upper Colorado River and
San Juan River Endangered Fish Recovery Programs
Dear Chair Stabenow and Senator Brownback, I am writing to support
passage of 5.1453 that provides for continued annual funding of the
Upper Colorado and San Juan fish recovery programs at current levels
through fiscal year 2023. These highly successful and widely supported
programs are recovering endangered fish species in the Upper Colorado
River and San Juan River basins while providing compliance with the
Endangered Species Act for more than 1,800 federal, tribal and non-
federal water projects.
Continuation of annual base funding from Colorado River Storage
Project hydroelectric power revenues at the currently authorized levels
is essential for the programs to provide continuing ESA compliance and
to recover the endangered fish species in the basin.
I would appreciate the Subcommittee's support for this essential
amendment to Public Law 106-392.
Sincerely,
Brett W. Gracely, P.E., D.WRE,
Water Supply Planning Supervisor.
______
Colorado Water Congress,
Denver, CO, July 14, 2009.
Hon. Debbie Stabenow,
Chair,
Hon. Sam Brownback,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water and Power, Senate Energy and
Natural Resources Committee, 304 Dirksen Senate Building,
Washington, DC.
Subject: Support for S. 1453--An Amendment to P.L. 106-392 Re:
Continuation of Annual Base Funding for the Upper Colorado River and
San Juan River Endangered Fish Recovery Programs
Dear Chair Stabenow and Senator Brownback, I am writing to support
passage of S.1453 that provides for continued annual funding of the
Upper Colorado and San Juan fish recovery programs at current levels
through fiscal year 2023. These highly successful and widely supported
programs are recovering endangered fish species in the Upper Colorado
River and San Juan River basins while providing compliance with the
Endangered Species Act for more than 1,800 federal, tribal and non-
federal water projects.
Continuation of annual base funding from Colorado River Storage
Project hydroelectric power revenues at the currently authorized levels
is essential for the programs to provide continuing ESA compliance and
to recover the endangered fish species in the basin.
I would appreciate the Subcommittee's support for this essential
amendment to Public Law 106-392.
Sincerely,
Douglas Kemper,
Executive Director.
______
Denver Water,
Denver, CO, July 16, 2009.
Hon. Debbie Stabenow,
Chair,
Hon. Sam Brownback,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water and Power, Senate Energy and
Natural Resources Committee, 304 Dirksen Senate Building,
Washington, DC.
Subject: Support for S. 1453--An Amendment to P.L. 106-392 Re:
Continuation of Annual Base Funding for the Upper Colorado River and
San Juan River Endangered Fish Recovery Programs
Dear Chair Stabenow and Senator Brownback, On behalf of Denver
Water and the 1.2 million customers we serve, I am writing to support
passage of S.1453 that provides for continued annual funding of the
Upper Colorado and San Juan fish recovery programs at current levels
through fiscal year 2023.
These highly successful and widely supported programs are
recovering endangered fish species in the Upper Colorado River and San
Juan River basins while providing compliance with the Endangered
Species Act for more than 1,800 federal, tribal and non-federal water
projects.
Continuation of annual base funding from Colorado River Storage
Project hydroelectric power revenues at the currently authorized levels
is essential for the programs to provide continuing ESA compliance for
these water projects and to recover the endangered fish species in the
basin.
Denver Water would appreciate the Subcommittee's support for this
essential amendment to Public Law 106-392.
Sincerely,
HJ Barry,
Manager.
______
Dolores Water Conservancy District,
Cortez, CO, July 17, 2009.
Hon. Debbie Stabenow,
Chair,
Hon. Sam Brownback,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water and Power, Senate Energy and
Natural Resources Committee, 304 Dirksen Senate Building,
Washington, DC.
Subject: Support for S. 1453--An Amendment to P.L. 106-392 Re:
Continuation of Annual Base Funding for the Upper Colorado River and
San Juan River Endangered Fish Recovery Programs
Dear Chair Stabenow and Senator Brownback, I am writing to support
passage of S.1453 that provides for continued annual funding of the
Upper Colorado and San Juan fish recovery programs at current levels
through fiscal year 2023. These highly successful and widely supported
programs are recovering endangered fish species in the Upper Colorado
River and San Juan River basins while providing compliance with the
Endangered Species Act for more than 1,800 federal, tribal and non-
federal water projects.
Continuation of annual base funding from Colorado River Storage
Project hydroelectric power revenues at the currently authorized levels
is essential for the programs to provide continuing ESA compliance and
to recover the endangered fish species in the basin.
The recovery program has played a vital role in protecting Dolores
Project water rights and water allocations. On behalf of the Dolores
Water Conservancy District and the water users we serve we appreciate
the Subcommittee's support for this essential amendment to Public Law
106-392.
Sincerely,
Michael Preston,
General Manager.
______
County Commissioners,
Garfield County,
Jordan, MT, July 30, 2009.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee, Energy & Natural Resources, 304
Dirksen Office Building Washington, DC.
Re:Dry-Red Water Regional Water Authority Project
To Whom It May Concern: On behalf of Garfield County I am sending
this letter in support of the Dry-Red Water Regional Water Authority
Project. The proposed project will consist of an estimate 1200 miles of
pipeline, 38 pump stations and 20 major storage tanks to move water
from its point of intake, Dry Arm on Fort Peck to several counties in
Eastern Montana including Garfield County. When completed this water
system will provide a safe and dependable water supply for over 15,000
people. Water will be provided to all parts of 6 counties which cover
an estimated 11,100 square mile area. To date the project has raised
approximately $500,000.00 for feasibility studies, environmental
investigations and administrative efforts. However the project is at a
virtual standstill until it is authorized by the Federal Government.
The availability and quality of water in Garfield County has always
been an issue. We therefore urge you to consider authorization of this
project.
Sincerely,
Jack Murnion,
Chairman.
______
The Jicarilla Apache Nation,
Dulce, NM, July 20, 2009.
Hon. Debbie Stabenow,
Chair,
Hon. Sam Brownback,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water and Power, Senate Energy and
Natural Resources Committee, 304 Dirksen Senate Building,
Washington, DC.
Subject: Support for S. 1453--An Amendment to P.L. 106-392 Re:
Continuation of Annual Base Funding for the Upper Colorado River and
San Juan River Endangered Fish Recovery Programs
Dear Chair Stabenow and Senator Brownback, On behalf of the
Jicarilla Apache Nation, I am writing to support passage of S.1453 that
provides for continued annual funding of the Upper Colorado and San
Juan fish recovery programs at current levels through fiscal year 2023.
The Nation has been a voluntary participant in the highly successful
and widely supported program to recover endangered fish species in the
San Juan River basin since 1992 and fully supports the same effort
underway in the Upper Colorado River. More than 1,800 federal, tribal
and non-federal water projects are involved in the recovery efforts,
these actions have resulted in compliance with the Endangered Species
Act, (ESA).
Continuation of annual base funding from Colorado River Storage
Project hydroelectric power revenues at the currently authorized levels
is essential for the programs to provide continuing ESA compliance and
to recover the endangered fish species in the basin.
I would appreciate the Subcommittee's support for this essential
amendment to Public Law 106-392.
Sincerly,
Levi Pesata,
President.
______
Statement of Kenny J. Evans, Ph.D., Mayor, Town of Payson, AZ
First, let me thank you for the opportunity to submit written
testimony in support of S. 1080, A Bill to clarify the jurisdiction of
the Secretary of the Interior with respect to the C.C. Cragin Dam and
Reservoir formerly known as Blue Ridge. My name is Kenny J. Evans, PhD.
I am just a plain old farm boy who has had the privilege of growing up
here in the shadow of the Rocky Mountains. I am currently the Mayor of
the beautiful mountain community of Payson, Arizona and serve as Vice-
President of the Northern Arizona Municipal Water Users Association and
am Past President of the Arizona Farm Bureau. Over the past 40 plus
years I have been privileged to bring three generations of Boy Scouts
to camp and fish at Blue Ridge Reservoir. I have a great love for Blue
Ridge and am intimately aware of its history and management. I am also
keenly aware of the damage that the current bureaucratic turf battle is
causing. What S. 1080 does not do is relieve either the Bureau or SRP
from compliance with all requirements of federal law. S. 1080 will
simply clarify that since the Project is now being operated as a
component of the Salt River Federal Reclamation Project (SRP), the
Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau) is responsible for approval of all
operation, maintenance and repair activities just like more than a
dozen other reservoirs and dams and other federal reclamation projects
in Arizona, including the other Salt River Project facilities located
on lands within the boundaries of the other National Forests.
S. 1080 concerns the C.C. Cragin Project, which is located within
the Coconino and Tonto National Forests in northern Arizona
approximately 25 miles north of my community. The C.C. Cragin Project
consists of a number of facilities including a 147-foot high dam,
15,000 acre-foot reservoir, diversion tunnel and pump shaft, pumping
plant, priming reservoir, a 10 mile long pipeline, electrical
transmission line, and small generating plant which supplies power to
the Project's pumping plant. Originally known as the Blue Ridge
Project, the dam, reservoir, and associated facilities were constructed
by Phelps Dodge in the 1960's as part of a water exchange with SRP. In
2005, Phelps Dodge no longer needed the Blue Ridge Project for water
exchange and pursuant to the terms of their agreement, Phelps Dodge
transferred ownership of all of the Blue Ridge Project facilities to
SRP. Subsequently, the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR)
approved the transfer of the water right for the reservoir to SRP for
municipal, irrigation and other beneficial uses within the Salt River
Federal Reclamation Project.
Enter the Town of Payson. Payson sits at the base of the Mogollon
Rim, a 200 mile long escarpment that bisects Arizona and is home to the
largest Ponderosa Forest in the country. All domestic water for the
Town and surrounding communities comes from groundwater. Through the
years Payson has become the most water conserving community in the
State using less than 80 gallons of water per capita per day. However,
severe drought and steady growth have stressed future assured water
supplies based on groundwater alone.
In 2004, with support from all participants, including the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation, language was included as part of the Gila River
Indian Community Water Rights settlement in Section 213(i) of the
Arizona Water Settlements Act, Public Law 108-451, 118 Stat. 3478,
3532, authorizing title transfer of the Blue Ridge Project from SRP to
the Bureau and renaming it C.C. Cragin. Up to 3,500 acre feet per year
were to be made available to Payson and surrounding communities with
the facilities operated and managed by SRP pursuant to its September 6,
1917 contract with the Bureau of Reclamation. Subsequently, SRP
officially transferred title to the C.C. Cragin Dam and Reservoir
together with all of its associated facilities, including 77 acres of
fee land to the Bureau and concluded the title transfer and agreement
with the Town of Payson to supply up to the 3,500 acre feet it needs
annually.
In accordance with the 1917 contract with the Bureau and as
directed by Section 213 (i)(5) of the Arizona Water Settlement Act, SRP
began operating and maintaining the C.C. Cragin Project. As part of its
maintenance efforts, SRP identified numerous serious leaks present in
the existing pipeline needing immediate repair (see attached). Not only
is the pipeline's integrity important to the general operation of C.C.
Cragin Project and SRP's water supply for the Phoenix metropolitan
area, but it also has special significance to the Town of Payson and
neighboring communities in Northern Gila County who will rely heavily
on the Project to supply municipal drinking water in the future. As a
part of this effort, the Town of Payson received an allocation of $10.6
million from the State of Arizona's American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act (ARRA) stimulus grant money to assist in paying for the repairs to
the pipeline and extending the pipeline and other municipal water-
related improvements needed to make the water available to residents.
Once SRP began working with the Bureau on repairs of the C.C.
Cragin Project, it became evident that the Bureau (U.S. Department of
Interior [Bureau of Reclamation)]) and the Forest Service (U.S.
Department of Agriculture [USDA--FS]) disagreed as to who had
responsibility for approving the requested operation, maintenance and
repair functions associated with this Reclamation Project. Please note
that this had nothing to do with compliance with State and Federal
rules, laws and regulations. It had everything to do with who gave the
approval to proceed (Bureau or USDA -FS). The Forest Service asserted
that the Bureau needed to obtain a special use permit from them prior
to Project operation by SRP and that all maintenance and repairs needed
prior approval by them. The Bureau and SRP maintain that under the
terms of the Arizona Water Settlements Act, the C.C. Cragin Project is
just like all of the other Salt River Federal Reclamation Project
facilities located on Forest Service land. On those facilities,
jurisdiction over approvals of work plans, maintenance, repairs,
environmental compliance, and other permitting associated with Project
operation and maintenance belongs to the Bureau, while jurisdiction
over recreation, fire suppression, etc. lies with the Forest Service.
This approach is consistent with Reclamation Projects across the
western United States pursuant to a 1987 Memorandum of Understanding
between the Departments of Agriculture and Interior.
For the past four years SRP and the Bureau have unsuccessfully
attempted to resolve this jurisdictional dispute with the Forest
Service. The Forest Service has insisted on having ultimate approval
authority for the Project even though these facilities are components
of the Salt River Federal Reclamation Project. Meanwhile, the resulting
bureaucratic wrangling over approval requirements between the two
Departments have delayed and created uncertainty in planning much
needed repairs to the Cragin facilities, increased repair costs, and
placed a portion of the Town of Payson's $10.6 million stimulus grant
at risk. The bill before you, S. 1080, clarifies the jurisdiction over
the C.C. Cragin Project. It is consistent: (1) with the 1987 Memorandum
of Understanding between the Departments of Agriculture and Interior;
(2) with Section 213(i) of the Arizona Water Settlements Act, Public
Law 108-451, 118 Stat. 3478, 3532; (3) with the September 6, 1917
contract with the Bureau of Reclamation pursuant to the 1902
Reclamation Act; and, (4) with the process used with the many other
Reclamation projects located on Forest Service lands within the State
of Arizona and throughout the west.
With the Town of Payson's ARRA grant at risk, I sincerely ask that
you approve S 1080 so the much needed pipeline repairs can proceed
under the Bureau of Reclamation's oversight and in compliance with all
applicable laws.
Chairwoman Stabenow and Members of the subcommittee, thank you for
the opportunity to present this written testify to you today.
______
State of New Mexico,
Office of the Governor,
Santa Fe, NM, July 22, 2009
Hon. Debbie Stabenow,
Chair,
Hon. Sam Brownback,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water and Power, Senate Energy and
Natural Resources Committee, 304 Dirksen Senate Building,
Washington, DC.
Subject: Support for S. 1453--An Amendment to P.L. 106-392 Re:
Continuation of Annual Base Funding for the Upper Colorado River and
San Juan River Endangered Fish Recovery Programs
Dear Chair Stabenow and Senator Brownback: I am writing to support
passage of S.1453 that provides for continued annual funding of the
Upper Colorado and San Juan fish recovery programs at current levels
through fiscal year 2023. These highly successful and widely supported
programs are recovering endangered fish species in the Upper Colorado
River and San Juan River basins while providing compliance with-the
Endangered Species Act for more than 1,800 federal, tribal and non-
federal water projects.
Continuation of annual base funding from Colorado River Storage
Project hydroelectric power revenues at the currently authorized levels
is essential for the programs to provide continuing ESA compliance and
to recover the endangered fish species in the basin.
The State of New Mexico and I would appreciate the Subcommittee's
support for this essential amendment to Public Law 106-392.
Sincerely,
Bill Richardson,
Governor.
______
The State of Wyoming,
Office of the Governor,
Cheyenne, WY, July 16, 2009.
Hon. Debbie Stabenow,
Chair,
Hon. Sam Brownback,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water and Power, Senate Energy and
Natural Resources Committee, 304 Dirksen Senate Building,
Washington, DC.
Subject: Support for S. 1453--An Amendment to P.L. 106-392 Re:
Continuation of Annual Base Funding for the Upper Colorado River and
San Juan River Endangered Fish Recovery Programs
Dear Chair Stabenow and Senator Brownback: I am writing to express
my strong support for enactment of S. 1453, a bill to extend the
authorization period for annual base funding of the Upper Colorado and
San Juan fish recovery programs at current levels through fiscal year
2023. Those highly successful and widely supported programs are
recovering four species of endangered Fish in the Upper Colorado River
and San Juan River basins while providing compliance with the
Endangered Species Act in a manner consistent with state and tribal
laws, interstate compacts, and Indian trust responsibilities for more
than 1,800 federal, tribal and non-federal water projects.
Continuation of annual base funding from Colorado River Storage
Project hydroelectric power revenues at the currently authorized levels
is essential for the programs to provide continuing ESA compliance and
to recover the endangered fish species in the basin.
I will greatly appreciate the Subcommittee's support for this
essential amendment to extend the current authority contained in Public
Law 106-392. The State of Wyoming is grateful for the past support of
this Subcommittee which has allowed these nationally-recognized
endangered species programs to accomplish their important objectives.
Best regards,
Dave Freudenthal,
Governor.
______
The Southwestern Water Conservation District,
Durango, CO, July 20, 2009.
Hon. Debbie Stabenow,
Chair,
Hon. Sam Brownback,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water and Power, Senate Energy and
Natural Resources Committee, 304 Dirksen Senate Building,
Washington, DC.
Subject: Support for S. 1453--An Amendment to P.L. 106-392 Re:
Continuation of Annual Base Funding for the Upper Colorado River and
San Juan River Endangered Fish Recovery Programs
Dear Chair Stabenow and Senator Brownback, The Southwestern Water
Conservation District (SWCD) was established by the Colorado
legislature to conserve and protect the waters of the San Juan and
Dolores Rivers and their tributaries. The San Juan River Basin Recovery
Implementation Program (SJRBRIP) is an invaluable and successful
program in our District.
The SWCD Board of Directors supports the passage of S. 1453.
Continued, consistent funding through 2023 will enable this very
successful program to continue its work of recovering endangered fish
species while providing compliance with the Endangered Species Act for
more than 1,800 federal, tribal and non-federal water projects.
We would appreciate the Subcommittee's support for this essential
amendment to Public Law 106-392.
Respectfully,
John Porter,
President.
Bruce T. Whitehead,
Executive Director.
______
Statement of R. L. Schafer, Secretary-Watermaster, Tule River
Association
The Tule River Association, representing all the water rights
holders at and below Success Reservoir, Tule River, California, fully
supports S. 789.
The Tule River Association was engaged for more than 10 years,
along with the South Tule Independent Ditch Company and riparians along
the South Fork Tule River, with the Tule River Indian Tribe in the
negotiation and settlement of the reserved water rights of the Tule
River Indian Reservation. The Tule River Association accepted and
agreed to the terms and conditions of the ``Tule River Tribe Reserved
Water Rights Settlement Agreement Among the Tule River Indian Tribe,
the Tule River Association and the South Tule Independent Ditch
Company'' (Settlement Agreement) in November 2007, however, the
Agreement has not been ratified by the Congress or the United States
District Court for the Eastern District Court of California.
The Settlement Agreement quantifies and allocates all of the
residential, commercial, industrial, public, fire, livestock, mining
and irrigated agricultural reserved water right uses for the Tule River
Indian Reservation and would be available to your committee upon
request.
______
County of Richland,
Office of County Commissioners,
Sidney, MT, August 11, 2009.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 304
Dirksen Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Bingaman: On behalf of the people that live and work
in this region on Eastern Montana, we want to support the Dry Redwater
Water Project.
This project is vitally important to this region if we are to
continue to produce the agricultural products and the energy that is
crucial to our nation.
The lingering drought has depleted wells due to a lower water table
and made it difficult for ranchers and farmers to have safe healthy
water for domestic and agricultural use. Some water quality has been
suspect in our area since this country was settled. It contains high
amounts of minerals that are not safe or healthy for people and/or
livestock. Water from the Dry Redwater project would be safe and
abundant when this project comes to fruition.
Richland County has been involved with this project from the
beginning both financially and with board representation because we
feel this is so important to our county and area, so we ask for support
in making Dry Redwater Water System a reality.
Sincerely,
Mark Rehbein,
Chairman.
Don Steppler.
Loren H. Young.
______
State of Colorado,
Office of the Governor,
Denver, CO, July 16, 2009.
Hon. Debbie Stabenow,
Chair,
Hon. Sam Brownback,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water and Power, Senate Energy and
Natural Resources Committee, 304 Dirksen Senate Building,
Washington, DC.
Subject: Support for S. 1453--An Amendment to P.L. 106-392 Re:
Continuation of Annual Base Funding for the Upper Colorado River and
San Juan River Endangered Fish Recovery Programs
Dear Chair Stabenow and Senator Brownback, I am writing to support
passage of S. 1453 that provides for continued annual funding of the
Upper Colorado and San Juan fish recovery programs at current levels
through fiscal year 2023. These highly successful and widely supported
programs are recovering four species of endangered Fish in the Upper
Colorado River and San Juan River basins while providing compliance
with the Endangered Species Act for more than 1,800 federal, tribal and
non-federal water projects.
Continuation of annual base funding from Colorado River Storage
Project hydroelectric power revenues at the currently authorized levels
is essential for the programs to provide continuing ESA compliance and
to recover the endangered fish species in the basin.
I would appreciate the Subcommittee's support for this essential
amendment to Public Law 106-392.
Sincerely,
Bill Ritter, Jr.,
Governor.
______
State of Montana,
Department of Natural Resources and Conservation,
Helena, MT, July 20, 2009.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chairman, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 304 Dirksen
Senate Building, Washington, DC.
RE: S. 637--Dry-Redwater Regional Water Authority System Act of 2009
Dear Chairman Bingaman: Montana's Congressional delegation, working
with the Dry-Redwater Regional Water Authority, has introduced
legislation in the U.S. Congress for authorization of the Dry-Red water
Regional Water System. The proposed system is located in eastern
Montana and western North Dakota between the Yellowstone and Missouri
Rivers.
The need for clean and plentiful drinking water in the Dry-Redwater
area is great. Investigations into the quality of the drinking water
within the area have determined that ``rural users in the proposed
service area do not have access to a quality of water needed for a
healthy existence.''
In the past five years, the Dry-Redwater Regional Water authority
has worked hard with my staff to assess and document project need,
community support, and project feasibility. Preliminary engineering
investigations have identified preferred alternatives for water source,
treatment and distribution systems that are cost efficient. Information
collected at over 20 public meetings indicates that the need for safe
and reliable water is a high priority in the service area. I believe
that this important project is critical to the future of eastern
Montana.
I would appreciate the support of your committee for 5637. The Dry-
Redwater regional water supply system will greatly improve the quality
of life for the communities and rural users in region.
Sincerely,
Mary Sexton,
Director.
______
State of Utah,
Office of the Governor,
Salt Lake City, UT, July 21, 2009.
Hon. Debbie Stabenow,
Chair,
Hon. Sam Brownback,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water and Power, Senate Energy and
Natural Resources Committee, 304 Dirksen Senate Building,
Washington, DC.
Subject: Support for S. 1453--An Amendment to P.L. 106-392 Re:
Continuation of Annual Base Funding for the Upper Colorado River and
San Juan River Endangered Fish Recovery Programs
Dear Chair Stabenow and Senator Brownback, It is my pleasure to
join Utah's entire Congressional Delegation in support of S. 1453 and
its companion bill in the House of Representatives, H.R. 2288.
Enactment of this bill will provide for the continued annual funding of
the Upper Colorado and San Juan fish recovery programs at current
levels through fiscal year 2023. These highly successful and widely
supported programs are recovering endangered fish species in the Upper
Colorado River and San Juan basins while providing compliance with the
Endangered Species Act for more than 1,800 federal, tribal and non-
federal water projects.
Continuation of annual base funding from Colorado River Storage
Project hydroelectric power revenues at the current authorized levels
is essential for the programs to provide continuing ESA compliance and
to recover the endangered fish species in the basin.
Therefore, I respectfully request the Subcommittee's support for
this essential amendment to Public Law 106-392. Thank you for your
attention to this very important matter.
Sincerely,
Jon M. Huntsman, Jr.,
Governor.
______
McCone Electric Co-Op., Inc.,
Circle, MT, December 6, 2007.
Dry-Redwater Rural Water Authority,
PO Box 276, Circle, MT.
Subject: Letter of Support
To: Board of Directors: DRWA The purpose of this letter is to
formally declare the support of the Board of Directors and Management
of McCone Electric Co-op., Inc. for the Dry-Redwater rural water system
project. The stated purpose of the DRWA is to ``own and operate a water
system that will provide good quality and quantity household and
livestock water to the owners and members in the coverage area.''
This noble vision certainly parallels the vision of those people in
the early 1940s who clearly saw the benefits of bringing central
station power to rural America. Few can dispute that accomplishment
forever changed the face of our rural heritage. Out of that vision we
became McCone Electric Co-op., Inc.; a member-owned power distribution
cooperative that has helped its members grow by leaps and bounds in
what is still the somewhat modern age of electricity and certainly stay
in tune with the ever-evolving world of technology. The DRWA vision of
bringing quality water to that same rural area holds the same promise
of fulfilling a need that grows every year.
We therefore pledge our support to a project we deem vital to our
respective service areas.
Best regards,
Mike C. Kays,
General Manager.
______
Montana Electric Cooperatives' Association,
Great Falls, MT, October 12, 2007.
Mr. Mike McKeever,
Chairman, Dry-Redwater Regional Water Authority, P.O. Box 276, Circle,
MT.
Dear Mr. McKeever: On behalf of Montana Electric Cooperatives'
Association, I am writing to formally inform you of our statewide
association's position on the proposed federal legislation authorizing
construction of the Dry-Redwater Regional Water Authority System.
Our association board of directors voted at its meeting on October
2, 2007 to support federal allocation of federal preference power for
the Dry-Redwater project from the point of water intake out of the Fort
Peck Reservoir up to and including preference power for pumping water
to the water treatment plant and for operation of the treatment plant.
I trust this position is helpful in your efforts to develop the
Dry-Redwater system. We recognize the significant benefits of this
proposed project to the people of rural eastern Montana.
Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please don't
hesitate to contact me here at (406) 268-1211 or, via electronic mail.
My e-mail address is [email protected]
Sincerely,
Tom Huntley,
Chairman.
______
Department of the Army,
Corps of Engineers,
Fort Peck, MT, August 30, 2006.
Dry-Redwater Regional Water Authority,
Todd Kasten, Treasurer, PO Box 520 Circle, MT.
Mr. Kasten: I am writing to inform the Board of Directors that the
US Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Peck Project, is interested in the
availability of water from the proposed Dry-Redwater Regional Water
Authority System. Access to potable water is critical to further
enhancements and improvement of recreational facilities along the Big
Dry Arm of Fort Peck Lake.
Specifically, development at the Rock Creek Recreation Area
including the existing fish cleaning station and possible future
campground, RV Dump-station, and expansion of the Marina Facilities
depend on a reliable water source. Though we can not make a commitment
to the project at this time, the Corps certainly recognizes the
benefits presented by the development of this proposed system.
In addition, the Corps of Engineers reserves the right to review
and approve all design and construction plans that may occur on or
across Fort Peck Project. Please ensure that the Fort Peck Project
Office receives copies of all design or construction plans that may
impact Corps lands.
Sincerely,
John E. Daggett,
Operations Project Manager.
______
Department of the Army,
Corps of Engineers,
Fort Peck, MT, October 25, 2006.
Mr. Brian Milne,
Interstate Engineering, Inc., PO Box 648, Sidney, MT.
Dear Mr. Milne, This letter is in response to your request to
utilize areas along the Big Dry Arm of Fort Peck Lake as potential
water intake sites for the Dry Redwater Regional Water Authority
(DRWA). The minimum operating pool for Fort Peck Lake is elevation 2160
msl. We would strongly recommend designing your intakes to be
functional with this lake level. Based on existing access and
development, the Rock Creek Recreation Area probably offers the least
impacts environmentally and puts the intake closer to potential
customers within the Rock Creek Cabin Area. This office has reviewed
1934 topographic maps for Fort Peck Project which do not show impacts
due to siltation. Topography of the lake in this area may have
sufficient depth to meet water intake operational needs at the 2160 msl
elevation. However, elevations within this or any proposed intake site
of Fort Peck Lake need to beconfirmed by the water project designers
against intake operational needs.
Other proposed intake sites north of Rock Creek may also be options
so long as the intake is constructed out into the Big Dry Creek
channel. 1934 topo maps indicate the mouth of Sand Arroyo and Spring
Creeks are at approximate elevation 2160. The mouth of Bear Creek Bay
offers adequate depths, however, access to this site is extremely poor
and management of Bear Creek Recreation Area is being turned over to
the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Any proposed intake site other than
Rock Creek could involve greater environmental review and scrutiny as a
result of potential impacts to these primitive areas. Additionally,
review of the 1934 topo maps indicate any proposed intake location
south of Rock Creek does not appear feasible as there is insufficient
depth to maintain intake operations at the minimum operating lake
elevation of 2160.
Please be aware that you will also have to cross the Charles M.
Russell National Wildlife Refuge (CMR) to use any of the proposed sites
along Fort Peck Reservoir. Any proposed DRWA project work crossing CMR
will have to be coordinated with refuge staff in Lewistown, Montana.
CMR Refuge manger is Barron Crawford who may be contacted at 406/538-
8706, Ext. 221 or CMR Refuge, PO Box 110 Airport Road, Lewistown,
Montana 59457. Though we are not endorsing any one proposed intake site
from an engineering prospective, the Corps of Engineers reserves the
right to review and approve all design and construction plans that may
occur on or across Fort Peck Project. Please ensure that the Fort Peck
Project Office and CMR receive copies of all design or construction
plans that may impact Corps and Refuge lands.
If you have further questions or would like to meet and discuss
these options i more detail, please contact John Daggett or Darin
McMurry at 406/526-3411.
Sincerely,
John E. Daggett,
Operations Project Manager.
______
Department of the Army,
Corps of Engineers,
Omaha, NE, April 29, 2009.
Mr. Mike McKeever,
Chairman, Dry-Redwater Regional Water Authority, Box 276, Circle, MT.
Dear Mr. McKeever: This is in response to your March 19, 2009
letter requesting a written statement from the Corps allowing the Dry-
Redwater Regional Water Authority (DRWA) to pump water from Fort Peck
Lake. That letter was addressed to Mr. John Daggett, Operations Project
Manager for the Fort Peck Lake Project. Mr. Daggett has forwarded that
letter to us for response. The letter seeks to obtain the approval of
the United States Army Corps of Engineers for the project.
There is no objection to your proposed project to withdraw up to
4,000 acre-feet of water annually from the Fort Peck Lake, provided the
project is approved by the Montana Department of Natural Resources and
Conservation (DNRC). The proposed project is one recognized as an
authorized purpose under the provisions of the Flood Control Act of
1944 (Public Law 78-534; 58 Stat. 887), which requires Department of
the Army approval to withdraw water stored in an United States Army
Corps of Engineers reservoir and to enter into an agreement for this
purpose. Furthermore, upon approval by the Montana DNRC and your
obtaining any required State Water Permit, you will need to enter into
a formal storage agreement with the Corps at that time. This storage
agreement will require a payment to the United States in accordance
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Flood Control Act of 1944. This
fee historically has been a reasonable amoun for consumptive uses. Your
request to enter into a formal storage agreement should be accompanied
by detailed plans and the projected site location for the project. At a
minimum, you will be required to obtain a Regulatory Permit pursuant to
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and an easement for the right-of-way
across Federal Government lands.
If you have any additional questions, please contact me or Mr. John
Daggett at (406) 526-3411.
Sincerely,
Kathryn M. Schenk,
Chief, Operations Division.
______
Department of the Interior,
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Lewistown, MT, April 23, 2007.
Mr. Brian Milne,
Interstate Engineering, Inc., PO Box 648, Sidney, MT.
Dear Mr. Milne, Thanks for the opportunity to comment on the
proposed location of the intake structure and pipeline for the Dry
Redwater Regional Water Authority. The proposed location, according to
the map supplied in your letter dated March 14, 2007, is acceptable to
the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Charles M. Russell NWR
staff. As stated during the conference call and in our letter dated
November 14, 2007, the FWS will need to issue a Right of Way for all
improvements that cross the Charles M. Russell NWR. Before a Right of
Way can be issued the FWS will need to conduct a Compatibility
Determination to ensure that this project is compatible with the
mission of the FWS and the purpose of the refuge. We look forward to
receiving the necessary information to proceed with developing the
Compatibility Determination and processing your request for a Right of
Way.
Again I want to thank you and the Board members for working closely
with us on determining the best possible location for the pipeline and
intake structure. I look forward to working with your staff on
developing the necessary environmental documents to ensure this project
will not impact any resources of the refuge. By working cooperatively I
believe we can mitigate any potential impacts to refuge resources.
Please feel free to contact me at 406-538-8706 ext. 221 if you have
any questions or would like to schedule another meeting to discuss this
project. I look forward to hearing from you in the near future.
Sincerely,
Barron Crawford,
Refuge Manager.
______
Wyoming Water Association,
Cheyenne, WY, July 15, 2009.
Hon. Debbie Stabenow,
Chair,
Hon. Sam Brownback,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water and Power, Senate Energy and
Natural Resources Committee, 304 Dirksen Senate Building,
Washington, DC.
Subject: Support for S. 1453--An Amendment to P.L. 106-392 Re:
Continuation of Annual Base Funding for the Upper Colorado River and
San Juan River Endangered Fish Recovery Programs
Dear Chair Stabenow and Senator Brownback: The Wyoming Water
Association supports the passage of S.1453, a bill that will, when
enacted, amend the current authorizations in federal law for the Upper
Colorado and San Juan River Endangered Fish Recovery Implementation
Programs. Founded in 1933, the objectives of the state-wide Wyoming
Water Association are to promote the development, conservation, and
utilization of the water resources of Wyoming for the benefit of
Wyoming people. The Wyoming Water Association annually adopts
resolutions supporting the ongoing conduct of the Upper Colorado
Recovery Program. The Wyoming Water Association has been a
participating entity within the Upper Colorado Recovery Program since
the Upper Colorado Recovery Program was initiated in January 1988. We
are directly represented on the Upper Colorado Recovery Program's
Biology, Management and Implementation Committees by Mr. Tom Pitts, of
Water Consult, Inc. of Loveland, Colorado.
We join our Program partners, including the States of Colorado, New
Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming; and hydroelectric power and environmental
community interests in requesting that your Subcommittee favorably mark
and approve S. 1453 expeditiously after the upcoming July 23rd hearing
on this legislation.
The Upper Colorado and San Juan recovery programs are recovering
endangered fish species in a manner that is compatible with state
wildlife and water law. The programs provide ESA compliance for more
than 1,800 water projects, including federal Reclamation projects and
tribal projects in the Upper Colorado River and San Juan River basins.
The Programs' have constructed approximately $100 million in facilities
(fish passages, fish screens, flooded bottomlands habitat, hatcheries,
and a reservoir that augments flows) that are directly benefitting the
endangered fish and their habitat. Unless reauthorized by Congress at
current levels, the use of CRSP power revenues for annual base funding
of recovery program actions will decrease by 39% after fiscal year
2011. Critical activities would be eliminated from both recovery
programs. This would delay and likely prevent attainment of recovery
goals and would set back the recovery programs' restoring of self-
sustaining populations of the endangered fishes--which is the means by
which recovery of the species will be achieved.
The members of the Wyoming Water Association again request and will
greatly appreciate your continued support of these two vital programs
through approval of S.1453.
Sincerely yours,
Ron Cunningham,
President.
______
Tri-County Water Conservancy District,
Montrose, CO, July 15, 2009.
Hon. Debbie Stabenow,
Chair,
Hon. Sam Brownback,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water and Power, Senate Energy and
Natural Resources Committee, 304 Dirksen Senate Building,
Washington, DC.
Subject: Support for S. 1453--An Amendment to P.L. 106-392 Re:
Continuation of Annual Base Funding for the Upper Colorado River and
San Juan River Endangered Fish Recovery Programs
Dear Chair Stabenow and Senator Brownback: The Tri-County Water
Conservancy District Board is asking you to support passage of S.1453
that provides for continued annual funding of the Upper Colorado and
San Juan fish recovery programs at current levels through fiscal year
2023. These highly successful and widely supported programs are
recovering endangered fish species in the Upper Colorado River and San
Juan River basins while providing compliance with the Endangered
Species Act for more than 1,800 federal, tribal and non-federal water
projects.
Continuation of annual base funding from Colorado River Storage
Project hydroelectric power revenues at the currently authorized levels
is essential for the programs to provide continuing ESA compliance and
to recover the endangered fish species in the basin.
The District would appreciate the Subcommittee's support for this
essential amendment to Public Law 106-392.
Sincerely,
Mike Berry,
General Manager.
______
Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District,
Berthoud, CO, July 17, 2009.
Hon. Debbie Stabenow,
Chair,
Hon. Sam Brownback,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water and Power, Senate Energy and
Natural Resources Committee, 304 Dirksen Senate Building,
Washington, DC.
Subject: Support for S. 1453--An Amendment to P.L. 106-392 Re:
Continuation of Annual Base Funding for the Upper Colorado River and
San Juan River Endangered Fish Recovery Programs
Dear Chair Stabenow and Senator Brownback: I am writing to support
passage of S.1453 that provides for continued annual funding of the
Upper Colorado and San Juan fish recovery programs at current levels
through fiscal year 2023. These highly successful and widely supported
programs are recovering endangered fish species in the Upper Colorado
River and San Juan River basins while providing compliance with the
Endangered Species Act for more than 1,800 federal, tribal and non-
federal water projects.
Continuation of annual base funding from Colorado River Storage
Project hydroelectric power revenues at the currently authorized levels
is essential for the programs to provide continuing ESA compliance and
to recover the endangered fish species in the basin.
I would appreciate the Subcommittee's support for this essential
amendment to Public Law 106-392.
Sincerely,
Eric W. Wilkinson,
General Manager.
______
Utah Water Users Association,
Murray, UT, July 14, 2009.
Hon. Debbie Stabenow,
Chair,
Hon. Sam Brownback,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water and Power, Senate Energy and
Natural Resources Committee, 304 Dirksen Senate Building,
Washington, DC.
Subject: Support for S. 1453--An Amendment to P.L. 106-392 Re:
Continuation of Annual Base Funding for the Upper Colorado River and
San Juan River Endangered Fish Recovery Programs
Dear Chair Stabenow and Senator Brownback, I am writing to support
passage of S.1453 that provides for continued annual funding of the
Upper Colorado and San Juan fish recovery programs at current levels
through fiscal year 2023. These highly successful and widely supported
programs are recovering endangered fish species in the Upper Colorado
River and San Juan River basins while providing compliance with the
Endangered Species Act for more than 1,800 federal, tribal and non-
federal water projects.
Continuation of annual base funding from Colorado River Storage
Project hydroelectric power revenues at the currently authorized levels
is essential for the programs to provide continuing ESA compliance and
to recover the endangered fish species in the basin.
I would appreciate the Subcommittee's support for this essential
amendment to Public Law 106-392.
Sincerely,
Carly Burton,
Executive Director.
______
Southern Ute Indian Tribe,
Office of the Chairman,
Ignacio, CO, July 20, 2009
Hon. Debbie Stabenow,
Chair,
Hon. Sam Brownback,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water and Power, Senate Energy and
Natural Resources Committee, 304 Dirksen Senate Building,
Washington, DC.
Subject: Support for S. 1453--An Amendment to P.L. 106-392 Re:
Continuation of Annual Base Funding for the Upper Colorado River and
San Juan River Endangered Fish Recovery Programs
Dear Chair Stabenow and Senator Brownback, I am writing to support
passage of S.1453 that provides for continued annual funding of the
Upper Colorado and San Juan fish recovery programs at current levels
through fiscal year 2023. These highly successful and widely supported
programs are recovering endangered fish species in the Upper Colorado
River and San Juan River basins while providing compliance with the
Endangered Species Act for more than 1,800 federal, tribal and non-
federal water projects.
Continuation of annual base funding from Colorado River Storage
Project hydroelectric power revenues at the currently authorized levels
is essential for the programs to provide continuing ESA compliance and
to recover the endangered fish species in the basin.
I would appreciate the Subcommittee's support for this essential
amendment to Public Law 106-392.
Sincerely,
Matthew J. Box,
Chairman.
______
State of Montana,
Office of the Governor,
Helena, MT, July 16, 2009.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
Chairman, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 304 Dirksen
Senate Building, Washington, DC.
RE: S. 637--Dry-Redwater Regional Water Authority System Act of 2009
Dear Chairman Bingaman: Montana's Congressional delegation, working
with the Dry-Redwater Regional Water Authority, has introduced
legislation in the U.S. Congress for authorization of the Dry-Redwater
Regional Water System. Development of this rural water project will
bring a safe, ample supply of drinking water to approximately 15,000
people living in eastern Montana and North Dakota on the divide between
the Missouri and Yellowstone River watersheds.
The State of Montana has supported the planning and administration
of this regional water project with appropriations of over $350,000 to
date. For the current biennium, the 2009 Montana Legislature
appropriated funding of up to $15 million for the state's portion of
the non-federal cost share for construction of regional water systems.
The Dry-Redwater system would be eligible to apply for a portion of
those funds once the project is authorized by Congress.
Drinking water resources in the proposed service area are both
inadequate and of poor quality. Providing safe and sufficient water
supplies to this area of Montana will protect human health and spur
economic activity in the region. The proposed regional water system is
critical to the future of eastern Montana.
As a Senator from a western state, I know you appreciate the
importance of good, safe water to rural communities. Your committee's
support is critical for the success of this project and the long-term
viability of the northeastern Montana economy. I would appreciate the
support of your committee for S. 637, the legislation to authorize this
vital project.
Sincerely,
Brian Schweitzer,
Governor.
______
San Juan Water Commission,
Farmington, NM, July 15, 2009.
Hon. Debbie Stabenow,
Chair,
Hon. Sam Brownback,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water and Power, Senate Energy and
Natural Resources Committee, 304 Dirksen Senate Building,
Washington, DC.
Subject: Support for S. 1453--An Amendment to P.L. 106-392 Re:
Continuation of Annual Base Funding for the Upper Colorado River and
San Juan River Endangered Fish Recovery Programs
Dear Chair Stabenow and Senator Brownback, I am writing to support
passage of S.1453 that provides for continued annual funding of the
Upper Colorado and San Juan fish recovery programs at current levels
through fiscal year 2023. These highly successful and widely supported
programs are recovering endangered fish species in the Upper Colorado
River and San Juan River basins while providing compliance with the
Endangered Species Act for more than 1,800 federal, tribal and non-
federal water projects.
Continuation of annual base funding from Colorado River Storage
Project hydroelectric power revenues at the currently authorized levels
is essential for the programs to provide continuing ESA compliance and
to recover the endangered fish species in the basin.
I would appreciate the Subcommittee's support for this essential
amendment to Public Law 106-392.
Sincerely,
Mark Duncan,
Chairman.
______
Statement of Taylor Hawes, Colorado River Program Director, The Nature
Conservancy, and Bart Miller, Water Program Director, Western Resource
Advocates
The Nature Conservancy is an active participant in both the Upper
Colorado River Basin and San Juan River endangered fish recovery
programs. Western Resource Advocates is an active participant in the
Upper Colorado River Basin program.
We are writing to support passage of S. 1453 and its extension of
the annual base funding for both the Upper Colorado and San Juan
recovery programs through fiscal year 2023. These highly successful and
widely supported programs are recovering endangered fish species in
these river basins while providing Endangered Species Act compliance
for water development under state water law and interstate compacts.
Continuation of the annual base funding from Colorado River Storage
Project hydroelectric power revenues at the currently authorized levels
is essential to these effective and proven programs.
We would greatly appreciate the Subcommittee's adoption of this
important amendment to Public Law 106-392.