[Senate Hearing 112-170]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 112-170
THE WIND RIVER IRRIGATION PROJECT--ISSUES ARISING FROM AND CONTRIBUTING
TO
DEFERRED MAINTENANCE AND OTHER PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROBLEMS
=======================================================================
FIELD HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 20, 2011
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Indian Affairs
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
70-860 WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
0COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii, Chairman
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Vice Chairman
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
KENT CONRAD, North Dakota LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
JON TESTER, Montana MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska
TOM UDALL, New Mexico
AL FRANKEN, Minnesota
Loretta A. Tuell, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
David A. Mullon Jr., Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on April 20, 2011................................... 1
Statement of Senator Barrasso.................................... 1
Witnesses
Anevski, John, Chief, Division of Water and Power, Bureau of
Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of Interior; accompanied by Ray
Nation, Deputy Superintendent for Trust, Wind River Agency and
Karl Helvik, Rocky Mountain Regional Irrigation Engineer....... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 7
C'Bearing, Sandra, Co-Chair, Water Resource Control Board,
Northern Arapaho Tribe......................................... 80
Prepared statement........................................... 83
Collins, Gary, Wind River Irrigation Project Water User.......... 76
Prepared statement........................................... 78
Cottenoir, Mitchel, Acting Tribal Water Engineer Director, Wind
River Water Resources Control Board, Eastern Shoshone Tribe.... 22
Prepared statement with attachments.......................... 24
Glick, Clinton, Rancher; Wind River Irrigation Project Water User 71
Prepared statement with attachment........................... 73
Martel, Hon. Wesley, Co-Chairman, Eastern Shoshone Business
Council, Eastern Shoshone Tribe of the Wind River Reservation.. 14
Prepared statement........................................... 16
O'Neal, William, Wind River Irrigation Project Water User;
Member, Crowheart Bench Water Users Association................ 68
Prepared statement........................................... 70
Trosper, Kenneth J.T., Member, Wind River Water Resources Control
Board, Northern Arapaho Tribe.................................. 61
Prepared statement........................................... 63
Willow, Hon. Norman, Council Member, Northern Arapaho Business
Council, Northern Arapaho Tribe, Wind River Reservation........ 19
Prepared statement........................................... 20
Appendix
GAO (February 2006) report, entitled ``INDIAN IRRIGATION
PROJECTS--Numerous Issues Need to Be Addressed to Improve
Project Management and Financial Sustainability''.............. 89
Goggles, Owen, Northern Arapaho Tribal Member and Honored Vietnam
Veteran, prepared statement.................................... 163
HKM (July 2008) final report, entitled ``Engineering Evaluation
and Condition Assessment--Wind River Irrigation Project........ 142
Leonardi, Edward, President, Double L Ranch, Inc., prepared
statement...................................................... 164
Norwood, Tom, prepared statement................................. 169
Parkhurst, Ray, prepared statement............................... 170
Steward, Hon. Jeb, U.S. Representative from Wyoming, letter,
dated May 4, 2011.............................................. 87
Weber, Brett, Edna, Lori, and Russell, prepared statement........ 165
THE WIND RIVER IRRIGATION PROJECT--ISSUES ARISING FROM AND CONTRIBUTING
TO DEFERRED MAINTENANCE AND OTHER PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROBLEMS
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 20, 2011
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Indian Affairs,
Riverton, WY
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 o'clock a.m.
in the Robert A. Peck Arts Theatre, Central Wyoming College,
Hon. John Barrasso, Vice Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING
Senator Barrasso. Good morning. Welcome one and all to this
incredible center. I am thinking back over the last decade or
so about the number of very significant events that have been
held here on this campus, specifically in this very room. I am
so grateful that President Joy McFarland allowed us to come
here today for this hearing.
This is a Senate Committee on Indian Affairs field hearing.
I'm John Barrasso, the Vice Chairman of the Committee. Dan
Akaka who is from Hawaii is the Chairman of the Committee. We
work closely together in a bipartisan way to try to find
solutions for problems, and it's a privilege for me to work
with him. He has allowed me to come and do this hearing today
in my home state. He's back in his home State of Hawaii and was
unable to join us today. As you know, we're out on recess this
week so I'm traveling around the state of Wyoming, but I've
heard from a number of members of our legislature about issues
and wanted to come and hold this hearing today.
So I want to welcome everyone to the hearing, which is
entitled, ``The Wind River Irrigation Project--Issues Arising
From and Contributing to Deferred Maintenance and Other Project
Management Problems.'' I want to begin by thanking all of our
witnesses for coming today, not only for your willingness to
attend the hearing but also for taking the time to prepare and
submit the thoughtful written testimony. All written
testimonies will be part of the permanent hearing of record.
Our capable staff is here, as well, from the Indian Affairs
Committee both representing the Republicans as well as the
Democrats, so that this is a bipartisan staff event as well. We
have a full-time Fremont County resident, Travis McNiven, who
works on my staff in my Washington office. Travis is well-known
to many of you. If you haven't had a chance to know Travis or
his family, I recommend that you do so and maybe get his direct
phone line so that if there are specific issues in Fremont
County, and there are ways we can be helpful, Travis is the guy
to get in touch with. We see each other multiple times every
day in Washington, and we want to be helpful in any way we can.
I plan to keep my opening statement relatively brief so
there will be time to hear from all the witnesses. We have
three separate panels today, as well as some time for me to ask
questions.
I want to go into a little bit of the history surrounding
the Wind River Irrigation Project. I think many of you know the
history, but for some that don't, it's specifically for the
record today. Located on the Wind River Indian Reservation,
home of the Eastern Shoshone and the Northern Arapaho tribes,
the earliest phases of the Wind River Irrigation Project dates
back to the 1870s. Construction of this irrigation system
continued from 1905 until 1926, but the system was never
completed to the full extent it was planned. I mean, it's a
fascinating history when you go through all of this. So like
many Indian irrigation projects around the country, the Wind
River project is not new. And as all of you know, it is not
modern.
Now today about two-thirds of the project serves the two
Wind River tribes or their allottees, and the remaining one-
third serves non-Indian irrigators. Of the 51,000 acres that
were authorized for irrigation, currently only about 38,000 are
assessed for operations and maintenance. The Wind River Project
is ``revenue generating,'' and in theory is supposed to be
self-sustaining, and we have studies and documents on all of
those issues.
Now, there are 15 other of these revenue generating Indian
irrigation projects across the United States. There was a
report from the Government Accounting Office issued about five
years ago on the Reservation, and it says that here, on Wind
River, there is a gap between the theory and the reality. The
annual assessments do not cover the full cost of operations and
the maintenance. Well, as this gap between theory and reality
has existed, not just last year or the year before but for many
years, and has resulted in a very significant accumulation of,
as you know, deferred maintenance, and that is contributed to
less than optimal system management. The Wind River Irrigation
Project was intended to be a central component for the
reservation economy, and when you go back and read the history
from the 1800s, that was what the design and desired intent
was, to be a central component of the reservation economy.
Despite some of the shortcomings that we're going to hear about
this morning, it still is to this day a very important source
of income and economic development. This project delivers much-
needed water for the agriculture economy, farmers and their
crops, ranchers and their livestock. The problem is that it
falls significantly short of its potential, and some recent
government reports do not describe what I see as a positive
trend.
The conditions of the Wind River Irrigation Projects and
other BIA irrigation projects around the country have been the
subject of recent Inspector General and Government
Accountability Office reports. The Government Accountability
Office issued a report in 2006, which I have here, detailing
many deficiencies in the BIA irrigation projects, and the Wind
River was one of the projects that was studied for the report.
So I'm going to make that 2006 GAO report part of the hearing
record, because its findings and its recommendations mark
important points of reference for future trends. The report
made what I call a preliminary finding that the cost of
deferred maintenance at that time was over $84,000,000.
Now, in 2008 they did a condition assessment, the BIA, the
Bureau of Indian Affairs, and revised this figure downward to
almost $34.8 million for remediating the identified
deficiencies of the project; still an incredibly large number.
So even if this figure is more accurate--and I'm not sure that
it is--then this is still a lot of money. One byproduct of
significant deferred maintenance is that it can exacerbate a
revenue generating problem which in turn can lead to still more
deferred maintenance. Thus, over time, deferred maintenance can
threaten a project's long-term sustainability.
The Government Accountability Office made other findings
about irrigation project management besides just that of
deferred maintenance. One of the things they talked about is a
lack of technical expertise to support the projects and failure
to adequately involve the project stakeholders; that is, you in
this audience, the water users in the decisionmaking about the
projects. One of the most ominous findings in the GAO's 2006
report was that the BIA had no long-term plan to address these
issues. Let me repeat that: The finding in 2006--it's now
2011--was that the BIA had no long-term plan to address these
issues. In its report, the GAO recommended that the Bureau of
Indian Affairs conduct a complete condition assessment to
determine the long-term sustainability of the project. And in
2008, the BIA completed the, quote, ``condition assessment''
for the Wind River Irrigation Project that I mentioned. Its
assessment echoed several of the findings of the 2006 report.
Most disturbing was that several diversion dams were given
``critical deficiency'' ratings and were recommended for
replacement. So critical deficiencies were recommended in 2006
for replacement. Now, as defined in this assessment, a critical
deficiency rating means that the feature will pose a threat to
the health and/or safety of the user which may occur within two
years or that an advanced deterioration hazard will result in
the failure of the feature if not corrected within two years.
This was a report that was over two years ago. So the
implications of these deficiencies goes beyond inefficient
irrigation. Hopefully, we'll hear from the department this
morning in how it intends to turn these problems around.
At this point, I'm going to introduce the witnesses, and we
have three separate panels. Panel one, we have John Anevski,
the Chief of Division of Water and Power. He'll be accompanied
by Ray Nation, who's the Deputy Superintendent for Trust at the
Wind River Agency, and Karl Helvik, the Rocky Mountain Regional
Irrigation Engineer for the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
On panel two, we'll hear from Wes Martel, who has a
powerpoint presentation and who is Co-Chair of Eastern Shoshone
Business Council for the Eastern Shoshone Tribe, followed by
Norman Willow, Council Member for the Northern Arapaho Business
Council for the Northern Arapaho Tribe. Mike Cottenoir will
testify on behalf of the Wind River Water Resource Control
Board for the Eastern Shoshone Tribe, and he'll be followed I
believe by Sandra C'Bearing, the Co-Chair from the Wind River
Water Resource Control Board for the Northern Arapaho Tribe.
Finally, the third panel, we will hear from three
individual water users on the Wind River Irrigation Project.
First, Will O'Neal, Eastern Shoshone Tribal Member, and a
member of the Crowheart Bench Water Users Association, will
testify, followed by Clinton Glick, Eastern Shoshone tribal
member, and Gary Collins, Northern Arapaho Tribal Member and
former Tribal Water Engineer for the Wind River Water Control
Board.
Now, again I want to thank the witnesses for taking time
out of their schedules to testify today before this Committee
and for working with my staff on the hearing. I know this
hearing is a considerable interest to people in this community,
and obviously it is not possible to have every single
stakeholder testify; therefore, we will keep the hearing record
open for two weeks so that all interested parties can submit
written statements, which will be part of the official hearing
record for the United States Senate. And then after the
hearing, you can also speak with David Mullon here on my staff.
He was, as you know, on Senator Thomas's staff, worked with
Indian Affairs in this Committee, has a long, long history,
knows this reservation well, and he can tell you how you can
get your testimony and things to me. So since the written
testimonies will be part of the record, I will ask each of you,
please limit oral testimony to five minutes, which I know is
sometimes hard to do, but I appreciate your efforts because we
want to hear from a lot of people today.
So with that, I invite the first panel to come forward and
testimony to begin. Good morning.
STATEMENT OF JOHN ANEVSKI, CHIEF, DIVISION OF WATER AND POWER,
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR; ACCOMPANIED BY RAY
NATION, DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT FOR TRUST, WIND
RIVER AGENCY AND KARL HELVIK, ROCKY MOUNTAIN
REGIONAL IRRIGATION ENGINEER
Mr. Anevski. Good Morning, Mr. Chairman. My name is John
Anevski, and I'm the Chief of the Division of Water and Power,
Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of Interior. I am
pleased to provide the Department's statement on the Wind River
Irrigation Project. Let me begin with a brief discussion of the
history of the BIA irrigation program.
The BIA has been involved with Indian irrigation since the
mid 1800s starting with the Colorado River Indian Irrigation
Project. The BIA is responsible for 15 revenue generating
Indian irrigation projects with rivers delivering water to over
700,000 acres of land with 6,200 miles of canals and drains
with over 55,000 irrigation structures. Because of the specific
statutory authorities, the BIA charges operating and
maintenance for these projects to both Indian and non-Indian
customers to reimburse the Federal Government for their
individual operation maintenance costs, and the Wind River
project is one of these. Most of these 15 irrigation projects
receive little or no appropriated funds which means these
projects operate much like non-profit utilities. All the BIA
irrigation projects, including this project, are vital economic
contributors to the local communities and regions where they
are located.
The BIA operates irrigation projects under various laws,
regulations, and policy guidance including Chapter 11 of Title
25 of the U.S. Code, part 171, Title 25 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 50, Chapter One, of the Indian Affairs Manual
and the BIA Irrigation Handbook which was updated in August
2008. Most projects also have extensive legislative histories
including the Wind River Project which has over 50
congressional appropriations and statutes. The BIA completed
the operation and maintenance guidelines for the project in
2008. The BIA also consults with Eastern Shoshone, Northern
Arapaho Tribes' Joint Business Council and their staff and
project water users on a regular basis regarding project
matters.
The project was authorized in 1905. The project has been
operated and administrated by the BIA at Wind River Agency and
consists of a total of 37,883 accessible acres. The project
facilities include 67 miles of canals and laterals and 5,268
irrigation structures. The Crowheart and LeClaire units were
organized to administer some of the lands in the project. The
Regional Irrigation Engineer, who is the officer in charge of
the project, administers the project through the project
manager who manages, supervises, and administers daily
operations in making of the projects. The BIA's operation and
maintenance of the project is funded entirely by investments
appropriated from approximately 960 landowners and lessees,
which include the tribes, individual Indians, and non-Indians.
The current 2011 O&M assessment for the project varies from a
low of $14 per acre at Crowheart Unit to $21 per acre at the
LeClaire Unit with a majority of the project assessed at $20 an
acre. The cost of operating and maintaining the project is
approximately $715,000 annually. 67 percent of the land is
Indian-owned and 33 percent is non-Indian-owned. The BIA
recently completed several significant improvements of the
project using congressional appropriated funds, including
construction of our Wyoming and Montana projects.
The BIA safety dams recently completed rehabilitation of
Washakie and Ray Lake dams at approximately $15,000,000, and
the BIA annually uses over $30,000 from this program to support
ongoing safety dams to make and set the dams. In addition,
congress earmarked $3.75 million in fiscal year 2006-2007 for
irrigation construction of the project, and the state of
Wyoming has matched these funds for the $3.5 million grant.
The BIA is currently preparing for the upcoming irrigation
season with deliveries anticipated to begin approximately May
1st and end sometime in late September. Once the season is
complete, there are several maintenance activities to be
performed, including the installation and/or replacement of
several new turnouts, cleaning drains, installation of numerous
drains, culvert crossings, and replacement of a check structure
and crossing.
For the 2011 season, the BIA is scheduled to bill water
users O&M assessments totalling $670,000. As the project has a
significant number of fractionated lands, lands with multiple
owners, approximately 1,978 bills will be under BIA's economic
threshold of $25 and hence will not be mailed. In 2010 this
amounted to just under $8,500. In recent years, project
collection rate has hovered around 87 percent. However, in
2010, the project experienced a 92 percent collection rate. The
high historical collection rate has been in part due to the
BIA's implementation of the Debt Collection Improvement Act.
The BIA is implementing several new initiatives to address
the challenges of the Wind River Project and several of its
other projects. Some of these initiatives are in response to
the recommended remedial actions from various reports by the
Department's Officer Inspector General and Government
Accountability Office. One recommendation made in these reports
was the BIA should increase the level of technical support for
project managers by putting these projects under the direct
supervision of regional or central irrigation office staff or
by implementing more stringent protocols for engineering review
and approval of actions taken at the project. In February of
2007, the BIA established policies to ensure adequate technical
oversight and assistance it has given to project managers of
the BIA irrigation projects. These policies set requirements
for Central Office Division of Water and Power staff, Regional
Irrigation Engineers, and Irrigation Project Managers to follow
for approve oversight, program reviews, assistance, review and
approval and standards.
In January 2011, the Rocky Mountain Region realigned
irrigation personnel at the agency level to be under the direct
supervision of the region for a BIA pilot project. This
realignment will more effectively utilize personnel and
resources, streamline processes such as contract and
purchasing, decrease technical oversight, and reduce
administrative costs so more money can be directly spent on
operation and maintenance. In addition to these managerial
reforms, the BIA is working more closely with water users to be
responsive to their concerns and giving water users a greater
role in project operations.
In July 2006, policy was established requiring projects to
hold water users meetings at least twice annually. This was
done in order to provide for more transparent operations and is
a method of keeping water users informed of our activities and
how we are spending their money. In addition to collecting more
feedback on management performance, the BIA is encouraging and
empowering water users to make O&M activities for all or part
of our project. Currently here at Wind River, there is a
memorandum of agreement in place with the Crowheart Bench Water
Users Association and a tripartite agreement with the LeClaire
Unit and Riverton Valley Irrigation District. Approximately 32
percent of the successful acres on the project of O&M
activities contracted out to these agreements. The BIA is also
instituting several financial reforms to bring project revenues
in line that needed expenditures.
The BIA's policy, similar to that of the Bureau of
Reclamation, is that revenues from irrigators must fund the
annual O&M operation maintenance with BIA irrigation projects.
Historically, the BIA operation and maintenance rate increases
were based in part on potential economic impact to the water
users. Over time, this tempering of rates has led to budget
deficiencies which contributed to the decline of the project,
and it's led to critical reviews of this practice by the Office
of the Inspector General and the Government Accountability
Office. In response of the concerns that have been raised, BIA
has been working for several years to increase the assessment
rate to a level that better represents the actual costs of
operating and maintaining the project. To complement these
financial reforms, the BIA has undertaken several initiatives
to improve its maintenance management to ensure O&M assessments
are spent effectively.
Engineering condition assessments have been commissioned
for most BIA irrigation projects with the Wind River scheduled
to be completed in a 2008 (HKM Engineering Study). The 2008
study estimated a replacement value of the project to be
approximately $93,000,000. Deferred maintenance for the project
is estimated at $28 million.
In 2008, the BIA revised its irrigation regulations of
Title 25, Part 171, of the Code of Federal Regulations. The
revision includes two key features that will include all of the
BIA irrigation projects, annual assessment waivers and
Incentive agreement. The annual assessment waivers are designed
to allow for an easy method to waive O&M assessments for lands
to which the BIA cannot deliver water. The past regulations
required BIA to bill water users, and the water users had to
appeal the bill to receive a refund. Consent agreements provide
incentives to potentially to lessees to bring idle lands into
production. Many BIA projects have lands that have become idle
or have not been farmed for many years. Consent agreements
allow the projects to waive the irrigation O&M assessment for
up to three years if the landowner or lessees make improvements
to the land to bring them back into production. These
agreements benefit the landowners by improving the value of
their land and will increase the project revenues.
I thank you for your time and for your consideration on
this issue.
I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Anevski follows:]
Prepared Statement of John Anevski, Chief, Division of Water and Power,
Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of Interior
Good morning Mr. Chairman, I am John Anevski, Chief, Division of
Water and Power, Office of Trust Services, for the Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA) in the U.S. Department of the Interior (Department). I am
pleased to provide the Department's statement on the Wind River
Irrigation Project (Project). Let me begin with a brief discussion of
the history of the BIA's irrigation program.
The BIA has been involved with Indian irrigation since the mid-
1800s starting with the Colorado River Indian Irrigation Project. The
BIA is responsible for fifteen revenue-generating Indian irrigation
projects that deliver irrigation water to over 700,000 acres of land
through 6,200 miles of canals and drains with over 55,000 irrigation
structures. Because of specific statutory authorities the BIA charges
operation and maintenance (O&M) assessments on these projects to both
Indian and non-Indian customers, to reimburse the Federal Government
for their individual O&M costs (the Project is one of these). Most of
these fifteen projects receive little or no appropriated funds, which
means these projects operate much like a non-profit private utility.
All of the BIA's irrigation projects, including the Project, are vital
economic contributors to the local communities and regions where they
are located.
The BIA operates its irrigation projects under various laws,
regulations and policy guidance, including chapter 11 of title 25 of
the U.S. Code, part 171 of title 25 of the Code of Federal Regulations,
Part 50, Chapter 1 of the Indian Affairs Manual, and the BIA National
Irrigation Handbook (August 2008). Most projects also have extensive
legislative histories, including the Wind River Project, which has over
fifty congressional appropriations and statutes. The BIA completed O&M
Guidelines for the Project in 2008. The BIA also consults with the
Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapahoe Tribes' (Tribes) Joint Business
Council and their staff, and Project water users on a regular basis
regarding Project matters.
The Project was authorized in 1905. The Project is operated and
administered by the BIA, at Wind River Agency, and consists of a total
of 37,883 assessable acres. The Project facilities include 467 miles of
canals and laterals and 5,268 irrigation structures. The CrowHeart and
LeClair units were organized to administer some of the lands in the
Project. The Regional Irrigation Engineer, who is the Officer-in-Charge
of the Project, administers the Project through the Project Manager who
manages, supervises and administers the daily operations and
maintenance of the Project.
The BIA's operation and maintenance of the Project is funded
entirely by assessments from approximately 960 landowners and lessees
which include the Tribes, individual Indians and non-Indians. The
current (2011) O&M assessment for the Project varies from a low of
$14.00/acre at the CrowHeart unit to $21.00/acre at the LeClair Unit
with the majority of the Project assessed at $20.00/acre. The cost to
operate and maintain the Project is approximately $715,000 annually.
Sixty-seven percent of the land is Indian owned and thirty-three
percent is non-Indian owned. The BIA recently completed several
significant improvements at the Project using congressionally
appropriated funds for construction on our Wyoming and Montana
projects.
The BIA Safety of Dams program recently completed rehabilitation of
Washakie and Ray Lake Dams at a cost of $15 million. And the BIA
annually uses over $30,000 from this program to support ongoing Safety
of Dams maintenance at these dams. In addition, Congress earmarked
$3.75 million in Fiscal Year 2006 and 2007 for irrigation construction
at the Project and the State of Wyoming has matched these funds with a
$3.5 million grant.
The BIA is currently preparing for the upcoming irrigation season
with deliveries anticipated to begin approximately May 1 and end
sometime in late September. Once this season is complete there are
several maintenance activities the BIA plans to perform, including the
installation and/or replacement of several new turnouts, cleaning of
drains, installation of numerous drain culvert crossings, and
replacement of a check structure and crossing.
For the 2011 irrigation season, the Project is scheduled to bill
water users O&M assessments totaling $670,018. As the Project has a
significant number of ``fractionated'' lands, lands with multiple
owners, approximately 1,978 bills will be under BIA's economic
threshold of $25, and hence, will not be mailed. In 2010, this amounted
to just under $8,500. In recent years, the Project's collection rate
has hovered around 87 percent. However, in 2010, the Project
experienced a 92 percent collection rate. The high historical
collection rate has been, in part, due to the BIA's implementation of
the Debt Collection Improvement Act.
The BIA is implementing several new initiatives to address
challenges at the Wind River Project and several of its other projects.
Some of these initiatives are in response to recommended remedial
actions from various reports by the Department's Office of Inspector
General and the Government Accountability Office. One recommendation
made in those reports was that BIA should increase the level of
technical support for project managers by putting these projects under
the direct supervision of regional or central irrigation office staff
or by implementing more stringent protocols for engineering review and
approval of actions taken at the projects. In February 2007, BIA
established policies to ensure adequate technical oversight and
assistance is given to project managers of the BIA irrigation projects.
These policies set requirements for Central Office Division of Water
and Power staff, Regional Irrigation Engineers and Irrigation Project
Managers to follow for improved oversight, program reviews, assistance,
review and approval, and standards.
In January 2011, the Rocky Mountain Region realigned irrigation
personnel at the Agency level to be under the direct supervision of the
Region for a BIA pilot project. This realignment will more effectively
utilize personnel and resources, streamline processes such as
contracting and purchasing, increase technical oversight, and reduce
administrative costs so more money can be directly spent on O&M. In
addition to these managerial reforms, the BIA is working more closely
with water users to be responsive to their concerns and giving the
water users a greater role in Project operations.
In July 2006, policy was established requiring projects to hold
water users meetings at least twice annually. This was done in order to
provide for a more transparent operation and as a method to keep our
water users informed of our activities and how we are spending their
money. In addition to collecting more feedback on its management
performance, the BIA is encouraging and empowering water users to take
over O&M activities for all or parts of the Project. Currently, here at
Wind River, there is a memorandum of agreement (MOA) in place with the
Crowheart Bench Water User Association, and a tripartite agreement with
the LeClair Unit and Riverton Valley Irrigation District. Approximately
32 percent of the assessable acres on the Project have the O&M
activities contracted out through these agreements. The BIA is also
instituting several financial reforms to bring project revenues in line
with needed expenditures.
The BIA's policy, similar to that of the Bureau of Reclamation, is
that revenues from irrigators must fund the annual O&M for BIA
irrigation projects. Historically, the BIA tempered O&M rate increases
based, in part, on the potential economic impact to water users. Over
time, this tempering of rates resulted in budget deficiencies which
contributes to the decline of the projects and has led to critical
reviews of this practice by the Office of Inspector General and the
Government Accountability Office. In response to the concerns that have
been raised, BIA has been working for several years to increase the
assessed rate to a level that better represents the actual cost of
operating and maintaining the projects. To complement these financial
reforms the BIA is undertaking several initiatives to improve its
maintenance management and ensure O&M assessments are spent
effectively.
Engineering condition assessments have been commissioned for most
BIA irrigation projects, with the Wind River study being completed in
2008 (HKM Engineering Study). The 2008 study estimated the replacement
value of the Project to be approximately $93 million. The deferred
maintenance for the project is estimated at $28 million.
In 2008, the BIA revised its irrigation regulations at title 25
part 171 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The revision includes two
key features that were included to benefit all of the BIA irrigation
projects, Annual Assessment Waivers and Incentive Agreements. The
Annual Assessments Waivers are designed to allow for an easy method to
waive the O&M assessments for lands to which the BIA cannot deliver
water. The past regulations required BIA to bill the water user and the
water user had to appeal the bill to receive a refund. Incentive
Agreements provide incentive to potential lessees to bring idle lands
into production. Many BIA projects have lands that have become idle and
have not been farmed for many years. Incentive Agreements allow the
project to waive the irrigation O&M assessment for up to three years if
the landowner or lessee agrees to make improvements to the lands to
bring them back into production. These agreements benefit the land
owner by improving the value of their land and will increase the
Project's revenues.
I thank you for your time and for your consideration of this issue.
This concludes my prepared statement. I will be happy to answer any
questions you may have.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you. I appreciate you being here.
Where are you headquartered?
Mr. Anevski. I'm out of Washington, D.C.
Senator Barrasso. I appreciate you taking the time to be
here. Looking around to see who is joining us, I see there are
a number of members of our select committee on tribal relations
that are part of our state legislature that are here, and they
are the ones that initially contacted me about trying to hold
this hearing today. The Co-Chairmen are Kale Case and Dale
McOmie and other State Senators are Paul Bernard and Wayne
Johnson. I see Wayne here today and Representative Patrick
Goggles, who lives here on the reservation, and as well as
representative Jeff Stewart. So these are people who have been
focused on this.
I have a number of questions. I let you go on a little bit
longer than five minutes because I think people want to hear
all of this information. I have a number of questions, and it's
kind of interesting because, you know, according to the BIA's
budget justification for the fiscal year 2012, BIA requested
about 12 million, 11.93 million, in appropriations for the 16
of these revenue generating Indian irrigation projects. It's my
understanding the BIA does not plan to direct any of the
requested appropriations to the Wind River Irrigation Project
for this fiscal year. Could you please help all of us here
understand why the BIA does not plan to direct any
appropriations from 2012, the 12 million, to the Wind River
Irrigation Project.
Mr. Anevski. Yes, sir. That fund is mostly for our
mandatory payments which are by court order or legislative
mandates that we have to fund on some irrigation projects.
There's actually legislation and/or court orders that tribes
have taken us to court that we have to pay for trust land that
are not leased on those projects. So we are paying for those,
and that's probably $3,000,000 or $4,000,000 of that fund.
There's other irrigation related water rights that we're paying
out of that fund. We do have to pay for the Navajo Indian
Irrigation Project, which is approximately $4,000,000. We pay
the operation and maintenance, and that again is by the 1962
Act with the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project which requires us
to pay that fund. And we also fund part of the irrigation
billing and collection system for our 15 or 16 revenue
generating projects. So the billing and collection and debt
management is paid for by appropriated funds out of that
account. So there's a lot of different things in that account,
but in the past, back in the 1970s, 1980s, maybe early 1990s,
some of those O&M funds were going out to some projects, but as
the mandatory funds costs kept increasing, we lost a
discretionary amount to that fund.
Senator Barrasso. As I mentioned in the opening statement,
one of the most ominous findings in the 2006 report was that
the BIA had no long-term plan to address the deferred
maintenance issue. So I understand to date we still have not,
through the BIA, produced a long-term plan. When can we expect
the Bureau of Indian Affairs to produce a long-term plan to
address the deferred maintenance issues?
Mr. Anevski. To be honest, we have been addressing it
slowly. The critical deferred list and the HCAM reports, that's
the first step, especially at Wind River here. We're actually
working our way down the priority list as we have funding. We
have that 3.7 million dollars earmarked for the projects so
we've been using those funds. So the condition assessments were
needed to help us develop the list. So all our projects we're
working on developing the high priority items to fix the list.
And the problem is, if we're just rely on the revenues, the O&M
assessments, operation assessments, like the Wind River here,
the full cost would be around 35 to $40 an acre versus the $20
just to really go and rehabilitate it, which would be an
economic disaster for all the farmers. So we're trying to limit
our O&M rates, and we're slowly--you know, the appropriated
funds we did receive we're slowly going to work on fixing the
projects as best we can and keep the economics reasonable for
farmers.
Senator Barrasso. Words like slowly and working down the
list, that's not something that the folks here--people in
Wyoming kind of like when they see a problem, they fix it, and
move onto the next thing. So I'm trying to figure out if you're
going to come out with a long-term plan, and I was wondering
what the process is going to be to put this long-term plan
together. And this might have been 2006. I don't know if you
were doing this job in 2006. We're now five years down the line
when they said we're going to have a long-term plan. Can you
help us along?
Mr. Anevski. And that was the end of my first year there in
D.C. Like I said, the condition assessments are the first part.
And part of the IG reports talk about sustainability of the
projects and recommend we do a sustainability study of which
condition assessments are one part of it. But we still would
have to look at the economics and a lot of other things which
would cost us a lot of money which we don't have. We haven't
been focusing, I'll be honest, and I guess that's something we
should really focus on. My division, Central Office Division of
Water and Power, will be looking at that and as we staff up
will be working to develop a long-term plan.
Senator Barrasso. Yes, I've noticed--I've only been in the
Senate for about three and a half years, but I noticed there
doesn't seem to be a lot of focus, throughout, a long-term plan
for so many things. And I would recommend to you to try to get
to that and move that up in the priority list of things that
need to be done, because it's troubling when you read an
assessment, even the findings from the 2008 condition
assessment, it's nearly 77 percent of the project units
reviewed received critical deficiency ratings, and you're
talking 2008, now 2011. That could potentially mean a threat to
the health and safety of the users, and those are the things
that people are concerned about and say what is really going on
here. This isn't the highest of the high up. In the written
testimony, as I think you stated, there was a program with
safety of the dams that completed the rehab of the Washakie and
Ray Lake dams at a cost of about 15 million. What does the BIA
plan to do to deal with the structure described with the other
structures described in 2008 as really critically deficient?
What can the BIA do in the interim to address these
deficiencies while you're working on the long-term plan?
Mr. Anevski. On the critical list, annually we work on the
list, and we work with the tribes and water users and talk
about what we're going to be doing. And we're using some of the
appropriated funds, and we'll be working our way down the list
to fix those issues.
Senator Barrasso. I ask how it is, how do you involve the
tribes and involve the users, and I think you said we work with
the tribes. I'm curious as to what exactly you do so people who
are here--
Mr. Anevski. Well, we do have two water user meetings a
year, there are two different locations each time at Crowheart
and Ethete, and then the regional--the agency staff actually
attends the tribal water engineers office meetings monthly, is
it?
Mr. Nation. Actually twice a month.
Mr. Anevski. So we're meeting with them twice a month.
Senator Barrasso. I wonder if you could introduce your two
guests. Maybe everybody in the audience knows them, but if you
wouldn't mind.
Mr. Anevski. Ray Nation, he's the Deputy Superintendent for
Trust at the Wind River Agency stationed in Fort Washakie. Karl
Helvik is the engineer and also the officer in charge of the
project, and he's located in Billings, Montana, at the Rocky
Mountain Regional Office.
Senator Barrasso. Just a couple of additional questions.
The 2006 GAO report found that additional water storage and
improved efficiency were needed to meet the demands for water;
however, according to the BIA, operation and maintenance fees
may not be used for capital improvements. So how does the BIA
estimate the accommodation of additional water demands, and
given that from 1926 when they stopped, they never really got
the full completion of what was envisioned for this area?
Mr. Anevski. Right. And I probably can't fully answer that
question, but when we fix the dams, both dams were under
restrictions that we could only store water to a certain level.
So the Washakie dam now we can store water to the full height.
And Ray Lake's, that was the same thing, had a restriction on
it for many years, and now that it's been fixed we can store
more water there. But adding more stored facilities, there are
not really any plans for that.
Senator Barrasso. Do you believe the Wind River Irrigation
Project can meet the Wind River demands with out additional
capital?
Mr. Nation. No, Senator, it can't. Normally during the
spring irrigation season, if we get a late runoff, the
Crowheart Unit has to wait in order to build water in order to
flush the system and get water out the 1st of May. The same
with the Ray Canal, the Cooley system which is around Fort
Washakie, depending on how spring runoff is, we have to wait
for Washakie to build up storage. So depending on the spring
runoff, when that comes, during the month of September normally
Washakie reservoir is out of water and Washakie reservoir
serves water to, like, around 20,000 acres. So the month of
September, there's hardly any water in the system for roughly
20,000 acres of land. We go to stock water. We do need storage
in the Little Wind drainage for Ray Coolidge and subagency.
Crowheart also during the month of September doesn't have a lot
of water so it also needs storage some place upstream.
To talk about your question on long-term planning, right
now we've got kind of a three-year plan. We've got 12 major
structures that are going to be rehabilitated using the state
and the federal funds. But for long-term planning, that's going
to take planning between the government and the tribes, because
as you know, the BIA can't go to Congress and get money. We
can't go to Wyoming and get money. Because of that and with the
help from the tribes, that's how we got this $7,000,000 so the
tribes are going to be part of this big planning process as far
as rehabilitating the project. But for right now, like I said,
our three-year plan is to do the 12 structures, possibly do
some piping of some laterals, and then with our BIA staff, we
plan on picking away at some of the other structures that are
identified in the HCAM report that are priority, realizing that
some of those structures we don't have the power to do so we're
going to have to contract some of that out. So that's kind of
our three-year plan, and then the long-term plan is going to be
up to Congress and the tribes being able to lobby congressmen
for more money.
Senator Barrasso. Just some last follow-up questions on all
of this--Karl, if you want to jump in on any of this, feel free
to answer. I know there's concerns among the water users in
this room about how the BIA spends operation and maintenance
fees, and I know there's concerns that BIA spends some of these
operation maintenance fees on administrative expenses that
maybe ought to be covered under the agency's own
appropriations. There are also concerns that the administrative
expenses make up too high of a percentage of the fees as well.
So can you please give the Committee a breakdown of how the BIA
spends its operation and maintenance fees that it collects from
the water users on this irrigation project?
Mr. Anevski. I guess generally I'd like to point out the
administrative fees, a lot of times people look at all salaries
and a lot of the salaries are going to the people doing
operation and maintenance, the ditch riders, the maintenance
workers and stuff. So those really need to be split out that
they're operation and maintenance versus admin. We do admin
fees which is like a project manager and accounting techs
running the office. I don't know if you wanted to----
Senator Barrasso. Ray, do you want to----
Mr. Nation. Yes, for some reason, there's people thinking
that we spend a lot of money on salaries, and we actually do
but realizing that under our operations----
Senator Barrasso. Let the record reflect that they do.
Mr. Nation. We do. Yes. We have four ditch riders that
operate and maintain and deliver water.
Senator Barrasso. On the ground.
Mr. Nation. That's $134,000. As far as maintenance, we have
two equipment operators, and they do nothing but run equipment,
put in head gates, clean out head gates, put in laterals. And
their costs are $112,000. Those are salaries, but those people
are needed to operate the system. Our administrative staff is
$147,000. That's for the project manager or civil engineer,
whatever you want to refer to that person as, and also our
accounting technician. Those two positions are hired. You have
to have a supervisor in order to conduct day-to-day work
schedules for water delivery and maintenance. So that's kind of
why our salaries seem to be high, but it's not that they're
getting paid to do nothing. They're out there delivering water
and helping operate and maintain the system.
Senator Barrasso. I think it's helpful for you to describe
where the salaries go and water on the ground and people and
different places. Karl, do you have anything that you'd like to
add?
Mr. Helvik. Yes, I'd like to add that the project manager
of those two accounting technicians is necessary because we do
the billing and collection for the entire project out to those
ones that we contracted so we're providing that service to
everybody.
Senator Barrasso. Well, Ray, John and Karl, I appreciate
you being here. Thank you for testifying. We'll make your
written statements part of the record. If you have anything
you'd like to add, any of the questions I've asked, please feel
free to include that, and we'll keep the record open for the
next two weeks. Thanks for being here.
Mr. Nation. Thank you.
Mr. Anevski. Thank you.
Senator Barrasso. I'd like to call up our second panel,
please. Thank you very much for taking time out of your
schedule to be with us today. We're going to start, if you
could, with Wes Martel, who is Co-Chairman, Eastern Shoshone
Business Council, Eastern Shoshone Tribe of the Wind River
Reservation, Fort Washakie.
STATEMENT OF HON. WESLEY MARTEL, CO-CHAIRMAN,
EASTERN SHOSHONE BUSINESS COUNCIL, EASTERN
SHOSHONE TRIBE OF THE WIND RIVER RESERVATION
Mr. Martel. Senator Barrasso, I'd like to start off by
thanking you for holding this field hearing. I'd to thank the
tribal relations committee from the state legislature for their
support in this event coming to Riverton, and we really
appreciate this.
So Honorable Senator Barrasso, distinguished guests, and
Committee staff and council, I come before you today to offer
comments related to the Wind River Irrigation Project and other
management problems. Let me begin by noting that for all things
living on this great earth, water is our livelihood. As tribes
we strive to maintain our culture and spiritual beliefs, and
water is that special resource that sustains us and allows us
to take our place destined to provide a positive future and
hope and energy to our people.
Government beginnings began with the signing of the treaty
of 1863 whereby Shoshone tribe was designated over 44,000,000
acres of land. This treaty was followed by subsequent treaties
which narrowed our land base to the present day acres of
approximately 2.2 million acres. Problems started when congress
passed the Reclamation Act of 1902 whereby well over a million
acres of this reservation was opened up for homesteading. This
brought a morass of issues, challenges, and confronts to
triable sovereignty, which we now confront on a daily basis. In
1905 to the present, Bureau of Reclamation's attention and
resources were devoted mainly to the homesteaders.
Since 1905, over $77,000,000 was put into irrigation works
and structures north of the Big Wind while approximately
$6,000,000 has been put into the BIA project. The Indian moneys
that were earmarked for Indian irrigation improvements were
diverted to the reclamation fund thus the huge disparity. In
addition, the Bureau of Reclamation exploited tribal resources
without proper consent and approval, and the tribe just
recently were awarded $33,000,000 for partial compensation of
this misdeed. Another affront to the Federal/Tribal trust
relationship is the Bureau of Reclamation's stance that section
eight of the 1905 Act requires them to administer resources
according to state law. Virtually all Tribes in this country
oppose this infringement upon a valuable trust resource.
Based on the history surrounding the BIA reclamation
project, the Joint Business Council and the Wind River Water
Resources Control Board have four major consequences of federal
and state management on the Wind River Basin that require
separate research and investigation. These are federal
appropriations of tribal reserve water rights to serve non-
Indian hydropower interest, use of tribal funds to construct
major federal and non-federal irrigation, storage and
hydropower facilities on the Wind River Reservation, diversion
of tribal revenues into the U.S. Treasury for use in paying
costs of the irrigation project, O&M on existing canals and
surveying costs of the Wind River Reclamation Project from 1906
to 1942, and diversion of tribal water by the State of Wyoming
based on use of Wyoming water law to declare surplus
conditions, depriving tribal use of the water resource from
1989 until the present.
The federal and state use of tribal water and tribally
funded irrigation and power facilities has deprived the tribes
exercising the right to manage and use the water for their
economic development and community well-being. In addition,
these actions and diversion of tribal funds have resulted in
environmental damage, economic damage, and lost opportunities
for economic development. Research indicates that the users
have overpaid O&M fees for the Wind River Irrigation Project.
Initial legislation authorized the Riverton project in 1905,
formerly the Wind River Irrigation Project which is no relation
to the tribal system, specified that the tribes were only to
pay $150,000 in a one-time payment for O&M fees for the tribal
system. This could mean the tribe overpaid the O&M fees for the
Wind River Irrigation Project by millions of dollars.
My initial stint as an elected official of the Shoshone
Tribe began in 1979, not too long after the state of Wyoming
filed the Big Horn Adjudication of 1977. These water boards
made us realize the extreme importance exercising tribal
sovereignty wisely to protect our people and our future.
Eventually, there are two major activities that must begin
immediately in order to fully pursue a diversion of tribal
water and funds. Research and strategy development on head
water issues including economic, environmental, legal, social,
cultural, and political impact of diversion of tribal water,
continued strengthening and reorganization of the tribal water
management function, including the Office of the Tribal Water
Engineer and the Wind River Water Resources Control Board.
We have been building our technical administrative
capability to make stronger our tribal government and
strengthen families and communities to bring progress and
positive economic impact to our reservation and our region. As
you well know, Wind River ag. and livestock, recreation, and
tourism are sectors of the bulk of our economy. The further
development of nonrenewable resources--wind, solar, geothermal,
biomass, and hydropower allows us a major role to play in the
energy security of this nation as well as reducing our
dependence on foreign energy sources. The most important
resource in our future growth is water.
Our purpose today is to bring respect and dignity to the
trust obligation. When our four fathers signed the treaties
asserting our homelands, it was not a grant of rights to us but
a grant of rights from us. The permanent homelands established
by treaty were meant to uphold the intent to evolve over time
and embark on a path assuring livelihood and advanced
civilization.
The GAO's report of July 3rd of 1996 and February 3rd,
2006, address various issues surrounding the allocation and
repayment of costs constructing federal water projects
including the allocation of these costs among the projects'
various purposes and irrigators of their share of the costs. We
have testified over the decade at many sessions of the Senate
Select Committee of Indian Affairs and now the Senate Committee
of Indian Affairs all to no avail. It is my solemn wish that
this distinguished committee with leadership and foresight
begin and deliver a process to not only ensure that the
sovereign Indian nations of this country have reliable sources
of water but to acknowledge the trust obligation exists in
relation to the most critical resource, water. Thank you for
your time, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Martel follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Wesley Martel, Co-Chairman, Eastern
Shoshone Business Council, Eastern Shoshone Tribe of the Wind River
Reservation
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much. Norman Willow is
next, the Honorable Norman Willow is Council Member, Northern
Arapaho Business Council, Northern Arapaho Tribe, Wind River
Reservation, Fort Washakie, Wyoming. Thank you very much.
STATEMENT OF HON. NORMAN WILLOW, COUNCIL MEMBER, NORTHERN
ARAPAHO BUSINESS COUNCIL, NORTHERN ARAPAHO TRIBE, WIND RIVER
RESERVATION
Mr. Willow. Greetings to all and all the fellow residents
within the boundaries of the reservation. This affects us all,
and I think we started out with irrigation. And it goes way
back. Trying to make farmers out of us. They allocated land,
allocated water, and we have a senior water right to this land
here. And that's not being looked at like the way we want it to
be looked at, and there was Indian appropriated money when they
built these systems. We don't even have a right to vote on this
irrigation systems, but we come here to ask the Federal
Government to unstrangle us with the state and the state law
that's been passed down onto us. The water is necessary for
agriculture, ceremony, and healthy rivers.
We have a decree where the court awarded 500,000 acre feet
of water, with the State of Wyoming suing us but we won, you
know. We can't use our water rights on whatever because of poor
irrigation system. It's outdated, lack of maintenance, and our
systems are 20 to 30 percent deficient. And in the interest of
native irrigators have been promoted by the state that should
be tribal members benefitting, and a former U.S. Senator,
Wyoming Supreme Court Judge explained the state policy that you
look at Coolidge, looked at LeClaire, there's a big water
difference right before our eyes, full capacity, hardly any
capacity on our side. And then the injustice we can see it
right before our eyes as one failed policy, it has at least
three fields a year without any compensations to the tribe, the
senior water right holders.
I have a little different view than all other, and we
shouldn't take our system for under 638, because it's not even
deliverable. Our lands are being reclassified because they're
not irrigated, but that's because of the system. The system is
not working. We can't accept the reclassification of the lands
due to nondeliverable water. We're not using the land because
water can't be delivered. Changing our class six to class one
funding and no funding, the Federal Government needs to
evaluate things reservation-wide, realize what's happening
here. We need to see our manager, our water office. And, you
know, this is my interpretation of what's been going on, and
you have all these people reporting. Well, a lot of them isn't
happening. They say they have big plans. You've got to excuse
me, I'm recovering from cancer, and I had surgery. Anyway, you
know, how can we compensate the senior water right, and that's
the tribe's. We're being left out considerably. I know that
these farmers, the irrigators all around here. They have a
different view than I do, but, you know, we need to work this
thing out. We need to be recognized a little more, and we need
to be compensated because we are the senior water right holders
here.
And in closing, I don't want to take up too much time. I
wish everybody well, and I would like to see some kind of
compensation coming to the tribe, because a lot of it was done
by Indian people, Indian appropriated money, yet we're not
using it. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Willow follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Norman Willow, Council Member, Northern
Arapaho Business Council, Northern Arapaho Tribe, Wind River
Reservation
Senator Barrasso. Thank you. And as you say, we want to get
whole different viewpoints so I appreciate you expressing your
thoughts and concerns here. Thank you.
Our next witness is Mitchel Cottenoir, Acting Tribal Water
Engineer Director, Wind River Water Resources Control Board for
the Eastern Shoshone Tribe, Fort Washakie. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF MITCHEL COTTENOIR, ACTING TRIBAL WATER ENGINEER
DIRECTOR, WIND RIVER WATER
RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD, EASTERN SHOSHONE TRIBE
Mr. Cottenoir. Senator Barrasso, I'd like to thank you for
this opportunity to address this hearing on behalf of the Wind
River Water Resource Control Board. According to the GAO report
dated February 6th, the Wind River irrigation project was
authorized for construction in 1905, but construction was never
completed. Wind River Irrigation Project comprises of three
storage facilities, 11 canals, and 377 miles of canal. These
facilities provide water for 38,300 acres of which 67 percent
is Indian owned and 33 percent is non-Indian owned.
These 38,300 irrigated acres are assessed operation and
maintenance fees to finance the irrigation project's operation,
maintenance, of administrative functions. These assessments
have historically been low, but over the last 20 years these
rates have risen approximately 91 percent from a low of $10.90
in 1991 to $20 in 2011. Even with the rising assessment fees,
little rehabilitation efforts have been made. According to the
1994 NRCE project assessment and plan, no project wide
rehabilitation of the delivery system has occurred since the
1930s. According to that study, huge deferred maintenance over
many years, 60 percent or 1,200 structures were in need of
repair or replacement, and 45 percent were 190 miles of canals
and laterals needed repair or reconstruction. According to the
study, structure failures were routine resulting in progressive
loss of control of project water and the catastrophic failure
of segments of the delivery system were coming.
According to the 1994 NRCE project assessment and plan, due
to the project's current configuration, it only has 66 acres of
irrigated land per mile of canal. In comparison Midvale
Irrigation District has over 160 acres per mile of canal. As a
general guideline, Bureau of Reclamation suggests that
irrigation projects in the region need to have at least 140
acres of irrigated land for mile of canal to be economically
self-sufficient. As a result of the poor delivery performance,
that has contributed to the progressive deterioration quality
and water users ability to pay assessment. It is apparent that
the Wind River Irrigation System cannot be considered self-
sufficient.
Conditions on the Wind River Irrigation Project sadly
continue to deteriorate, and little has changed since the 1994
NRCE report, the 2006 GAO report, and the 2008 HCAM assessment.
In 2003, the Wyoming legislature passed House Bill 144.
House Bill 144 allowed the tribes to participate in state
funding toward water development projects. This bill is
strongly supported by both the Joint Business Council and the
Water Resource Control Board.
In 2004 in order to facilitate the rehabilitation of the
Wind River Irrigation Project, the Eastern Shoshone and
Northern Arapaho Tribes through the efforts of the Wind River
Water Resource Control Board applied to and were granted 3.5
million dollar grant from the Wyoming Water Development
Commission to aid in the rehabilitation of the irrigation
structures that were in dire need of repair or replacement.
This state appropriation was a 50 percent grant, required an
additional 3.5 million in matching funds before the state funds
could be utilized. Once again through the efforts of the Wind
River Water Resource Control Board in conjunction with the
efforts of Senator Mike Enzi, a federal appropriation of 3.72
million dollars was secured in 2005 and 2006 as matching funds
for 3.5 million and state funds.
To date, four major irrigation structures have been
replaced and another rehabilitated at a cost of 1.63 million
dollars. These structures include the Johnstown and left-hand
ditch, diversion structures on the Big Wind River, the left-
hand ditch wasteway, the Coolidge Canal Trout Creek diversion
structure, and the Mill Creek Great Canal crossing structure.
Currently there are two diversion structures on the Wind
River that are in the design phase. These structures are the
Ray Canal, South Fork, the Coolidge Canal, and Little Wind
diversion structures. Incorporated in these designs, structures
are fish ladders and fish streams. The fish passage will
mitigate the loss of hundreds of thousands of fish to the
irrigation system. The fish passage project is a combined
effort between the tribes, the U.S. Fish and Wild Life Service,
the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Trout Unlimited, and the State of
Wyoming. It is hoped that these structures will be designed and
ready for the fall 2011 construction season.
In April of this year, the Wind River Water Resource
Control Board elected engineering firms to design the remaining
nine structures of the Wind River Irrigation Project priority
list that was utilized to secure the federal and state funding.
This list was compiled by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the
Office of Tribal Water Engineer. Depending on available funds
as many of these structures will be replaced or rehabilitated.
It is hoped that these structures will also be designed and
ready for the fall 2011 construction season.
Without the efforts of the Eastern Shoshone and Northern
Arapaho Tribes through the Wind River Water Resource Control
Board, the current rehabilitation of the Wind River Irrigation
Project would not be occurring.
Once the federal and state appropriations are completed,
the Wind River Water Resource Control Board plans to pursue
additional funding from both the Federal Government and State
of Wyoming. The tribes and the Wind River Water Resource
Control Board request the aid and assistance of both Senators
Barrasso and Enzi and the Select Committee on Indian Affairs to
help secure future funding on ongoing rehabilitation of the
Wind River Irrigation System. As you know, estimates of the
rehabilitation range from a low of $70,000,000 to a high in the
range of $90,000,000. With that, I'd like to conclude, and
thank you for allowing me to participate in this hearing.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cottenoir follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mitchel Cottenoir, Acting Tribal Water Engineer
Director, Wind River Water Resources Control Board, Eastern Shoshone
Tribe
Attachments
Senator Barrasso. Thank you. I appreciate you being here.
Our next witness is Kenneth J.T. Trosper who is a member of the
Wind River Water Resources Control Board for the Northern
Arapaho Tribe, Fort Washakie, Wyoming.
STATEMENT OF KENNETH J.T. TROSPER, MEMBER, WIND RIVER WATER
RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD, NORTHERN ARAPAHO TRIBE
Mr. Trosper. I would like to thank you, Honorable John
Barrasso, as well as other member of the Unites States Senate
Committee on Indian Affairs for allowing us to bring in our
issues concerning the Wind River Irrigation Project. My name is
Kenneth Trosper. I serve on the Northern Arapaho side of the
Wind River Water Resource Control Board.
I would like to offer my testimony on the shortfalls of the
irrigation project and the BIA in protecting the natural
resources of the Wind River watershed. The project diversions
divert more water than is called for simply to push the
required water down the canals. This is done because of the
terrible condition of the entire system. There has been little
conservation attempts or major rehab other than what the water
board and tribes have secured funding for.
As a young man, I listened as my grandmother Margaret
talked about happier times with my grandfather before the war.
She told me of fishing the Little Wind and the great fishing
the river provided. She talked of them sitting on the bank of
their favorite fishing hole near Ethete and catching enough
cutthroat trout to feed the whole family as well as others with
nothing more than a willow pole, hook and line, and bait.
Today's a different story. The native Yellowstone cutthroat
trout have all disappeared in the Little Wind River. Cutthroat
need cold, clean water which is something the lower Little Wind
can no longer provide in the summer months due to the
inefficiency of the Wind River Irrigation Project as well as a
lack of storage and conservation.
If this project is maintained as it should have been,
upgraded as other projects are, provided conservation measures
like other systems, perhaps then the Little Wind wouldn't be a
warm tepid bacteria-laced stream in the summer but instead a
clean, living river like the one my grandparents enjoyed.
Another area of concern related to the inefficiency of the
irrigation project is that of the native sauger. Although
sauger were once found in most of the major Wyoming river
basins, according to Craig Amadio of the Wind River Water
sauger Study, the Wind River Reservation supports one of the
few remaining genetically pure sauger populations in the
western United States. And according to the study, the Wind
River population is estimated at 4,300 fish. A recent Wyoming
Game and Fish State Wildlife Action Plan lists the sauger as
one of Wyoming species of greatest conservation need.
This population is threatened because of the bottleneck
created by the subagency diversion and the low flows below the
diversion in the summer months. There is also the chance of
potential kill-offs from flows insufficient to dilute any
discharge or accidental contamination. The sauger is already
lost above the diversion itself since it can no longer migrate
past this diversion.
Along with the sauger, above the diversion a fresh water
mussel, lam sillic sole, important to our native culture was
once found all along the Little Wind is now only found a few
miles below the subagency diversion. The mussel uses the sauger
to promulgate and like the sauger has disappeared above the
subagency diversion and is threatened below. The Wind River and
Little Wind River would benefit greatly from mainstream flows.
Within the tribal water code, mainstream flow is listed as
one of the 15 beneficial uses. Not only would fish and wildlife
benefit but ground water recharge, municipal and domestic
water, as well as water quality. A healthy viable river
benefits everyone; however, without full rehab of the system,
conservation, and future storage projects, it would be
extremely difficult to maintain flows in the Little Wind to
protect our fisheries while providing current irrigation needs.
Thank you. That concludes my statement.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Trosper follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kenneth J.T. Trosper, Member, Wind River Water
Resources Control Board, Northern Arapaho Tribe
Senator Barrasso. I'd like to ask a couple of questions,
and maybe we can start with Council leadership of the Tribes
and then go to the specific folks about the water resources.
Let's start with the two of you, Mr. Martel and Mr. Willow. For
the record, there's been some discussion about the economic
development components of this. Explain how the tribes
specifically rely on the Wind River Irrigation Project to
foster economic growth and generate income for the tribes, and
either of you or both of you can answer.
Mr. Martel. Well, right now, Senator, economic growth from
the river comes through agriculture and livestock. Like I
mentioned in my testimony, we have several producers and
farmers and ranchers on the project, tribal members and non-
tribal members. We believe that storage is on the horizon, has
to be, and in previous discussions we have had with the three
irrigation districts a few years back, there were two issues we
all agreed upon. And one of them was need to rehab the project
and number two was storage. I think that's important when we
sit down with Midvale, LeClaire, Riverton Valley, and agree on
some issues that are going to be good for this basis. We
believe that hydropower is going to be part of that economic
future. We believe that water leasing in some form is going to
be part of that economic progress. Recreation and tourism is
not a major source of our economic development, but as we
progress with the great country, we're blessed with recreation
and tourism would be a big attraction.
Senator Barrasso. Anything you want to add, Mr. Willow?
Mr. Willow. Sorry, I don't have as much air as these guys
do. Yes, our waters are being used to capacity due to the poor
irrigation system. There's a lot of lands idle that could help
the crops. That's one way we can have economic stability there,
but it's just that the water is short on our side. And like
tourism and recreation, recreation use, we just feel that we
own all the water within the reservation and boundaries. You
know, I feel personally that Boysen Dam and recreation there,
we should be a rich tribe from the water coming off the
reservation and going to the irrigators north of Big Wind.
We're kind of looking at other structure that's needed because
we are the senior right holders; yet, there's no compensation
or no recognition that to the tribe. But due to poor irrigation
system, we can't use water to full capacity. Thank you.
Senator Barrasso. That follows my next question for both of
you. The GAO report said a couple things. One was that the
Bureau of Indian Affairs is not accountable to water users, and
I'm wondering what steps the BIA might take to increase
involvement of the water users. We heard from the last panel
about meetings that are held here and their involvement. So if
just you could share with us, is the BIA responsive to the
needs and are their ways that we could improve upon that?
Mr. Martel. Well, Senator Barrasso, you know, the
management of the system on both sides of the river is not
beneficial to the overall wide and stable use of our water
resource. You know, the funding that has been coming down to
the tribes, the BIA management of the system, sometimes there's
no rhyme or reason to water levels in our reservoirs, and so we
really have to take more control of that. Getting back to your
previous question about the economic side of it, we have got to
do that, and part of that is our future's land. We have over
50,000 acres of future land that we think the Riverton east
project, which is just downstream from us here in Riverton, is
a very viable project. The Crowheart north and south projects
are very valuable projects, and so in order to be able to get
the full beneficial use out of our water, we have to make sure
the systems are managed and administered properly. We just
think there's got to be a lot more interaction between the BIA
and the tribes. I for one think that we as tribes have got to
take it to administrative wear-with-all to be able to take that
system over and be able to manage it and administer it on our
own. But, of course, like Mr. Willow mentioned funding is a
very important part of that. So we need to make sure as we
continue this dialogue not only with the Committee but also
with our congressional delegation.
Senator Barrasso. Mr. Willow, anything you'd like to add?
Mr. Willow. Well, I think it would be more sufficient to
have a water crew that we have to use the AFR on the
reservations, but, yeah, there's a lot of things said here that
aren't happening. You know, there's a lot of good thought but
things are just not happening, and we're pretty frustrated. We
continue to try to benefit our people in some way to use the
water and to respect the water, you know, its life. But,
everything revolves around water, and we're trying not to, I
guess, disrespect water. But we're running into a lot of
trouble, and it would be nice if we could administer all the
water in the exterior boundaries but, like I said, put it to
use.
Senator Barrasso. Following with that, I think Mr. Trosper
used the word ``shortfalls'' and ``terrible conditions,'' and
it made me think about the idea that the BIA has not produced
the long-term plan. What would you like to see in that long-
term plan for the system?
Mr. Trosper. For myself overall, I would like to see the
entire project needs to be redone from top to bottom. You have
to have conservation. You know, the ditches need to be lined,
head gates need to be fixed, structures need to be replaced in
order for it to become as sufficient as federal projects across
the river. Ours are not very efficient as they are, and then I
would like to see that the tribes be given a chance to run this
project so that we can eliminate some of these headaches
created by the treasury, you know, garnishments and those kinds
of things for people not using the water on idle lands that the
BIA has trust responsibility to lease, and, you know, they
don't do their job so the people get their wages. That's what
I'd like to see is the project rebuilt, storage added, and then
the tribe be given the chance to actually run this project.
Mr. Cottenoir. I think as J.T. was saying, the entire
project needs to be reworked, and somehow the BIA has to secure
funding to help rehabilitate the system, whether it's federal
appropriations or whatever, because currently what the O&M
rates, even as they continue to increase, that doesn't provide
enough funds to do the type of rehabilitation that is
necessary. Like I said in my testimony, had it not been for the
efforts of the Water Resource Control Board going to the State
of Wyoming, WWDC, and also through efforts with Senator Enzi's
office, these funds that we're currently using for
rehabilitation on the reservation wouldn't even be here. We'd
still be back having continued deferred maintenance and no
major rehabilitation on reservation. So somehow this irrigation
system is not self-sufficient. Somehow federal appropriations,
whether it's earmarked funds or whatever, need to be secured in
order for rehabilitation to continue because the thought of
638-ing the system and taking over and running it, this is a
delipidated system. We can't be expected to take it over and
then rehabilitate it on our own. The funds just aren't there.
Like I said, the BIA through their O&M fees, there just isn't
the funds available for this kind of rehabilitation. So some
kind of earmarking or federal funding needs to be secured to
continue the rehabilitation process.
Senator Barrasso. On the next panel, we're going to hear
from a member of the Crowheart Bench Water Users Association,
and it's my understanding that the association has a memorandum
of understanding with the BIA to manage the Crowheart Wind
River Irrigation Project. And do you think that Crowheart model
or some components of it may be applied to other projects? It
just seems the water users are happier with that approach.
Mr. Cottenoir. I'd like to make a statement on that.
Senator Barrasso. I'd like to hear from both of you.
Mr. Cottenoir. But the Crowheart area and the lower
irrigation system are completely different. What works up there
doesn't necessarily work down here. The situation is completely
different. It's a good model, and if we could divide irrigation
system into districts of some sort, then, yes, that possibly
could be a way to go about it. But currently as it is, the two
systems are completely different, and what works in one area
doesn't necessarily work in the other.
Senator Barrasso. J.T., do you have more you want to add?
Mr. Trosper. Well, yes, the system that they have set up,
it works for them, I guess, for a couple reasons. One, because
individual landowners and most of the land that is under that
project is actually being irrigated and being used and is
typically one or two person owned sections of land. Down in the
Ethete area or the lower Arapaho area, the Coolidge and a lot
of these lands are fractionated where you may have 200 people
that have an interest in that land, and there's a lot of idle
land. So those little groups taking a little lateral and
forming a group would not work down in this area because, you
may have 50 percent of the land and little lateral that may be
idle. You have to get everybody's agreement to enter into this,
and when, like I say, you may have hundreds of people on the
lower tract of land instead of one or two that own it. But like
he says, it's different situations.
Senator Barrasso. One of the other things that caught the
attention of everyone listening to your testimony, you said the
1994 study which noted Wind River Irrigation Project had only
66 acres of irrigated land per mile of canal?
Mr. Cottenoir. That's correct.
Senator Barrasso. So the rule of thumb, I think you said
the Bureau of Reclamation is a minimum of 140 acres.
Mr. Cottenoir. Yes.
Senator Barrasso. To be self-sustaining? Other thoughts you
had on that or maybe both of you as people in resource
management would have, what we could do differently, what
should go into a master plan, how we ought to be thinking about
this
Mr. Cottenoir. Well, that 66 acres, we've been visiting
with both Gary Collins and Bill Russell----
Senator Barrasso. And Gary is on the next?
Mr. Cottenoir. Right. They're both former water engineers.
Bill was an engineer for the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Over the
years since that 1994 study, that acreage on those canals has
probably decreased just because a lot of lands have become
idle. That is due to nonprofitable operations that lease fees
and irrigation assessments have just priced land out of the
ability to pay. A farmer can probably buy hay cheaper than he
can to lease the land and pay the irrigation assessment. So
there's a lot of lands that have gone idle and pulled out of
production. Just in 2010, there were approximately 10,000 acres
of tribal land allotted and tribal acres that were assessed the
irrigation assessment that were not receiving water. So those
are lands that have been taken out, and the continuing rise in
irrigation assessment can only compound that problem by pricing
irrigators and ranchers and farmers out of business where they
find that more economical to just purchase rather than actually
grow their products.
Senator Barrasso. Do you have anything you'd like to add,
Mr. Trosper?
Mr. Trosper. Well, it is true that there is a lot of
fractionating of land. People cannot afford this anymore. I
mean, the big farmers, they can afford it, but the small Indian
landowner, he can't afford these with the realty prices. I've
dropped my lease. It was cheaper for me to buy hay than to pay
for it anymore and have it produced. Like he said, it was
cheaper for me to just buy hay. The problem that I have, you
know, with some of this on the natural resource side is that
even as these lands are dropping out and not diverting that
water, the diversion rates are dropping because the BIA still
pump these ditches full because of the inefficiency of the
system, they have to fill it up whether they have one person
irrigating or a hundred. They have to fill these ditches up,
and that's where environmental problems come for our fish.
Senator Barrasso. Well, I appreciate all of you taking the
time to be here, to share your thoughts. If there are
additional things you'd like to add, we'd be happy to receive
that. Thank you very much for being here. Now I would like to
call the third panel. Welcome to all three of you. Thank you
for being here. The order I have listed is, first, William
O'Neal, Wind River Irrigation Project water user, member of the
Crowheart Bench Water Users Association.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM O'NEAL, WIND RIVER IRRIGATION PROJECT
WATER USER; MEMBER, CROWHEART BENCH WATER USERS ASSOCIATION
Mr. O'Neal. Thank you, Senator. On behalf of all our water
users, I extend our thanks for being able to provide testimony
about the irrigation system we have up there. The Crowheart
Bench Water Users Association was founded in 2004 by landowners
in the Crowheart area. The bench users associate services
approximately 8,800 acres and is composed of Dinwoody reservoir
and continue many miles of canals, laterals that are supplied
by snow pack and glacier runoff of the Wind River Mountains.
The Crowheart Bench Irrigation System and the A canal
irrigation system, which is another 1,800 acre system utilizing
water from the Wind River, together make up approximately 27
percent of the total acreage managed by the irrigation office
of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Wind River agency. The
decision to form the Crowheart Bench Association was driven by
the discontent of the water users, increasing water operation
and maintenance assessments, and the observed success of the A
Canal Irrigators Association. Objectives of the Crowheart Bench
Association upon its inception included, one, to be able to
deliver water through the system as efficiently and cost
effectively as possible; two, maintain a nearly 100-year-old
system; number three, we'd like to ensure O&M moneys collected
from Crowheart are used to achieve the above-listed objectives
in the Crowheart area; four, we'd like to actively participate
in the management of our system; and, number five, most
importantly, we'd like to reduce the gap between O&M
assessments and providing service.
The Crowheart Bench Water Users Association is recognized
in the memorandum of agreement with the BIA. This came about as
a direct result by the efforts of, one, Crowheart water users;
two, Indian Affairs Committee, here then under the late Senator
Craig Thomas, Tribal Water Engineers Office, and Joint Business
Council, and, of course, the BIA.
This allows the Crowheart Bench to manage the system
through a volunteer board of directors elected by the water
users, serviced by the Crowheart Bench Irrigation System. The
Crowheart Bench Water Users Board has been actively pursuing
the above objective, and we have enjoyed the great deal of
success in nearly every case. Current O&M assessments for the
Crowheart Water Users is currently at $14 per acre as opposed
to $20 an acre on the rest of the system. This reduced rate is
a result of the more effective delivery of the local ditch
rider hired on a contract basis. The ditch rider provides his
own vehicle, covers his own expenses, and works with the
Crowheart Bench Water Users board of directors to solve
problems throughout the year that occur on the system. The
ditch rider works for six days per week and is on call 24/7.
Over the past 40 years, actual costs of water delivery to the
Crowheart Water Users has been approximately $3 an acre.
Approximately $4 per acre is being used for the maintenance and
rehabilitation, and the remaining seven has been used for three
administrator positions whose duties include billing,
collections, and project management. Significant steps have
been taken to rehabilitate the system, including cleaning many
of miles of canals and laterals, replacement of turnouts,
gates, structures, and head gates. Much of the work has been
performed by local contractors which has enabled a great deal
of work to be done for a fraction of the cost the BIA incurs.
Water users have always volunteered a great deal of time and
labor in priming laterals, pouring cement, and assisting with
various repairs to the system.
We want to understand this is probably not a fix-all for
the entire project. It has and continues to work well for a
variety of reasons here. One, we have a different water source.
We have glacier runoff which in nature's form gives us a
certain amount of storage. We have a little better canal
conditions up there partly due to the work we've done
ourselves, and, second, we have a little faster canal system. I
think it keeps its condition a little better. We have smaller
working group up there. We have a very strong ag. based economy
there. Everyone there or the greater majority of people who
irrigate there use ag. as a primary source of income. We don't
have a business or anything outside of that to supplement
income. So a lot of people work real hard at making this
irrigation system work. That's our livelihood basically. Just
to give you kind of an idea where we're at right now.
Our next immediate obstacles that we wish to overcome are
the administrative costs basically we incur. We're paying about
half of that right now in administrative costs that go back. We
feel that because of trust responsibilities, BIA to Tribal and
allotted lands. We're going to have a hard time to cover that.
Right now this project could run 100 percent by the water
users' moneys, and as late as 1990 federal moneys were
appropriated for construction of cement structures and
researching ownership, of heirship/fractionated lands for O&M
assessment on the Wind River Irrigation Project. These figures
come from a prior project manager. We don't want to enjoy that
luxury. We'd like to get back to us. We as landowners, 100
percent of our properties fee or trust, feel we are forced to
take on the trust responsibilities of the BIA that are paying
100 percent of the administrative costs. We thank you and look
forward to working with you, Senator Barrasso, and the Indian
Affairs Committee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. O'Neil follows:]
Prepared Statement of William O'Neal, Wind River Irrigation Project
Water User; Member, Crowheart Bench Water Users Association
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Mr. O'Neal. I would
point out for everyone here that I go to a lot of senate
hearings, and often the administration, they're gone before the
other people testify. I will just tell you the people from the
first panel, they're still here down in the front row
listening, the BIA are listening to everything you say. So I
think it's a great credit to them know that they had stayed to
listen to everything that's being said here. With that, let me
turn to Mr. Glick, who's a Wind River Irrigation Project water
user. Thank you, Mr. Glick.
STATEMENT OF CLINTON GLICK, RANCHER; WIND RIVER IRRIGATION
PROJECT WATER USER
Mr. Glick. Thank you, Senator John Barrasso, Vice Chairman,
and Members of the Committee for the opportunity to testify on
the Wind River Irrigation Project. I am a water user under the
Wind River irrigation Project as I'm a member of the Glick
family who runs a small cattle ranch.
The management of the Wind River Irrigation Project has a
lack of adequate funding and requires consistent
administration, engineers, and bill collectors to succeed and
be efficient. If and when consistent appropriated funds are
available to pay for administration and management, more
operation and maintenance assessed funds can be directed
towards deferred maintenance. Eastern Shoshone and Northern
Arapaho joint tribes appointed tribal organizations and
proposed water users group need to be included in the
coordinating and consulting of setting the program's operation
and maintenance decisions to allow for and allow for improved
planning. The Wind River Irrigation Project needs financial
assistance through the construction to complete and rehab the
system as to permit the ultimate development of a viable and
sustainable irrigation project for our future generations.
Department funding is derived from operation and
maintenance charges per irrigatable acre. BIA calculates
irrigation assessment rates, and in accordance with 25 CFR
171.1(f), by estimating the cost of normal operation and
maintenance at each irrigation project. The cost of normal
support or benefit of the irrigation project activities means
the expenses they incur to provide direct support of, and
benefit for, the administration, operation, maintenance and
rehabilitation. I'd like to emphasize the normal part in here
where a lot of this administration rehab and stuff should not
be included with our O&M charges because it's above and beyond.
The administration payroll expenditures consume the majority of
the operation funds and keep escalating with federal costs of
living increases which are required for federal employees. I
believe consistent appropriated funds for administration
engineers and bill collectors and management would benefit the
district whereas the overall irrigation district's budget would
require less assessed charges per acre and nonetheless would
allow more funds to be directed towards high priority areas.
Deferred maintenance has been hindered by administration
(engineers and bill collectors) expenditures. Water users, and
BIA have reported operations of maintenance fees provide
insufficient funding for project operations. I believe
administration engineers and bill collectors costs should
receive consistent appropriated funding since the irrigation
district are considered to be BIA owned. Deferred maintenance
has turned the BIA maintenance crew into emergency repair crew.
All of the major canals have been ignored for so long they can
hardly convey water to head gates.
When funds are available, I am very agreeable that the
diversion dams, major canals, and head gates are to be placed
on top of the Wind River Irrigation System prior to this. At
what time the irrigation system receives more maintenance and
rehabilitation, the system will become more efficient and
conserve water for other beneficial uses such as fisheries,
wildlife, pollution control, recreation, cultural, municipal,
domestic use and other users down the road.
Along the same lines is Deferred Maintenance. Many of our
U.S.G.S. Gauging Stations are no longer funded. In order to
build a feasible resource management plan for our water
systems, it's imperative to be able to track our water. This
would be beneficial to the BIA, Eastern Shoshone and Norther
Arapaho Tribes, State of Wyoming, Fremont County, our
irrigation districts, and our local water lease.
Coordination between the BIA irrigation department, BIA
realty department, Easteren Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Joint
Tribes, and appointed Tribal Organizations all need to work
together on the government-to-government basis. Also, all of
these entities need to include the proposed water users group
as cooperators. This will enhance our planning to provide for
educated decisions on actions necessary for the proper
operation maintenance and administration of our irrigation
project and lands.
At one time, irrigation increased the value of our lands
and cheapened the price of living in all our local towns within
our Wind River Reservation and the state of Wyoming. Without
the irrigation project and ag. communities, many industries and
towns could not flourish. Anything which affects the success of
the many achievements of the irrigation project and
agricultural communities not only concerns those engaged in the
pursuit but also the progress and welfare of the Wind River
Reservation and the state of Wyoming. With the deterioration of
our irrigation system, the high cost of assessed charges, our
lands have become more of a burden rather than an asset.
With the cattle prices at an all time high, it is now an
optimum time to sell. I am afraid many of the existing ranchers
and farmers will sell out. It will then take a considerable
amount of funding to rebuild the local agricultural community.
Right now, there is no feasible way for young families to
embark into ranching and farming due to the amount of seed
moneys required to start up. We are left with the major
dilemma. I feel strongly that our irrigation project should
receive consistent appropriate funding for administration,
engineering, and building--bill collectors. This will allow us
to salvage our situation by allowing more funding to be
directed towards high priorities, such as key maintenance.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Glick follows:]
Prepared Statement of Clinton Glick, Rancher; Wind River Irrigation
Project Water User
Mr. John Barrasso, M.D. Vice Chairman and Members of the Committee:
Thank you for this opportunity to testify on issues pertaining to
Operation and Maintenance of the Wind River Irrigation Project.
I am a water user under the Wind River Irrigation Project, as I am
a member of the Glick family, who runs a small cattle ranch out side of
Fort Washakie.
The Management of the Wind River Irrigation Project has a lack of
adequate funding, and requires consistent appropriated funds for
Administration (Engineers and Bill Collectors) to succeed and be
efficient. If and when consistent appropriated funds are available to
pay for Administration and Management, more Operation and Maintenance
Assessed Funds can be directed towards Deferred Maintenance. Eastern
Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Joint Tribes, Appointed Tribal
Organizations, and a Proposed Water Users Group need to be included in
the coordinating and consulting of setting the program's priorities,
operation, and maintenance decisions, to allow for improved Planning.
The Wind River Irrigation Project needs financial assistance through
the Construction to Complete and Rehab of the System period, as to
permit the ultimate development of a viable and sustainable irrigation
project for our future generations.
The BIA Irrigation Department's funding is derived from Operation
and Maintenance charges per irrigatable acre. BIA calculates irrigation
assessment rates in accordance with 25 CFR 171.1(f) by estimating the
cost of normal operation and maintenance at each irrigation project.
The cost of normal operation and maintenance means the expenses they
incur to provide direct support of benefit for and irrigation project's
activities for administration, operation, maintenance, and
rehabilitation. The Administration payroll expenditures consume the
majority of the Operation & Maintenance funds, and keep escalating with
the Federal Cost of Living Increases, which are required for Federal
Employees. I believe consistent appropriated funds for Administration
(Engineers and Bill Collectors) and Management would benefit the
district, whereas the overall Irrigation District's Budget would
require less assessed charges per acre, and nonetheless will allow more
funds to be directed towards high priority areas.
Deferred Maintenance has been hindered by Administration (Engineers
and Bill Collectors) expenditures. Water Users and BIA have reported
that Operations and Maintenance Fees provide insufficient funding for
project operations. I believe Administration (Engineers and Bill
Collectors) Costs should receive consistent appropriated funding, since
the Irrigation Districts are considered to be BIA Owned. Deferred
Maintenance has turned the BIA Irrigation Maintenance Crew into an
Emergency Repair Crew. All of the major canals have been ignored for so
long they can hardly convey water to the aging head gates.
When funds are available, I am very agreeable that Diversion Dams,
Major Canals, and Head Gates are to be placed on top of the Wind River
Irrigation Systems Priority List. At what time the Irrigation System
receives more Maintenance and Rehabilitation; the system will become
more efficient and conserve water, for other beneficial uses such as:
fisheries, wildlife, pollution control, recreation, cultural,
religious, hydropower, industrial, municipal, domestic use, and other
users down the road.
Along the same lines as Deferred Maintenance, many of our U.S.G.S.
Gauging Stations are no longer funded. In order to build a feasible
Resource Management Plan for our water systems, it is imperative to be
able to track our water. This would be beneficial to the BIA, Eastern
Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes, State of Wyoming, Fremont County,
our irrigation districts, and our local water ways.
Coordination between the BIA Irrigation Department, BIA Realty
Department, Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Joint Tribes,
Appointed Tribal Organizations all need to work together, on a
government-to-government basis. Also, all of these entities need to
include the Proposed Water Users Group as cooperators; this will
enhance our planning to provide more educated decisions on actions
necessary for the proper: operation, maintenance, and administration of
our irrigation project and lands.
At one time Irrigation increased the value of our lands and
cheapened the price of living in all our local towns within the Wind
River Indian Reservation and the State of Wyoming. Without the
Irrigation Projects and Agricultural Communities, many industries and
towns could not flourish. Any thing which affects the success and many
achievements of the Irrigation Projects and Agricultural Communities,
not only concerns those engaged in the pursuit, but also the progress
and welfare of the Wind River Reservation and the State of Wyoming.
With the deterioration of our irrigation systems, the high cost of
assessed charges, our lands has become a burden rather than an asset.
With the cattle prices at an all time high, it is an optimum time
to sell. I am afraid many of the existing ranchers and farmers will
sell out. It will then take a considerable amount of funding to rebuild
the local Agricultural Community. Right now there is no feasible way
for young families to embark into ranching and farming, due to the
amount of seed monies required for startup, so we are left with a major
dilemma. I feel strongly that our Irrigation Project should receive
consistent appropriated funding for Administration (Engineers and Bill
Collectors). This will allow us to salvage our situation, by allowing
more funding to be directed toward high priorities, such as Key
Maintenance. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
Attachment
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much. It was very helpful.
And now we have Gary Collins, Wind River Irrigation Project
water user. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF GARY COLLINS, WIND RIVER IRRIGATION PROJECT WATER
USER
Mr. Collins. Thank you, Senator. It's an honor to be here
with you, and I appreciate your time to come to this Senate
field hearing. Many points that I would like to talk about have
been addressed in part before; however, the history of the
project was intended for the native Americans, Shoshones and
Arapahos, as their homeland. And that focus has been changed
over the time because we don't have a very large amount of ag.
people in the business. So the intended purpose has been not
adequately taken care of, and so the funding with regards to
the irrigation project has been less than adequate. It hasn't
been kept up with the times, and for a comparison, I would like
to identify the Bureau of Indian Affairs project where there's
about 66 acres per mile of lateral. Over on Midvale area, north
of the Big Wind River and Bureau of Reclamation, also in the
Interior Department, is nearly 160 acres of land per mile. So
the economics look very dire for the tribal section because we
have so many more miles to get an acre of land irrigated.
So it's intriguing to me that under Interior, there's two
segments, the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Bureau of
Reclamation. And one is very successful and the other is not.
So as we move forward, we have found that the funding for the
irrigation project just wasn't going to happen through the BIA
through their regular process of putting a budget together,
going to Congress in their BIA budget. So what the tribes have
done to secure funds is actually go to Washington D.C., speak
with the Senators, Senator Thomas and Senator Enzi and others,
Senator Metcalf. And so there was an effort by the Wind River
Water Resources Control Board to do those things, and today we
have nearly $7,000,000 that we've received. And a fair amount
of that has been expended. Had we not done this, had we not
been able to secure those funds, I believe today the system
would not be operable. It would have been an economic disaster.
We have gone to the diversion structures and rehabilitated
those and taken away the bottlenecks, and this is a major
challenge during drought conditions in the early part of this
century. So the tribes have taken initiative to move forward
with doing something to take the bottlenecks away to create an
efficiency, even to the tune of hiring professional engineering
firms to review the system and validate the inadequacies. We've
done that with a firm, NRCC. We've also had HKM Engineering out
of Billings. In addition to that, the Wyoming Water Development
Commission has come out and reviewed and has corroborated with
the number we've identified as 65 and 70 million up to
$100,000,000 of rehabilitation money that's needed just to keep
the system going. So the inefficiency of the system today has
created more idle tracts of land, which means less dollars
protected for the system, but it also has caused many families
to not be in the ag. business anymore.
The intention of our homeland was to be agriculturally
based. Having not had that opportunity to create a homeland
with agriculture, the fabric of the community has been
unraveled because we don't have the core anymore. Like some of
my colleagues mentioned earlier, it's too expensive to get into
the business now that we start from scratch. You have to have
something handed down from family to family or generational. So
the money I mentioned to rehab the system doesn't include
anything with regard to future lands.
Mr. Martel mentioned Riverton east, Crowheart north and
south. Those dollars in some estimation would be $3,000 an acre
to put them at an irrigatable practice scheme. So the O&M as it
is identified to sustain the system goes out to all landowners,
and that's particularly a difficult situation for landowners
who are elderly who are no longer in the irrigation system but
they are a landowner, they are penalized because they have to
pay for the water that they don't use. And if they get to the
point where if they can't pay it, then through the debt
collection act, their social security is impacted by this same
effort. So 70 percent of the system being operated by non-
Indian ag. people, the elders with O&M charges who don't use
the land, and many others actually are subsidizing the non-
Indian water user on the place that's their homeland. So
there's a financial inequity there that causes a big burden for
our tribal members. And I know we're trying to facilitate
dealing with the fractionated interests, but there are many
tribal members who are young who don't know what O&M charges
mean and, of course, there becomes lien on any future income
they might have through the system as they get older. So that's
something we really have to look at is how do we address that
O&M so it's not detrimental to the landowner. The area in terms
of management is that even though the tribes have their
adjudicated water rights, 500,000 plus acre feet of federal
reserve right, we need instrumentation and tools to manage that
water so we know what the tools are in different drainage.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs has opted to not fund some of
our gauging stations, and the concept that I was told, well,
you have your water adjudicated. You don't need to know how
much you have. You know already how much you have, but that's
not applicable on a day-to-day basis of water management. And
that has precipitated a letter of some dialogue with the state
engineers office to the BIA that they will call in order that
would be in breach of the Big Horn Decree if they don't fund
those gauging stations. And so I think it's taking a heavy
hammer of the State Engineer's Office to talk with the BIA in
the central office about reestablishing our gauging stations.
It was apparent last year during our flood event that we need
gauging stations, and they weren't operable. So the gauging
stations is a critical issue. I would hope that the Bureau can
seek some way to fund those. There was some attempt to add on
the cost of the gauging stations to the O&M rate. So it's easy
pickings to go to the water users rather than go through BIA or
federal entity up to the Congress for funding.
So with that, I just want to mention that this whole
scenario about the irrigation project here at Wind River has
many times overreached a trust responsibility to the tribes,
and we hope to rectify that. Thank you for your time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Collins follows:]
Prepared Statement of Gary Collins, Wind River Irrigation Project Water
User
History of the Project
Inadequate Funding to Sustain Project Viability
Compared to Bureau of Reclamation to Bureau of Indian Affairs 66
acres of land per 1 mile of lateral on BIA vs. 160 acres of land served
per mile of Lateral on BOR.
Funding for Irrigation
Rehabilitation on WRIP has been solely Tribal efforts to secure
funds from Congress and Wyoming Water Development Commission.
The inefficient system today has caused future ranchers and farmers
to opt out due to costs O and M penalizes land owners that do not farm
Tribes have secured professional engineering analysis of WRIP and have
determined that $70,000,000 to $100,000,000 to rehabilitate the
irrigation project , not including any ``futures land irrigation.''
The ``fabric'' of the agriculture community is being destroyed due
to excessive costs and inefficiency of the system.
The TRUST Responsibility to the Shoshone and Arapaho Tribes has
been breached.
Senator Barrasso. I appreciate the comments from all of
you. We hear about the BIA emergency response and that the land
is now more of a burden than an asset. You know, looking at the
GAO report that said the BIA at that point a number of years
ago was not accountable, I'd like to ask all of you with the
BIA sitting here, how can BIA increase water users in the
project decisionmaking and how can they boost their
accountability to you? I don't know, Gary, if you want to start
and go down the isle.
Mr. Collins. Well, Senator, I believe that had not the
tribe established the Wind River Water Code, which secured the
placement of Wind River Resource Control Board members that
there would be a lot of things that would be left undone, and I
believe the Water Resources Control Board as an entity of
tribal government exercises its sovereignty in terms of looking
after a very precious resource, and as we all know, some of our
water impacts here in Wyoming will be driven by Los Angeles,
Phoenix, Albuquerque and so forth, including Denver. So we need
to be on top of our game. We need to have gauging stations. We
need to have a professional and efficiently run irrigation
system to create opportunity for our people and make the
economy work here. We have, like I said, 10,000 acres that are
idle, 30,000 acres are productive, but with more O&M increases,
there's more idle tracts that come in because people can't
afford it.
Senator Barrasso. Mr. O'Neal, anything you'd like to add in
order to make the BIA more responsible?
Mr. O'Neal. Yes. I think we addressed that in Crowheart
with the MOU. Before we had this in place, we were under the
impression that we had no say whatsoever in our election.
Whatever they came up with, that's what we paid, and that's
basically wherever they deliver it to us, I don't care, most
the time it was only one ditch rider in that particular area,
hardly any service. Since we started this, we have a real good
relationship working with the office.
Senator Barrasso. Do you think that Crowheart model
components apply to other units?
Mr. O'Neal. There's some here that I think would fall in
that category. I think it would have to be water user driven.
We've offered expertise in two other areas, but with very
little success. We still have a budget problem. We're not
getting all the answers we want.
Senator Barrasso. Mr. Glick.
Mr. Glick. Yes, I'd like to add that I'd like to see the
BIA and the irrigation department and the BIA realty department
collaborate to help us with our land and water issues. They are
tied together no matter if they are two different entities
under the BIA. The leases and the irrigation charges are what
cause a lot of the idle lands out there since nobody can afford
to lease a piece of ground with the irrigation charges on this.
I'd like to have the BIA irrigation department and the BIA
realty department basically coordinate like on a government to
government basis with Shoshone Arapaho tribes in the tribal
appointed organization water resource control board. The BIA
has, what, two meetings a year which I wouldn't consider that
coordination. I'd consider that more of a cooperator. That
doesn't really include us on some of the budget or the plans.
I'd like to see the BIA representatives attend more of the
Water Resource Control Board meetings so that they have a
better feel for what the individual landowners are going
through, what their thoughts might be on planning. That's about
it.
Senator Barrasso. Just for this panel, you've heard a lot
today, a couple of hours, is there anything you think was not
covered or anything I ought to hear? We would like to get
everything in the Senate record that everybody wants to have
said on this topic.
Mr. Glick. I'd like to see congressional mandate to have
appropriated funds to cover the administrative costs, the
engineers, the portion of the costs for the payroll for the
system irrigation operators, and possibly the maintenance crew.
That way our assessed charges for the irrigatable acre, which
is basically directed towards operation and maintenance, would
have more funding that would hit the ground on maintenance and
basically sufficient operation methods. On the portion where
the USGS gauging stations, I think there could have been
possibly 24 in operation five, six years ago, and now there's
only four. I think that we need consistent appropriated funds
for the USGS gauging stations to stay in function so that we
can have the overall better resource management plan and if we
could manage our resources better, we'll know where to keep
track of our water, like, on the rehab part of the district if
we can rehab most--just start up with mainly the main canal, we
can work around and actually conserve more water for people
down the road.
Senator Barrasso. Ma'am, if you could identify yourself for
the record and what you'd like to say.
STATEMENT OF SANDRA C'BEARING, CO-CHAIR, WATER RESOURCE CONTROL
BOARD, NORTHERN ARAPAHO TRIBE
Ms. C'Bearing. Okay. Thank you, Senator Barrasso. My name
is Sandra C'Bearing, and I'm the Co-Chair for the Water
Resource Control Board for the Northern Arapaho Tribe, and I'm
pleased to be here today to give some testimony to the
irrigation project.
Senator Barrasso. We'll make your entire testimony if you'd
like it part of the record, but if you'd summarize for us.
Ms. C'Bearing. Okay. Sure. In November 2002, the Northern
Arapaho General Council approved a resolution authorizing the
Northern Arapaho Business Council to develop a water plan for
the reservation water resources. The resolution cited the
following reasons for its passage: The Wind River water passed
by both general council in 1990 required the development of a
plan for the management, administration, use, and protection of
tribal water rights and provided guidance for doing so; that
water development decisions could not be made without such a
plan; and that future growth of the tribe required a
development of an organized approach to meeting the needs of
the tribal population. The economic development has been vital
for both tribes because of the lack of a plan for protection
and use of the reservation's resources and that real water
supply problems were being experienced, including farmers,
households, and water supplies.
With that, in regards to the Wind River--the management of
the BIA irrigation project, of considerable concern to all
reservation leaders and residents in the rehabilitation and
management of the BIA irrigation system and of the effective
delivery of 1868 water to tribal water. Given the need for
irrigation system rehabilitation, the overall goal of that
research effort was to compare how tribal 1868 water is managed
under the BIA system 25 CFR part 171 versus the Wind River
Water Code, Chapter Nine, of the Eastern Shoshone and Northern
Arapaho tribes. Among the many technical funding of this report
are that the tribes are not receiving their full allotment of
tribal 1868 water and the BIA system in 25 CFR. The tribes
receive only 40 to 80 percent of the their 1868 water rights
awarded in the Big Horn Decree, and then the tribal water code
would deliver the full amount of the 1868 water. The BIA is not
following its own procedures in implementing the 25 CFR part
171, specifically the basis for assessing and application of
operation and maintenance, O&M fees, delivery of a quantified
water right, in this case tribal 1868 water, maintenance of
irrigation delivery system, the operation of the project for
maximum tribal benefit, and the prevention of waste. The BIA
system requires a payment of the O&M fees are prerequisites for
water delivery is physically inefficient and legally
insufficient in delivering the 1868 water to the 1868 water
right holders.
While it might not be beneficial to contract the BIA
irrigation project under public law 93-638, there are ways to
exert a greater tribal and local control over the systems and
tribal organizational office, like irrigation conservation
districts. These organizational units can attract outside funds
or other resources. And with that being that the largest block
of tribal water is used for irrigation in the BIA Irrigation
Project on the Wind River Indian Reservation in early 1990s,
the BIA reclassified major portions of the Wind River
Irrigation Project land from class six to class one lands,
meaning an upgrade from lands that could not support themselves
to lands that could. And this resulted in a loss of significant
funds for maintenance activities and raised the individuals
operation and maintenance fees.
The tribes can only effectively use about 100,000 acre feet
of the 250,000 acre feet of historical irrigation water to
irrigation and cannot make use of the additional 250,000 acre
feet of water awarded because of the following: The disrepair
and rehabilitation needs of the system, the failure of the BIA
to maintain the delivery and storage infrastructure and
deferring maintenance, the lack of irrigation water management
for the entire project, idle lands that do not receive water
but are still charged irrigation O&M fees. Since the 1988 Big
Horn Decree, the Bureau of Indian Affairs has wasted and
mismanaged the tribes' federal reserve water rights. The BIA
has failed to deliver the adjudicated water rights amounts to
tribal land in each of the BIA projects on the reservation
sometimes by more than half. The BIA has failed to protect the
senior tribal water right even in the drought situation by
failing to develop an irrigation and water management plan as
required in 25 CFR. Management of the BIA system, including
storage operations, result in the waste of tribal water to
junior water users. The BIA is not allocating operation and
maintenance funds collected from water users for maintenance of
the project.
Since the 1988 Big Horn Decree, the Bureau of Reclamation
has failed to make any adjustments in the water management
operation to account for 500,000 acre feet of the tribes
federal reserve water rights. This has resulted in the
documented diversion and storage of more than 2.1 million acre
feet of federal reserve water rights for use or sale in
irrigation and power generation. The Bureau of Reclamation has
contributed this diversion in all year types including drought
without any discussion, advice, nor consent of the tribes. This
has prevented the tribes from getting any benefit from their
water and has stifled resources planning for and the use of the
senior water right, a valuable resource in the Wind River
Basin. The ultimate goal of the tribes is full ownership and
management of the operational authority, several factors make
it unwise at this time. The estimated rehabilitation needs
range from 50 to $70,000,000. The lack of sufficient management
capability to manage the project given the current organization
and the lack of water management planned for the irrigation
project and the lack of BOR BIA collaboration to protect the
tribes' senior water right and how to compensate for the volume
of water wasted since 1868 Big Horn Decree resulting in the
failure of the federal trustees to protect the federal reserve
water right.
And to conclude, I'd like to include some recommendations
that you investigate the BIA BOR's waste and abuse of federal
reserve water rights of the Northern Arapaho Eastern Shoshone
tribes and conduct an investigation of the BIA's land
reclassification and assess the economic productivity of the
WRIB lands, conduct a feasibility study for the rehabilitation
of the irrigation project whose focus is to reduce cost by
investigating different water management alternatives for
storage and delivery, irrigation districts, rotation, and
scheduling, and land modifications to increase efficient and
storage. As part of the study, we would like to include a
development of long-term phase program where the tribes enter
organizations of water users own, operate, and manage the
project. And lastly investigate key questions related to the
construction of Riverton reclamation project of the 1905 act
lands after meeting with the tribal leaders to present
information.
[The prepared statement of Ms. C'Bearing follows:]
Prepared Statement of Sandra C'Bearing, Co-Chair, Water Resource
Control Board, Northern Arapaho Tribe
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much for your testimony.
Thank you very being here. Mr. Collins, there was a last
comment, and I think you were wanting to say one last thing.
Mr. Collins. Yes. Thank you, Senator Barrasso. I believe
the facts are laid out before all of us as to what we have done
and haven't done. So I think there needs to be emphasis added
to the BIA to sustain their trust responsibility. Additionally,
I believe the tribes can move forward with the Wind River Water
Resources Board to protect their natural resources. So there
needs to be some government-to-government discussions there,
more collaboration, and certainly if we could receive
additional funding in whatever manner, preferably go through
the chain of issues with the BIA, but having seen that not
working, we would probably still approach the congressional
congress for those kind of issues like we have been. But we are
woefully inadequate in sustaining our economy. That's the big
thing. It's not about money fixing the system; it's about money
fixing the system and creating opportunity to maintain and
sustain the community so we, too, can enjoy the economic
benefits.
Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you. I want to thank all of
you from this panel and I want to thank everyone who came to
testify today. I want to thank every who has attended the
meeting and taking your time to participate. I'm grateful that
Central Wyoming College made this wonderful facility available
to us, and specifically I want to thank our State of Wyoming
Select Committee on Tribal Relations, Kale Case and Dale McOmie
who are still here. They've been here the entire duration of
this hearing. Thank all of you. The record will stay open
another two weeks. Anyway, with that, this hearing is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
______
______
______
Prepared Statement of Owen Goggles, Northern Arapaho Tribal Member and
Honored Vietnam Veteran
As a landowner and shareholder, I am very upset and unsatisfied. I
was unaware that there are three (3) administrators and during the
meeting that was conducted at CWC, the three (3) administrators had no
future plan. At this time, we, I do not receive any information from
the BIA here on the Wind River Reservation. When the few of us do
attempt to obtain any information as a person, tribal member,
individual, etc. we are continually given the run around. Why do I have
to pay more into irrigation for no kind of water use? As it is we are
already paying enough sovereignty tax into the state. Not to mention
our land lease is unaffordable for the native use. I had stated to
personnel about my Vietnam experiences with the value of clean, clear
water. We Native Americans have hardly any say with our water. The
people's voice should be heard. We could have the wrong people speaking
for the Arapahos and Shoshones. As a Vietnam Veteran, I've seen many
young men die. Their voices will never be heard. Some of the Little
Wind River has contamination from uranium and maybe radiation. I live
approximately 100 yards from this contamination. The Big Wind River
becomes a trickle during the summer months. I understand that a non-
native diverted the flow of water from his personal property years ago.
The river water could be run off from used irrigation water and human
waste. Again these are just of few of my comments and concerns
regarding the water and irrigation problems.
I thank you for your time to read this,
______
Prepared Statement of Edward Leonardi, President, Double L Ranch, Inc.
Prepared Statement of Brett, Edna, Lori, and Russell Weber
______
Prepared Statement of Tom Norwood
Prepared Statement of Ray Parkhurst