[Senate Hearing 113-284]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 113-284
CURRENT WATER AND POWER BILLS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
S. 1419 S. 2010
S. 1771 S. 2019
S. 1800 S. 2034
S. 1946 H.R. 1963
S. 1965
__________
FEBRUARY 27, 2014
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
-------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
88-043 PDF WASHINGTON : 2014
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana, Chair
RON WYDEN, Oregon LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont MIKE LEE, Utah
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan DEAN HELLER, Nevada
MARK UDALL, Colorado JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
AL FRANKEN, Minnesota TIM SCOTT, South Carolina
JOE MANCHIN, III, West Virginia LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
Elizabeth Leoty Craddock, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
Karen K. Billups, Republican Staff Director
Patrick J. McCormick III, Republican Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Water and Power
BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii, Chairman
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota MIKE LEE, Utah, Ranking
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan DEAN HELLER, Nevada
JOE MANCHIN, III, West Virginia JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
AL FRANKEN, Minnesota TIM SCOTT, South Carolina
Mary L. Landrieu and Lisa Murkowski are Ex Officio Members of the
Subcommittee
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator From Wyoming................... 2
Batten, Belinda A., Director, Northwest National Marine Renewable
Energy Center, Oregon State University......................... 39
Carr, Mike, Senior Advisor to the Director, Energy Policy and
Systems Analysis, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.......... 7
Duyck, Andy, Chairman, Washington County, Oregon Board of
Commissioners, Chairman, Clean Water Services, Board of
Directors...................................................... 35
Katz, John, Deputy Associate General Counsel, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission.......................................... 11
Merkley, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator From Oregon..................... 5
Quint, Robert, Senior Advisor, Bureau of Reclamation, Department
of the Interior................................................ 13
Schatz, Hon. Brian, U.S. Senator From Hawaii..................... 1
Stern, Charles V., Specialist in Natural Resources Policy,
Congressional Research Service................................. 31
Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator From Oregon........................ 3
APPENDIXES
Appendix I
Responses to additional questions................................ 47
Appendix II
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 61
CURRENT WATER AND POWER BILLS
----------
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2014
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Water and Power,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:35 p.m. in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Brian Schatz
presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BRIAN SCHATZ, U.S. SENATOR
FROM HAWAII
Senator Schatz. Good afternoon.
This afternoon the Subcommittee on Water and Power will
consider 8 bills covering several different aspects of our
water and power jurisdiction. Two of the bills on today's
agenda, S. 1800 and S. 1946, directly address the Bureau of
Reclamation's aging infrastructure. Reclamation provides vital
services for irrigators, hydropower dams, recreation and canals
in 17 Western States.
However, much of Reclamation's infrastructure is aging.
Most of its 476 dams were built more than 50 years ago. This
aging infrastructure can be a challenge to maintain.
Recognizing this maintenance challenge, Senator Barrasso
and I introduced, S. 1800, the Bureau of Reclamation
Transparency Act. Our bipartisan legislation would require the
Secretary's Annual Asset Management Plan to provide more
information about major repair and rehabilitation needs at all
Reclamationsites.
Aging infrastructure can be dangerous. Three out of every 4
dams are listed as high or significant hazard meaning that the
failure of the dam could cause death or significant damage to
nearby communities. Reclamation's Safety of Dams program works
to ensure that these dams are as safe as possible.
However, since the program's inception in 1978 it has
received only piecemeal funding. Senators Wyden, Feinstein and
I all agree that public safety is paramount. So together we
introduced S. 1946, a bill to permanently authorize the Safety
of Dams program allowing Reclamation to continue updating its
aging infrastructure.
Another method of addressing aging infrastructure is the
title transfer process in which Reclamation works with
interested project operators to transfer title of certain
Reclamation facilities out of government ownership. This
transfer divests Reclamation of responsibility and liability
for the project. It also provides the recipient with greater
autonomy and flexibility to manage the facilities.
Currently all transfers require an act of Congress. My
bill, S. 2034 would give Reclamation the authority to transfer
certain uncomplicated projects to willing recipients. I'm
looking forward to hearing the Bureau's testimony on it.
Finally I want to briefly talk about S. 2019, the Secure
Water Act Amendments Act of 2014. Reclamation's WaterSMART
program provides grants to fund local water management
projects. These grants go toward cost shared projects which
leverage government money by attracting non Federal
investments. Because WaterSMART saves water and money I want to
make sure that this program continues its good work. This work
is particularly important as the Nation continues to experience
severe and recurring droughts.
We have a number of other bills on the agenda today. I'm
looking forward to hearing more about them.
Now I'll turn to our Ranking Member, Senator Barrasso for
his opening comments, followed by the Finance Chairman, Senator
Wyden.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, U.S. SENATOR
FROM WYOMING
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have
two bills, as you know, on this hearing today, S. 1800, the
Bureau of Reclamation Transparency Act and S. 2010, the Bureau
of Reclamation Conduit Hydropower Development Equity and Jobs
Act.
I'd also note that I'm pleased to be sitting in for
subcommittee Ranking Member Mike Lee. He and I share the same
concerns regarding addressing aging infrastructure and
promoting hydropower, especially in the West where the Bureau
of Reclamation facilities are located.
Water is the most fundamental issue in my home State of
Wyoming. The need to provide a clean, abundant supply of water
is essential to the survival of the Intermountain West. The
infrastructure we have today in my home State and across the
Nation is aging.
Where the weak points are we do not fully know. The longer
we wait the more likely these facilities will fall into
disrepair. This will impact the economic livelihood of ranchers
and farmers in Wyoming and across the West that rely on these
facilities to provide water.
I'm very concerned that the Interior Department and its
leadership has been less than forthcoming about the depth and
scope of this problem. In 2008 Reclamation testified that the
backlog was $3.2 billion. Similar figures have been quoted by
the Administration officials since then. I still have not been
able to get the information as to how these figures have been
constructed nor have I been able to get a complete written list
of the complete maintenance backlog for my home State of
Wyoming.
I've introduced legislation, the Bureau of Reclamation
Transparency Act, which would provide the maintenance and
public safety information by project so Congress can address
our backlog. I want to work together with my colleagues to get
the answers we need and to find the solutions that we need to
improve the aging water delivery systems and Bureau of
Reclamation facilities across the West. Mr. Chairman, I think
this is a common sense bill that will accomplish that. I also
want to thank the Chairman of this subcommittee for being an
original co-sponsor of this important legislation.
Also briefly like to mention, S. 2010, the Bureau of
Reclamation Conduit Hydropower Development Equity and Jobs Act.
This act builds on common sense legislation that I'm proud to
have worked with Senator, I'm sorry, Representative Scott
Tipton in spurring private investment in clean hydroelectric
power generation on existing Reclamation conduits all over the
West. That bipartisan bill is now public law.
The legislation we consider here today, a companion to H.R.
16, I'm sorry, 1963 in the House, would complete the goal of
allowing non Federal interests to develop electricity at
Federal facilities. This bill will do this by promoting
hydropower development at projects authorized under a very
different statute than those covered by the previous
legislation. Taken together Public Law 133-24 and S. 2010 would
facilitate the development of clean, renewable energy at over
373 sites across the West lowering power cost to customers and
creating new jobs in rural America while raising Federal
revenue.
Mr. Chairman, I may say after this hearing that both of
these bills be added to the earliest possible full committee
markup. Thank you for your help. Thank you for the testimony of
those here today.
Senator Schatz. Thank you, Senator Barrasso.
Senator Wyden.
STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM OREGON
Senator Wyden. Thank you very much, Chairman Schatz. I want
to thank you and Senator Barrasso for this courtesy because I
have to go to the Floor to handle a matter coming up for the
Finance Committee. So I thank you both.
This is a particularly important hearing because it deals
with the critical and timely issues with respect to that all
important resource, water. There are 3 bills before the
subcommittee today that are especially important to me and to
my State. I'd just like to touch on them briefly.
The first bill is Senator Merkley's, S. 1771, the Crooked
River Collaborative Water Security Act of 2013. Senator
Merkley, for those who have been following this debate, has
been the go to person for bringing together all of the
stakeholders on the Crooked River to provide uncontracted water
in Bowman dam for the city of Prineville and for endangered
fish populations while giving the irrigators certainty on their
contracted water. I want it understood that, I believe, Senator
Merkley has done invaluable work on this, particularly in terms
of bringing everybody together.
It's my intension to work closely with him, with
Congressman Walden, with other colleagues in the Congress and
the stakeholders in Central Oregon to see this bill through
this year. As far as I'm concerned the city of Prineville needs
this water yesterday. We are committed to getting that done.
The second bill I want to touch on is S. 1946, which I have
proposed with you, Chairman Schatz and Senators Feinstein and
Senator Merkley would permanently reauthorize the Safety of
Dams programs within Reclamation. This is an important matter
with respect to water infrastructure, a critical task across
the West. To help illustrate the importance of this program,
the Chair of Washington County, Andy Duyck, has made the trek,
the 3,000-mile trek across the country, to explain how the
program affects the safety and economic vitality in the
Tualatin Basin given the process underway at Scoggins Dam.
Washington County is home to our semiconductor industry and
to other major employers in our State making Scoggins Dam a
central part of the region's water supply infrastructure that
drives residential, agricultural and industrial development.
This legislation is absolutely key, Mr. Chairman, to ensure
that the necessary safety modifications are made in a timely
way. I'm very appreciative of the opportunity to talk about the
bill, to have Andy Duyck here and for your leadership.
Finally, I want to speak on behalf of S. 1419, my
bipartisan bill with Senator Murkowski that would reauthorize
the Department of Energy's Marine Hydrokinetic Energy program
including research centers like the one hosted at Oregon State
University and the University of Washington. We're glad to have
Dr. Belinda Batten, Director of the Northwest National Marine
Renewable Energy Center, as a witness. Oregon State University
has been a world leader in the development of wave energy
technology. I think that all who have observed their work have
acknowledged that leadership.
One last point. A year ago, as Chair of the full committee,
I asked Ernie Moniz, Dr. Ernie Moniz, during his confirmation
hearing to make a greater commitment to what I've come to call
the forgotten renewables, the forgotten renewable energy
sources, particularly water, geothermal and biomass. In a few
weeks when the President's FY 2015 budget is presented to the
Congress we'll all have a chance to see whether or not these
energy sources have finally made it to the Department's
priority list. I do have some doubts that the executive branch
will have made that commitment.
So one purpose of your valuable hearing, Mr. Chairman, is
to underscore the committee's commitment to wave and tidal
energy. Over the past decade congressional authorizing and
appropriating committees have worked to maintain a Federal
commitment to both conventional hydropower and wave energy
technologies even when the Department was not particularly
interested in that being done. So we've discussed this with
Assistant Secretary Danielson, most recently a couple of weeks
ago when he appeared before the committee. It seems that even
when the Congress has appropriated funds for wave energy the
Department has not been following through enough to ensure that
those funds actually get turned into research and the important
work that we could like to see in the wave energy field.
Now it's my understanding that Assistant Secretary
Danielson and his team have taken a look to see what additional
steps can be taken to address this matter. I'm looking forward
to hearing from Dr. Danielson and his staff. I want to thank
them for indicating that they will make this issue a higher
priority.
At a time when our competitors around the world are putting
an enormous effort into this very promising technology, S. 1419
puts this committee and the Congress on record as saying we are
not going to sit out the competition in this important area.
So I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership
and also for allowing me to break from the committee's regular
order to make this statement. I look forward to working with
you and Senator Barrasso on these matters.
Senator Schatz. Thank you very much, Senator Wyden.
We are honored to have Senator Merkley, also from the great
State of Oregon, who is here to discuss a bill that he has
introduced, S. 1771. We know you've worked very hard on this.
We know that your tremendous negotiating skills and local
knowledge have come to bear here. We look forward to hearing
from you, Senator Merkley.
Go ahead.
STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF MERKLEY, U.S. SENATOR
FROM OREGON
Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. It's a
pleasure to be here. I'm going to submit my full testimony for
the record and make a very abbreviated remarks given the
pressure of time between votes.
I'd like to acknowledge Belinda Batten, Director of the
Northwest National Marine Renewable Energy Center at Oregon
State University, who is here as Senator Wyden noted, to
testify on the bill related to wave energy, the Marine and
Hydrokinetic Renewable Energy Act. I'm a proud co-sponsor of
that bill.
I'd also like to recognize Commissioner Andy Duyck, who has
been a County Commissioner for Washington County for many years
and is here to advocate for the Safety of Dams Act because the
Scoggins Dam is highly at risk. It is a critical supply of
water to the region. We need to get more water behind that dam
as well.
In terms of the bill I've come to testify on, it's the
Crooked River Collaborative Water Security Act of 2013.
It will create economic opportunity by providing the city
of Prineville with greater access to ground water.
The bill will also allow for retrofitting the Bowman Dam to
generate hydroelectric power.
The bill strikes a balance between providing certainty to
the agricultural community that depends on the reservoir for
irrigation water, but also to release water to maintain healthy
runs of steelhead salmon and to provide healthy conditions for
trout.
The bill will create a dry year management process to help
plan for years in which we have drought which occur all too
often in order to best manage the available water, to have the
best possible conditions for the ecosystem and for the
recreational opportunities in the dam and on the river.
This issue of managing the water has been going on for
decades, 4 decades, 40 years. We now have an opportunity where
so many stakeholders have come together to say that there is a
win/win solution.
I do have letters from those stakeholders that I'll submit
for the record.
Let us seize this opportunity so that it is not yet another
40 years before we have this type of win/win opportunity for
the various interests in this county.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Senator Schatz. Thank you very much, Senator Merkley.
We really appreciate your testimony, your leadership and
your skill in helping to negotiate a solution and create an
opportunity where this has been a long standing challenge for
an area that you represent. I know this has been tremendously
difficult. We're hopeful that the committee will be able to
help along those lines.
We know you have a vote. Thank you very much, Senator
Merkley.
[The prepared statement of Senator Merkley follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jeff Merkley, U.S. Senator From Oregon
I'd like to thank Subcommittee Chairman Schatz, and Ranking Member
Lee, as well as other members of the Subcommittee for inviting me to
give remarks today on a bill both Senator Wyden and I have worked hard
on for several years now. I would like to particularly thank Senator
Wyden for dedicating so much of his time and effort to negotiating a
historic agreement that has garnered such broad support in Oregon.
This bill is called the Crooked River Collaborative Water Security
Act of 2013.
What the bill does is forge an agreement in a debate that has
lasted for decades over how to manage water releases from the Bowman
Dam, which is a Bureau of Reclamation project on the Crooked River in
Crook County, Oregon.
This Bureau project is critical to the well-being of central
Oregon. The dam itself has reduced the risk of flooding downstream by
stabilizing flows in the river, particularly in the rainy winter
months.
The water released from this dam has provided a reliable source of
irrigation water for the agricultural community in the area.
But unlike virtually any other Bureau of Reclamation Project, this
one has the good fortune of having significant excess storage capacity,
and for decades there has been debate over how to make the best use of
that capacity.
This bill strikes a compromise across a broad range of stakeholders
in the region, and enjoys the support of the local irrigation
districts, fishing groups, conservation groups, Crook County, the Warm
Springs Tribe, the City of Prineville, and the Governor of Oregon.
These groups have written letters of support for this bill, which
will accompany my testimony for the record.
The bill will create economic opportunity in the region by
providing the City of Prineville with greater access to groundwater,
which will meet their growing municipal water needs.
The bill will also allow for retrofitting the Bowman Dam to
generate hydroelectric power, which will create jobs as well as clean
power for the region.
The bill also strikes a balance between providing greater certainty
to the agricultural community that depends on the Prineville Reservoir
for water, while also allowing water to be released from Bowman Dam to
help maintain healthy steelhead, salmon and trout fisheries, which are
cherished by local fisherman.
Finally, this bill will create a dry-year-management-process to
help better plan for dry years, including the impact on fish habitat
and fishing, as well as boating and other recreational activities.
The Crooked River Collaborative Water Security Act, to me,
represents the best solution to a decades old debate in Central Oregon,
and is a solution that came about by many diverse interests taking a
leap of faith to come to the table together and ultimately find common
ground.
I am proud that we are now at a point where we can move this bill
through the committee, and it is my hope that this bill can move
quickly through the Senate.
I would also like to quickly highlight two other bills that will be
discussed in today's hearing, both of which are led by Senator Wyden
and are bills I am proud to cosponsor. One is a bill to amend the
Reclamation Safety of Dams Act, and the other would help to facilitate
the development of marine hydrokinetic technologies.
I'd also just like to recognize and welcome the two witnesses from
Oregon who will be testifying on these bills later--Belinda Batten and
Andy Duyck. We are very grateful to each of you for coming to testify
on these important bills today.
We have a dam in Oregon, the Scoggins Dam in Washington County,
that has been in need of repairs for years to ensure that it could
withstand a major earthquake.
The bill to amend the Reclamation Safety of Dams Act will help get
more funding for dam safety work, which I know is an issue not only for
this dam in Oregon, but many other Bureau dams across the country.
We also have in Oregon a program at Oregon State University that is
working on creating a test facility for wave energy. This facility is
exciting because it will allow companies to try out their technologies
at utility scale and be grid connected.
The Marine and Hydrokinetic Renewable Energy Act will also help to
develop wave energy technology by removing regulatory obstacles for
pilot projects and encourage more research and development.
I am grateful for Senator Wyden's leadership on these two important
bills, and I look forward to working with the members of the committee
to advance these bills as well as the Crooked River Collaborate Water
Security Act.
I will now call upon the witnesses to come to the table and
ask you to provide your testimony.
Our first witness is Michael Carr, Principal Deputy
Assistant Secretary in the Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy at the Department of Energy.
We have also John Katz, Deputy Associate General Counsel
for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Finally Robert Quint, Senior Advisor at the Bureau of
Reclamation in the Department of the Interior.
Thank you very much for being here. Your written testimony
will be included in the record in full. So please take
approximately 5 minutes to summarize.
Mr. Carr, we will start with you and then move down the
line.
STATEMENT OF MIKE CARR, SENIOR ADVISOR TO THE DIRECTOR, ENERGY
POLICY AND SYSTEMS ANAYLSIS, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT
SECRETARY, ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLE ENERGY, DEPARTMENT
OF ENERGY
Mr. Carr. Thank you, Chairman Schatz, Ranking Member Lee
and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity
to testify on behalf of the U.S. Department of Energy on S.
1419, the Marine and Hydrokinetic Renewable Energy Act of 2013.
The Administration is still reviewing S. 1419 and does not
yet have a formal position on the bill. But I'd like to
summarize briefly here a few points about the bill.
S. 1419 would reauthorize the Department's research and
development program on marine and hydrokinetic or MHK
technologies to improve their performance and survivability and
drive down cost; among other things, directing DOE to develop
appropriate testing infrastructure and support demonstrations
of MHK energy technologies to verify performance and cost; and
would expand the role of the National Marine Renewable Energy
Centers to include in water testing and demonstration of MHK
technologies.
DOE supports the goals of ensuring U.S. leadership in
innovating, validating and manufacturing MHK domestically and
deploying these technologies sustainably.
The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy or
EERE leads DOE's efforts to build a strong clean energy
economy. We support research, development, and demonstration of
cutting edge technologies in sustainable transportation, energy
efficiency and renewable electricity generation including both
hydropower and MHK technologies.
Within EERE, the Water Power Program has made significant
strides in advancing next generation MHK technologies;
assessing existing resource potential; promoting deployment
opportunities; and, in cooperation with other government
agencies, assessing and mitigating any potential wildlife or
environmental conflicts.
A recent resource assessment of the Nation's wave, tidal,
ocean and river current energy shows that the extractable
potential of these resources represents up to 25 percent of
projected U.S. generation needs by 2050. In particular there is
significant potential to provide MHK generated electricity to
coastal communities with higher average electricity prices and
where long transmission runs are not cost effective.
The Department plans to invest $41.3 million in fiscal year
2014 to promote MHK technology, research, development, testing
and demonstration.
Fostering a domestic MHK industry requires strategic
investments in research and development to drive down the cost
and improve the performance of the most promising and cost
competitive technologies. The Water Power Program goal is to
achieve cost competitiveness at local coastal hurdle rates
which are about 12 to 15 cents per kilowatt hour in 2030,
projected.
The Program's research activities enable the development of
innovative technologies such as new drive train, generator and
structural components and software that can better predict
ocean conditions. DOE research also improves MHK reliability,
technology readiness and survivability, like, for example,
research on innovative corrosion resistant composite materials
that can reduce the need for repairs and lower operations and
maintenance costs.
For testing and demonstration of MHK devices DOE has
invested in 3 National Marine Renewable Energy Centers or
NMRECs which are geographically diverse and test a wide range
of MHK technologies in different water conditions and climates
in order to validate technology performance and identify and
address technology challenges early in the development cycle.
A recent example includes the Northwest National Marine
Renewable Energy Center's launch of a mobile instrumentation
buoy that obtains critical technical and cost performance data
for a variety of wave energy technologies. In general these
centers will continue to support rapid technology evolution
enabling cost competitive MHK technologies.
One specific Water Power Program focus is on making
strategic investments in transformative technologies like wave
energy converter technologies through open water and test tank
environment demonstrations. In-water demonstrations help
evaluate the entire process of deploying MHK devices,
validating construction, generation and operating expenses, and
have greatly increased our knowledge and understanding of
device performance and commercial readiness of MHK
technologies.
EERE's MHK sub program also pursues market acceleration and
deployment activities that address key environmental and
ecological uncertainties, which DOE believes currently
represent the most significant barrier to rapid and efficient
permitting and licensing of new demonstrations or commercial
projects.
In fiscal year 2014 DOE plans to invest $5 million in
research that includes development of instrumentation for cost
effective MHK environmental monitoring.
In conclusion I'd like to thank you, the committee, for the
opportunity to testify on S. 1419 and on DOE's work in
advancing marine and hydrokinetic technologies. I look forward
to working with this subcommittee to foster U.S. leadership in
this nascent industry. I look forward to any questions you may
have.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Carr follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mike Carr, Senior Advisor to the Director, Energy
Policy and Systems Analysis and Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary,
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy
introduction
Chairman Schatz, Ranking Member Lee, and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) on S. 1419, the Marine and Hydrokinetic
Renewable Energy Act of 2013.
The Department is still reviewing S. 1419 and therefore does not
have a position on the bill at this time. S. 1419 would authorize the
Department to perform research and development on marine and
hydrokinetic (MHK) technology components, materials, and systems in
order to improve performance, increase survivability, and drive down
the technology's cost. S. 1419 would authorize the Department to
develop appropriate testing infrastructure and support demonstrations
of MHK energy technologies to verify their performance and cost. The
legislation also would expand the authorized role of National Marine
Renewable Energy Research, Development, and Demonstration Centers to
include in-water testing and demonstration of MHK technologies.
background
DOE is pursuing an all-of-the-above approach to developing every
source of American energy. The Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy leads DOE's efforts to help build a strong clean
energy economy, a strategy that is aimed at reducing our reliance on
oil, saving families and businesses money, creating jobs, and reducing
pollution. We support research, development, and demonstration (RD&D)
of cutting-edge technologies in sustainable transportation, energy
efficiency, and renewable electricity generation, including both
hydropower and MHK technologies. The Department supports the goals of
ensuring United States leadership in innovating, validating, and
manufacturing MHK technologies domestically, as well as deploying these
technologies sustainably in order to harness the energy potential of
our various water resources while building a clean energy economy.
The Water Power Program has recently completed comprehensive
resource assessments that identify the potential of the nation's waves,
as well as tidal, ocean, and river currents. These resource assessments
estimate that the technically extractable resource potential is almost
900 TWh/yr for wave energy\1\ and under 400 TWh/yr for tidal\2\ and
ocean current,\3\ which represents up to 25 percent of projected U.S.
generation needs by 2050. With more than 50 percent of the population
living within 50 miles of coastlines, there is significant potential to
provide clean, renewable electricity to communities and cities in these
coastal regions using marine and hydrokinetic technologies. MHK
technologies can more readily compete in the near term in coastal
regions with higher average electricity prices, and close proximity of
coastal populations to water resources reduces transmission distances.
There are potentially many different ways that we can sustainably
develop our water resources for energy and the Department is committed
to helping identify new opportunities for developing renewable energy
resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reprocessed at 100 meter depth data from P. Jacobson, G.
Hagerman, and G. Scott, ``Mapping and Assessment of the United States
OceanWave Energy Resource,'' Electric Power Research Institute, Report
Number 1024637, 2011.
\2\ K. Haas, H. Fritz, S. French, B. Smith, and V. Neary,
``Assessment of Energy Production Potential from Tidal Streams in the
United States,'' Georgia Tech Research Corporation, 2011.Upper bound
derives from variation on assumptions in numerical models used.
\3\ K. Haas, H. Fritz, S. French, and V. Neary, ``Assessment of
Energy Production Potential from Ocean Currents Along the United
StatesCoastlines,'' Georgia Tech Research Corporation, 2013. Upper
bound derives from variation on assumptions in the numerical models
used, and represents Gulfstream from FL to NC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since DOE restarted its Water Power Program in fiscal year 2008,
the Program has made significant strides in advancing next-generation
water power technologies that can extract energy from moving water,
including waves and currents in oceans, rivers, and tidal areas;
assessing existing resources; promoting deployment opportunities; and
developing this resource in an environmentally responsible manner.
Fostering a domestic MHK industry requires strategic investments in
research, development, testing, and demonstration to drive down the
cost and improve the performance of the most promising and cost-
competitive technologies. The Department plans to invest $41.3 million
in fiscal year 2014 to promote MHK technology development and testing
in laboratory and open-water settings, while gathering the operational,
environmental, and cost data needed to accelerate the responsible
deployment and commercialization of MHK technologies.
Furthermore, like all energy development, MHK deployment requires
ensuring that our water, ecological, and marine life resources are
protected. I will address these broad areas in turn.
research and development
The levelized cost of energy (LCOE) of today's wave energy devices
is between 61 and 77 cents per kilowatt-hour ( /kWh), and is between 47
and 53 /kWh for tidal stream energy devices.\4\ The MHK subprogram
goal is to achieve cost-competitiveness at local coastal hurdle rates,
which is approximately 12 to 15 /kWh by 2030. The Program has
developed detailed cost models for six different MHK device designs
using performance simulations and small-scale laboratory tests for
validation. To build on these cost models and clearly identify cost
reduction pathways, the Program is identifying research and development
opportunities to reduce the LCOE for MHK devices, supporting a
detailed, internal techno-economic assessment of MHK technologies and
helping stakeholders identify research and development gaps to achieve
cost-competitive energy rates by 2030. Using data from internal techno-
economic MHK assessment, the Department has established baseline costs
for the technology to better inform MHK RD&D activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ ``The Carbon Trust, Accelerating Marine Energy,'' July 2011:
http://www.carbontrust.com/resources/reports/technology/accelerating-
marine- energy
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research activities enable the development of innovative
technologies and improve the reliability and technology readiness of
MHK systems. DOE currently supports systems and performance advancement
projects to develop new drivetrain, generator and structural components
as well as develop software that predicts ocean conditions and adjusts
device settings accordingly to optimize power production. One example
includes innovative components with cross-platform applicability, such
as simplified drivetrain designs that will eliminate costly and
unreliable gearboxes and hydraulics by utilizing permanent magnet and
linear direct-drive generators. DOE also researches ways to improve the
technology's survivability, like innovative corrosion resistant
materials, such as composites, which can lower repairs and reduce
operations and maintenance costs.
testing and demonstration
DOE has invested in three National Marine Renewable Energy Centers.
These Centers are geographically diverse, offering testing sites for a
wide range of MHK technology types in different water conditions and
climates, to help validate technology performance and identify and
address technology deficiencies early in the development cycle.
Recently, the Northwest National Marine Renewable Energy Center, led
jointly by Oregon State University and the University of Washington,
launched the Ocean Sentinel, a mobile instrumentation buoy to support
ocean testing that obtains critical technical and cost performance data
for a variety of wave energy technologies.
Additionally, the Water Power Program is focused on making
strategic investments in transformative technologies, including systems
demonstration for advanced MHK industry projects like wave energy
converter technologies. By supporting in-water demonstrations, the
Program will have the opportunity to evaluate the entire process from
demonstration inception to completion, validating construction,
generation, and operating expenses and informing the investor community
on the status and progress of MHK systems. Between fiscal year 2011 and
fiscal year 2013, the Program cost-shared the testing of 10 MHK devices
in open-water environments, and the testing of 8 MHK devices in test
tanks in controlled conditions. These demonstrations have greatly
increased our knowledge and understanding of device performance and
their interaction with the environment. This important demonstration
work helps to advance the commercial readiness of full-scale MHK
technologies, like the first-ever grid-connected tidal power device in
the United States in Cobscook Bay, Maine, now delivering enough
electricity to the utility grid to alone power 25 to 30 homes annually.
developing mhk resources sustainably
EERE's MHK subprogram pursues market acceleration and deployment
activities that address key environmental and ecological uncertainties,
which DOE believes currently represent the most significant barrier to
rapid and efficient permitting and licensing of new demonstrations or
commercial projects. In fiscal year 2014, DOE plans to invest $5
million in activities that support a range of environmental studies and
tool development to ensure that energy generated from MHK is not only
renewable, but environmentally sustainable. This includes the
development of instrumentation, associated processing tools, and
integration of instrumentation packages for quickly and cost-
effectively conducting environmental monitoring of MHK technologies.
Additionally, DOE is an active member of the International Energy
Agency's Ocean Energy Systems group and recently collaborated with
international partners to create the Tethys database, which catalogues
and shares environmental research and monitoring information from
around the world to enable sustainable development and expansion of
clean, renewable ocean and offshore wind power. For the past four
years, DOE has also served as the convener of the Federal Renewable
Ocean Energy Working Group to discuss issues of importance, including
environmental considerations, amongst relevant federal agencies.
conclusion
In conclusion, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to
testify on S. 1419 and on DOE's work to advance MHK technologies. The
Department's goals are to help build a viable domestic MHK industry and
secure a supply of efficient clean energy from our water resources by
supporting innovations enabling cutting-edge MHK technology, testing
and demonstration of these technologies, and tools and analysis to
ensure we develop our marine and hydrokinetic resources sustainably. I
look forward to working with this Subcommittee and with Congress to
ensure United States leadership in this industry and to enable the
deployment of this source of clean energy.
Senator Schatz. Thank you very much.
Mr. Katz.
STATEMENT OF JOHN KATZ, DEPUTY ASSOCIATE GENERAL COUNSEL,
FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION
Mr. Katz. Mr. Chairman, it's a pleasure to appear before
you again. As a member of the staff of the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission my testimony represents my opinions alone
and not necessarily those of the Chairman or of any
Commissioner.
The bill I'm here to testify also as to S. 1419, the Marine
and Hydrokinetic Renewable Energy Act, the first portions of
the bill deal with the Department of Energy's development,
support of development, activities for the marine and
hydrokinetic industry to the extent that the bills calls for
the Commission to consult with DOE. FERC staff is prepared and
happy to do that.
The second portion of the bill deals with the development
of test centers. As the Commission staff has discussed with
you, DOE staff actually, with Dr. Batten as well, we recommend
that such centers be under the aegis of DOE because if they're
done as private entities then the Commission would have to----
Senator Schatz. Mr. Katz, excuse me. I'm being told that we
need to take a brief recess so I can visit the Floor and cast
my vote. I'll be back as soon as possible.
Thank you.
[RECESS]
Senator Barrasso [presiding]. I just visited with the
Chairman downstairs. I was coming back from the vote. He was
heading to the vote. He asked that we just please resume the
testimony as things were and apologize for the interruption
with votes like this.
But thank you all.
Mr. Katz. Thank you, Senator.
I believe I was just in the middle of saying that with
respect to the provisions of the bill that would authorize DOE
to develop test centers, the Commission staff strongly
recommends that those be under the aegis of DOE because if
they're done by private entities those private entities would
have to get involved in the process of obtaining a FERC
license. Therefore it would be easier on them as if they were
under the aegis of being a Federal facility since the
Commission has no authorization to grant licenses for Federal
facilities.
The final part of the bill that I wanted to address would
authorize the Commission to issue pilot licenses for test
projects. The Commission has already issued several licenses
for such projects under its existing authority. But should
Congress choose to further define that authority the Commission
would be happy to proceed under Congress' direction.
With that I'm happy to answer any questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Katz follows:]
Prepared Statement of John Katz, Deputy Associate General Counsel,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Chairman Schatz, Ranking Member Lee, and Members of the
Subcommittee:
My name is John Katz, Deputy Associate General Counsel for Energy
Projects, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before you to discuss S.1419, the Marine and
Hydrokinetic Renewable Energy Act. As a member of the Commission's
staff, the views I express in this testimony are my own, and not
necessarily those of the Chairman or of any individual Commissioner.
i. background
Pursuant to Part I of the Federal Power Act (FPA), the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission authorizes and regulates non-federal
hydropower projects. FPA section 4(e) provides that the Commission may
issue licenses for hydropower project works located across, along,
from, or in any of the streams over which Congress has jurisdiction
under its commerce clause authority, and on any part of the public
lands and reservations of the United States. FPA section 23(b) makes it
unlawful (with exceptions not relevant here) for any person, state, or
municipality, for the purpose of developing electric power, to
construct hydropower project works on the navigable waters of the
United States, on non-navigable waters over which Congress has Commerce
Clause jurisdiction, on public lands or reservations, or using surplus
water or power from any government dam, except pursuant to a license
issued by the Commission.
Under the FPA, the Commission regulates over 1,600 hydropower
projects at over 2,500 dams. Together, these projects represent 54
gigawatts of hydropower capacity, more than half of all the hydropower
in the United States. Hydropower is an essential part of the Nation's
energy mix and offers the benefits of an emission-free, renewable,
domestic energy source with public and private capacity together
totaling about nine percent of the U.S. electric generation capacity.
During the last decade, there has been increasing interest in
developing projects using new technology that produces electricity
utilizing waves or the flow of water in ocean currents, tides, or
inland waterways. These are referred to as marine and hydrokinetic
projects. By early 2007, the Commission had received more than 50
applications for preliminary permits to study such projects, and had
held a technical conference with respect to the development of these
new technologies. The Commission then issued an interim policy
statement with respect to its review of marine and hydrokinetic
preliminary permit applications.
In 2008, Commission staff issued guidance on licensing marine and
hydrokinetic pilot projects. The guidance discussed the issuance, under
the Commission's existing authority and regulations, of five-year pilot
licenses to enable developers to study and test new technology. Pilot
project licenses would be for projects that were small, short-term, not
located in environmentally sensitive areas, would be able to be shut
down on short notice, and would be removed at the end of the pilot
license term, unless a new license was granted at that time. Applicants
would be required to consult with affected federal, state, and local
resource agencies, Indian tribes, non-governmental agencies, and
members of the public.
Since the issuance of the Commission policy statement and staff
guidance, Commission staff has worked closely with project developers
and other stakeholders to explore the development of marine and
hydrokinetic projects. There are currently 11 preliminary permits in
effect for marine and hydrokinetic projects. To date, the Commission
has licensed six marine and hydrokinetic projects, three of which were
pilot projects, and is reviewing one application for a pilot tidal
project.
ii. s.1419
Section 102 of S.1419 provides that the Secretary of Energy, in
consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of
Commerce, and the Commission, shall carry out a program of research,
development, demonstration, and commercial application to expand marine
and hydrokinetic renewable energy production. While the Commission is
not authorized or funded to engage in research, development, or
commercial application activities, Commission staff is prepared to
assist the Secretary, as appropriate, in these matters.
Section 103 of S.1419 provides for the development, under the
Secretary of Energy, of national marine renewable energy research,
development, and demonstration centers. Commission staff has discussed
such centers with staff at the Department of Energy and believes that
the centers could provide important support for the development of
marine and hydrokinetic technology. Because the FPA requires that
projects developed by private entities, states, and municipalities that
are located in the navigable waters be licensed by the Commission,
Commission staff believes that a regime in which the test centers would
be owned by the Department of Energy would be preferable, so that
testing would not require Commission authorization.
Section 201 of S.1419 would amend the FPA to authorize the
Commission to issue pilot project licenses under specified criteria. As
noted, the Commission has already issued pilot project licenses and
Commission staff has developed guidance with respect to such licenses,
under the assumption that the FPA currently provides authority for the
Commission to do so. No entity has to date suggested that these actions
are beyond the scope of the FPA. However, it is up to Congress to
determine whether the Commission should be provided with explicit
statutory authority in this area. To the extent that section 201
establishes criteria for qualifying pilot projects, Commission staff
recommends that project developers and other stakeholders be given the
opportunity to present their views on these matters. In addition,
Commission staff recommends providing some flexibility in the criteria,
given the unknowns in developing a new industry.
I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Mr. Katz.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT QUINT, SENIOR ADVISOR, BUREAU OF
RECLAMATION, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Quint. Thank you, Senator Barrasso and other members of
the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on 7
bills before the subcommittee today.
I'm Bob Quint, Senior Advisor at the Bureau of Reclamation.
My full written statements have been submitted for the record
on all 7 bills.
Because of the number of bills and the limited time I will
summarize my written statements here and be available for
questions.
Taking them in order, S. 1771, the Crooked River
Collaborative Water Security Act.
S. 1771 is the latest version of legislation that has
carried over from the 112th Congress. S. 1771 would move a Wild
and Scenic River's boundary that had been placed across the
center line of Bowman Dam and place it a quarter mile
downstream. The bill also allows for water supply and
operational changes of the reservoir.
With some technical changes detailed in my written
statement the Department would support S. 1771.
S. 1800, the Reclamation Transparency Act.
S. 1800 deals with information available on Reclamation's
water and power infrastructure. As written the bill requires
Reclamation to prepare biannual reports to Congress with
detailed assessments of major repair and rehabilitation needs
at each of the several thousand individual facilities within
Reclamation's more than 180 projects. We understand the desire
in Congress for more information on the state of Reclamation's
infrastructure. However, Reclamation has several concerns with
the bill as written among them the cost to implement it, the
value of the end product and the difficulty of achieving a
uniform level of detail for facilities that are hugely variable
in their role and importance.
We would like to work with the sponsor and this
subcommittee to provide additional information on our
facilities and to offer amendments to the bill consistent with
my written statement.
S. 1946, to amend the Safety of Dams Act.
S. 1946 amends the Reclamation's Safety of Dams Act to
authorize such sums that are necessary for ongoing safety and
corrective actions at Reclamation dams. Dam safety will be a
permanent obligation of our agency and we do not foresee a time
when this work will not require Federal funding. For that
reason we believe that it's good policy to remove the ceiling
for appropriations from this important program. The Department
strongly supports this bill.
S. 1965, the East Bench Irrigation District Contract
Extension.
S. 1965 renews a water service contract between Reclamation
and the East Bench Irrigation District that is necessary due to
the circumstances under current Montana State Law. Reclamation
has supported Federal legislation to legislatively extend this
contract before. We are glad to support S. 1965.
S. 2010/H.R. 1963, Conduit Hydropower Development Equity
and Jobs Act.
S. 2010 builds on previous legislation meant to expand the
number of facilities where Reclamation can permit non-Federal
development of hydropower on existing facilities. Reclamation
testified on H.R. 1963, a companion measure to S. 2010 last May
before the House Water and Power Subcommittee. H.R. 1963 was
amended by the House of Representatives and that bill is
identical to the legislation before the subcommittee today, S.
2010.
With some technical amendments detailed in my testimony the
Department supports S. 2010 and H.R. 1963.
S. 2019, the Secure Water Act Amendments of 2014.
S. 2019 would amend Section 1904(e) of the Secure Water Act
raising the ceiling from 200 million to such sums that are
necessary for each of the fiscal years 2015 through 2023. The
bill also clarifies the Department's ability to plan for and
address drought and makes Hawaii an eligible State for
participation of the WaterSMART, water conservation grant
program.
The Department strongly supports this bill.
Last, S. 2034, Title Transfer legislation.
The subcommittee has requested testimony on S. 2034,
Reclamation Title Transfer Act of 2014. The Department has long
recognized the value providing programmatic authority for the
transfer of title for facilities that are non-controversial and
typically single purpose. We believe S. 2034 would achieve this
goal and we support the bill.
In summary the Department with a few changes in these bills
and could potentially support passage of all 7 bills. Passage
of these will afford Reclamation's mission of delivering water
and power providing continuing benefits to the American West.
I'd just like to add on a personal note. I was just
informed that my former, my new, soon to be former boss, Mike
Connor, was just confirmed as Deputy Secretary of Interior. I
applaud the Senate for their wisdom in doing that.
This concludes my statement. I'd be pleased to answer
questions at the appropriate time. Thank you.
[The prepared statements of Mr. Quint follow:]
Prepared Statement of Robert Quint, Senior Advisor, Bureau of
Reclamation, Department of the Interior
s. 2034
Chairman Schatz and members of the Subcommittee, I am Bob Quint,
Senior Advisor at the Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased to provide
the views of the Department of the Interior on S. 2034, The Reclamation
Title Transfer Act of 2014. While we support the intent of this
proposal, we have not had the opportunity to conduct a thorough
analysis of the bill, so we would appreciate the opportunity to work
with the Committee to address any technical issues that we may
identify. Today, I will share the Bureau of Reclamation's ongoing
efforts to facilitate the transfer of title to Reclamation projects and
facilities and some examples of technical considerations we have
identified already.
S. 2034 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to establish
a program to identify and analyze the potential for public benefits
from the transfer of eligible facilities out of Federal ownership. It
would also authorize the Secretary to transfer title, without a further
Act of Congress, to certain Reclamation facilities out of Federal
ownership to qualifying entities that the legislation identifies as
having the capacity to ``manage the conveyed property for the same
purposes that the property has been managed under Reclamation law.''
The Department believes that S. 2034 is consistent with efforts
that the Bureau of Reclamation currently has underway and meets the
goals for improving the effectiveness, timeliness and efficiency of
managing water resources facilities in the West.
Mr. Chairman, we see title transfer as an important tool for
improving the management of water in the West. In many cases, because
of the evolution of water resource management and business in the West,
there is no longer a compelling public, national or Federal interest in
some of the projects or project facilities that Reclamation owns, but
which are operated by the entities that enjoy the benefits and bear the
costs of operating those facilities. For these types of projects, title
transfer is a win-win. For the water user, taking title would afford
greater flexibility in how they carry out project operations and would
enable them to avoid certain costs associated with reporting and
compliance with Federal requirements. From our perspective, title
transfer would allow Reclamation to refocus our limited resources on
other high priority activities and relieves us of some liability as the
owners of the project.
background
In 1995, the Bureau of Reclamation began an effort to facilitate
the transfer of title to Reclamation projects and facilities in a
consistent and comprehensive way. Reclamation developed a process known
as the Framework for the Transfer of Title--whereby interested non-
Federal entities could work with and through Reclamation to identify
and address all of the issues that would enable a title transfer to
move forward. Once completed, Reclamation and the entity interested in
taking title would work with the Congress to gain the necessary
authorization for such a title transfer. As we gained experience, the
process has evolved and improved. As we worked through various
transfers, some were successful and some were not. Over that time
period, we've learned important lessons and have modified the process
to improve the efficiency and reduce the associated costs.
Since 1996, the Bureau of Reclamation has transferred title to
twenty-seven (27) projects or parts of projects across the West--
pursuant to various Acts of Congress. There are some additional
transfers that are authorized and awaiting completion. In one case, a
district receiving title is completing real estate surveys and
preparing the quit claim deeds necessary to record the change of
ownership with the county. There are two other authorized transfers
where portions of the project were already transferred, but the
entities receiving title decided to split the transfers up in order to
accomplish other objectives prior to completing the transfer on a
portion of the project that still remains in Federal ownership.
Further, there is another transfer that is working through completing
certain steps and activities which require compliance with various
Federal laws including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and
the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) as called for by the
authorizing legislation.
Since each project is unique, each of the authorizing laws enacted
has different terms. Each requires that different actions be taken
prior to transfer, such as the completion of the process under NEPA, or
agreements with State and local agencies over recreation or cultural
resources management.
While Reclamation has had success with title transfer of projects
and facilities, we remain concerned that the process takes too long and
can be too costly. The number of new proposed transfers is declining,
and it may be due in part to time and cost of the process. We believe
that there may be several opportunities for mutual benefit that could
come from the transfer of projects or facilities that are not being
realized, and we see the goals of S. 2034 as helping in that regard.
Comprehensive Review of Reclamation's Title Transfer Efforts
Every few years, Reclamation steps back and reviews our title
transfer efforts with an eye toward making the process more effective.
In 2003, a Team lead by the Department of the Interior's Office of
Policy Analysis undertook a comprehensive review of Reclamation's title
transfer effort. The review looked at the process as a whole as well as
specific individual transfers that were successfully completed and
other transfers that did not move forward. This effort included a
survey of Reclamation employees involved in title transfer, a workshop
and numerous interviews with water users that both pursued title
transfer and those that opted not to pursue title transfer. It also
included interviews with stakeholders from states, local governments,
the environmental community and congressional staff members who were
involved in various legislative efforts related to individual transfers
at the time. This effort was followed up by the Managing for Excellence
Initiative, which was proposed in 2008; and we implemented many changes
to make the process more efficient. However, we are still not satisfied
that we are maximizing the benefits of title transfer.
At this point, I would like to share a number of important lessons
that we learned in these efforts that are still relevant--and I hope
these lessons inform the discussion surrounding this legislation.
Each Project is Unique
One of the early lessons that we learned, and that is reinforced
with each new title transfer effort, is that each project and set of
facilities is unique. Each project was authorized to address a
particular set of circumstances, both hydrologic as well as economic.
As such, a ``cookie cutter'' or ``one size fits all approach'' would
not meet the needs of the water users, the customers, other
stakeholders or Reclamation. That is not to say that there cannot be a
set of criteria developed, but those would need to be flexible. We
believe that S. 2034 acknowledges these circumstances.
No Such Thing As a ``Simple Project''
Many Reclamation projects may appear to be ``simple'' title
transfers or ``simple'' projects for title transfer because complex or
controversial issues are absent. However, in our experience even the
``simple'' title transfers had unique complexities that were unknown
when we started the process that must be identified and addressed.
Certain types of projects tend to have complicating issues, such as
older projects, projects with facilities that cover a relatively large
geographic area, and particularly projects where significant amounts of
land or built up structures exist. Land records associated with older
projects may be missing or the quality of the information in existing
records may be poor. Projects covering a wide geographical area have a
large volume of land records which must be located, assembled, and
reviewed.
Develop Local Agreements Prior to the Legislative Process
While Reclamation's title transfer process has evolved, we believe
that one central tenet of the process continues to hold true. Since
each project is unique and has its own potentially complex
circumstances, the analysis of the implications of that transfer should
be completed and an agreement should be reached on the terms and
conditions before seeking authorization of the transfer of projects and
facilities. Further, we have had the most success when that analysis
has been completed collaboratively with the relevant customers and
stakeholders and those agreements were developed at the local level.
This has led to innovative solutions that allowed the proposal to move
forward.
Early on in the title transfer effort, some districts opted not to
go through Reclamation's locally negotiated process. Instead, they
immediately approached their congressional representatives in hopes of
getting legislation passed and the facilities transferred quickly. In
most cases, this proved to be a slower route than those that went
through Reclamation's cooperative process. In many of these cases,
there were issues or controversies related to the facilities that were
not addressed at the local level between customers and stakeholders of
the facilities. Instead, they were being negotiated through the
legislative process. In some situations, where legislation was
authorized prior to the analysis being completed, circumstances or
problems were identified that required a second or third legislative
proposal and Congressional action to address, thereby delaying the
ultimate transfer even further.
In many recent cases--particularly those that have been
successful--we have seen water districts and interested non-Federal
entities work with Reclamation to complete all the necessary analysis
and public involvement, and then reach an agreement prior to pursuing
the legislative authorization from Congress. This has made the
legislative process less controversial and has made implementation,
once the transfer was authorized, less costly and more efficient. Two
excellent examples are the American Falls Reservoir District #2 in
Idaho, which was transferred in 2008, and the Yakima Tieton Irrigation
District in Washington State, which was transferred in 2009. In both
these cases, Reclamation worked closely with the districts, the states
involved and other stakeholders to identify issues and concerns and to
reach agreements to address them. By working with stakeholders to
address issues and build consensus in advance of legislation, the
Administration was able to enthusiastically support both bills in
testimony before this Committee.
Legislative Process
Another source of delay and cost is the process and time needed to
get the legislation authorizing the transfer completed. In some of the
cases where we followed the established process--that is, the terms and
conditions of the title transfer had been negotiated at the field level
and there was consensus among all of the stakeholders--the legislative
process still took a long time. In many cases the length of time was
longer than the process of negotiating the title transfer agreement and
completing compliance with the Federal and state laws, such as NEPA. In
some cases, this process has taken 4--6 years or more and resulted in
significant costs to the water users for advocating for their title
transfer legislation. This delay and the costs associated with
advocating for legislation has acted as a disincentive for the pursuit
of title transfer.
Administrative and Transaction Costs
Because the Bureau of Reclamation does not currently have a title
transfer program, costs to complete the process--including
investigating financial, operational and economic issues and complying
with NEPA and other Federal and State laws--cannot be budgeted or
provided by Reclamation but must be paid for with funds being provided
by the water users. In some cases, the legislation authorizing title
transfer has authorized a reimbursement or offset to the valuation, but
by and large, the entity interested in taking title must bear those
initial costs without any promise that the process will result in title
transfer. As such, many water users who would otherwise be interested
in title transfer and whose projects would be a good candidate do not
choose to pursue title transfer, thereby losing a mutually beneficial
opportunity to transfer facilities out of Federal ownership.
s. 2034
Section 3(a)
The Reclamation Title Transfer Act of 2014 proposes to address many
of the issues identified above by authorizing the establishment of a
program that would enable Reclamation to proactively identify and
analyze the potential public benefits from the transfer out of federal
ownership. Assuming funds are appropriated, this program would help
avoid the uncertainties and conflicts that arise when determining how
the transaction and administrative costs will be paid and avoid the
water users having to up front all the costs associated with the early
activities necessary to determine whether title transfer is an
appropriate option. This is an important provision that we believe
would improve Reclamation's flexibility for addressing the costs
associated with title transfer and would provide an incentive for water
users to seriously consider title transfer. . We do believe that water
users who would benefit from title transfers should still assume the
appropriate costs related to such transfers, but we view this section
as consistent with that position in that it would provide additional
flexibility for how and when such costs should be addressed.
Section 3(b)
This section authorizes the Secretary to convey all right title and
interest in any eligible facilities without a further Act of Congress
that meet certain eligibility criteria that are identified in Section
5. This provision would enable the Department to save significant
amounts of time, as well as Federal and non-Federal resources, while
ensuring that the Federal and public interests are protected.
We believe that the combination of these provisions of S. 2034
would provide incentives for Reclamation and water users to pursue
title transfer and more importantly, would remove some of the barriers
that currently act as road blocks for moving forward.
We laud and share the goals identified in S. 2034. Transferring
title can result in increased efficiencies and other benefits that
would be of significant importance to both the project beneficiaries as
well as Reclamation. We see this proposal as a step in the right
direction. Because of the limited time we've had to review this
proposal, I don't have an exhaustive list of recommendations for you.
In the near future we hope to identify and offer alternatives for any
technical problems in the language of the bill that would otherwise
delay implementation. We look forward to working with the Committee in
this effort.
That concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer any
questions.
s. 1771
Chairman Schatz and members of the Subcommittee, I am Bob Quint,
Senior Advisor at the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). I am pleased
to provide the views of the Department of the Interior (Department) on
S. 1771, the Crooked River Collaborative Water Security Act of 2013.
The provisions of S. 1771 address the Crooked River Wild and Scenic
River designation along with water supply concerns relating to
Reclamation's Crooked River Project.
The Department supports the goals of correcting the Wild and Scenic
River boundary near Bowman Dam and improving Reclamation project
operations, where possible, to further enhance water use and
availability. We also recognize refinements made since similar
companion legislation was heard in the House in June of last year. We
believe that some of the provisions of S. 1771 will advance the goal of
water security on the Crooked River, and we offer the following
recommendations for improvements to the bill. If the changes summarized
below are incorporated to the bill, the Department can support S. 1771.
S. 1771 includes seven sections which address: the Wild and Scenic
River designation near Bowman Dam; water supply for the City of
Prineville; first fill protection for water in Prineville Reservoir;
operating requirements ``for the benefit of downstream fish and
wildlife''; repayment contract provisions for the Ochoco Irrigation
District (District); requirements that Reclamation participate in
``dry-year management planning meetings''; and savings clause language
clarifying the bill's effect on existing law. This statement summarizes
the Department's interest in the most significant provisions of each
section.
An eight-mile segment of the Lower Crooked River near Prineville,
Oregon was designated as a National Wild and Scenic River in 1988 with
enactment of the Omnibus Oregon Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (Public Law
100-557). The Lower Crooked River meanders through canyons of deeply
eroded basalt and banks covered with riparian vegetation. A variety of
wildlife including river otters, beaver, great blue herons and mule
deer inhabit the corridor. A wide-range of recreation opportunities are
available along the Lower Crooked River including native trout fishing,
camping, hiking and boating.
When the Wild and Scenic River boundary was administratively
finalized for this section of the Crooked River, the centerline of
Bowman Dam was used as the upstream terminus of the designation.
However, the placement of the beginning of the designation within this
man-made feature is both counterintuitive and cumbersome to administer.
Section 2 of S. 1771 addresses this by moving that upper limit of the
designated river one-quarter mile downstream. The Department of the
Interior supports the proposed modification of the boundary as a
reasonable solution consistent with the original intent of the Wild and
Scenic designation. The Department is willing to work with the Sponsor
and the Committee to determine the exact placement of the new boundary.
Clearly the dam and related facilities were never intended to be
included within the wild and scenic river designation.
Section 3 of S. 1771 amends the Act of August 6, 1956 (70 Stat.
1058), by requiring releases to serve as mitigation for groundwater
pumping by the City of Prineville. The Department does not oppose the
concept of providing releases to mitigate for municipal use of
groundwater. We believe the bill's language of ``without further action
by the Secretary. . .'' and its references to applicable Bureau of
Reclamation policies, directives and standards to be contradictory and
subject to interpretation as to the need for NEPA compliance and a
contract. We recommend deleting the words ``Without further action by
the Secretary of the Interior, beginning on the date of enactment of
the Crooked River Collaborative Water Security Act of 2013'' and
replacing it with, ``Upon passage of the Crooked River Collaborative
Water Security Act of 2013, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized
to contract with the City of Prineville for up to 5,100 acre-feet of
water in Prineville Reservoir and upon receipt of required payments may
release such water on an annual basis to serve as mitigation. . .''
An additional concern with S. 1771 is the bill's statement that
``the Secretary may contract exclusively with the City of Prineville
for additional quantities of water, at the request of the City of
Prineville.'' This language would preferentially benefit the City of
Prineville and appears to close the door to any potential future
irrigation or municipal water contractors of the Crooked River Project
(Project).
first fill storage and release
Section 4 of S. 1771 also proposes an entirely new addition to the
1956 Act. The proposed addition would provide existing contractors and
others with a ``first fill'' priority basis, rather than the current
situation where both contracted and uncontracted storage space in
Prineville Reservoir fill simultaneously. While this provision is not
likely to have any immediate effect, it is possible under the proposed
first fill priority system that in very dry water years the last fill
entity could be shorted. Also, the additional quantity of water
reserved for the City of Prineville is not addressed in this section,
and Reclamation interprets the bill such that any future quantities of
water made available to the City (beyond the 5,100 acre feet) will not
be subject to first fill protection and may affect the use of water for
the benefit of downstream fish and wildlife.
storage and release of remaining stored water quantities
The Department supports the concept of providing some of the now
uncontracted space in the reservoir for fish and wildlife purposes.
However, the inserted Section 7(a) requirements to release all
remaining stored water quantities for the benefit of downstream fish
and wildlife will prevent Reclamation from issuing new contracts.
We note that the bill's language also inserts a Section 7(b) into
the 1956 Act which would require that if a consultation under the
Endangered Species Act or an order of a court requires releases of
stored water from Prineville Reservoir for fish and wildlife, the
Secretary shall use uncontracted stored water. Reclamation would
interpret this provision to set a new precedent in legislatively
prescribing operation of the Crooked River Project. Reclamation
interprets this section as altering but not eliminating agency
discretion with respect to contract water supplies, therefore,
sufficient discretion would remain with respect to the operation of the
Project to warrant consultation under Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered
Species Act. The limit of Reclamation's discretion is not entirely
clear, and could be subject to contrary interpretations.
S. 1771 adds a Section 7 (c) to the 1956 Act, requiring the
development of ``annual release schedules'' to maximize biological
benefit for downstream fish and wildlife. This subsection also requires
consideration of guidance provided on the annual release schedule by
the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon and the State of Oregon and an
opportunity for comment and advice on the annual release schedules by
the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries
Service. As in past versions of this bill, Reclamation notes a
potential for conflict if the federal, state and tribal management
priorities are not aligned. Likewise, the limitation of the use of the
reservoir for downstream resources, could cause similar problems if a
species were to be listed in or above the Reservoir. As drafted
however, Reclamation would interpret the amended Section 7(c) as not to
alter Reclamation's obligations under Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered
Species Act.
Section 5 of S. 1771 would provide for early repayment of project
construction costs by landowners within the District and the District's
participation in conserved water projects of the State of Oregon. The
Department fully supports these objectives and has no concerns
regarding corresponding language in the bill.
The Department also supports the McKay Creek Exchange Project which
has been the subject of periodic discussions between the District and
Reclamation and which would provide enhanced instream flows in McKay
Creek in exchange for water from a portion of the uncontracted water
supply from Prineville Reservoir.
The Department does not see the need for language in Section 6 of
S. 1771 requiring that Reclamation participate in ``Dry Year Management
Planning'' meetings and develop a Dry Year Management Plan. Reclamation
already has standing authority to provide technical and planning
assistance to state, local and tribal government entities under Title
II of the Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief Act (PL 102-250
as amended). This planning authority does not expire, and is not
subject to a standing drought declaration being in place in the area of
interest. The Drought Act authority is sufficiently broad to cover the
topic areas proscribed in Section 6 of S. 1771, without creating a new
Congressional reporting burden on the Department. However, if this
language remains, we suggest deleting at the end of Section 6(c),
``with the voluntary agreement of North Unit Irrigation District and
other Bureau of Reclamation contract holders referred to in that
paragraph, the Secretary may release that quantity of water for the
benefit of downstream fish and wildlife as described in section 7 of
that Act.'' This language limits Reclamation's authority and creates a
burdensome requirement that could more efficiently be addressed by
requiring entities to contact Reclamation prior to June 1 of any year
or the water will be released downstream.
While the Department supports the goals of S. 1771, we believe that
the bill would benefit from changes as outlined here. This concludes my
written statement. I am pleased to answer questions at the appropriate
time.
s. 1800
Chairman Schatz and members of the Subcommittee, I am Bob Quint,
Senior Advisor at the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). I am pleased
to provide the views of the Department of the Interior (Department) on
S. 1800, the Bureau of Reclamation Transparency Act. As currently
written, the Department does not support S. 1800 but would be pleased
to work with the bill sponsors on refinements to the legislation to
address the concerns described below.
Under Section 4 of S. 1800, the Secretary of the Interior would be
required to submit biennial reports to Congress on `the efforts of the
Bureau of Reclamation to manage all Reclamation facilities,' including
efforts to standardize and streamline data reporting and processes for
managing Reclamation facilities. S. 1800 directs that the reports
provide itemized lists of ``major repair and rehabilitation needs'' at
all Reclamation facilities, showing estimated costs, and ranked via a
categorical rating system to be developed through new regulations
pursuant to Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the bill. Sensitive or classified
information could be excluded from a required public version of the
report, but that information would be required in the versions
delivered to Congress. The Department has several concerns with this
legislation as introduced, and believes that the preparation and
publication of the reports in this bill would constitute a duplication
of other existing efforts which will not improve the body of
information available on Reclamation's infrastructure, nor result in
more effective application of available resources to address facility
maintenance. Having said that, the Department is aware of the desire in
Congress for more information on the status of Reclamation's
infrastructure, and in accordance with the Administration's Open Data
Policy and Executive Order, the Department is committed to openness and
transparency of data, including Reclamation data on facility
management. To that end we would appreciate the opportunity to work
with the sponsors on potential amendments to the bill that would
provide Congress and the public additional information regarding
Reclamation's infrastructure though augmentation of other existing
reporting efforts.
Reclamation's annual budget requests include the best yearly
representations of the appropriated funds needed for maintenance at
Reclamation facilities. Reclamation's budget documents, delivered to
Congress annually and posted online, are developed over a multi-step
18-month process that begins at the field office level where managers
consider the condition of the facilities under their jurisdiction,
safety considerations associated with facilities' condition, and--very
importantly--the ability of operating partners to fund the work
identified pursuant to the terms of their contract and requirements of
Reclamation Law. Investments in major rehabilitations and replacements
are analyzed and prioritized at the field, regional, and bureau levels
based on criteria such as: Engineering Need; Risks and Consequences of
Failure; Efficiency Opportunities; Financial Feasibility; and
availability of Non-Federal Cost Share.
During this process, Reclamation categorizes the information that
will go into its budget requests using its Programmatic Budget
Structure (PBS). The PBS uses two of its five primary categories to
show the budget request for Operations and Maintenance (O&M)
activities: 1. Facility Operations, and 2. Facility Maintenance and
Rehabilitation. It should be noted that in addition to the appropriated
funds in these two budget categories, a generally equal amount of O&M
activities are paid for directly by water and power users with their
own funds or project revenues.
The Facility Operations category includes items and activities that
are necessary to operate Reclamation facilities to produce authorized
project benefits for water supplies, power, flood control, fish and
wildlife, and recreation. This category includes not only facility
operations by Reclamation at reserved works, but also Reclamation's
oversight of the operations of facilities performed by water user
entities at transferred works. Facility Operations includes all routine
or preventive maintenance activities. Routine maintenance is defined as
recurring daily, weekly, monthly, or annually, and most tasks performed
by Reclamation maintenance staff are included in this category. Also
included in this category are routine safety and occupational health
items, including those for workplace safety inspection and hazard
abatement. The amount budgeted under this category for each facility is
the funding necessary to perform routine O&M activities. On an annual
basis, each region, along with centralized program management staff,
determines the appropriate budget level to support staffing and other
resources necessary at each facility for continued operations to
deliver authorized project benefits.
The second category, Facility Maintenance and Rehabilitation,
addresses the needs over and above the resources in Facility
Operations, and corresponds roughly to the concept of major
rehabilitations and replacements. The Facility Maintenance and
Rehabilitation category includes major and non-routine replacements and
extraordinary maintenance of existing infrastructure. This category
also includes activities to review and conduct condition assessments
(facility O&M, dam safety and site security inspections), as well as
funding necessary for the correction of dam safety deficiencies (dam
safety modifications), the implementation of security upgrades, and
building seismic safety retrofits. Consequently, most of the budgeted
items under this category are related to site-specific facility needs.
After the field offices identify prioritized major rehabilitation
and replacement activities in their jurisdiction that require
appropriated funds, they are evaluated at the regional level where
these are compared to the needs and priorities of other activities and
facilities in that region. There are five regions within Reclamation.
The regions' PBS allotments for Facility Maintenance and Rehabilitation
each year are then evaluated at the next level of internal review, with
Reclamation's Budget Review Committee (BRC) process. A given year's BRC
is working in advance of a budget request two years into the future,
and is comprised of senior management from across the agency, providing
the maximum breadth of relevant experience and program knowledge. The
region presents its priorities to the BRC, which evaluates the major
rehabilitation and replacement needs and priorities against those of
other regions in order to ensure that Facility Maintenance and
Rehabilitation activities reflect Reclamation's greatest overall need
and agency priorities. No urgent maintenance issues necessary to the
safe operation of a facility are deferred in the budgeting or facility
review processes. The end result is a budget request that has been
prioritized and vetted across the organization, concurrent with input
from the Department and Reclamation leadership.
To better understand upcoming needs, and for the purpose of
reporting asset condition at a specific point in time to the Federal
Real Property Profile to meet requirements of the Executive order
13327, ``Federal Real Property Management'', in a separate effort which
informs the annual budget process, Reclamation develops and annually
updates estimates of major rehabilitation and replacement (MR&R) needs,
including deferred maintenance, for its infrastructure looking out five
years. As a result, these ``MR&R needs'' represent an outlook of
Reclamation's best estimate of identified extraordinary maintenance,
repairs, rehabilitation, and replacement needs at a point in time
looking forward five years, regardless of funding source, for all
assets. The estimated total in 2011 amounted to $2.6 billion over five
years (fiscal years 2012-2016)\1\. It is important to note that a
substantial portion of projected needs to address the rehabilitation of
aging infrastructure (roughly $1.2 billion of the $2.6 billion
estimate) will be financed directly by our water and power customers.
Cost estimates associated with these identified needs range from
``preliminary'' to ``appraisal/feasibility'' level. Thus, these
estimates should not be collectively assumed to be at one particular
uniform level of detail. Variability in the MR&R estimates from year to
year may be the result of additional information received from the
estimating source (i.e., Reclamation field offices and non-federal
operating entities), changes in field conditions, further evaluations
conducted, and work priorities, thus impacting the inclusion or
deletion of specific identified needs within a particular year, or from
year to year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ www.usbr.gov/assetmanagement/Asset%20Inventory/
AssetManagementPlanFY2011FinalWithSignaturePageOnly.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated in prior testimony before this Subcommittee, one of the
main challenges Reclamation faces in securing funding for the
identified near-term needs as well as longer-term MR&R needs is the
varying economic strength of our operating partners. Given the
requirement under Reclamation Law for the repayment of maintenance
costs either in the year incurred or over time, Reclamation must work
in collaboration with our water and power partners that must repay
these investments. For some of these partners, the cost-share
requirements associated with MR&R work are simply beyond the financial
capabilities of their beneficiaries. Like any organization tasked with
constructing, operating, and maintaining a wide portfolio of assets,
Reclamation has to prioritize its actions to maximize the benefits
derived from its investment of both federal and non-federal funds. Over
the past 10 years, funds requested for Facility Operations and Facility
Maintenance and Rehabilitation have kept pace with or grown relative to
Reclamation's overall Water and Related Resources budget (graphic
attached).* Given the substantial economic and financial interest of
Reclamation's non-federal partners, the development of cost estimates
for maintenance requirements on reserved and transferred works is both
collaborative and dynamic. Reclamation must also balance its asset
management responsibilities with other aspects of its mission to manage
water and related resources in the West. We acknowledge there are
tradeoffs associated with decisions to fund one identified need versus
another, but Reclamation's annual budget request reflects our best
effort to balance those constantly evolving needs associated with all
elements of our mission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Graphics have been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The requirements of S. 1800 would duplicate and draw resources away
from the processes described above, and the bill makes no allowance for
the valuable input from operating partners that is central to
Reclamation's asset management program. Based on arrangements
originating with Section 6 of the Reclamation Act of 1902, over two-
thirds of Reclamation's facilities are managed by non-federal project
beneficiaries. These operating entities provide valuable input to the
formulation of Reclamation's annual asset management activities.
Reclamation believes the requirements of S. 1800 will complicate
Reclamation's and our operating entities' budget processes, since the
reporting requirements would make no allowance for operating partners'
budgeting and financing processes associated with most of the tasks
that would be identified. Reclamation also believes that providing a
new layer of reports separate and apart from the annual budget request
process would create unnecessary difficulties, since budget requests
for subsequent years would not be consistent with the maintenance
snapshot provided by the reports under S. 1800. If possible, we would
like to propose amendments to S. 1800 which would still provide
additional information on the status of Reclamation's infrastructure,
but allow for the bill's reporting requirements to better integrate
with Reclamation's existing budget formulation process and schedule and
fully consider the needs and interests of our water and power
contractors.
In conclusion, the Department of the Interior is aware of and
appreciates the concerns expressed by some Members of Congress about
the accessibility of data on Reclamation's infrastructure. In
accordance with the Administration's Open Data Policy and Executive
Order, we are working to improve the availability and accessibility of
data on Reclamation's infrastructure and would be happy to keep the
committee informed of our progress in this area. In recent years,
Reclamation has made substantial progress in developing and improving
estimates of MR&R needs for both reserved and transferred works, and
has provided testimony at hearings of the Senate Energy and Natural
Resources Committee on this topic, as well as responding in writing to
several questions for the record. It is also worth noting that the
Federal Government is making important strides in improving the
accuracy, efficiency and level of data available on the federal real
property portfolio. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
established the Real Property Advisory Committee (RPAC) in 2011 to work
across agencies to determine real property best practices,
opportunities for short and long-term cost savings, and realigning real
property inventories to agency mission and service delivery. We believe
these processes should be allowed to work or be accounted for in the
requirements of this bill before S. 1800 or similar legislation is
enacted.
This concludes my written statement. I am pleased to answer
questions at the appropriate time.
s. 1965
Chairman Schatz and members of the Subcommittee, I am Bob Quint,
Senior Advisor at the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). I am pleased
to provide the views of the Department of the Interior (Department) on
S. 1965, to amend the East Bench Irrigation District Water Contract
Extension Act to permit the Secretary of the Interior to extend the
contract for certain water services. The Department supports S. 1965.
Reclamation's Clark Canyon Dam and Reservoir are located in
southwest Montana and supply irrigation water under contract to the
East Bench Irrigation District (EBID). EBID's water service contract
with Reclamation was first executed in October 1958 and expired on
December 31, 2005. Pursuant to Section 1 of the Act of May 15, 1922 (42
Stat. 541), Section 46 of the Omnibus Adjustment Act of 1926 (44 Stat.
649), and Section 85-7-1957, Montana Code Annotated, execution of a new
contract between the United States and any irrigation district requires
confirmation by a Montana District court..
In 2006, EBID filed a petition with the Montana Fifth Judicial
District Court seeking confirmation of the execution of their renewed
contract with Reclamation. A hearing was convened on December 14, 2006,
in Dillon, MT, and one objection to the confirmation was filed.
A part of the legal challenge to confirmation of the contract
involves the proper place of use of the water, which is an element of a
water right which the Montana Water Court has sole jurisdiction over.
Therefore, the case was certified from the Montana District Court to
the Montana Water Court.
Once the Montana Water Court addresses the proper place of use for
the subject water right, it will send the case back to the Montana
District Court for further proceedings on the various additional legal
challenges to the contract. A decision by either the Montana Water
Court or the Montana District Court may be appealed directly to the
Montana Supreme Court, which is the court of last resort.
Prior year appropriations bills have extended the contracts for
terms of up to two years. Most recently, in the 112th Congress, Public
Law 112-139; 126 Stat. 390 extended the contract for four years (to
December 31, 2013) or until the date on which a new long-term contract
is executed. EBID remains concerned about losing their right to renew
their 1958 contract if it is allowed to expire prior to securing court
confirmation of the renewed 2006 Contract. For this reason they are
pursuing extension of the 1958 contract.
Under current law, the 2006 contract is not binding on the United
States until court confirmation is secured. A final decree from the
court confirming the 2006 contract has not occurred. Therefore, EBID is
seeking authority under S. 1965 to extend the 1958 contract. S. 1965
would extend the contract for six years beyond Public Law 112-139 for a
total of ten years (to December 31, 2019) or until a new contract is
executed and still defer to the court to take up the issue again at a
time of its choosing. The Department believes that a 10 year extension
under S. 1965 will allow adequate time for confirmation by the Montana
Fifth Judicial District Court. The Department supports this legislation
because it would allow water service to the EBID to continue and
protects the right for contract renewal while the court confirmation
process is given time to be completed.
This concludes my statement. Again, the Department supports S.
1965. I would be pleased to answer questions at the appropriate time.
s. 2010 and h.r. 1963
Chairman Schatz, members of the Subcommittee, I am Bob Quint,
Senior Advisor at the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). I am pleased
to provide the views of the Department of the Interior (Department) on
S. 2010, the Bureau of Reclamation Conduit Hydropower Development
Equity and Jobs Act. The Department, with some technical amendments
summarized in this statement, supports S. 2010, which amends the Water
Conservation and Utilization Act (16 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 590y et seq.) to
authorize the development of non-federal hydropower and issuance of
leases of power privilege at projects constructed pursuant to the
authority of the Water Conservation and Utilization Act (WCUA). In
general, the Department supports the increase in the generation of
clean, renewable hydroelectric power in existing canals and conduits.
As noted in previous hearings, the Department has an aggressive
sustainable hydropower agenda, which we continue to implement under
existing authorities. My testimony today will summarize the
Department's efforts to encourage the development of sustainable
hydropower, provide an overview of the history of WCUA, and detail the
areas in the bill where we believe improvements could be made.
department's hydropower efforts
Before I share the Department's views on S. 2010, I want to
highlight some of the activities underway at the Department to develop
additional renewable hydropower capacity. In March 2011, the Department
of the Interior and Department of Energy announced nearly $17 million
in funding over three years for research and development projects to
advance hydropower technology. The funding included ten projects for a
total of $7.3 million to research, develop, and test low-head, small
hydropower technologies that can be deployed at existing non-powered
dams or constructed waterways. The funding will further the
Administration's goal of meeting 80 percent of our electricity needs
from clean energy sources by 2035.
In March 2010 the Department entered into a Hydropower Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU)\1\ with the Department of Energy, and the Army
Corps of Engineers to study and promote opportunities to develop
additional hydropower. In March 2011, the Department released the
results of an internal study, the Hydropower Resource Assessment at
Existing Reclamation Facilities, that estimated the Department could
generate up to one million megawatt hours of electricity annually and
create jobs by addressing hydropower capacity at 70 of its existing
facilities. While this first phase, completed in 2011, focused
primarily on Reclamation dams, the second phase focused on constructed
Reclamation waterways such as canals and conduits. In March 2012,
Reclamation completed the second phase of its investigation of
hydropower development, Site Inventory and Hydropower Energy Assessment
of Reclamation Owned Conduits, as referenced in the 2010 MOU. The two
studies revealed that an additional 1.5 million megawatt-hours of
renewable energy could be generated through hydropower at existing
Reclamation sites.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://www.usbr.gov/power/SignedHydropowerMOU.pdf, 2010
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reclamation worked diligently with our stakeholders and the
hydropower industry to improve our lease of power privilege (LOPP)
processes, and this collaboration culminated in the release of an
updated and improved LOPP directive and standard in September 2012.
These new procedures better define roles, timelines and
responsibilities that will allow us to better support and encourage
sustainable hydropower development at Reclamation facilities. This
directive and standard was revised earlier this month to incorporate
new process requirements established by Public Law 113-24, Bureau of
Reclamation Small Conduit Hydropower Development and Rural Jobs Act.
New process requirements updated in the document include: LOPPs being
offered first to irrigation districts or water user associations
operating or receiving water from Reclamation transferred or reserved
works and establishing timeframes for irrigation districts or water
user associations to accept or reject the LOPP offer. The temporary
revised procedures are out for public comment until March 28, 2014.
overview of history of wcua
The WCUA was enacted on August 11, 1939 (amended October 14, 1940)
to provide assistance to people hard hit by drought in the Dust Bowl
and other similar arid and semiarid areas of the United States through
the construction and development of irrigation projects. WCUA leveraged
the considerable labor available by the Work Project Administration and
other federal agencies during the New Deal, which absent congressional
authorization, were precluded from using appropriations for many of the
requisite needs of irrigation projects. For example, the Work Project
Administration and other federal agencies did not have the authority to
purchase water rights, rights-of-way, heavy machinery, and the services
required to design and construct engineering features, prepare legal
documents, and administer projects. WCUA resolved this issue by
authorizing the Bureau of Reclamation to use appropriations to purchase
rights-of-way, equipment and supplies, and for the payment of competent
supervisory, technical, legal and administrative assistance, while the
Work Project Administration and other federal agencies funded the costs
of mechanics and laborers. Under WCUA, the Bureau of Reclamation
retained the responsibility for the construction and administration of
these projects. The Bureau of Reclamation has been authorized to
construct 11 projects and three separate units under the WCUA \2\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ WCUA Projects: Mancos Project, Colorado; Buford-Trenton Project
(North Dakota); Buffalo Rapids Project, Montana; Scofield Project,
Utah; Intake Project, Montana; Mirage Flats Project, Nebraska; Missoula
Valley Project, Montana; Mann Creek Project, Idaho (not eventually
constructed under WCUA); Newton Project, Utah; Rapid Valley Project,
South Dakota; Balmorhea Project, Texas. The Eden Project, Wyoming, was
originally considered under the WCUA but was constructed under separate
authority. In addition, three units were authorized pursuant to WCUA
authority. Each unit is part of a Reclamation project that was not
altogether authorized by the WCUA. The three units include: Dodson
Pumping Unit, Milk River Project, Montana; Post Falls Unit, Rathdrum
Prairie Project, Idaho; and the Woodside Unit, Bitterroot Valley
Project, Montana (no construction has been undertaken).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reclamation is authorized to issue LOPP contracts on projects that
were authorized under Reclamation law pursuant to Section 5 of the Town
Sites and Power Development Act of 1906, 43 U.S.C. Sec. 522, and
Section 9(c) of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939, 43 U.S.C. Sec.
485h(c). However, WCUA projects were not authorized pursuant to
Reclamation law and the provisions of WCUA are only subject to
Reclamation law where explicitly identified in the WCUA. The LOPP
authority granted in Section 5 of the Town Sites and Power Development
Act of 1906, 43 U.S.C. Sec. 522, and Section 9(c) of the Reclamation
Project Act of 1939, 43 U.S.C. Sec. 485h(c) does not apply to WCUA
projects since it is not identified in the WCUA, and therefore WCUA
projects are not authorized to develop non-federal hydropower absent
congressional action. The Mancos Project in southwestern Colorado is
such a case where Congress authorized the non-federal development of
hydropower on a WCUA project through project specific legislation (P.L.
103-434).
s. 2010
Reclamation testified on H.R. 1963, a companion measure to the
legislation before the subcommittee today, last May before the House
Water and Power Subcommittee. The legislation was amended by the House
of Representatives, and that bill is identical to the legislation
before the Subcommittee today, S. 2010. The Department would be pleased
to work with the Subcommittee to further refine the legislation.
Section 2(c) of S. 2010 would specifically authorize Reclamation to
develop or enter into LOPP contracts for the development of new
hydropower on projects and facilities authorized by WCUA, consistent
with the Reclamation Project Act of 1939. In accordance with federal
Reclamation law, typically LOPP charges paid by Lessees are deposited
in the Reclamation Fund as a credit to the affected project. However,
WCUA projects were not funded by the Reclamation Fund, but rather the
General Fund of the Treasury. To this point, the WCUA states that all
receipts from WCUA project operations--including power--are to be
covered into the Treasury, rather than the Reclamation Fund, to the
credit of miscellaneous receipts. Therefore, if the intention of S.
2010 is for WCUA LOPP charges to credit the affected WCUA project,
additional clarification is necessary in Section 2(g) of S. 2010
detailing where the charges will be covered and how they will be
applied to the affected project. The Department looks forward to the
opportunity to work with the sponsors to address this issue.
Sections 2(h), 2(i), 2(j), 2(k), and 2(m) are duplicative of
Section 9(c) of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939, as amended by PL
113-24, Bureau of Reclamation Small Conduit Hydropower Development and
Rural Jobs Act. If the 1939 Act is amended again, there will be two
distinct LOPP processes, one for traditional Reclamation projects and
one for WCUA projects, as prescribed in S. 2010. For that reason, the
Department recommends deleting these duplicative areas of the bill.
Reclamation would be happy to work with the Subcommittee to address
these concerns.
Finally, Reclamation is concerned that the bill as written may be
interpreted in such a way that the LOPP authorization granted is
restricted to small conduit hydropower development and would not apply
to all WCUA conduit development or dam development. For context, all
WCUA conduit sites that show hydropower potential are under 5 MW and
would qualify as ``small conduit hydropower;'' however, the majority of
WCUA hydropower potential exists at WCUA dams. Therefore, if the intent
of the bill is to ``unlock'' the WCUA for non-federal development
through LOPP, the authorization needs to extend to all WCUA conduits
and dams. As the bill is written, it is unclear if the authorization
extends to all WCUA conduits and dams. Reclamation would be happy to
work with the Subcommittee to address this concern.
In conclusion, as stated at previous hydropower hearings before
this subcommittee, Reclamation will continue to review and assess
potential new hydropower projects that provide a high economic return
for the nation, are energy efficient, and can be accomplished in
accordance with protections for fish and wildlife, the environment, or
recreation. As the nation's second largest hydropower producer,
Reclamation strongly believes in the past, present and bright future of
this important electricity resource.
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss S. 2010. This concludes my
written statement, and I am pleased to answer questions at the
appropriate time.
s. 2019
Chairman Schatz and members of the Subcommittee, I am Bob Quint,
Senior Advisor at the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). Thank you
for the opportunity to provide the views of the Department of the
Interior (Department) on S. 2019. The bill would raise the
authorization ceiling for water and energy conservation grants under
the Secure Water Act of 2009 (42 USC 10364(e)), clarify that activities
related to drought are authorized under the program, and revise the
program's eligibility to include the State of Hawaii as discussed
below. The Department supports this bill.
Reclamation owns and operates water projects that promote and
sustain economic development within the 17 Western States. The mission
of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related
resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the
interest of the American public. Since it was established in 1902,
Reclamation has constructed more than 600 dams and reservoirs including
Hoover Dam on the Colorado River and Grand Coulee on the Columbia
River. Reclamation is the largest wholesaler of water in the country,
delivering water to more than 31 million people, and providing one out
of five western farmers with irrigation water for 10 million acres of
farmland across the United States. Reclamation is also the second
largest producer of hydroelectric power in the United States, and
provides significant amounts of renewable energy to customers
throughout the West.
On February 10, 2010, Secretary Ken Salazar signed a Secretarial
order establishing the Department's WaterSMART Initiative, which
implements the Secure Water Act. The ``SMART'' in WaterSMART stands for
``Sustain and Manage America's Resources for Tomorrow.'' The WaterSMART
Program includes WaterSMART Grants, Reclamation's Basin Studies,
Landscape Conservation Cooperatives, West-Wide Climate Risk
Assessments, the Title XVI Water Reclamation and Recycling program, the
Cooperative Watershed Management Program, the Water Conservation Field
Service Program, USGS's Water Availability and Use Assessments, and the
WaterSMART Clearinghouse. Through the WaterSMART Program, the
Department works with states, tribes, local governments, and non-
governmental organizations to secure and stretch water supplies for use
by existing and future generations to benefit people, the economy, and
the environment and will identify measures needed to address climate
change and future demands.
WaterSMART activities are the most effective means the Department
of the Interior has to assist state and local water providers and users
address volatility of supplies, economic security, and create
resilience in the face of climate change. WaterSMART allows the
Department to provide incentives and tools to achieve sustainable
supplies, while supporting water managers who make their own decisions
about what programs and activities will be the best and most practical
fit in their particular watersheds.
WaterSMART Grants are directly aligned with the Department's
Priority Goal for Water Conservation: to enable capability to increase
the available water supply to 730,000 acre-feet of water savings per
year by September 2013 and to a cumulative goal of 790,000 acre-feet by
September 2014. Reclamation has met the September 2013 goal and is on
track to meet the 2014 target: together, projects funded through
WaterSMART and Reclamation's other water conservation activities from
2010 through 2013 are expected to result in over 734,000 acre-feet of
water savings per year. This would not have been possible without the
ingenuity and resourcefulness of our water and power customers who
apply for and implement WaterSMART's water and energy efficiency grant
projects at the district level. The projects funded by the WaterSMART
program not only play a major role in helping minimize the effects of
drought on the environment and agriculture and urban communities, but
also contributes to drought resiliency.
WaterSMART also acknowledges the nexus between energy and water
use. In addition to saving water, WaterSMART Grant projects from 2010-
2013 are expected by their sponsors to save over 45 million kilowatt-
hours annually--enough power for 3,900 households--and additional
savings are expected in the future. Additional milestones are described
in the program's three-year progress report, online at http://
www.usbr.gov/WaterSMART.
Reclamation is committed to continuing WaterSMART, and it is
anticipated that the program will exhaust its authorized appropriations
for WaterSMART Grants. Therefore, in order to continue use of this
highly valuable and continually oversubscribed program, which is
significantly contributing to drought resiliency in the West, an
increase in the authorization ceiling will be needed. S. 2019 would
amend Section 9504(e) of the Secure Water Act, raising the ceiling from
$200 million to an authorization to be appropriated such sums as are
necessary to carry out this section for each of fiscal years 2015
through 2023 . A ceiling raise is consistent with part of the
Appropriations language section of Reclamation's FY 2014 budget
request. A ceiling raise to $250 million, as was included in the budget
request, would ensure that these important water management
improvements could continue temporarily but would not likely allow for
funding beyond 2016. For that reason, Reclamation supports the language
in S. 2019 to authorize funding for the program through 2023.
Section 2 of S. 2019 would make clear that Section 9504(a)
authorizes Reclamation to provide financial assistance to plan for or
address the impacts of drought. Reclamation shares the sponsor's view
that activities related to drought are appropriately addressed under
this section and appreciates the clarification of this authority.
Section 2 of S. 2019 would also revise the eligibility language in
the Secure Water Act to allow entities located in Hawaii to be eligible
for WaterSMART grant funding opportunities. WaterSMART Grants funding
opportunity announcements have been limited to the States and U.S.
Territories identified under 43 U.S.C. Sec. 391. With a number of
exceptions, Reclamation's primary mission has generally been
constrained to the 17 continental Western States, which all share an
arid climate and a well-established history of prior appropriations
water rights doctrines. One such exception is the State of Hawaii,
which shares many of the same features as the U.S. Territories, and
also already participates in several Reclamation programs such as the
Title XVI program, limited application of the Reclamation States
Emergency Drought Relief Program, and water resource studies authorized
under P.L. 106-566 and P.L. 102-575. However, Reclamation notes that we
do not support adding additional states to the WaterSMART program at
this time, as the piece-meal incorporation of additional states would
be a significant expansion of Reclamation's mission when the agency is
already struggling to fulfill its commitments within its traditional
and currently authorized area of operations. For these reasons, the
Department believes that this expansion of authority should be limited
to the State of Hawaii.
Finally, Section 3 of S. 2019 would extend the authority of the
Secretary to provide grants to State water resource agencies. This
authority ran out in 2013 and the Department supports the language in
Section 3 that extends the grant program in Section 9508(c) for another
decade for such sums as may be necessary to remain available until
expended. The valuable partnership with State water resource agencies
is a critical national asset for determining water availability
nationwide.
In conclusion, the Department is committed to continuing the
WaterSMART Program, as the Federal government has a responsibility to
provide leadership and tools to address the increasing and widespread
challenges of imbalance between supply and demand. Sustainable water
supplies are the underpinning of a stable economic base, employment
continuity, and smart growth. We can provide incentives to encourage
water conservation and reuse, leadership in new technology to increase
usable supplies, and assistance for ecosystem restoration efforts that
increase the certainty of water supplies for the future. All of these
efforts depend on partnerships with local utilities, states, tribes,
and others.
This concludes my statement. Again, the Department supports S.
2019. I would be pleased to answer questions at the appropriate time.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much. Let me see if the
vote--it looks like the vote is still going on. But I think he
was up by like about 95 to nothing, somewhere in that range at
the time I left. But they were waiting on the Chairman to make
the final decision.
Thank you.
I appreciate all of you being here.
If I could just start with some questions until the
Chairman arrives.
I'll start with Mr. Quint, if we could just talk a little
bit.
Congress recently enacted Public Law 113-24, the Bureau of
Reclamation's Small Conduit Hydropower Development Act. I
introduced this along with Representative Scott Tipton in the
House. We did it to amend the Reclamation Project Act of 1939
to authorize the development of small conduit hydropower at
Reclamation project facilities.
Now there are a handful of projects, Reclamation projects,
which were originally authorized under the Water Conservation
Utilization Act which were not included in the hydropower
authorization. I think maybe, a couple projects, 4 in Montana
and a couple in Idaho, couple in Utah. I think one in Colorado,
Idaho, Nebraska or two in Idaho, one in Nebraska, one in South
Dakota. Does the Administration support authorizing this
hydropower development at these facilities and maybe you want
to discuss that a little bit?
Mr. Quint. Yes, we do. We, in our testimony, we say we do
support that with a few minor changes. There's 3 small issues
that we feel could be or needs to be corrected to just make it
crystal clear what's going on there.
There's some issues with where the money would be credited
back to.
There's some issues of the similar language in the 1939 act
that we wanted to make sure it was consistent with and didn't
provide two different ways for lease of power privilege.
There's also some issues with to make sure that it would
cover both conduits and dams. As currently written we feel it's
not quite concise enough to cover dams where a majority of the
hydropower would be.
Senator Barrasso. In your written testimony you stated that
you support the augmentation of other existing reporting
efforts by the Bureau. In CRS written testimony that
Reclamation operates a facility maintenance and rehabilitation
program that identifies schedules and prioritizes the needs of
its reserved works but that the reviews are typically are not
made public. So when they do this not made public and the
Bureau, according to CRS, also conducts periodic maintenance
reviews at transferred works through its associated facility's
review of operations and maintenance examinations program. But
again, the results are typically not made public.
It would seem that most of the data called for in this bill
is already available it--to Reclamation in some form or
another. Is that true?
Mr. Quint. That's correct.
Senator Barrasso. Why would providing this information to
Congress in say a readable spreadsheet not be augmenting your
existing efforts?
Mr. Quint. We're working toward trying to make all the data
coming from the various sources a little more understandable,
readable because we get data from many of our transferred water
works operating entities and a lot of our power customers and
things like that. So the data we get in, although we can
understand it, know what it says, isn't consistent for someone
that's trying to look at project by project type things.
We're working to get that fixed. We, as a matter of fact,
have some, a redline version of S. 1800 we'd like to submit to
your staff to maybe meet our needs and your needs at the same
time.
Senator Barrasso. In the written testimony you state that
the bill that the two of us brought here today to this
committee, I think you say, ``constituted duplication of other
existing efforts which will not improve the body of information
available on Reclamation's infrastructure nor result in a more
effective application of available resources to address
facility maintenance.''
I think, respectfully, speaking for myself, I disagree with
that statement. The Chairman can speak for himself, but let me
tell you why I put this bill together. I really were looking
for a readable breakdown of the total maintenance backlogs from
my home State.
Not received the information. Been given hundred pages of
documents that are full of graphs and charts with a lot of what
seems like bureaucratic talk that a seasoned engineer might
have even difficulty comprehending. You're, obviously, you're
agreeing.
I've also been trying to get a simple spreadsheet as to how
your agency sees, says you have a maintenance backlog of
anywhere from 2.5 billion to 3 billion. There's a pretty big
gap there. Instead I'm told that each region does their own
thing with calculating their backlog. Trying to make sense of
it is like comparing apples to oranges.
So since I've raised this issue in July of last year and
hadn't gotten what I requested at that point either. So
according to your testimony information in a useful format to
Congress already exists. If these documents exist then I'm just
requesting you provide them to my office by tomorrow morning so
that we'd have those.
If you can't do that then I think that the written
statement that, you know, that you made rings hollow as to
whether it's really available.
Mr. Quint. OK.
Senator Barrasso. So should I expect it tomorrow or shall
we?
Mr. Quint. I can't assure you that we have that in our
hands to get up with you tomorrow. But I will assure you I will
look into it and get it to you as soon as possible.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Schatz [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Barrasso.
Mr. Quint, you said you are not quite ready with a readable
spreadsheet of, sort of, comprehensible spreadsheet for the
purpose of us exercising our oversight responsibility. What's
your timeframe?
Mr. Quint. We estimate that it's probably going to be about
18 months to 2 years to get that all put together so it is
understandable and readable. We do supply data currently as
part of our annual budget submission. We do have data in our
annual asset management plan that is posted on the website. We
also keep track of all the maintenance and requirements in all
our facilities and a look ahead with each of our projects as
part of their 5 year plan.
So all that data is available, but it's just not in one
consolidated area. That's what we're working to do right now.
Senator Schatz. So there are two parts to this.
One is to actually do the consolidation and the other is to
establish a process through which you can start to aggregate
the data and make it more understandable. I can accept that
once you create the tool that it may take a lot of time to sift
through the data and to, sort of, match up apples to apples
from an accounting and programmatic management standpoint.
What I don't understand is that it could possibly take 18
months to develop the tool and for the committee to understand
how it is that you're going to, sort of, wrangle this to the
ground. Can you make a distinction between the development of
the tool to enable us to exercise our oversight responsibility
and the actual sifting of the information?
Mr. Quint. I'll try to explain it in my terms and hopefully
that's something that will help.
Senator Schatz. Go ahead.
Mr. Quint. Yes, all that data on the thousands of projects,
it's exactly what Senator Barrasso held up there. Much of that
data is buried and part of that document for each of those 5
year plans for each of those facilities out there. So it's a
matter of us going through, sifting through, getting that data,
putting it in a consistent format.
Some of those, for some of our transferred works projects,
aren't very sophisticated to be honest with you. So we need to
make sure that those estimates are current. They're correct.
They are up to date. So that is part of the process.
On some of our more, I'll say sophisticated districts and
things, the data is there it's just a matter of putting it in
the right format and getting it into the consolidated report.
Senator Schatz. Can you give us, since this is likely the
last time that we're going to be in this context to have this
discussion. Can you give us a, you said you're going to be
providing the committee with a redline recommendation for our
consideration? Can you give us your preliminary thinking on
what you're going to be recommending to the committee as a
possible set of amendments?
Mr. Quint. What we would like to do is we have some
existing processes as part of our budget formulation process,
part of our system of gathering this data currently. We would
like to try to marry up your legislation with our current
processes so there's not duplicative efforts.
Senator Schatz. What's your level of confidence that it's
going to satisfy Senator Barrasso and myself in terms of our
basic, common sense desire to be able to answer a question to a
constituent?
How much is done? How much is pending? What's our backlog?
What's being spent? Just to have a basic understanding and
therefore, control over the budget here?
Mr. Quint. My smart aleck answer would be 100 percent, but
probably realistically about 75 percent.
I understand what your concerns have been in the past. I
think it gets there. But I can't anticipate whether there's
some issues that we are not quite understanding. We'll get
there.
But I will commit we'll work with you to make sure it meets
your needs and our needs.
Senator Schatz. So one final question with respect to this
issue.
What I want to make sure that we do together with the
Bureau is to develop a, not just a sort of policy tool, but
also a management tool that works for you which is to say, I
don't want you to just satisfy the subcommittee. I want you to
actually that the whole point of this is so that we have better
management at the Bureau and better control over projects and
better understanding of what needs to be done and what needs to
be funded.
So I just want to encourage you to actually be developing
using the latest technology, using the latest best practices,
to be developing a tool that works for you, certainly that
works for the committee. But I could foresee a relatively
inefficient process on your side that satisfied the committee
because that's job one. But really the overall objective here
is to make sure that money is spent wisely and efficaciously.
So we want to just encourage you to do this, you know,
measure twice and cut once.
Mr. Quint. That's absolutely what we're trying to do here
is trying to use our current processes and marry it up with
your bill to make sure that we're being as efficient as
possible.
Senator Schatz. OK. Thank you very much.
We'll thank the first group of testifiers and we'll move on
to the second batch of witnesses and introduce them.
The first is Charles Stern, a specialist in Natural
Resource Policy from the Congressional Research Service.
Andy Duyck, the Chair of the Washington County Commission.
Belinda Batten, the Director of the Northwest National
Marine Renewable Energy Center at Oregon State University.
We thank you for making the trip from the West Coast. Your
written testimony will be included in the record so please take
about 5 minutes to summarize.
Mr. Stern, we'll start with you.
STATEMENT OF CHARLES V. STERN, SPECIALIST IN NATURAL RESOURCES
POLICY, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE
Mr. Stern. Thank you, Chairman Schatz and Senator Barrasso.
My name is Charles Stern and I'm specialist in Natural
Resources Policy at the Congressional Research Service.
Thank you for inviting CRS to testify on S. 1800, the
Bureau of Reclamation Transparency Act.
In brief, S. 1800 would expand the Bureau of Reclamation's
asset management reporting to require several new components.
It would require that Reclamation annually report to Congress
estimated costs for repair needs at its facilities and provide
a categorical ranking for these needs.
In serving the U.S. Congress on a non-partisan and
objective basis, CRS takes no position on this legislation but
it's been asked by this subcommittee to provide background and
analysis of the legislation's potential effects. CRS remains
available to assist the subcommittee in its consideration of
this legislation and related issues.
Two considerations frame my remarks on S. 1800.
First, a broad discussion of the distribution of management
responsibilities across different types of Reclamation
facilities.
Second, Reclamation's current reporting process for repair
and rehabilitation needs on these facilities.
I will briefly discuss each of these things before moving
on to discuss the bill itself.
First, distribution of management responsibilities.
Reclamation is unique among Federal water resource agencies
in that it does not manage much of the infrastructure that it
owns. In fact about two-thirds of the infrastructure owned by
Reclamation has been transferred to local project sponsors for
operations and maintenance. Reclamation conducts periodic
maintenance reviews at these facilities which are referred to
as transferred works. The results of these examinations are
typically not made public.
The remainder of Reclamation's assets are reserved works or
infrastructure that is owned and operated by the Bureau. Most
of these projects are large, multipurpose assets. Reclamation's
process for overseeing their operations and maintenance is
generally more involved than that for transferred works.
Reclamation has a program that identifies, schedules and
prioritizes the needs of its reserved works, but again, the
results of these reviews are not centrally compiled in a public
report.
The patchwork management structure of Reclamation
facilities complicates reporting on needed upgrades for these
assets. In recent years Reclamation has initiated new reporting
on its asset management. This included, among other things, a
major review of its infrastructure management that concluded in
2008 as well as annual asset management reports.
The later reports have, in the past, provided a high level
summary of Reclamation's infrastructure management efforts
including discussion of how it tracks and plans for management
activities, estimates of maintenance requirements at regional/
national levels and the policy tools available to address these
issues. However, they have not included a list of facility
specific repair needs and associated estimates. As I noted in
my July 2013 testimony before this committee, some agencies
publish needs assessments that include project level repair and
upgrade estimates, although these agencies differ from
Reclamation in several important ways.
Reclamation also reports on the conditions of its
facilities through various mechanisms. However, again, this
information is not standardized or available across
Reclamation's infrastructure types in any one document.
S. 1800 would make changes to Reclamation's existing
reporting process. It would authorize Reclamation to complete
an asset management report, presumably similar to the existing
report, and updated every 2 years thereafter.
Perhaps most prominently Section 4(b) of the bill would
require that the report include additional items in the form of
an itemized list of repair needs at each project and a rating
for each item. The requirements would apply to both reserve
works and transferred works. That is, all Reclamation owned
infrastructure including that operated and maintained by local
sponsors would be subject to these changes.
S. 1800 does not directly address the management of
projects by Reclamation or its local cooperators. Rather its
focus is on what information is publicly available about these
facilities and in what format. The bill provides the
Administration with some flexibility to determine how it would
implement the new requirements.
However, the extent to which they would fit into existing
processes or necessitate new ones may be a matter of debate.
Similarly, it is unclear whether requiring project repair
estimates and ratings would create new cost for Reclamation.
Some may raise concerns about whether Reclamation's repair
estimates or ratings could result in increased operations and
maintenance costs being passed on to users. The extent to which
such a scenario would actually be the case may be a function of
how Reclamation would interpret and implement the bill.
Finally, some may also question how much of this
information that would be required under this legislation is
already available in existing sources. While some of this
information appears to be available, it is possible that a more
in depth review of the needs at other facilities, especially
transferred works could be interpreted to be required under the
legislation.
This concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer any
questions you may have at the appropriate time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stern follows:]
Prepared Statement of Charles V. Stern, Specialist in Natural Resources
Policy for the Congressional Research Service
Chairman Schatz, Ranking Member Lee, and members of the
subcommittee, my name is Charles Stern. I am a Specialist in Natural
Resources Policy at the Congressional Research Service (CRS). Thank you
for inviting CRS to testify on S. 1800, The Bureau of Reclamation
Transparency Act.
In brief, this legislation would require that the Bureau of
Reclamation's (Reclamation) asset management reporting be expanded to
include several new components. Specifically, it would require that
Reclamation annually report to Congress estimated costs for repair
needs and a categorical rating for major repair and rehabilitation
needs of Reclamation's facilities. Reclamation currently makes some
information available on its infrastructure management activities; the
proposed new requirements are directed to be incorporated into those
processes.
In serving the U.S. Congress on a non-partisan and objective basis,
CRS takes no position on this legislation but has been asked by the
Subcommittee to provide background and analysis of the legislation's
potential effects. The statements presented in this testimony are based
on an analysis of the legislation within the time available. CRS
remains available to assist the Subcommittee in its consideration of
this legislation, related issues, and potential concerns among affected
stakeholders.
overview of reclamation's infrastructure management and reporting
The Bureau of Reclamation is one of the two principal agencies
charged with constructing and maintaining the federal government's
largest investments in water infrastructure, the other being the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers. Other agencies and federal entities have
played roles in water resource development. S. 1800's requirements
would apply only to the Bureau of Reclamation; thus it is the focus of
my testimony.
The Bureau of Reclamation's assets are concentrated in the 17
western states and include dams, canals, pipelines, hydropower
facilities, and related infrastructure. Some of these facilities were
constructed as far back as Reclamation's original authorization in
1902, and most of them are more than 60 years old. In previous hearings
(including those before this committee), concerns have been raised
about the perceived deterioration of Reclamation's infrastructure and
the information (or lack thereof) on these conditions. In short, S.
1800 would require that Reclamation make available to Congress and the
public additional information about the condition and estimated cost of
repairing Reclamation-owned infrastructure.
Two important considerations frame my remarks on S. 1800: First, a
broad discussion of the distribution of management responsibilities
across different types of Reclamation facilities. Second, Reclamation's
current process for reporting on repair and rehabilitation needs of
these facilities. I will briefly discuss each of these things before
moving on to discuss the bill itself.
First, I will discuss distribution of management responsibilities.
As stated above, the majority of Reclamation's water resources
facilities are more than 60 years old, and a system of shared
responsibilities to plan, construct, finance, operate, maintain, and
repair this infrastructure has emerged over time. Reclamation is unique
among federal water resource agencies in that it does not manage much
of the infrastructure that it owns. In fact, about two-thirds of the
infrastructure owned by Reclamation has been transferred to local
project sponsors for operations and maintenance. While Reclamation
technically owns these assets (which are referred to as ``transferred
works''), it is not responsible for day to day maintenance at the
projects. The bureau conducts periodic maintenance reviews at
transferred works through its Associated Facilities Review of
Operations and Maintenance Examinations program. However, the results
of these examinations are typically not made public.
Separately, ``reserved works'' are the other major type of
infrastructure that is owned and operated by Reclamation and this
classification makes up the remainder of the bureau's assets. Most of
these projects entail large, multipurpose assets that are owned and
operated by Reclamation, and Reclamation's process of overseeing their
operations and maintenance is generally more involved than that used
for transferred works. Reclamation operates a Facility Maintenance and
Rehabilitation Program that identifies, schedules and prioritizes the
needs of its reserved works, but again, the results of these reviews
are typically not made public.
The patchwork management structure of Reclamation facilities makes
reporting on needed upgrades for these assets complicated. In recent
years Reclamation has undertaken efforts to improve this reporting.
These efforts have included, among other things, a major review of its
infrastructure management that concluded in 2008, as well as annual
asset management reports. The 2008 review was conducted in response to
a 2006 National Research Council Report and resulted in a number of
changes to Reclamation's infrastructure management. The annual asset
management reports have provided a high-level summary of Reclamation's
infrastructure management efforts, including discussion of how the
bureau tracks and plans for management activities, aggregated estimates
of maintenance requirements at regional and national levels, and some
of the policy tools available to address these issues.
Reports and public documents issued by Reclamation generally have
not included a list of facility-specific repair needs and associated
estimates. However, Reclamation has estimated as recently as 2012 that
costs for needed repairs and upgrades throughout the West were
approximately $2.5 (although project level estimates that make up this
total are not readily available). As I noted in my July 2013 testimony
before this committee, some agencies, such as the Environmental
Protection Agency and the Department of Transportation, publish ``needs
assessments'' that include project level estimates for needed repairs
and upgrades, although it should be noted that these agencies and the
infrastructure they service are different than Reclamation. In any
case, the availability of estimates for individual Reclamation
facilities varies, and are generally not compiled or regularly updated
in a centralized, public report.
Similarly, to varying degrees, Reclamation also reports its efforts
to categorize the conditions of these facilities. Reclamation
internally tracks and rates the condition of its dams and also utilizes
a ``Facility Reliability Rating'' to categorize the condition of
reserved works. Reclamation has in recent years also undertaken a
program to categorize the condition of urban canals that may be
vulnerable to full or partial failure. However, this information is not
standardized or available across Reclamation's infrastructure types,
nor is it regularly reported on.
crs analysis of s. 1800
S. 1800 would make several changes to Reclamation's existing
reporting process. It would authorize Reclamation to complete an asset
management report, presumably similar to the existing report (which has
to date been produced under general authorities). This report would be
published and made publicly available within 2 years of enactment, and
updated every two years thereafter. Perhaps most prominently, Section
4(b) of the bill would require that the report include an itemized list
of repair needs at each project. This list would include both a cost
estimate for repair needs at Reclamation facilities and a rating for
each item. The inclusion of the new ratings and repair estimates would
apply to both reserved and transferred works, respectively. That is,
all Reclamation-owned infrastructure, including that operated and
maintained by local sponsors, would be subject to the new requirements.
The bill would provide an exception to the public reporting
requirements for sensitive or classified information, but would require
that this information still must be made available to Congress.
S. 1800 does not appear to address directly the management of
projects by Reclamation or its local cooperators. Rather, its focus is
on what information is made available to Congress and the general
public about Reclamation facilities, and in what format. S. 1800
provides the Administration with some flexibility to determine how it
would implement the bill; however, the extent to which the new
requirements in the legislation would fit into existing processes or
necessitate new ones may be a matter of debate. Similarly, it is
unclear whether the bill's requirements would create new costs for
Reclamation, such as costs resulting from the assessment and publishing
of project repair estimates and/or ratings in the new report. Some may
also raise concerns about whether Reclamation's repair estimates or
ratings could result in increased operations and maintenance costs
being assessed on users. The extent to which such a scenario would
actually be the case may be a function of how Reclamation would
interpret and implement the bill.
Finally, some may also question how much of the information that
would be required by the legislation is currently available in existing
sources (such as through Reclamation's Associated Facilities Review of
Operations and Maintenance Examinations program and its Facility
Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program). While some of this information
appears to be available within Reclamation, it is possible that a more
in-depth review of the needs at other facilities, especially
transferred works, could be interpreted to be required under the
legislation. However, CRS is unable to say the extent to which this is
the case.
This concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer any
questions you may have at the appropriate time.
Senator Schatz. Thank you very much.
Mr. Duyck.
STATEMENT OF ANDY DUYCK, CHAIRMAN, WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, CHAIRMAN, CLEAN WATER SERVICES, BOARD
OF DIRECTORS
Mr. Duyck. Thank you, Chairman Schatz and Senator Barrasso
and distinguished members of the committee for the opportunity
to testify before you on Senate, on S. 1946.
My name is Andy Duyck. I'm the Chairman of the Washington
County Board of Commissioners as well as the Chair of the Board
of Directors for Clean Water Services, a waste water resources
management utility, more than 542,000 residents in Washington
County.
I'd like to start by thanking Senator Wyden for his
leadership on this matter and many other matters of importance
to Oregonians.
S. 1946 will ensure that the Bureau of Reclamation's Safety
of Dams program has the funding necessary to address critical
public safety needs within Reclamation's inventory of 476 dams
and dikes across 17 States including Scoggins Dam in Washington
County, Oregon.
As a repayment contractor on Reclamation's Scoggins Dam,
Clean Water Services has been working closely with
Reclamation's Safety of Dams program to address significant
seismic safety concerns at this Federal facility. Scoggins Dam,
which forms Hagg Lake, supports nearly 250,000 jobs. It
provides drinking water for more than 400,000 residents and it
provides irrigation for 17,000 acres of crop land.
In addition it sustains water quality in the Tualatin River
to protect fish and wildlife habitat.
In 2009 Reclamation completed a safety evaluation of
existing dams analysis on Scoggins Dam and issued a decision
document in 2010 with a finding that and I quote, the seismic
hazard at Scoggins Dam quite possibly presents the most severe
or at least among the most severe earthquake loadings within
Reclamation's inventory of dams.''
In order for Reclamation to budget for the necessary safety
improvements Reclamation must be granted the funding authority
to move forward. Major employers, water managers and the
population at risk below these facilities have an expectation
that the Federal authorities will diligently pursue repairs to
protect public safety and ensure a secure and reliable source
of water.
As Senator Wyden so succinctly said in his comments to
major Oregon industry leaders last August, the uncertainty of
this project is taking a toll on economic development. We thank
the Senator and the committee for helping remove this cloud of
uncertainty, just as Oregon and the Nation's economy begins to
recover. S. 1946 would ensure that dam safety improvements are
not delayed awaiting an incremental increase in the cost
ceiling for the Safety of Dams program. While extremely helpful
increase in the cost ceiling alone will not fully address the
public need at Scoggins Dam and possibly other Reclamation
facilities.
Concurrent with safety concerns the water supply needs of
our region must be addressed. In 2004 Congress authorized the
Tualatin Basin Water Supply study and authorized a 2.9 million
dollar study alternatives to meet the long term water needs of
the region. After nearly a decade of analysis, expansion of
Hagg Lake has been identified as a central component for
meeting the long term water supply need.
The integration of Reclamation's Safety of Dams
improvements with our region's need to expand this facility
would reduce costs and leverage our shared investments in order
to protect public safety and secure the water supply and meet
the long term needs of our community. From the perspective of a
non-Federal sponsor and the people of Oregon, it makes little
sense to invest hundreds of millions of dollars to secure the
dam without simultaneously allowing for an increased water
supply. The sustained and recurring droughts in Oregon and
other Western States underscore the need to address, not only
the threat of earthquakes, but also the threat of water
shortages.
In order to move forward with the joint project we need
authority allowing repayment contractors, the non-Federal
sponsors of these Reclamation facilities, to simultaneously
take action to increase storage benefit when economically and
environmentally feasible. Under existing law Reclamation cannot
plan for nor accept funds from a non-Federal sponsor for such
improvements once a facility is in the Safety of Dams process.
We look forward to working with Congress toward the
enactment of this legislation and that will not only
immediately benefit a producing area of jobs in the State of
Oregon, but also Reclamation dams that require safety
improvements. The safety, security and reliability of the
Nation's water supply is central to our economic health and
security.
So thank you for your attention to this legislation. I'd be
happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Duyck follows:]
Prepared Statement of Andy Duyck, Chairman, Washington County, Oregon
Board of Commissioners, Chairman, Clean Water Services, Board of
Directors
Thank you Chairwoman Landrieu, Ranking Member Murkowski, Senator
Wyden and distinguished Members of the Committee for the opportunity to
provide you with testimony in support of S. 1946, a bill to modify the
authorization of appropriations for the Bureau of Reclamation's Safety
of Dams Program. My name is Andy Duyck, and I am the Chairman of the
Washington County Commission, as well as the Chairman of the Board of
Directors for Clean Water Services, the water resources management
utility for more than 542,000 residents of Washington County. This
testimony is submitted on behalf of Washington County and Clean Water
Services. I am also submitting a of set letters from a broad-based
coalition of Oregon economic, environmental, business, agricultural and
municipal interests in support of this bill.
I would like to start by thanking Senator Wyden for his leadership
on this matter and on many other matters of importance to Oregonians.
S. 1946 will ensure the Bureau of Reclamation's Safety of Dams Program
has the funding necessary to address critical public safety needs
within Reclamation's inventory of 476 dams and dikes across 17 states,
including Scoggins Dam in Washington County, Oregon. This bill will
help Reclamation reduce risk; protect lives, homes and property; and
will provide economic certainty for the farmers, municipalities and
businesses that rely on safe, secure and reliable water and power
delivered from Reclamation facilities across the western United States.
Clean Water Services, Washington County and leaders throughout our
region thank the Committee for considering legislation to modify the
authorization of appropriations for this critical public safety
program. As a repayment contractor on Reclamation's Scoggins Dam, Clean
Water Services has been working closely with Reclamations' Safety of
Dams program to address significant seismic safety concerns at this
federal facility. Scoggins Dam, which forms Hagg Lake, supports nearly
250,000 jobs, provides drinking water for more than 400,000 residents,
irrigates 17,000 acres of cropland, and sustains water quality in the
Tualatin River to protect fish and wildlife habitat.
In 2009, Reclamation completed a Safety Evaluation of Existing Dams
analysis on Scoggins Dam and issued a Decision Document in 2010 finding
that:
``The seismic hazard at Scoggins Dam quite possibly presents
the most severe, or at least among the most severe, earthquake
loadings within Reclamation's inventory of dams.''
As a result of this finding, Reclamation moved forward with an
expedited Corrective Action Study to identify necessary structural
modifications to the dam that would address the seismic issues.
Accordingly, the President's fiscal year 2014 budget request to
Congress included Scoggins Dam on a list of facilities scheduled for
preconstruction activities. In order for Reclamation to budget for
these priority safety improvements, Reclamation must be granted the
funding authority to move forward. Major employers, water managers and
the population at risk below these facilities have an expectation that
the federal authorities will diligently pursue repairs to protect
public safety and ensure secure and reliable sources of water.
As Senator Wyden so succinctly said in his comments to major Oregon
industry leaders last August, ``the uncertainty [of this project] is
taking a toll on economic development.'' We thank the Senator and the
committee for helping remove this cloud of uncertainty just as Oregon
and the nation's economy begins to recover.
S. 1946 would provide a more efficient path for dam safety
improvements across the country by providing Reclamation with renewed
authority to work with local entities to plan, schedule, budget and
construct priority dam safety improvements. Like other authorization
programs, Congress will maintain its fiduciary authority for the Safety
of Dams program, but local communities and Reclamation would no longer
be burdened by the need to increase the program's arbitrary cost
ceiling every several years.
While extremely helpful, modification of the authorization for
appropriations for the Safety of Dams program will not fully address
the public need at Scoggins Dam and possibly other Reclamation
facilities. Concurrent with safety concerns, the water supply needs of
our region must be addressed. In 2004, Congress authorized the Tualatin
Basin Water Supply Project Study and authorized $2.9 million to study
alternatives to meet the long-term water needs of the region. The
Tualatin Basin Water Supply Project is a basin-wide, integrated water
resource management project that will diversify our water supply; help
ensure we are able to respond to anticipated climate change and drought
cycles; and meet the 50-year water supply needs for:
Water quality and critical habitat improvements in the
Tualatin River and its tributaries
Cities, industry and economic development; and
Agriculture
After nearly a decade of analysis, expansion of Hagg Lake has been
identified as a central component for meeting the long-term water needs
of our region.
The integration of Reclamation's Safety of Dams improvements with
our region's need to expand this facility would reduce costs and
leverage our shared investments in order to protect public safety;
secure our primary water supply and meet the long-term needs of our
community.
From the perspective of the non-federal sponsor and the people of
Oregon, it makes little sense to invest hundreds of millions of dollars
to secure the dam without simultaneously allowing for increased water
supply. The sustained and recurring droughts in Oregon and other
western states underscore the need to address not only the threat of
earthquakes but also the threat of water shortages.
In order to move forward with a joint project, we need authority
allowing repayment contractors--the non-federal sponsors of these
Reclamation facilities--to simultaneously take action to increase the
storage benefit when economically and environmentally feasible. Under
existing law, Reclamation cannot plan for nor accept funds from a non-
federal sponsor for such improvements once a facility is in the Safety
of Dams process. While such improvements might not be feasible or
desired in every instance, Reclamation should have the flexibility to
work with non-federal sponsors who seek both safety and water supply
improvements.
The authority we seek would not increase costs to the Safety of
Dams program nor obligate federal taxpayers in any way to pay for water
supply improvements. We recognize and accept our obligation to pay
these costs for additional storage capacity. But authorization is
needed now to fully address the public need for safety and future water
supply.
We greatly appreciate the thorough study and commitment of
Reclamation resources to assess the safety of Scoggins Dam. We are
working collaboratively with Reclamation to develop a feasible strategy
for ensuring the safety of the dam at the least cost to taxpayers and
the residents of Washington County. Our plans to expand the storage
capacity of the dam have been on hold for five years while the safety
of the dam was evaluated. S. 1946 would ensure that safety improvements
are not further delayed awaiting an incremental increase in the cost
ceiling for the Safety of Dams program. We look forward to working with
Congress toward the enactment of this legislation that will not only
immediately benefit a key job producing area of the State of Oregon but
also other Reclamation dams that require safety improvements.
The safety, security and reliability of the nation's water supply
is central to our economic health and security. The resiliency of water
infrastructure is more important than ever as we face the challenge of
recurring droughts in Oregon and throughout the West. Our collaboration
with Reclamation at Scoggins Dam will help our region secure our
primary water source and plan for the future. On behalf of economic,
agricultural, environmental and municipal interests in our region, I'd
like to enter letters of support for S. 1946 into the record from the
following stakeholders:
Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber
Washington County
Clean Water Services
City of Hillsboro
City of Beaverton
City of Forest Grove
City of Tigard
City of Tualatin
Tualatin Valley Water District
Joint Water Commission
Tualatin Valley Irrigation District
Oregon Water Resources Congress
Intel Corporation
Greater Hillsboro Chamber of Commerce
Westside Economic Alliance
Oregon Business Association
Portland General Electric
Portland Metro Homebuilders Association
Tualatin Riverkeepers
Tualatin River Watershed Council
Thank you for your attention to this legislation. I would be happy
to answer any questions.
Senator Schatz. Thank you very much, Mr. Duyck.
Dr. Batten.
STATEMENT OF BELINDA A. BATTEN, DIRECTOR, NORTHWEST NATIONAL
MARINE RENEWABLE ENERGY CENTER, OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY
Ms. Batten. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure and honor to
appear before you today to discuss the importance of S. 1419. I
wish to thank Senator Wyden and Senator Murkowski and their
staffs for their work on S. 1419 and long time efforts to
create a marine hydrokinetic industry in the United States.
I would also like to express my appreciation to the members
of the DOE Water Power team, who are integral to the success of
our projects.
I'm a professor of mechanical engineering at Oregon State
University and the Director of the Northwest National Marine
Renewable Energy Center, which I'll call NNMREC because it's
quite a mouthful.
The United States is blessed with an abundant energy
resource from the ocean waves and currents. In addition to the
estimates provided earlier by Mr. Carr, DOE estimates that
Oregon, Washington and California can meet up to 20 percent of
their electricity requirements from wave energy. That Alaska
and Hawaii can meet nearly all of their power loads from marine
energy technologies. Clearly this is a potential renewable
energy resource that is worthy of additional investments by the
U.S. Federal Government.
NNMREC is a DOE center with the mission of advancing
understanding of marine energy technologies. Senator Schatz,
there's a center in your State as well.
NNMREC is a collaboration between Oregon State University
and the University of Washington and was established in 2008.
Our programmatic strength derives from our integrated research,
development and testing activities collaborating with private
sector industry partners and the national laboratories.
NNMREC served as a one stop shop for technology developers,
regulatory and research agencies and community stakeholders who
are interested in marine energy. We're developing the work
force for this emerging renewable energy sector and have placed
more than 20 graduates in industrial positions since 2009.
NNMREC has developed world class test facilities for wave
energy devices. In 2012 we established a non grid connected
facility in Newport, Oregon and tested the WET-NZ wave energy
converter. With support from DOE and non Federal sources of
cost match, NNMREC is now developing a site that will serve as
the United States utilities field grid connected test facility
for wave energy.
Since inception NNMREC has tested 7 different devices in
its scaled laboratory facilities at Oregon State and 3 devices
in open water environments. Developers rely on our testing
facilities to prove and advance their technologies.
To give you a picture of our collaboration with industry
I'll focus on one example.
In 2004 Green Light Energy, a wind developer, visited
Oregon State with the interest in starting a wave energy
company by licensing Oregon State's intellectual property. They
formed Columbia Power Technologies based in Corvallis, Oregon.
Since then we've worked collaboratively on research to advance
their device.
We've assisted them with testing in our wave tanks as
they've advanced through their engineering development spirals.
We supported an open water test of their device in Puget Sound.
Earlier this week Columbia announced that the manufacturing
order for their power generator had been issued and it will be
tested at the National Renewable Energy Lab.
Columbia Power is just one of the private sector technology
developers that NNMREC has supported. This example demonstrates
how the collaboration between NNMREC, the DOE Water Power
Program and the national labs is working to shorten the time
and cost to commercialization for U.S. based MHK companies.
Unfortunately technology development is not the only hurdle
facing this industry. Much of my time during the last year and
a half has been devoted to developing the first U.S. grid
connecting testing facility for a variety of utility scale wave
energy converters and arrays. This facility is being developed
to provide the industry with a premier test site in the United
States analogous to the European Marine Energy Center in
Scotland that has been operational for 10 years.
It has been reported that the existence of that testing
facility contributes $16 million per year to the local economy
and that it supports hundreds of jobs. By establishing a
comparable testing center in the United States we can grow the
MHK industry that will provide new economic opportunities, high
wage jobs and a clean energy source to coastal communities.
I see firsthand the challenges that the marine renewables
industry faces with respect to funding and regulatory
processes. We have been working on permitting activities for
over a year and have spent approximately $500 thousand. We
anticipate spending another $1 million to $1.5 million and that
it will require at least two more years until we have our
permits and licenses in hand. All of this cost and effort has
been expended to establish a non commercial testing facility
for our prototypes.
The reauthorization of the DOE Water Power Program through
S. 1419 is essential to providing the continued funding the
industry needs. The regulatory changes provided in S. 1419 will
provide an avenue for promising new companies to advance
through the necessary testing stages more quickly. This bill
will enable NNMREC to continue to support developers as
illustrated in my example about Columbia Power.
Ocean energy can play a significant role in our Nation's
renewable energy portfolio. With the right support the U.S. MHK
industry can compete internationally. I ask this committee to
consider this measure and positively refer it to the full
Senate for eventual passage.
I will be glad to respond to any questions that you may
have about NNMREC or the MHK industry. Thank you for your time.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Batten follows:]
Prepared Statement of Belinda A. Batten, Director, Northwest National
Marine Renewable Energy Center, Oregon State University
Senator Landrieu and members of the Subcommittee, it is my pleasure
and honor to appear before you today to discuss the importance of S.
1419, the Marine and Hydrokinetic Renewable Energy Act of 2013. First,
I offer my congratulations to you, Senator Landrieu, for your ascension
to committee chair. I also want to thank my Senator from Oregon, Ron
Wyden, as well as Senator Murkowski, along with their staffs, for the
excellent work on S. 1419 and long time support of efforts to create a
marine hydrokinetic (MHK) industry in the United States. Finally, I
would also like to express my appreciation for the members of the
Department of Energy's Water Power team who are integral to the success
of our projects.
I am a professor of Mechanical Engineering at Oregon State
University and Director of the Northwest National Marine Renewable
Energy Center (NNMREC). Prior to this appointment, I served as the Head
of the School of Mechanical, Industrial, and Manufacturing Engineering
at Oregon State University. Previous to that, I was the Program Manager
for Dynamics and Control at the Air Force Office of Scientific
Research. I have served on the US Air Force Scientific Advisory Board,
and I currently serve on the board of the Oregon Wave Energy Trust.
The United States is blessed with abundant MHK renewable resources
from ocean waves and currents. For the continental United States, the
potential MHK resource, dominated primarily by ocean waves, is
estimated between 13 and 19 percent of current electricity demand. DOE
estimates that Oregon, Washington and California can meet up to twenty
percent of their electricity requirements from wave energy convertors,
and Alaska and Hawaii can meet nearly all of their power loads from MHK
technologies. Clearly, this is a potential renewable energy resource
worthy of additional investments by the U.S. Federal Government.
NNMREC is a competitively designated U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE) Center with the mission of advancing understanding of MHK
technologies. NNMREC, a collaboration between Oregon State University
and the University of Washington, was established in 2008 through a
competitive DOE Water Power Program Funding Opportunity Announcement.
Our programmatic strength derives from our integrated research,
development and testing activities, collaborating with private sector
industry partners and the national laboratories. NNMREC has
historically focused on wave and tidal current energy technologies, and
has expanded into off-shore wind. NNMREC serves as a ``one stop shop''
for technology developers; federal, state and local regulatory and
resource agencies; and community stakeholders interested in marine
energy. We are developing the workforce for this emerging renewable
energy sector, and have placed more than twenty graduates in industrial
positions since 2009.
NNMREC has developed world-class test facilities, under the
``brand'' Pacific Marine Energy Center (PMEC). In 2012, NNMREC
established the PMEC North Energy Test Site (PMEC-NETS), a non-grid
connected facility in Newport, Oregon, and tested the WET-NZ wave
energy converter. With support from DOE and other non-federal sources
of cost match, NNMREC is now developing the PMEC South Energy Test Site
(PMEC-SETS) to serve as the United States' utility scale grid connected
test facility. At this facility, we will test commercial scale wave
energy converters and arrays.
Our faculty and students have also supported scaled wave energy
converter testing in our wave tank facilities at OSU's Hinsdale Wave
Research Lab, in Puget Sound and in Lake Washington, as well as utility
scale tidal current energy projects. Since inception, NNMREC has tested
seven different devices in its scaled laboratory facilities at OSU, and
three wave energy devices in open water environments. Device developers
rely on our testing facilities to prove and advance their technologies.
NNMREC has become globally recognized for research, development and
testing in marine renewable energy. Faculty and students collaborate
with developers on specific device related projects. To give you a
picture of our collaboration with industry, I will focus on one
example. In 2004, Greenlight Energy, a wind developer, visited OSU with
interest in starting a wave energy company, spring-boarding off
licensing OSU's intellectual property. They formed Columbia Power
Technologies (CPT), based in Corvallis, Oregon. In 2007, Columbia Power
and Oregon State University worked together to develop SeaBeav I, a
prototype point absorber wave energy device with a novel direct-drive
linear generator. This work was continued in 2008 with Navy and
Columbia Power funding, and culminated in the successful ocean testing
of the L10 point absorber device. Based on the lessons learned from the
successful testing, Columbia Power determined a direct-drive rotary
generator design was more appropriate than the linear design for
utility scale conversion.
In 2009 Columbia Power tested a 1:33 scale prototype of their new
direct-drive rotary system in collaboration with NNMREC researchers in
OSU's Tsunami Wave Basin. This effort expanded the next year with the
testing of a 1:15 scale device in the OSU's Large Wave Flume, along
with 1:33 scale prototype array testing in the Tsunami Wave Basin, one
of the first testing of its kind in the US.
In 2011 Columbia Power worked with NNMREC and OSU researchers to
develop and successfully test a 1:7 scale prototype in Puget Sound.
This 13 month testing was very successful, and Columbia Power is
continuing forward with a full-scale design. In addition, Columbia
Power and NNMREC have recently developed active mooring control systems
to enable flexible and accelerated wave tank testing.
At all points in their research, development and testing, CPT staff
have been actively engaged with NNMREC faculty and students. Over the
years OSU has provided CPT with several of our graduating students to
fill out their engineering staff, and with several undergraduate
student interns. The ongoing collaboration has accelerated research and
product development toward grid-scale implementation.
Earlier this week CPT announced that the manufacturing order for
its power generator has been issued to Siemens Industry; the generator
will be utilized in CPT's full-scale power take-off (PTO) test project.
The PTO will be tested on the new 5MW dynamometer at the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory. This land-based test allows the safe,
rapid and economical simulation of the full range of ocean conditions.
Columbia Power Technologies is just one of the private sector
technology developers that NNMREC has supported over the five plus
years of its existence, and this example demonstrates how the
collaboration between NNMREC, the DOE Water Power Program and the
National Labs is working to shorten the time and cost to
commercialization for U.S. based MHK companies. Unfortunately,
technology development is not the only hurdle facing this industry or
these private sector companies.
Much of my time during the last year and a half has been devoted to
developing PMEC-SETS which will serve as the first US grid connected
testing facility for a variety of utility scale wave energy converters
and arrays. This facility is being developed to provide the industry
with a premier test site in the United States, analogous to the
European Marine Energy Center (EMEC) in Orkney, Scotland that has been
operational for 10 years. It has been reported that the existence of
EMEC contributes $16 million per year to the local economy and supports
hundreds of jobs throughout the research and development supply chain.
Members of the European Union have spent almost $1 billion over the
past ten years on MHK development and have made this technology a
priority. By establishing a comparable testing center in the United
States, we can grow a MHK industry that will provide new economic
opportunities, high wage jobs and a clean energy source to coastal
communities.
Through my efforts to develop PMEC-SETS, I see first hand the
challenges that the marine renewables industry faces with respect to
funding and regulatory processes to advance their technologies. We have
been working on permitting activities for PMEC-SETS for over a year,
and have spent approximately $500,000. We anticipate spending another
$1--1.5M and that it will require at least two more years until we have
our permits and licenses in hand. All this cost and effort has been
expended to establish a non-commercial testing facility for prototype
devices. Clearly, something is not working if this is the best we can
do as a government to support the private sector in developing new
renewable energy technologies.
The reauthorization of the Department of Energy's Water Power
Program through S. 1419 is essential to providing the continued funding
that this industry needs at this stage of its development. This is
particularly true when you keep in mind that funding from the DOE Water
Power Program is the one key mechanism to support U.S. technology
developers competing against overseas companies that receive a suite of
subsidies. The reality is that most MHK companies are not yet in a
position to receive the tax benefits enjoyed by more mature
conventional and renewable energy technologies. In addition, the
regulatory changes proposed in S. 1419 will provide an avenue for
promising new MHK companies and their technologies to advance through
the necessary testing stages more quickly. This industry requires
targeted investments and permitting efficiencies like those that are
included in S. 1419.
These investments and permitting efficiencies are essential to
developing the MHK energy sector that has the potential to deliver
reliable power to our coastal communities with significant, positive
economic impact. NNMREC has received over $10M in funds from DOE to
date, and another $10M in non-federal matching funds, mostly from the
States of Oregon and Washington. This bill will enable NNMREC to
continue to support developers as illustrated in my example with
Columbia Power Technologies.
Ocean energy can play a significant role in our nation's renewable
energy portfolio. With the right support, the United States' MHK
industry can be competitive internationally. I am pleased to offer my
support for S. 1419. I ask this committee to consider the measure and
positively refer it to the full Senate for its eventual passage. I will
be glad to respond to any questions that you may have about NNMREC's
activities or the MHK industry.
Thank you.
Senator Schatz. Thank you very much, Dr. Batten.
Senator Barrasso.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Stern, if I could ask a couple things I was thinking
about as you testified?
Now the Bureau of Reclamation has mentioned that it has
concerns with the prospect of integrating maintenance backlog
information from different Bureau project types. You
specifically mentioned the word types of projects, such as
reserved and transferred works, as would be required under our
bill. Based on your knowledge of the Bureau of Reclamation
would it be possible to integrate the relevant data across
different infrastructure types into a single report?
Mr. Stern. Senator Barrasso, the bill as currently written,
as you know, leaves a number of the alimentation issues
associated with the bill up to the Bureau of Reclamation to
determine how it would go about integrating these things into
the existing budget.
I don't think that we at CRS have sufficient information on
what information Reclamation has internally and how they would
go about implementing this bill to say whether or not it would,
for instance, have the potential to duplicate existing
processes. But what I could say is that the bill certainly
doesn't mandate that, you know, this work into existing
Reclamation budget processes it could possibly be a different
process all together.
Senator Barrasso. Would something like the assignment of
safety ratings under the bill have the potential to undermine
Reclamation's annual budget process as some claim and why or
why not?
Mr. Stern. I wouldn't comment on whether it would
potentially undermine the bill's or undermine their existing
budget processes. But again, the bill provides the flexibility
for Reclamation to incorporate the safety ratings into the
annual budget process. But it doesn't require that Reclamation
incorporate that or replace the annual budget process with
those ratings.
Senator Barrasso. Could you elaborate a little bit on the
figures that the Bureau has provided Congress in the past
related to its needed infrastructure upgrades? Do you know what
the current status is of those totals?
Mr. Stern. As I mentioned in my written testimony, 2.6
billion is the most recent figure for Reclamation's overall
maintenance backlog that they've publicly cited. Back in 2008 I
think it was as high as 3 billion and then some Recovery Act
projects helped to decrease that total.
Since 2012 we haven't seen any updates of that number. So
that's the most recent thing that we have. That was the last
time that Reclamation actually published an asset management
report.
Senator Barrasso. Yes. So what do think would be the
potential affect of S. 1800's requirements for project level
maintenance estimates on Reclamation's previous, you know,
estimates?
Mr. Stern. Certainly the broader estimates would probably
change, could change at any number of directions. For some
projects they would probably go up and for some projects they
would go down. But since we haven't seen the specific project
level estimates, it's hard to comment further than that.
Senator Barrasso. In your testimony I wanted to ask you a
question. You mentioned that whether additional costs would be
passed on to project users would be up to the Bureau of
Reclamation. Could you tell us what you mean by that?
Mr. Stern. Again, the bill provides a fair amount of
flexibility in its implementation. All it requires is that
Reclamation come up with these estimates. It doesn't require
that the cost actually be passed on to users. But it doesn't
bar Reclamation from passing these costs on to users as well.
Previous legislation, I think in 2008, the Omnibus Lands
bill, actually said that Reclamation should use the data from
the urban canal inspections to inform, you know, potential new
actions by users. That's not the case with this bill.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Schatz. Thank you very much, Senator Barrasso.
Dr. Batten, thank you very much for your testimony. Thank
you for your work on this important issue.
Can you just give us a sense for how close we are to
commercialization? I think part of that, obviously, is
connecting to the grid, but it's also a cost question. So
what's your sense of how far we are from R and D to
commercialization at small scale and then wide scale adoption?
Ms. Batten. Senator, I think the answer to your question
depends a lot on what kind of investment we get from the
Federal Government.
If you look at what happened with wind 30 years ago we were
well on the way to commercialize the industry and then funding
went away and Europe developed the devices. Now we have it
back.
I think what we're going to see in this country if we have
the fortitude and patience to continue to invest is that if we
can realize this utility scale test facility then we will see
small arrays of devices going into places where there's high
cost of energy, places like your State, places like the State
of Alaska, where communities right now are dependent upon very
expensive diesel. If that were to happen we might see some
small arrays of devices in those waters within the next 5
years.
Senator Schatz. What is the--can you describe the
technology? Obviously there are different categories of ocean
power here. As you know off the west side of the big island of
Hawaii we have an ocean thermal energy conversion facility. At
the Kaneohe Marine Corps Air Station there's a marine hydro
power which is to say they're turning turbines for electrons.
There are different categories of ocean power.
Can you quickly go through them and then talk about which
ones you think are the most commercially viable, which ones are
the game changers and which ones are further off?
Ms. Batten. One of the challenges with wave energy is that
we don't have a good sense of what the device should look like.
It will be driven by the levelized cost of energy.
Whereas with tidal turbines we could leverage a lot of the
information we knew about wind energy. There's almost every
different kind of device you could think of for wave energy
depending on what somebody had this great idea about how the
ocean goes up and down and back and forth. That's one of the
reasons for a test facility.
So there are some devices called point absorbers that are
essentially like a buoy that goes up and down with the heave of
the ocean.
Then there are devices that will go back and forth with the
surge of the ocean.
There's devices that will have floats that rise and fall as
the waves go underneath them.
There are a device that's looking at Hawaii relies on air
being compressed through a turbine as the ocean waves go
through.
Senator Schatz. So we just don't know yet. That's the
purpose of further testing.
Ms. Batten. We don't know. That's exactly the purpose of
the further testing is to see which devices are most reliable
and survivable in various wave environments and what kind of
energy the various devices produce.
Senator Schatz. Very briefly, could you tell me about power
quality when it comes to ocean energy? Are we moving toward
this being firm power? Is this going to be intermittent energy?
Where does this fit in the spectrum?
Ms. Batten. We have electrical engineers at Oregon State
who are working on those questions. I think they're busy
working on how to produce well conditioned power. If you go to
the European Marine Energy Center you'll see them working on
these kinds of technologies that their electricity is being put
on to the grid and they have been able to show with different
kinds of devices how to put them on to the grid in an effective
way.
Senator Schatz. I would assume that, to the extent that
it's tidal energy, it's predictable and therefore maybe not
quite firm, but dispatchable. Is that about right?
Ms. Batten. Yes, that's fair.
Even wave energy, which we may not think about off the top
of our head, is predictable 84 hours in advance. So that's a
fairly predictable resource that's always there. It doesn't
rise and fall like the wind or go away at night like the sun.
Senator Schatz. I've been told that there's a diminishment
of actual wave action if there is a wave power project
offshore. Is that true?
Ms. Batten. It depends on how many devices you would have
together. That's another project that's been--that we're busy
working on at Oregon State University is to predict how much
the waves would be diminished for particular devices in an
array.
Senator Schatz. For the record that would be a deal breaker
in Hawaii.
Ms. Batten. I could understand. It would be in Oregon too,
though you may not think about it, we have a large surfing
community that would be outraged.
Senator Schatz. I understand.
Thank you very much.
Just a quick question for Mr. Duyck. Thanks for your
testimony.
I agree that S. 1946 is an important piece of legislation.
I thank you for your support of it.
Do you see any need to amend the Safety of Dams program
beyond lifting the appropriation ceiling and if so, what
recommendations might you have?
Mr. Duyck. It's really a two pronged approach.
The first is to secure our primary source of water against
earthquake damage. That's what S. 1946 starts to address.
But then we will need the authority or Reclamation will
need the authority to work on a joint project with non Federal
partners. That's where the new dollars come in that will
actually speed up the project and make it less expensive for
the increased capacity.
So, thank you.
Senator Schatz. Thank you very much.
In closing I'd like to highlight the fact that the
committee has received letters of support for S. 2019 from the
following organizations, the Western States Water Council, the
Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, the American
Planning Association and the National Water Resources
Association.
We thank these organizations for their support and have
submitted their letters for the record.
The testimony and written submissions from today's
witnesses will be made a part of the official hearing record.
We will also keep the record open for a period of 2 weeks
to receive additional statements.
We thank the testifiers and the staff.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:40 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIXES
----------
Appendix I
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Responses of Mike Carr to Questions From Senator Schatz
Question 1. Mr. Carr, discussion surrounding the recent expiration
of the production tax credit has mostly focused on the effect of the
expiration on the wind industry. We often forget that marine and
hydrokinetic renewable energy projects were also eligible for the PTC.
Recognizing that MHK is largely in a pre-commercial phase, I wonder if
you have thoughts on how the presence or absence of this tax credit
will affect the economics of getting these projects built. In other
words, how important is the PTC to marine and hydrokinetic renewable
projects?
Answer. The President's FY 2015 Budget Request supports making
permanent and expanding the Production Tax Credit in order to provide a
strong, consistent incentive to encourage investment in a variety of
renewable energy technologies. As the nascent MHK industry grows in the
short-term, production incentives such as the PTC could drive continued
growth in the industry. MHK receives 1.1 cents per kilowatt hour
through the PTC; certain other renewables such as wind and geothermal
receive 2.3 cents per kilowatt hour. DOE currently estimates the cost
of MHK technology at 60 cents per kilowatt hour. Our primary focus is
continuing robust R&D, which is the most important aspect of driving
MHK technology down the cost curve to make it more competitive in
localized electricity markets.
Question 2. Mr. Carr, why is DOE's R&D budget for MHK so small?
Given its potential mid to long term, why does it get a small fraction
of the amount of DOE funding other renewables receive?
Answer. EERE is taking MHK research, development and demonstration
seriously, and does believe it has an important role in the
Administration's ``all of the above'' energy strategy moving forward.
Given the relatively low technical maturity of devices and the nascent
state of the industry, significant technological research and
development is necessary to drive MHK down the cost curve towards
competitiveness with localized electricity markets. As DOE currently
estimates the cost ofMHK to be $.60/kWh, the technology is more than 4
times more expensive than where it needs to be to be competitive. This
makes MHK R&D a longer-term technology.
In FY 2015, the Department's Budget Request reflects a more
equitable split across MHK and hydropower. The $30.5 million requested
in FY 2015 for MHK allows the Water Power Program to continue its
ongoing efforts to advance water power technologies and accelerate
their market adoption. For example, the FY 2015 Request supports
continued MHK applied research and development and testing of
innovative component technologies designed specifically for the
challenges of the marine environment, and testing and research to
address key environmental uncertainties that arise within the rapidly
developing industry, among other activities. In summary, the
Department's Budget Request provides the priority and funding stability
necessary to continue making progress in marine and hydrokinetic
technologies.
Responses of Mike Carr to Questions From Senator Wyden
Question 3. I am disappointed, but not surprised that the
Department's testimony has no official position on the legislation. The
same was true with regard to Dr. Danielson's testimony on our critical
minerals legislation. So let me ask you the question this way--do you
agree that the folks at OSU and the University of Washington and their
colleagues around the country are making progress on what could be a
very promising set of renewable energy technologies and that they ought
to be encouraged to continue?
Answer. DOE's National Marine Renewable Energy Centers are expected
to play a role in technology advancement in the future, and prior DOE
investments in their capabilities have positioned the centers to
compete for DOE funding opportunity announcements. For example, the
Northwest National Marine Renewable Energy Center (NNMREC) just last
year was selected to negotiate for an award of $750,000 through a new
competitive DOE Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA). Additionally,
the NNMREC and other centers are expected to remain competitive for
future DOE FOAs, such as the 3-year, $4 million Marine and Hydrokinetic
(MHK) Research and Development University Consortium FOA (announced on
April 10, 2014), which aims to leverage field R&D expertise to advance
U.S. MHK technology, while developing intellectual capital for a
globally-competitive workforce.
To date, OSU, the University of Washington, and their colleagues
have contributed to MHK technology advancement by optimizing MHK system
and component designs, demonstrating and evaluating technology
innovations, developing testing instrumentation, and reducing siting
risks by reducing resource characterization uncertainty and informing
improved regulatory processes.
Continued university research, development, demonstration, and
testing--such as those activities that have been performed at or in
conjunction with the NMRECs--are clearly important to DOE's mission of
developing cost-competitive MHK technologies. The Department believes
the work at OSU and the University of Washington (like scaled wave
energy converter device testing in both laboratory and intermediate
sites, and other R&D activities) has advanced this mission and has
played a valuable role in advancing the nascent U.S. MHK industry.
Question 4. Over the past decade, through both Democratic and
Republican Administrations, congressional authorizing and
appropriations committees have worked to maintain a Federal commitment
to both conventional and wave energy technologies. As I discussed with
Assistant Secretary Danielson a couple of weeks ago when he appeared
before the Committee, Congress appropriated funds for wave energy in
the FY2014 Omnibus Appropriations Act, but the Department has not been
following through to ensure that those funds make their way to the U.S.
research community. Can you assure us that those funds are, in fact,
going to be making it to our research centers?
Answer. The Department thanks the Senator and the Committee for
their strong leadership and support of MHK research, development,
testing, and demonstration.
DOE can assure Congress that several competitive funding
opportunities will be announced so that the funding will be moved out
to the research community, which includes universities.
Response of Mike Carr to Question From Senator Murkowski
Question 5. Since 2005 Congress has been on record supporting
research and development ofMHK technology. We have appropriated a bit
more than $200 million in the past decade on MHK development, but the
United Kingdom has spent three and one-halftimes more, and the European
nations collectively have spent five times more than America on marine
technology. The recent omnibus appropriations bill for FY14 allotted
$41.3 million for MHK funding but contained report language directing
that no funding is to be made available for the deep-tank wave testing
facility. Does the Department support such a restriction? Aren't we in
danger of wasting the money we've already spent for the Oregon marine
center if we discontinue this aid? How much will it cost DOE if we move
to replicate the research and device verification facilities that have
already been built at the Oregon facility at some new academic center
or even at the national labs?
Answer. To date, the Department of Energy has not funded any deep-
tank wave testing facility. Following Congressional intent in the
explanatory statement accompanying the FY 2014 Omnibus Appropriations
Act, the Department will not provide funding support for a deep tank
test facility in FY2014. Funding for a deep-tank wave testing facility
is also not requested in the FY15 budget. The Department will not
replicate any existing research and device verification facilities,
including any facilities that might exist at DOE NMRECs.
Response of Mike Carr to Question From Senator Lee
Question 6. The National Research Council (NRC) of the National
Academy of Sciences released a report last May prepared at DOE's
request that contains conclusions on the limited application ofMHK
resources. [See excerpts pasted below along with a link to the entire
study.] Please comment on this report's conclusions and how they square
with the continued federal funding and support for MHK technology,
which is further expanded in S. 1419.
Answer. With 50% of the U.S. population living within 50 miles of
coastlines, there is significant potential to provide clean, renewable
electricity to coastal communities and cities using MHK technologies.
Based on the various resource assessments reviewed in the NRC report
that were sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy, the technical
resource potential for United States wave, tidal, current, and riverine
hydrokinetic resources is estimated to be between 1,300 and 1,800 TWh/
year, which would be more than one-fourth of U.S. electricity
consumption if fully captured. While the NRC report noted that there
were several areas where improvements could be made across the
assessments, it did not dispute the overall magnitude of the technical
resource potential across the country.
Technical resource potential is the portion of a theoretical
resource that can be captured using a specific technology (usually the
current state-of-the-art). Practical resource potential is the portion
of the technical resource that is available when other constraints-such
as economic, environmental, and regulatory considerations-are factored
in. The NRC report did note that additional analysis is needed if an
accurate evaluation of the practical resource potential at specific
sites is desired.
The NRC report also noted that DOE should improve public access to
results and data generation through the resource assessments for the
purposes of allowing other groups to continue analyses of practical
resource potential. To that end, the Department has published all the
MHK resource assessment reports and maps online at http://energy.gov/
eere/water/marine-and-hydrokinetic-resource-assessment-and-
characterization and is centralizing information from all of the
assessments in the Geospatial Renewable Energy Atlas at the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory.
______
Responses of Robert Quint to Questions From Senator Schatz
Question 1. Mr. Quint, S.2019 removes the authorized appropriations
cap for the Bureau of Reclamation WaterSMART grants program. Can you
discuss the impacts to Western states if Congress does not act to raise
or remove the spending cap this fiscal year?
Answer. WaterSMART allows the Department to provide incentives and
tools to achieve sustainable supplies, while supporting water managers
who make their own decisions about what programs and activities will be
the best and most practical fit in their particular watersheds.
Reclamation estimates that the authorized appropriations ceiling will
be reached in FY 2015. If Congress does not raise or remove the
spending cap this fiscal year, Western states stand to lose use of this
highly valuable and widely utilized program, which is significantly
contributing to drought resiliency in the West.
Question 2. Drought and water scarcity are a serious issue in many
parts of the country right now. Yet a comprehensive and current
national assessment of water resources does not exist. Can you talk
about the benefits of having a better understanding of regional and
national water availability and use? And please give some perspective
on the barriers to completing such a national assessment.
Answer. The U.S. Geological survey (USGS) responds that a better
understanding of regional and national water availability and use is
critical to the Nation. The type of information derived from a national
water assessment provides the Federal government with information to
make informed decisions regarding Federal investments in water
resources infrastructure. Programs within the Bureau of Reclamation,
the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Energy, the Army Corps
of Engineers, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, to name just a few, rely on an
understanding of the Nation's water availability and use in conducting
their missions. These programs invest hundreds of millions of dollars
each year toward protecting and sustaining the Nation's water supply.
These programs continue to depend upon up-to-date data and information
about our water resources and an accurate assessment of future demands
for water, and the National Water Availability and Use Assessment is
designed to provide that type of hydrologic information in an on-going
fashion on a national level.
In addition, our Federal government relies upon information
concerning water availability and use to enact laws, develop and
implement regulations, and set and carry out policies pertaining to
water resources. We need to ensure that our laws, regulations, and
policies are directed at the most pressing water-related issues and
designed to produce the most beneficial effects with respect to our
water resources. A National Water Availability and Use Assessment will
provide the technical information needed to make water-related
decisions and achieve the best possible outcomes.
Finally, our society makes decisions on investments every day that
need to be guided by this type of information. The energy industry
makes an investment in constructing new generating facilities and must
know if there is enough water to satisfy the cooling demands; the
manufacturing industries invest in new factories which need water, and
they must know if the locations they are selecting can provide the
supply; and a city needs to plan for its next 50 years of growth and
must understand the trends in water use and supply. These are critical
and costly decisions which require a sound base of understanding in
water availability and use.
The Bureau of Reclamation and the USGS are both involved in Federal
interagency efforts to integrate and make accessible existing water
availability and use data. USGS participates in the Integrated Water
Resource Science and Services (IWRSS) effort together with the Army
Corps of Engineers and NOAA's National Weather Service. Both agencies
are active in the work of the White House Office of Science and
Technology Policy to create a comprehensive data base of Federal water
data as part of the President's Climate Data Initiative.
The USGS perceives five major barriers to completing a national
assessment of freshwater availability and use: challenges in gathering
information from other Federal agencies involved in water availability,
a fragmented approach to State water resources information management,
inadequate resources, lack of interoperability, and various
institutional barriers.
Question 3. In your written testimony, you mention the energy-water
nexus, something I am very interested in. Can you please shed some
light on how WaterSMART relates to the energy water nexus?
Answer. Clearly there is a strong connection between energy and
water. As the second largest producer of hydropower, Reclamation has an
interest in the conservation of both. Through the WaterSMART Program,
Reclamation provides cost-shared grants to States, tribes, and other
entities for projects that achieve water efficiency improvements, and
proposals that not only address water conservation but also explore the
use of renewable energy. Other energy efficiency improvements receive
additional consideration during the selection process. Projects funded
to date have included incorporation of new hydroelectric turbines on
canals and conduits, installing automated systems on facilities to
increase energy efficiency, and constructing storm water recharge
systems to take advantage of local water, thus minimizing the need to
pump water from distant sources. Sponsors of WaterSMART grant projects
are asked to explain how their proposed water efficiency improvements
can be expected to lead to energy savings as well, and the methods used
to estimate energy savings are shared with other water managers as they
plan future improvements.
Question 4. Mr. Quint, I'd like to ask you a question about the
title transfer bill that I introduced earlier this week. We know the
Bureau is interested in conveying title of some of its facilities to
project beneficiaries, but I wonder if you can discuss the level of
interest on the part of potential recipients, and also explain why
title transfer is often a good option for the recipients as well.
Answer. Reclamation has fielded many inquiries from water districts
about the possibility of title transfer and since 1995, has transferred
title to 27 projects or parts of projects. To proactively engage with a
larger number of water districts to identify and evaluate the potential
public benefits of title transfer, including more efficient management
of water and water-related facilities, Sec. 3 of S. 2034 establishes a
title transfer program. Title transfer can increase operational
flexibility and can potentially remove obligations--such as certain
reporting and permitting requirements that exist by virtue of the fact
that the facilities are owned by the United States. We also see title
transfer as a tool for assisting water users to address long term
maintenance needs associated with an aging infrastructure. In many
cases, the entities that operate the projects would like to undertake
major maintenance efforts that, by law, are their responsibility.
However, they cannot borrow the needed capital because they do not
actually own the facilities and therefore do not have sufficient
collateral. Taking title gives them the flexibility to pursue financing
opportunities that would otherwise not be available.
Question 5. The title transfer bill gives the Bureau of Reclamation
authority to convey titles of certain eligible facilities to willing
project operators, also referred to as project beneficiaries. As I
discussed earlier, currently an act of Congress is required to transfer
these titles. This bill is aimed at uncomplicated projects where all
parties are able to reach agreement on the terms of the transfer. If
this bill were to become law, what would you see as Congress's role for
more complex projects, such as those involving preference power rates
or other complicating factors?
Answer. S. 2034 creates a second track for pursuing title transfer
from that which we already pursue. The inclusion of project power in
some cases may add a level of complexity to the title transfer process,
which may not be appropriate for the type of non-controversial title
transfers envisioned in S. 2034. Therefore, projects with complicating
factors would continue through the same process as they do today, where
we develop a unique title transfer agreement and work with Congress to
authorize that transfer. That is the same process as we use today and
it would be available under this program.
Question 6. Mr. Quint, I am pleased to see that the Department
supports S. 1946. My question is what, if any, external reviews or
audits of the Dam Safety program have taken place and what are those
findings?
Answer. Reclamation's Dam Safety Program has been reviewed annually
since 1997 by an external independent review panel. Their general
conclusions have been that the program is comprehensive, well organized
and in conformance with Federal Guidance and that it contributes to the
establishment of best practices for the industry.
Response of Robert Quint to Question From Senator Wyden
Question 7. Mr. Quint, the Crooked River bill aims to strike the
balance between competing demands for a scarce resource: water from the
Crooked River. There are concerns that some groups will have more
influence than others on how water is actually allocated. How does the
Bureau interpret the bill's language that directs the Bureau to work
with the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs and the State of
Oregon for guidance on the annual release schedule? Would the Tribe be
able to dictate to the Bureau how water is released as a co-manager of
the resource?
Answer. Reclamation believes the provisions of Section 7 create
potential conflict if the federal, state and tribal management
priorities for Crooked River flows from Bowman Dam are not aligned
every year. Likewise, the repeated reference to downstream fish and
wildlife benefits appears to create restricted discretion to address
in-reservoir or upstream fish and wildlife needs. As drafted, we do not
believe the bill would enable the tribe to ``dictate'' how water is
released. As noted in our testimony, the bill alters but does not
eliminate Reclamation's discretion in operating the dam; however the
change in discretion is not entirely clear.
Responses of Robert Quint to Questions From Senator Murkowski
on s. 1771
Question 8. To your knowledge, could there be any other
alternatives to augmenting water supplies to the City of Prineville
other than Prineville reservoir?
Answer. Prineville Reservoir is the only Reclamation reservoir
option for the City of Prineville. We have not been involved with or
are aware of any efforts by the City to consider alternative water
supplies.
Question 9. What type of an analysis would you say needs to be
carried out to assess the impacts (if any) on current water consumers
of withdrawing 5,100 acre-feet of water from the Bowman Dam for the
City of Prineville?
Answer. Issuing a contract to the City of Prineville would normally
require an analysis of all anticipated impacts of the proposed action
conducted as part of the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA)
compliance process. It is possible that S.1771's proposed contract with
the City of Prineville for 5100 acre-feet of storage would be covered
by a categorical exclusion; however, it may require an environmental
assessment.
on s. 1800
Question 10. Can you please describe what exactly is being done
currently to asses and estimate future needed repairs to BOR's assets?
What are the associated costs? How would the proposed new assessment
address missing information?
Answer. Reclamation's annual budget request provides Congress with
the best representation of the appropriated funds needed for identified
maintenance activities at Reclamation's facilities. However, concurrent
with the budget request, there is a significant amount of maintenance
that is funded ``off budget'' with Reclamation's water and power
customers, pursuant to advance funding agreements. While this process
has worked well to provide for continued reliability of Reclamation's
infrastructure, we recognize that Congress would like more information
on how Reclamation assesses and estimates future repair needs. To that
end, we have provided to Senator Barrasso's office a redline set of
edits to S. 1800, consistent with Reclamation's testimony, which we
believe would improve implementation of the bill while streamlining the
data gathering required by the legislation within Reclamation's
existing budget and asset management processes. This effort is
anticipated to improve the data collected from our water and power
customers, which is integral to a comprehensive representation of our
asset management responsibilities. Reclamation has initiated an
activity that will achieve the objectives stated above and is
consistent with the redline version of S. 1800 provided.
Question 11. The bill calls for a very detailed analysis of all
project plans and associated costs of major repairs and rehabilitation
of BOR facilities. CRS testified that Reclamation operates a Facility
Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program that identifies, schedules, and
prioritizes the needs of its reserved works but that the reviews are
typically not made public. The Bureau, according to CRS, also conducts
periodic maintenance reviews at transferred works through its
Associated Facilities Review of Operations and Maintenance Examinations
program but again, these results are typically not made public. It
would seem then, that most of the data called for in this bill is
already available to Reclamation in some form. Do you agree? If not,
please explain.
Answer. It is true that a wide variety of information exists
specific to maintenance needs at Reclamation facilities through review
activities and other processes; however, the reviews alone do not
provide detailed project plans with schedules and associated costs. In
addition, there are various program-specific approaches used for
determining priorities and funding needs (e.g., dam safety modification
work, power facility O&M financing, reserved works O&M, transferred
works O&M, etc.) which are effective, and explainable to affected
Reclamation water and power customers, but which do not lend themselves
to being combined into a single document that represents future major
rehabilitation and replacement (MR&R) needs. The data from these
sources is extremely variable in its level of refinement, and is
utilized at widely varying levels of detail. As such, a single document
that can clearly explain the prioritization of maintenance work on all
Reclamation assets does not exist and cannot be created accurately with
the data currently available. In view of this, January 2014,
Reclamation began a process to streamline its collection, compilation
and analysis of this data. We expect this process to take the next 18
to 24 months to complete, and it will require the active engagement of
our stakeholders who operate two-thirds of Reclamation's water and
power infrastructure and are essentially responsible for the funding
and accomplishment of maintenance needs at these facilities.
on s. 1946
Question 12. Some call for better planning when it comes to
assessing the needs for future repairs of BOR assets (for example, as
proposed by S. 1800, which is on today's agenda).
a. First, what is currently being done to assess these needs?
b. Second, will providing the Bureau with unfettered
discretion to allocate as much funds as needed to address
future infrastructure repairs lead to funds being expended on
non-essential activities or other potential unnecessary
expenditures? How would BoR ensure that federal dollars are
being spent wisely?
Answer. (a) Assessment of needs for future dam safety work is
conducted pursuant to the Safety Evaluations of Existing Dams line item
in Reclamation's annual budget request. Performance monitoring, on-site
examinations, field data investigations, and technical studies are
performed on an ongoing or recurring basis for all 370 Reclamation dams
covered by the program.
Answer. (b) Reclamation has established a risk-informed decision
making process to meet the objectives and stay within the intent of the
Safety of Dams Act. Risk-informed procedures are used to assess the
safety of Reclamation structures, to aid in making decisions to protect
the public from the potential consequences of dam failure, to assist in
prioritizing the allocation of expenditures, and to support
justification for risk reduction actions where needed. The Safety of
Dams Act requires Congressional approval for individual modification
projects and that will not change if S. 1946 is enacted.
on s. 1965
Question 13. Do you foresee any contractual issues/problems with
extending the East Bench Irrigation District's water service contract
with the Bureau by 10 years versus the previous several extensions, all
of which were for a period of only four years? Do you think there could
be any potential adverse effects on other users of that specific Clark
Canyon Dam and Reservoir water supply?
Answer. No, Reclamation does not foresee any contractual problems
or potential adverse effects with extending the East Bench Irrigation
District's water service contract by 10 years. S. 1965 would extend the
contract for six years beyond Public Law 112-139 for a total of ten
years (to December 31, 2019) or until the new contract is confirmed and
still defer to the court to take up the issue again at a time of its
choosing. The Department believes that a 10-year extension under S.
1965 will allow adequate time for confirmation of the new contract by
the Montana Fifth Judicial District Court.
on s. 2010/h.r. 1963
Question 14. As you know, Congress recently enacted Public Law 113-
24, the Bureau of Reclamation Small Conduit Hydropower Development Act,
to amend the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 to authorize the
development of small conduit hydropower at Reclamation project
facilities. However, a handful of Reclamation projects, which were
originally authorized under the Water Conservation and Utilization Act
(WCUA), were not included in the hydropower authorization. These
include four projects in Montana, two in Idaho, two in Utah, and one
each in Colorado, Idaho, Nebraska and South Dakota. Does the
Administration support authorizing hydropower development at these
facilities?
Answer. Yes, Public Law 113-24 amends the Reclamation Project Act
of 1939 to authorize all Reclamation conduit facilities for non-federal
hydroelectric development through a Lease of Power Privilege (LOPP).
Note that Reclamation conduit facilities were eligible for non-federal
development prior to the enactment of Public Law 113-24 through either
the LOPP or FERC licensing process.
WCUA projects are not subject to Public Law 113-24, because WCUA
projects were not authorized pursuant to Reclamation law, including the
Reclamation Project Act of 1939, as amended. WCUA projects are only
subject to Reclamation law where explicitly identified in the WCUA, and
the development of non-federal hydropower found in the Reclamation
Project Act of 1939, as amended, is not explicitly identified in the
WCUA.
Current language in the WCUA prohibits non-federal development by
requiring the United States to retain all revenues derived from the
development of hydropower facilities at WCUA projects. S.2010/HR 1963
would allow non-federal entities to construct non-federal hydropower
facilities at WCUA projects and retain revenues derived from such non-
federal hydropower facilities.
The Administration supports authorizing Reclamation to enter into
LOPP contracts for the development of new non-federal hydropower on
WCUA projects, provided that such non-federal hydropower developments
do not impair the purposes for which the WCUA projects were initially
constructed, as specified in the Reclamation Project Act of 1939, as
amended.
Question 15. It was brought to my attention that charges paid by
LOPP lessees as applicable to this bill need to be credited to the U.S.
Treasury and not to the BOR fund, as stated in the current version of
this bill. Can you please clarify this point?
Answer. Initial construction costs for Reclamation projects were
typically financed by the Reclamation Fund. In accordance with federal
Reclamation law, LOPP charges paid by non-federal hydropower developers
are covered into the Reclamation Fund as a credit to the account of the
Reclamation project from which the power is derived. In contrast,
initial construction costs for WCUA were typically financed by the
General Fund of Treasury rather than the Reclamation Fund. If LOPP
charges derived from non-federal hydropower development at WCUA
projects are placed into the Reclamation Fund, then Reclamation does
not have a mechanism to transfer those credits to the appropriate WCUA
project account in the General Fund of the Treasury. Therefore, if the
intention of S. 2010 is to credit LOPP charges from WCUA projects to
the affected WCUA project account in the General Fund of the Treasury,
additional clarification is necessary in Section 2(g) of S. 2010
detailing where the charges will be covered and how they will be
applied to the affected WCUA project account in the General Fund of the
Treasury.
on s. 2019
Question 16. calls for unrestricted spending on WaterSMART grants
and related USGS grants. Both programs under current law are authorized
at a combined level of $215 million. In this climate of necessary
spending cuts, do you believe we need to authorize unlimited spending
for these grants through fiscal year 2023?
Answer. S. 2019 removes the cost ceiling for WaterSMART grants and
related USGS grants. Under S. 2019, Congress would continue to control
the annual funding for these programs, as they remain subject to
Congressional appropriations. The Department is committed to continuing
the WaterSMART Program, as the Federal Government has a responsibility
to provide leadership and tools to address the challenges of imbalance
between supply and demand.
on s. 2034
Question 17. The goal of S. 2034 is to streamline the title
transfer of Reclamation projects and facilities and reduce costs. I
understand that S. 2034 is really designed to address the ``easy''
title transfers and not the more complicated projects that have a power
component. Please describe how the authority created by S. 2034 would
impact projects and facilities with project power. If a district has
project power, would they be barred under S. 2034 from pursing a title
transfer? I assume that such projects would still need Congressional
authorization before such a title transfer could occur.
Answer. If a district has project power, they would not be barred
under. S. 2034 from pursing a title transfer. The program created under
S. 2034 creates a second track for pursuing title transfer from that
which Reclamation already pursues. If S. 2034 were to become law, the
track that Reclamation follows will be determined based upon the unique
characteristics of the facilities and the legal and financial
arrangements that exist. The inclusion of project power in some cases
may add a level of complexity to the title transfer process, which may
not be appropriate for the type of non-controversial title transfers
envisioned in S. 2034.. Therefore, those transfers would continue
through the same process as they do today, where Reclamation works with
parties to develop a unique title transfer agreement and work with
Congress to authorize that transfer. That is the same process as used
today and it would continue to be available under this program.
Question 18. Can you please describe the current process by which
reclamation projects or facilities are being transferred to non-Federal
ownership? Also, please discuss the advantages and disadvantages, if
any, associated with granting the BOR complete authority to execute
such ownership transfers? Issues of interest include:
c. Impacts of losing congressional oversight associated with
the title transfer process;
d. Impacts on Federal revenues; and
e. Implications of increased non-Federal ownership of what
previously were regarded as public assets.
Answer. The current process by which Reclamation facilities are
transferred to non-federal ownership begins at the field level and
requires Congressional authorization to complete. Reclamation has a set
of standard procedures and processes for title transfers that are
consistent across the organization. That process and the criteria that
all Reclamation offices follow are articulated in the Framework for the
Transfer of Title--Bureau of Reclamation Projects, which was originally
developed in 1995 and was updated in 2004. The document is available to
districts and any members of the public interested in learning about or
pursuing a Reclamation title transfer. Since each project is unique--
with their own specific legislative authorities, stakeholders and
issues--Reclamation has learned that while the steps are all
consistent, the structure of the title transfer agreement must be
tailored to meet the unique circumstances and needs of the project or
facilities in question. In response to the question of losing
``Congressional oversight'' of the title transfer process, it is
important to point out that the legislation under consideration by the
Committee is targeted at non-controversial projects, with requirements
for criteria and determinations shared with the public, meant to ensure
that any title transfer approved under the bill be consistent with all
applicable laws, be in the financial interest of the United States, and
have no significant opposition, among other requirements. That said,
Reclamation does not foresee any immediately adverse implications for
Congressional oversight, public participation, use of projects, or
federal revenues associated with legislation as currently written.
Response of Robert Quint to Question From Senator Risch
on s. 2034
Question 19. If a water district has ``project power'' generation
resources and hopes to pursue title transfer opportunities in the
future, what clarifying process would an irrigation district follow in
light of S. 2034, in pursuing a title transfer?
Answer. If a water district has project power and wishes to pursue
a title transfer, that transfer would continue through the same process
it would today if S. 2034 were enacted into law. The program created
under S. 2034 creates a second track for pursuing title transfer from
that which Reclamation already pursues. The track that Reclamation
follows under S. 2034 would be determined based upon the unique
characteristics of the facilities and the legal and financial
arrangements that exist. The inclusion of project power may add a level
of complexity to the title transfer process, which may not be
appropriate for the type of non-controversial title transfers
envisioned in S. 2034. Therefore, those transfers would continue
through the same process as they do today, where we develop a unique
title transfer agreement and work with Congress to authorize that
transfer. That is the same process as Reclamation uses today and it
would continue to be available under this program.
______
Response of John Katz to Question From Senator Schatz
Question 1. Mr. Katz, can you describe in more detail how the FERC
MHK licensing process instituted in 2008 has been working? I know that
an increasing number of preliminary permits have been issued for
various projects.
Answer. Since 2008, the Commission has issued a significant number
of preliminary permits for marine hydrokinetic (MHK) projects. However,
the number of permits has declined in recent years such that there are
currently only six permits in effect. As is typical for all preliminary
permits, a relatively small number have resulted in development
applications. To date, the Commission has authorized seven MHK
projects, four of which were pilot projects. My impression is that
stakeholders, including federal and state resource agencies, Indian
tribes, and non-governmental organizations, are generally supportive of
appropriately-sited MHK projects, and have been willing partners in the
licensing process.
Responses of John Katz to Questions From Senator Murkowski
Question 2. In your testimony, you note that FERC already has a MHK
pilot process that allows for five-year pilot licenses to enable
developers to study and test new technology. S. 1419 would instead
provide FERC with the authority to issue 10-year pilot licenses, along
with a potential 5-year extension. Is a longer time frame envisioned
under this bill for these projects preferable?
Answer. Although the Commission staff white paper suggested that a
five-year license term might be appropriate for pilot projects, the
Commission has the authority to issue licenses for longer terms. For
example, the Commission recently issued a 10-year pilot project license
to the Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County, Washington,
for a hydrokinetic project to be located in Puget Sound. The Commission
also issued a 10-year pilot license to Verdant Power LLC for a
hydrokinetic project located in the East River in New York, and an 8-
year license to ORPC Maine, LLC for a project in Cobscook Bay, Maine.
Question 3. S. 1419 provides FERC with the authority to act as the
lead agency to coordinate all applicable federal authorizations and to
comply with NEPA. The bill also directs FERC to establish schedule
goals for federal, state, and local agencies. What are your thoughts on
these provisions? Will this additional authority be helpful to the
Commission in approving MHK pilot licenses in a timely manner?
Answer. The coordination of federal authorizations and NEPA
compliance, as well as the establishment of schedules, are helpful in
the expeditious processing of hydropower applications. However, to the
extent that the Commission has no authority to enforce those schedules,
it is not possible to ensure that they are met.
Responses of John Katz to Questions From Senator Lee
Question 4a. My understanding is that the FCC invited FERC to
participate in an inter-agency working group to ensure that deployment
of MHK does not, among other things, adversely impact communications
infrastructure. One specific concern expressed by FCC is that there is
insufficient guidance to determine the proper separation distance
between hydrokinetic energy projects and submarine telecommunications
cables. [April 22, 2013 FCC letter to FERC].
What is the status of FERC's participation in the inter-agency
process to develop guidance and industry standards on separation with
critical telecommunications cables?
Answer. A senior member of the Commission's staff is participating
in the FCC's Communications Security, Reliability, and Interoperability
Council (CSRIC) as well as CSRIC's Working Group 8, which covers
submarine cable routing and landing.
Question 4b. Does adequate expert guidance in the inter-agency
framework exist to determine appropriate separation? If not, how does
FERC plan to augment its knowledge in this area?
Answer. CSRIC's Submarine Cable Routing and Landing Working Group
is currently exploring various issues, including relevant marine
activities, potential conflicts and risks, existing worldwide spatial
standards and recommendations, and legal and permitting requirements,
but has not yet developed recommendations on the separation between
submarine telecommunications cables and other marine infrastructure or
activities. Pending such recommendations, which will need to go from
the Subgroup to the CSRIC and then to the FCC, Commission staff will
consult with the FCC and other affected stakeholders on a case-by-case
basis. For example, in the proceeding leading to the recent issuance of
a license to Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County,
Washington, for a hydrokinetic project to be located in Puget Sound,
the FCC stated that it did not oppose the licensing of the project with
the proposed minimum separation distance between an existing undersea
cable and the proposed project as long as the Commission is able to
ensure that Snohomish PUD adheres to the safety and separation distance
representations it has made. The license issued by the Commission
included a number of safety measures designed to ensure that the
project could be constructed and operated without interfering with the
cable.
Question 4c. How does FERC's participation in the inter-agency
process impact pending MHK applications that may raise cable protection
concerns?
Answer. Knowledge obtained through the inter-agency process should
assist Commission staff in processing MHK applications that raise cable
protection concerns.
______
Responses of Belinda A. Batten to Questions From Senator Murkowski
on s. 1419.--general
Question 1. Your institution has developed an excellent working
relationship with private companies in the wave energy industry. I
understand that a company, Resolute Marine, is trying to advance a wave
project that could dramatically cut the cost of power in Yakutat,
Alaska. Can you talk about what you have been able to accomplish in
advancing a marine energy industry and where you think the industry may
be headed?
Answer. Our center, the Northwest National Marine Renewable Energy
Center (NNMREC), has worked to advance the marine energy industry
through partnerships in research, development and testing. On the R&D
side, we have teamed with several developers on projects advancing some
particular aspect of their device. With regard to testing, we have
assisted developers in our laboratory wave tank facilities at Oregon
State, and have supported scaled testing in the open waters of Puget
Sound and Lake Washington near Seattle, Washington in conjunction with
our NNMREC partner University of Washington. We have developed a non-
grid connected test facility in Newport, Oregon to serve deep water
devices, and are developing a deep water grid connected facility with
four berths that will accommodate individual devices, or small arrays
(3--5) of devices in each berth. Several developers of shallow water
devices are looking to test at Camp Rilea in Warrenton Oregon, and
Resolute Marine is one of these companies. This location is owned by
the Oregon Military Department (OMD). In an effort to provide a ``one-
stop shop'' for developers interested in testing, NNMREC is
investigating ways that we can partner with OMD to provide consistent
support to the developers of shallow and mid-water devices that might
test at Camp Riles, as well as to developers that test with NNMREC at
the deep water facility.
I expect that once developers have tested their devices in an open
water site so that they are confident about their operational systems,
maintenance schedules, and environmental effects, they are likely to
turn to the states of Alaska, Hawaii, and islands such as Guam to
develop early stage ``community scale'' energy production facilities.
The cost of energy differential that these devices might provide in
communities that are currently dependent on expensive diesel will
likely provide the impetus that this burgeoning industry needs to prove
and advance their technologies and lead toward commercialization of the
MHK industry. Once marine energy has been demonstrated its benefit in
community scale deployments and developers can further reduce the cost
of energy through engineering advances, I expect we will see commercial
deployments on the west coast where wave energy can contribute to
stable baseline energy loads.
on s. 1419.--testing centers
Question 2. Your testimony notes the achievements of the Oregon
State MHK test facilities. What level of funding must you have to keep
your center afloat in the near and long term? Why do you believe the
university deserves tax payer support? And if we fail to allow the OSU
marine testing facility to stay afloat, what will happen to the
fledging marine hydrokinetic industry in your opinion?
Answer. Access to abundant and affordable energy is a key
foundation of our nation's economic success. All forms of energy,
renewable or conventional, mature or emerging, continue to receive some
form of support from the federal government.
While MHK devices are still in the developmental stage, DOE's
vision is that fifteen percent of U.S. electricity demand will be met
by 2030 with water power technologies. For that to happen, it will
require additional resources to be provided to the DOE Water Power
program, which supports leading-edge research, development,
demonstration and deployment efforts for innovative MHK, hydropower and
pumped storage technologies. The program invests in high-risk, early-
stage technologies that, due to market considerations, the private
sector is unable to address on its own. Increased federal support will
hasten deployment of advanced water power technologies and also give
confidence to investors and help attract private capital. This is
particularly true when considering that funding from the DOE Water
Power program is the one key mechanism to support U.S. technology
developers competing against overseas companies that receive a suite of
subsidies. The reality is that most MHK companies are not yet in a
position to receive the tax benefits enjoyed by more mature
conventional and renewable energy technologies.
With regard to NNMREC, there are two components of funding
necessary to keeping our center afloat: research funding and testing
funding. In the short term, both types of funding will need to be
provided by the federal government, as the industry is not to the point
where private investors can expect a return on their investment. The
industry is still in its infancy. Currently, NNMREC's central research
funding needs are approximately $1 million per year, and testing
facilities operational and administrative costs are about $300k per
year. In the longer term, as testing becomes fully operational, the
latter costs will become absorbed into user fees--and will likely
increase due to additional services and staffing that will be required.
I anticipate that some level of research funding will be required from
federal sources for several years to come. This expectation is based in
part on information from the European Marine Energy Center (EMEC) in
Scotland. EMEC is the premier wave and tidal testing facility in the
world, and has just founded a research arm. As I understand it, this
research arm is funded in part through testing fees, although the
primary sources are public research funds.
The university deserves tax payer support because we are serving to
advance the industry for the public good. In addition to providing an
energy technology that can be significantly cheaper for communities
dependent on expensive diesel, as I discussed above, the taxpayers can
expect to reap significant economic development from this industry.
EMEC reports that more than $16 million (US) is brought to the economy
of Orkney, Scotland each year through its test facility. The jobs
created are numbered at more than 220. As the industry grows, new
supply chain industries will grow in the communities that have marine
energy installations. The return on investment to the taxpayer should
well compensate for the initial investment in the industry.
Unfortunately, the United States is falling behind in the race to
capture the rich energy potential of our oceans. Many countries,
especially those in Europe, have already deployed viable, operating,
power generating technologies using the emission-free power of ocean
waves, currents, and tidal forces. Early funding support, along with
development of full-scale device testing centers (still unavailable
here in the United States), demonstrates that the significant
technological advances and competitive advantages in this industry are
taking place in Europe and elsewhere. The U.S. is far behind in
acknowledging the importance of these technologies.
Finally, if we fail to construct NNMREC's grid connected test
facility, we can expect the U.S. based companies attempting to
commercialize their devices to continue to struggle, much as we saw
happen in wind energy 30 years ago. The European countries that have
been investing in the industry will reap the benefits, and we will see
marine energy developers that are analogs of the companies such as
Vestas selling their devices to the US when we eventually decide to
adopt marine energy. The economic benefit I discussed above will not be
reaped. The economic development that this industry could provide to
the US through the fledging companies such as Resolute Marine, ORPC,
Verdant Power, and Columbia Power Technologies, will be lost.
on s. 1419.--future
Question 3. Some believe that MHK is just too far from being proven
technology to really help generate renewable energy for the country.
According to DOE, its goal is to reduce the costs of MHK developments
by 2030. Where do you feel the technology is and when might it be ready
for commercial deployment? Can that happen realistically before 2030?
As someone who has been working with the industry for years now, what
in your view should Congress be doing to speed up that marine
hydrokinetic energy development timetable?
Answer. Marine renewable energy has the potential to become a major
source of electricity for the United States, and its growth could be
substantially supported through increased and focused funding for the
DOE Water Power Program. Federal commitment to creating a robust U.S.
marine renewables industry will advance our national economic goals by
creating high-quality employment in coastal communities, long-term
production in shipyards, development of fleets of vessels for
deployment and servicing, and strengthening the thousands of businesses
that make up the U.S. industrial supply chain. The establishment and
nurturing of a U.S.-based marine renewable industry would secure our
nation's place in developing offshore renewable energy systems, thereby
ensuring that the United States is an exporter, not an importer, of
these technologies.
Just as the wind and solar industries have enjoyed significant DOE
funding for over three decades (which has resulted in the maturation,
cost competitiveness and rapid deployment of these technologies in
recent years), the nascent MHK energy industry is requesting similar
federal assistance to develop promising technologies that are on the
verge of commercial viability. Expanded efforts by DOE to capture our
nation's rich domestic water power resources through advanced MHK and
hydropower technologies will give confidence to investors and help
attract private capital in a broad range of job-creating industries,
including in the heavy industrial and maritime sectors, and has the
potential to employ a substantial skilled workforce.
The answer to this question depends upon what one means by
commercial development. With the right support, we could see
``commercial development'' in towns in Alaska within five years. There
are devices that have tested in Europe that are could be deployed
within that timeframe. If we get US devices in the water to test, they
may be advanced enough to join their European counterparts, or to
follow quickly on their heels.
Reauthorization of DOE's Water Power program through S. 1419 is
essential to speeding up the MHK deployment timetable. S. 1419 provides
continued technology funding that this industry needs at this stage of
its development. In addition, the regulatory changes proposed in S.
1419 by you and Senator Wyden will provide an avenue for promising new
MHK companies and their technologies to advance through the necessary
testing stages more quickly. This industry requires targeted
investments and permitting efficiencies like those that are included in
S. 1419. Assuming that Congress can come together to pass S. 1419, and
timely funding is provided to complete NNMREC's grid connected test
facility and sufficient funding is provided to developers to test their
devices in the open water environment, then the 2030 time frame for
commercial development is a conservative estimate.
______
Clean Water Services,
Hillsboro, OR, March 26, 2014.
Hon. Brian Schatz,
Chair, Subcommittee on Water and Power, U.S. Senate, 304 Dirksen
Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Thank you for this opportunity to respond to a question posed by
Senator Lisa Murkowski regarding S. 1946. I appreciate the Senator's
question about assessing the repair needs of Bureau of Reclamation
facilities and the concern that eliminating the authorized ceiling for
the Safety of Dams program could result in non-essential or potentially
unnecessary expenditures. More specifically, the Senator's question was
as follows:
Question 1. Some call for better planning when it comes to
assessing the needs for future repairs of BOR assets (for example, as
proposed by S. 1800, which is on today's agenda).
First, what is currently being done to assess these needs?
Second, will providing the Bureau with unfettered discretion
to allocate as much funds as needed to address future
infrastructure repairs lead to funds being expended on non-
essential activities or other potential unnecessary
expenditures? How would BoR ensure that federal dollars are
being spent wisely?
Answer. Clean Water Services and Washington County, Oregon share
the concern that federal and local resources be expended wisely on
Reclamation facility improvements. The Scoggins Dam project has been
through a lengthy analysis and rigorous review process. S. 1946 does
not propose to alter that process, but rather would eliminate potential
delays in dam safety improvements awaiting Congressional action to
periodically increase the arbitrary cost ceiling limit for the Safety
of Dams program. The study, review and priority categorization process
would remain unchanged. In fact the improved planning process called
for in S. 1800 would require that all Reclamation facilities be rated
consistent with the Safety of Dams' uniform categorization system.
Unnecessary expenditures would continue to be avoided because of
the rigor required in the Safety of Dam process, including
Congressional and Office of Management and Budget review of all safety
of dam modification reports and Congress's continued fiduciary
authority over the appropriations process. Repayment contractors also
have a vested interest in ensuring that only essential activities are
funded because the contractors have a cost-sharing obligation under the
existing program. In 2004, Congress directed Reclamation (P.L. 108-439)
to improve the notification and engagement of project beneficiaries
during a safety modification, including providing repayment contractors
the opportunity to consult with the Bureau on the planning, design and
construction of the proposed modifications. Furthermore P.L. 108-439
directed the Secretary to consider cost containment measures
recommended by the project beneficiaries that have elected to consult
with Reclamation on a modification. We recommend retaining the existing
structure and encouraging the Bureau of Reclamation to exercise the
greatest degree of flexibility in evaluating and mitigating dam safety
concerns.
Thank you again for conducting the hearing last month on S. 1946. I
would be happy to answer any additional questions, and I look forward
to working with you as the legislation progresses through the
legislative process.
Sincerely,
Andy Duyck,
Chairman Clean Water Services Board of Directors/Washington County
Commissioners.
______
Responses of Charles V. Stern to Questions From Senator Murkowski
Question 1. Can you please describe what exactly is being done
currently to assess and estimate future needed repairs to BOR's assets?
What are the associated costs? How would the proposed new assessment
address missing information?
Answer. The Bureau of Reclamation (or Reclamation) operates
multiple programs that analyze and assess future repair needs at
Reclamation facilities. As discussed in my written testimony,
Reclamation has previously stated that the focus of these programs
differs depending on the type of infrastructure. For infrastructure
that has been transferred to local project sponsors (typically referred
to as ``transferred works''), Reclamation conducts periodic maintenance
reviews but typically does not conduct in-depth reviews of expected
future maintenance needs, since maintenance for this infrastructure is
the responsibility of the local project sponsors. For projects that are
owned and operated by Reclamation (referred to as ``reserved works''),
Reclamation identifies and schedules future maintenance needs and has
in the past expressed more confidence in its estimates of expected
future needs at these facilities. Previously, Reclamation has provided
an overall estimate of repair needs at reserved and transferred works,
but has also stated that these totals are not actionable in a
management context. These total estimated repair needs were most
recently estimated by Reclamation to be $2.6 billion over the next five
years.
Since the data on which Reclamation bases its estimates are not
publicly available, it is difficult to comment on the rigor and
accuracy of these estimates, including the consistency of the
underlying data collected by Reclamation across infrastructure types.
The proposed new assessment in S. 1800 would require that Reclamation
conduct an assessment of its maintenance needs across all facility
types and make this information available to the public. Depending on
the status and quality of the data currently used internally by
Reclamation, S. 1800 may or may not result in significant new data on
Reclamation facilities being collected. Regardless of the status and
quality of Reclamation's current internal data, the requirement that
estimates be made publicly available would be a new development.
Question 2. The bill calls for a very detailed analysis of all
project plans and associated costs of major repairs and rehabilitation
of BOR facilities. CRS testified that Reclamation operates a Facility
Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program that identifies, schedules, and
prioritizes the needs of its reserved works but that the reviews are
typically not made public. The Bureau, according to CRS, also conducts
periodic maintenance reviews at transferred works through its
Associated Facilities Review of Operations and Maintenance Examinations
program but again, these results are typically not made public. It
would seem then, that most of the data called for in this bill is
already available to Reclamation in some form. Do you agree? If not,
please explain.
Answer. At least some of the information required by S. 1800
appears already to be collected internally by Reclamation. However, as
stated in my answer to question 1, it is difficult to comment further
since this data is not available for CRS review. While it appears that
Reclamation tracks information through its facilities review programs
for reserved and transferred works, respectively, this information may
or may not satisfy the requirements of S. 1800. For instance, the
legislation requires that Reclamation include an itemized list of
repair estimates for every project. It is not possible to say whether
such a list is available for current Reclamation estimates and if it
is, whether this information is methodologically consistent.
Appendix II
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
Statement of Dan Keppen, Executive Director, Family Farm Alliance,
Klamath Falls, OR
Thank you for holding this hearing today, where you will consider
several bills that will give federal agencies additional tools to deal
with water shortages due to drought, such as the one currently
impacting California and other Western states. On behalf of the Family
Farm Alliance (Alliance), I am pleased to present this testimony that
addresses five of the bills you will consider at today's hearing. Our
organization advocates for family farmers, ranchers, irrigation
districts, and allied industries in seventeen Western states. The
Alliance is focused on one mission--To ensure the availability of
reliable, affordable irrigation water supplies to Western farmers and
ranchers. Our members include irrigation districts and water agencies
that are responsible for the operation and maintenance of some of the
Bureau of Reclamation's largest and most complex facilities. Several of
our members have worked with the federal government over the past two
decades to address issues that are the subject of all five bills
considered today.
The Alliance fully supports S. 1946, a bill to amend the
Reclamation Safety of Dams Act of 1978 to modify the authorization of
appropriations; S. 2019, SECURE Water Amendments Act of 2014; and S.
1963, the Bureau of Reclamation Conduit Hydropower Development Equity
and Jobs Act. We support the intent of S. 1800, the Bureau of
Reclamation Transparency Act; and S. 2034, The Reclamation Title
Transfer Act of 2014 but have concerns that we believe need to be
addressed before we can fully support these bills. These matters are
further discussed below.
s. 1946--reclamation safety of dams act
S. 1946 would amend the Reclamation Safety of Dams Act of 1978 by
removing spending caps for construction projects to improve the safety
of Bureau of Reclamation dams. Safety of Dams (SOD) legislation has
consistently been a top legislative priority for the Family Farm
Alliance in the past two decades, and the Alliance ten years ago
successfully advocated for the inclusion of important ``place at the
table'' language in SOD legislation that saves the government and
project beneficiaries significant dollars by opening the process and
allowing irrigators to participate in SOD planning, design, and
construction decision making processes. Safety of Dams corrections are
an essential public safety issue. The Family Farm Alliance supports S.
1946 and we urge the Senate to pass this bill.
s. 2019, secure water amendments act of 2014
S. 2019 would reauthorize and refine the 2009 Secure Water Act to
raise the budget ceiling on Bureau of Reclamation WaterSMART Program
water efficiency grants and add the State of Hawaii to the list of
grant eligible recipients.
Congress in 2009 approved the SECURE Water Act (signed into law by
President Obama in March 2009 as P.L. 111-11, Title IX, Subtitle F)
creating federal inter-agency programs to assess the effects of climate
change on water supplies, develop strategies and technologies to
address potential water shortages and increase the collection of data
on current and future water supply availability. The Family Farm
Alliance strongly supported the SECURE Water Act in part because it
provides water managers with highly beneficial ``on-the-ground''
solutions to infrastructure problems exacerbated by climate change.
SECURE authorized the Secretary of the Interior to provide cost-shared
grants for planning, designing, or constructing improvements to water
infrastructure that conserve water, provide management improvements,
and promote increased efficiencies. This expands opportunities for the
types of projects currently funded through the Bureau of Reclamation's
WaterSMART Grant Program, from which many Family Farm Alliance members
have benefited. These projects provide for improved water management,
enhanced supplies, water conservation, and greater efficiencies,
thereby stretching dwindling water supplies, all in partnership with
the Bureau of Reclamation.
The Alliance supports S. 2019 because it raises the budget ceiling
on a program that is over-subscribed. We urge a ``yes'' vote on this
legislation.
s. 1963, bureau of reclamation conduit hydropower development equity
and jobs act
S. 1963--already passed by the House of Representatives in December
2013--would allow for certain irrigation districts and other nonfederal
hydropower developers to use a streamlined permitting process to build
small hydropower projects on 11 specific Reclamation canals, conduits
and ditches.
S. 1963 is similar to another hydropower bill (H.R. 678) that
overwhelmingly passed the House and Senate and was signed into law by
President Obama in August 2013. S. 1963 seeks to jumpstart conduit
(canals, pipes and ditches) hydropower development at eleven Bureau of
Reclamation projects. The bill specifically removes statutory
impediments by authorizing non-federal hydropower development at these
conduits and providing the administrative and regulatory reforms
necessary to foster such development.
Many Family Farm Alliance members operate existing irrigation
canals and ditch systems that may provide opportunities to develop in-
canal, low-head hydroelectric projects that have tremendous potential
for producing significant amounts of renewable energy with virtually no
negative environmental impacts. There are many other benefits
associated with developing projects of this type. Historic irrigation
structures can be retained while the system is updated with modern
clean-energy producing technologies. Increased revenues from the sale
of this renewable energy can result in a new source of funding for
operating, maintaining, and rehabilitating our aging water delivery
infrastructure at lower costs to farmers.
If passed, S. 1963 would complete the policy of promoting the
development of clean, renewable hydropower at all Reclamation conduits
at no cost to federal taxpayers, while providing additional renewable
power supplies to the grid and lowering energy costs for consumers.
H.R. 678 applied to hundreds of Reclamation facilities that are covered
under the authorities of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939. S. 1963
applies to the remaining Reclamation facilities, all of which are
governed under the different and more complex authorities of the Water
Conservation and Utilization Act (WCUA) of 1939.
The Family Farm Alliance supports S. 1963, which we believe will
reduce costs to foster more conduit hydropower at federal facilities
and empower local water districts to develop this generation.
s. 2034, the reclamation title transfer act of 2014
S. 2034 seeks to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
establish a program to facilitate the transfer to non-federal ownership
of appropriate Reclamation projects or facilities by providing title
transfer authority to the Secretary. The Family Farm Alliance believes
title transfers are a positive means of strengthening the reliability
of critical water resources at the local level. In addition, they help
reduce federal costs and liability, and allow for a better allocation
of limited federal resources. Thus, we support the concept advanced in
S. 2034, although we have specific concerns that we would like to see
addressed before we can fully support the bill.
Over the past 15 years, the Alliance has worked closely with the
Bureau of Reclamation on both individual title transfers and on title
transfer policy. Since 1996, more than two dozen Reclamation projects
have been transferred or authorized to be transferred to local
entities. Those local agencies are usually the irrigation or water
district that has fulfilled its obligation to pay for construction of
the project. We have found that other irrigation districts are
interested in acquiring title to Reclamation facilities. Experience
throughout the West demonstrates that when title and control of
projects is assumed by local interests, the projects are run more cost
effectively and are better maintained due to the availability of
additional secured financing. In addition, some local districts want to
acquire title to their own water distribution works, to which the
federal government holds title because federal funds--long since
repaid--were used to help build them.
Despite the benefits, local water agencies are typically
discouraged from pursuing title transfers because the process is
expensive and slow. Environmental impact analyses can be time-
consuming, even for uncomplicated projects that will continue to be
operated in the same manner as they always have been. Moreover, every
title transfer requires an act of Congress to accomplish, regardless of
whether the project covers 10 acres or 100,000 acres.
S. 2034 seeks to facilitate the transfer of fairly uncomplicated
facilities to promote more efficient management of water and water-
related facilities. We believe the bill can be further strengthened by
addressing the following concerns:
1. Section 4, ``Compliance with Environmental and Historic
Preservation Laws'' includes provisions that likely are
responsible for most of the difficulties our members have
endured when trying to transfer title. Compliance with the
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) can be extremely time
consuming and challenging, but there is likely not much that
can be done about that in this legislation. However, National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance could be streamlined
through this bill by including a section encouraging
Reclamation to use all tools necessary to facilitate existing
NEPA processes, including but not limited to the use of
categorical exclusions, if appropriate.
2. Section 7, ``Benefits'' would preclude transferred
projects from being able to continue to receive project power
benefits. Some projects have been transferred with the express
provision that allows for project power benefits to be retained
at pre-title transfer rates. If not allowed in some
circumstances, the cost of project operations would not be
economical and lead to the potential failure of the project. We
believe the legislation should give more flexibility to the
Secretary to allow these federal benefits to be analyzed and to
continue if they are in the best interest of the U.S. in moving
the transfer forward (e.g. compare the benefit to the U.S. of
reduced liability through title transfer vs. the cost of some
future level continued project power benefits).
We are committed to working with Subcommittee staff, Reclamation,
and other water users to see how we can work out some sort of solution
to these concerns as the bill moves through the Senate.
s. 1800, the bureau of reclamation transparency act
Repairing and modernizing the West's aging infrastructure is a
challenge critical to the Bureau of Reclamation and the water users
served by Reclamation's aging facilities. Family Farm Alliance
leadership worked extensively with Reclamation and the Congress over
the past decade in seeking to find solutions with the Office of
Management and Budget to discuss approaches to help finance aging
federal infrastructure, including providing loan guarantee incentives
and, perhaps, setting up a construction loan account associated with
the Reclamation Fund.
S. 1800 would require Reclamation to publicly report on its repair
needs every other year. The Alliance certainly supports the
transparency and reporting requirements intended with this legislation.
However, we do believe that this bill would have unintended
consequences for our member Reclamation project water users. We have
shared this bill with our members, some of whom believe that
transferred works should not be subjected to the reporting requirements
of this bill, as the local non-federal entities are 100% responsible
for maintaining and replacing these facilities at their expense. Also,
the bill would require completion of a report that would describe the
efforts of Reclamation to manage all its facilities, standardize and
streamline data reporting and processes across regions, and expand on
the information otherwise provided in Asset Management Reports.
Fortunately, the costs of preparing the report would be considered non-
reimbursable project costs. Unfortunately, this provision would cause
significant increased liability for nonfederal water contractors and
could place Reclamation in a position of having to limit or cease water
delivery operations of a federally owned facility if such ratings were
applied and the maintenance/rehabilitation activity was delayed or not
implemented at all due to lack of resources.
As the Committee is probably aware, a large portion of the costs of
maintaining, replacing, and rehabilitating these federal water
facilities (reserved works) falls on the non-federal project water and
power contractors, and as such, publicly portraying these facilities as
somehow not current on maintenance or replacement could actually
accelerate the work on these projects to a point that may not be
currently affordable to the non-federal entities on the hook for
paying, in advance, these costs. The lack of any federal financing
tools is a key contributor to this inability to afford such projects on
an accelerated basis. We believe that a better approach would be for
Congress to require that Reclamation work collaboratively and
transparently with their project water and power contractors to
establish planned maintenance, replacement and rehabilitation work over
a ten or fifteen year framework that could be reported to Congress on a
regular basis. This way, project water and power contractors can plan
for long-term financing for their share of the costs of the work to be
performed in a much more business-like and organized manner.
The Family Farm Alliance and other Western water interests stand
poised to work with the authors of S. 1800 to help create a
Transparency Act our family farmers and ranchers will embrace.
Thank you for this opportunity to provide input on these matters,
which are very important to our membership. If you have any questions
about this letter, I encourage you or your staff to contact me at
(541)-892-6244.
______
February 25, 2014.
Hon. Mike Schatz,
Chairman, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Water and Power
Subcommittee, 304 Dirksen Senate Building, Washington, DC,
Hon. Mike Lee,
Ranking Member, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Water and Power
Subcommittee, 304 Dirksen Senate Building Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Schatz and Ranking Member Lee:
We are writing in support of S. 1 771, the ''Crooked River
Collaborative Water Security Act,'' and to encourage the Committee to
quickly approve this legislation.
For nearly five years, we have collaborated with local, state and
federal agencies, the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, local and
national environmental groups, and others in support of legislation to
enhance economic and environmental valu es associated with Oregon 's
Crooked River. This legislation reflects our diligent efforts. Once
enacted, this comprehensive bill would remove several federal barriers
preventing our community from realizing the full potential of the
Bureau of Reclamation's Bowman Dam and Prineville Reservoir. Key
provisions would provide water supply certainty for local farmers and
ranchers, the City of Prineville, and the environment. The construction
of a new, small hydropower facility below Bowman Dam would also become
possible. Our community supports the development of such a facility,
and in fact is willing to independently advance the project.
All of these prov sions are carefully balanced with one another.
For example, it is essential to guarantee the water supply for local
farm and ranch families who are such an important part of our
community's heritage. More importantly, these families provide jobs,
support numerous businesses in this region, and are a dynamic and
reliable contributor to Oregon's economy. Additionally, the release of
water for the City, which will enable the City to secure groundwater
mitigation credits from the State of Oregon for additional groundwater
pumping, will bolster Prineville's supplies for its residents and for
businesses like Apple and Facebook. Important language regarding
``carryover water'' and other provisions are part of the foundation for
the new authorization for the Secretary to release ``uncontracted''
water for downstream fisheries purposes. The State, Tribes, and
conservation interests have assured us that the release of some of
these uncontracted water supplies, as well as the new water supplies
for the McKay Creek lands, will significantly enhance instream habitat
for steelhead and other fisheries. These provisions represent a prudent
and thorough balancing of needs and interests among local, state and
federal interests, and many stakeholders.
The Crooked River Collaborative Water Security Act (S. 1771) would
establish a new set of operational criteria for the project, and we've
been asked repeatedly about one of them. The authorization for the
Secretary to release uncontracted water supplies to benefit downstream
fisheries has raised questions, by the general public and others, of
whether shortages may occur more frequently, in greater severity, or
for longer durations than may occur today--resulting in harm to
agricultural water supplies or recreation.
We believe this is a possibility, but one that can be responsibly
managed. It's helpful to begin with a brief explanation ofthe project's
well-documented history and operations. The Bureau of Reclamation
annually stores up to 148,000 acre-feet of water in the reservoir.
Sixteen different parties, including local irrigation districts and
small family farm and ranch families, hold contracts with Reclamation
for 68,000 acre-feet of water. Occasionally, North Unit Irrigation
District purchases water from the project under a supplemental
contract. The rest of the stored water is used for recreation, and is
then either released into the Crooked River or maintained in the
reservoir for the following water year. The uncontracted supplies have
historically served as a buffer against drought and provided valuable
recreational opportunities. Today, the project has ample water supplies
for agriculture, recreation, and even releases of water that benefit
fish and wildlife.
Since 1974, for example, the Bureau of Reclamation has aimed to
maintain at least 95,000 acre-feet of water in the reservoir through
Labor Day to ensure a full supply of water for agriculture, and to
ensure a safe and enjoyable recreation experience during this popular
weekend. Reclamation has been able to do so nearly 75 percent of the
time during this period. This is helpful because once the reservoir
drops below this amount, two of the five boat ramps are unusable. It is
important to note that this period covers the driest conditions on
record for this region (1988-1992).
Our support for the legislation, including the new management of
the uncontracted water supplies, is based on our understanding that the
legislation responsibly addresses the issue of potential shortages.
Several provisions, including Section 6-First Fill Storage and Release,
include key protections for agricultural water supplies, the City of
Prineville, and fisheries releases associated with the McKay Creek
Water Rights Switch. Additionally, Section 6-Dry Year Management
Planning and Voluntary Releases establishes a planning process for
Reclamation to work with diverse interests, including recreation, on a
long-term plan to address future dry cond itions. Finally, we
understand the intent of the legislation is to ensure that the
project's operations, based on a multi-year management plan, would not
be compromised but enhanced to achieve the project's full potential.
As set forth in an August 2012 letter from Oregon Governor John
Kitzhaber addressing this issue, we understand the State of Oregon and
Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, in their new advisory capacities,
are committed to responsibly balancing their recommendations to
Reclamation regarding the release of ``uncontracted'' water to ensure
that recreation values are not compromised in the long-term. We also
plan to collaborate with the State and the Tribes to mitigate any
potential long-term impacts to the reservoir, whether they are to
recreat ion, cultural resources, or other values. The extension of
existing boat ramps is one suggestion that clearly merits further
discussion with all of our partners in support of the legislation. Our
commitment is to ensure a safe and enjoyable recreation experience for
all of the families who use this popular reservoir for boating,
fishing, swimming, and other activities.
We appreciate the Subcommittee's review of the Crooked River
Collaborative Water Security Act and encourage the full Committee to
mark-up this legislation as soon as possible. Please feel free to
contact any of us regarding this legislation or our perspective on its
individual elements.
Sincerely,
Betty Roppe,
Mayor of Prineville,
Brian Barney,
Chairman, OID,
Martin Richards,
Chairman, NUID,
Mike McCabe,
Judge, Crook County.
______
Statement of David Moryc, Senior Director, River Protection American
Rivers
On behalf of American Rivers and our 200,000 members, supporters
and volunteers we write to express our support for S. 1771, the Crooked
River Collaborative Water Security Act of 2103. By bringing irrigators
and conservationists together this bill represents a uniquely
collaborative solution to the age-old challenge of water use in the
Wild and Scenic Crooked River watershed. With the support of the City
of Prineville, irrigation districts, the Confederated Tribe of the Warm
Springs, and conservation groups this bill represents a balanced
approach, providing certainty for water users while keeping more water
in the Wild and Scenic Crooked River to improve recreation and habitat
for trout.
Among other benefits for fisheries habitat, the bill:
Gives clear authority and direction to store and release
water for fish and wildlife purposes that will protect and
enhance the Wild and Scenic Crooked River downstream of Bowman
Dam.
Gives state and tribal officials more authority and
flexibility to manage releases and target them for the benefit
of downstream fish and wildlife resources.
Provides greater certainty for the management of the Crooked
River for the City of Prineville, irrigation districts, the
Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs and fish and wildlife
management agencies.
Supports year-round flows in the Crooked River by
authorizing release of mitigation water for the City of
Prineville, regardless of whether it is needed by the City for
mitigation purposes, thereby ensuring an additional 5,100 acre
feet of flows annually through the Crooked River.
Provides a path forward to reduce or eliminate water
diversions from McKay Creek, a tributary of the Crooked that
provides critical habitat for steelhead below the dam. By
reducing or eliminating surface diversions from this key
tributary, this bill helps to ensure that McKay Creek will be
ready once again to support steelhead and native trout.
Creates new opportunities for voluntary measures to improve
fish flows and habitat by providing opportunities for instream
leasing, water conservation and other voluntary water sharing
agreements.
Supports opportunity for future development of responsible
hydropower at Bowman Dam.
Establishes a clear path forward for development of
collaborative solutions to improve river conditions in dry
years.
The Crooked River Collaborative Water Security Act of 2103 is a
balanced approach to water management and represents a hard fought
agreement among diverse stakeholders. We deeply appreciate the effort
that you and your staff have dedicated to this important issue and look
forward to working with you and Rep. Greg Walden as this bill moves
through the legislative process.
______
Trout Unlimited,
Seattle, WA, February 27, 2014.
Hon. Jeff Merkley,
Senator, 313 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC,
Hon. Ron Wyden,
Senator, 221 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Re: S. 1771--The Crooked River Collaborative Water Security Act of 2013
Dear Senator Merkley and Senator Wyden:
Trout Unlimited supports S. 1771--a bill designed to improve water
management at Bowman Dam and provide more dependable flows for fish and
wildlife habitat in the Crooked River basin. This bill encourages
pragmatic, creative solutions and partnerships to restore Crooked River
fisheries, including steelhead. The bill improves water supply
certainty for the City of Prineville and local irrigators, and sets the
stage for hydropower development at Bowman Dam, while at the same time
creating new opportunities for improved flows for fish and wildlife in
the Crooked River downstream.
Among other benefits, the bill:
Gives clear authority and direction to store and release
water for downstream fish and wildlife purposes.
Gives state and tribal officials more authority and
flexibility to manage releases and target them for the benefit
of downstream fish and wildlife resources.
Supports year-round flows in the Crooked River by allocating
5,100 acre feet of mitigation water to the City of Prineville
and providing for annual release of that water through the
Crooked River.
Provides a path forward to restore stream flow to McKay
Creek--a critical tributary for populations of wild steelhead
below Bowman Dam by shifting water use away from surface
diversions and toward stored supplies at Prineville Reservoir.
By reducing or eliminating surface diversions from this key
tributary and providing for out of stream water needs through
allocation of stored amounts, this bill helps to ensure that
McKay Creek will be ready once again to support returning
populations of steelhead and trout.
Creates new opportunities for voluntary measures to improve
fish flows and habitat by promoting opportunities for instream
leasing, water conservation and other voluntary water sharing
agreements.
Supports opportunity for future development of hydropower at
Bowman Dam.
Establishes a clear path forward for development of
collaborative solutions to improve river conditions in dry
years.
The western states have a long history of water shortage and over-
allocations. In a situation that is nearly unheard of in the West,
Prineville Reservoir behind Bowman Dam holds nearly 80,000 acre-feet of
unallocated water. This situation presents a unique opportunity to
improve conditions downstream fisheries while continuing to meet
existing irrigation demand and support economic development
opportunities for the City of Prineville.
Since the completion of Bowman Dam in the 1960s, there have been
multiple attempts to reach agreement on expanded water management at
Prineville Reservoir--S. 1771 represents the carefully balanced
solution that will break this decades old log-jam. Working together,
local stakeholders are making huge strides to restore salmon and
steelhead to the Crooked River basin. These native fish have
inestimable value for anglers, local communities, and our recreation
economy and quality of life. Moving this legislation forward is a key
element in a broader picture of partnership and restoration efforts
underway on the Crooked River and in the larger Deschutes Basin.
Trout Unlimited strongly supports S. 1771 and we thank Sens.
Merkley, Wyden and Rep. Walden for their leadership in promoting
collaborative solutions for the Crooked River.
Sincerely,
Kate Miller,
Western Energy and Water Counsel,
Steve Moyer,
Vice President for Government Affairs.
______
Statement of Jason Jordan, Director of Policy & Communications,
American Planning Association
The American Planning Association would like to thank you for your
thoughtful leadership on helping the nation's communities plan more
effectively for drought and long-term water policy. APA is pleased
support your legislation reauthorizing and updating the Secure Water
Act, S. 2019. Your legislation would strengthen the work of local and
regional planning aimed at addressing drought. These plans, which often
incorporate a range of critical water resource issues, are a critical
tool in dealing with this growing challenge.
APA provides leadership in the development of vital communities by
advocating excellence in community planning, promoting citizen
empowerment, and providing the tools and support to meet the challenges
of local growth and change. Issues of drought have been an increasingly
important part of the work of APA's Hazards Planning Research Center.
In partnership with the National Integrated Drought Information Center,
APA has just published a new report on planning and drought.
Bolstering the resiliency of communities to extreme weather and
natural hazards is vital to the nation's economy and the health of
local residents. The federal government is uniquely situation to
provide communities with vital data, new research and best practices in
more effectively managing water resources. Your legislation is an
important step forward and would make the federal government a more
effective partner in working with states and local communities on
drought and water hazard mitigation.
APA thanks you for your leadership and looks forward to working
with you on this important issue.
______
Statement of Robert W. Johnson, Executive Vice President, National
Water Resources Assocation
On behalf of the Board of Directors and the members of the National
Water Resources Association (NWRA), I write in support of S. 2019, the
SECURE Water Amendments Act of 2014. The NWRA is a nonprofit federation
made up of agricultural and municipal water providers, state
associations, and individuals dedicated to the conservation,
enhancement and efficient management of our nation's most important
natural resource, water. Our members provide clean water to millions of
individuals, as well as families, agricultural producers and other
businesses throughout the western United States.
Meeting the growing demand for water in the West is an important
charge. Access to a safe and reliable supply of water is a necessary
component for job growth and economic stability. The NWRA believes that
the federal government should complement the ability of state and local
governments to better manage their water supplies by providing
increased funding for storage opportunities, water conservation,
drought mitigation and assistance, and recycled water projects and
programs.
S. 2019, the SECURE Water Amendments Act of 2014, will help meet
the nation's water needs by extending the authorization and funding
level for important grant programs within the Bureau of Reclamation.
These cost share programs effectively leverage money by combining non-
federal funds with federal grant money. In recent years grants have
helped fund projects in: Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas,
Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, Nevada, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Utah
and Washington State. These projects have worked to conserve water on
Tribal lands, expand ground water storage opportunities, and conduct
important infrastructure work such as canal lining and headgate
improvements. The SECURE Water Amendments Act of 2014 also clarifies
that grant funds can be used for drought preparation and mitigation. In
addition, S. 2019 extends the authorization for the United States
Geological Survey to continue nationwide data gathering efforts focused
on water usage and availability.
On behalf of NWRA's members I thank you for your attention to the
critical water supply issues facing our nation, and for supporting our
members as they continue to be stewards of our nation's water supply
and a critical part of the economy.
______
Statement of Phillip C. Ward, Chairman, Western States Water Council
On behalf of the Western States Water Council, representing the
eighteen western governors on water policy issues, I am writing to
comment on the SECURE Water Amendments Act of 2014 (S. 2019) for the
record. These comments are based on the Council's October 8, 2013
letter to then-Chairman Ron Wyden and Ranking Member Lisa Murkowski
expressing our continued support for implementation of the SECURE Water
Act (Position #357).*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Document has been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress passed the SECURE Water Act in 2009 to authorize a number
of important programs that support the states' primary responsibility
to manage the nation's water resources. The Act's authorized activities
provide much needed support that states and other non-federal entities
in the West use to provide adequate and safe supplies of water for
human health, the economy, and the environment, as well as enhancing
public safety. However, many of these programs are unfunded or
underfunded. Thus, reauthorization and appropriations are needed for
these programs to fulfill their intended purposes.
As introduced, S. 2019 would address the Council's concerns by
extending the authorization for two important SECURE Water Act
programs, namely the Bureau of Reclamation's WaterSMART Grants Program
and the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) National Water Availability and
Use Assessment Grant Program.
a. watersmart grants program
The WaterSMART Grants Program provides cost-shared funding to
states, tribes, and other entities on a competitive basis to address
crucial water supply issues, stretch limited water supplies, and
improve water management. Water managers have used this funding to
improve their systems' operations and make more efficient use of
limited supplies, which helps in responding to the severe and prolonged
drought conditions that continue to impact much of the West. For
example, from 2010-2012, the program leveraged non-federal investments
by a two-to-one ratio to help conserve more than 616,000 acre-feet of
water in the West.
The WaterSMART Grants Program's current authorized spending is
expected to expire later this year and S. 2019 would ensure that
Reclamation can continue assisting states in their water conservation
efforts by reauthorizing the program through 2023. Failure to do so
would greatly diminish Reclamation's ability to partner with states and
local communities to increase water efficiency in the West, threatening
a range of economic and environmental interests, even as unprecedented
drought afflicts many areas. Consequently, the Council strongly
supports reauthorization of the WaterSMART Grants Program.
b. national water availability and use assessment grant program
The availability of water data is critical for planning and timely
responses to droughts, flooding, and other extreme weather events. In
particular, a lack of timely and accurate data on water use and
availability places human life, health, welfare, property and
environmental and natural resources at a considerably greater risk of
loss. Unfortunately, erosion of the federal investment over the years
has led to the discontinuance, disrepair, or obsolescence of vital data
systems and programs needed to inform water resources management across
the country.
The SECURE Water Act authorized the National Water Availability and
Use Assessment as part of a suite of activities aimed at enhancing the
Department of the Interior's water data efforts. The Assessment is a
USGS program aimed at providing better information on water resources
budgets in the U.S., identifying trends in use and availability,
helping forecast water availability for future needs, and maintaining a
national inventory of water uses. Since states have the primary
responsibility for gathering and managing data about water use, the
SECURE Water Act authorized USGS to provide grants to state water
management agencies to assist in acquiring locally-generated water data
to be integrated with national datasets. However, USGS' requests for
such grants have not been funded and its program authority expired with
fiscal year 2013.
S. 2019 would reauthorize the Assessment's grant program through
2023 allowing for continuing support for state efforts to gather and
analyze water data in a consistent manner. The Council supports
reauthorization of this program. The Council also notes that its Water
Data Exchange (WaDE) initiative has created the architecture for
sharing information between states and with federal agencies, which
will support this federal effort.
We commend the Subcommittee for its work in addressing important
water needs in the West. We also look forward to working with the
Subcommittee and the Congress to continue to improve western water
management.
______
Statement of the Chairman, Tribal Council, The Confederated Tribes of
the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon
On behalf of the Tribal Council of the Confederated Tribes of the
Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon. I am writing to express our strong
support for S. 1771, Crooked River Collaborative Water Security Act--
introduced by Senators Merkely and Wyden.
In short, this legislation is the result of countless hours of
deliberation of a diverse group of local stakeholders. It helps resolve
a decades-long question of how to balance water interests between
municipal and irrigation users, while also ensuring the recovery of the
salmon, trout and steelhead in the Crooked River.
Specifically, the Confederated Tribes believe that the ``first
fill'' provision for irrigators is firmly balanced by the dedication of
un-allocated water for downstream fish and wildlife. For both
provisions to work and for the policy to be defensible in the future,
we also believe the ESA rpovisions are appropriately and narrowly
crafted. This will allow the collaborative management process to
achieve ecological results with all stakeholders at the table.
Thank you for scheduling a hearing on this landmark legislation.
______
Statement of Kimberley Priestley, Sr. Policy Analyst, Waterwatch,
Portland, OR, on S. 1771
Founded in 1985, WaterWatch of Oregon is a non-profit river
conservation group dedicated to the protection and restoration of
natural flows in Oregon's rivers. We work to ensure that enough water
is protected in Oregon's rivers to sustain fish, wildlife, recreation
and other public uses of Oregon's rivers, lakes and streams. We also
work for balanced water laws and policies. WaterWatch has thousands of
members and supporters across Oregon who care deeply about our rivers,
their inhabitants and the effects of water laws and policies on these
resources.
On behalf of WaterWatch of Oregon's members and supporters we write
in support of S. 1771, the Crooked River Collaborative Water Security
Act of 2013, as introduced.
s. 1771, crooked river collaborative water security act
In the Crooked River Basin there exists a rare opportunity to pass
a bill that could benefit all economic sectors in the region---farmers,
cities and fisheries. In a situation that is nearly unheard of in the
water parched West, Prineville Reservoir behind Bowman Dam holds over
80,000 acre feet of water that has not been allocated to any particular
use. This fact presents an extraordinary opportunity to release the
unallocated stored water to restore flows to the river and its
economically important fisheries, without taking water away from
existing irrigation districts or impeding growth opportunities for the
City of Prineville.
S. 1771 takes advantage of this rare opportunity and delivers a
bill that:
Dedicates nearly 80,000 acre feet of unallocated water
stored in Prineville Reservoir to downstream fisheries. This
bill will result in significant flow increases to the
historically water-parched Crooked River.
Provides the City of Prineville with 5,100 acre-feet of
water to serve as instream mitigation to offset the impacts of
new groundwater pumping (under state law, new groundwater wells
in this basin must provide instream mitigation).
Provides farmers who currently hold irrigation contracts for
water from the reservoir with guarantees to their longstanding
use.
Allows hydropower development to now proceed on Bowman Dam.
Charts a path forward for flow restoration projects on McKay
Creek (a creek that is key to steelhead introduction efforts).
Requires dry year management planning.
S.1771, as introduced, represents a carefully crafted agreement
between irrigation districts, the State of Oregon, the City of
Prineville, conservation groups and the Confederated Tribes of the Warm
Springs Reservation. We thank Senators Merkley and Wyden for
introducing this bill that represents a balance amongst varied basin
interests that, until now, was unattainable.
S. 1771 marks the end of over 30 years of fighting over the
unallocated water behind Bowman Dam. The vision provided by this
groundbreaking legislation could not only help save the Crooked River,
its prized redband trout, and its newly reintroduced steelhead - it
would also make a major contribution to the region's economy.
Thank you for all your work on bringing together the many varied
interests of the Crooked River Basin and the State of Oregon to craft
this truly collaborative legislation.
______
Statement of the Tualatin Basin
s.1946 will improve dam safety, help secure regional water supply
Building on the Bureau of Reclamation's (Reclamation) Water 2025
Initiative and the principles of cooperative conservation, Tualatin
Basin Water Supply Partners and Reclamation staff have been working
collaboratively with regional business, environmental and agricultural
stakeholders to meet the long-term water resource needs of the Tualatin
River Basin in Washington County, Oregon.
Scoggins Dam/Hagg Lake is Washington County's primary source of
water and a central component of the region's water supply. It is also
among the most seismically at-risk dams in Reclamation's inventory.
Passage of S. 1946, a bill to reauthorize and amend Reclamation's
Safety of Dams program, would provide Reclamation with the ability to
continue monitoring and improving the safety of its 476 facilities,
including Scoggins.
s. 1946 earns strong community support
On behalf of economic, agricultural, environmental and municipal
interests in the region, partners of The Tualatin Basin Water Supply
Project would like to enter the enclosed letters of support for S. 1946
into the record. Stakeholders include:
Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber
Washington County
Clean Water Services
City of Hillsboro
City of Beaverton
City of Forest Grove
City of Tigard
City of Tualatin
Tualatin Valley Water District
Joint Water Commission
Tualatin Valley Irrigation District
Oregon Water Resources Congress
Intel Corporation
Greater Hillsboro Chamber of Commerce
Westside Economic Alliance
Oregon Business Association
Portland General Electric
Portland Metro Homebuilders Association
Tualatin Riverkeepers
Tualatin River Watershed Council
______
Statement of Denny Doyle, Mayor, Beaverton, OR, on S. 1946
On behalf the City of Beaverton, I am writing to thank you and
express our support for S. 1946, a bill to reauthorize and amend the
Bureau of Reclamation Safety of Dams program. This bill would provide
the Bureau of Reclamation with the ability to continue to monitor and
improve the safety of its 476 facilities, including Scoggins Dam in
Washington County, Oregon.
Scoggins Dam/Hagg Lake is Beaverton's and Washington County's
primary source of water and a central component to our region's water
supply. Hagg Lake supports nearly 250,000 jobs, provides drinking water
for more than 400,000 residents, irrigates 17,000 acres of cropland,
important flood control and recreation opportunities, and sustains
water quality in the Tualatin River to protect fish and wildlife
habitat. In 2010, Reclamation identified Scoggins Dam as among the most
seismically at-risk dams in their inventory. Scoggins Dam must be
modified to reduce the risk of failure in a major earthquake in order
to protect public safety, secure our region's water supply, and help
meet future needs. This legislation would allow Reclamation to move
forward with securing structurally deficient facilities like Scoggins
Dam.
Washington County is the second-fastest growing county in the
state, with a population of more than 542,000, and is the economic
engine of Oregon, home to Intel, Nike, SolarWorld, Genentech, and a
vibrant agricultural economy. The number of jobs on the Westside has
more than doubled in the last 20 years, reaching over 250,000. A safe,
secure, and reliable water resource is central to the state and
region's continued economic success.
Construction of the Tualatin Project was authorized by the Congress
with the Act of September 20, 1966 (80 Stat. 822, Public Law 89-596).
Since 1973, when Reclamation was developing stored water in the
Tualatin Project (Scoggins Dam, Hagg Lake), the City of Beaverton has
been a direct municipal ``repayment contractor'' to Reclamation for
4,000 acre-feet annually. Beaverton has two current contracts with
Reclamation dating as far back as 1971.
The City of Beaverton received a letter from Reclamation dated
October 20, 2011, which stated that: ``Scoggins Dam could lose
freeboard due to large deformations and fail from overtopping during a
seismic event. Scoggins Dam could fail from erosion through cracking
during a seismic event. The spillway walls at Scoggins Dam could fail
during a seismic event leading to failure of the dam. Failure would
result in the loss of lives and property downstream and the loss of
project benefits for year to come. The seismic hazard at Scoggins Dam
is among the most severe earthquake loadings within Reclamation's
inventory of dam, largely due to the proximity to the Cascadia
Subduction Zone. Assuring the safety of Scoggins Dam is a key element
that Reclamation continues to deliver the authorized benefits of the
project. The Reclamation Safety of Dams Act provides the necessary
authority to reduce risks at Scoggins Dam. It should be noted that a
project the size of Scoggins Dam will exhaust Reclamation's funding
authority.''
Consequently, this bill is very important to the future of Scoggins
Dam and to the City of Beaverton.
Thank you for introducing this important legislation and for your
leadership in helping our region plan for a secure water future for all
of Oregon.
______
Statement of Andy Duyck, Chairman, Clean Water Services, Hillsboro, OR,
on S. 1946
On behalf of Clean Water Services, I am writing to thank you and
express our support for S. 1946, a bill to reauthorize and amend the
Bureau of Reclamation Safety of Dams program. This bill would provide
the Bureau of Reclamation with the ability to continue to monitor and
improve the safety of its 476 facilities, including Scoggins Dam in
Washington County, Oregon.
Scoggins Dam/Hagg Lake is Washington County's primary source of
water. It supports nearly 250,000 jobs, provides drinking water for
more than 400,000 residents, irrigates 17,000 acres of cropland, and
sustains water quality in the Tualatin River to protect fish and
wildlife habitat. Within the next decade, the population and economic
growth of Washington County will begin to outstrip the ability of our
water supply infrastructure to deliver fresh water to homes, factories
and farms. Expansion of the Scoggins Dam/Hagg Lake complex is a
critical piece of the region's future water supply infrastructure.
In 2010, the Bureau of Reclamation identified Scoggins Dam as among
the most seismically at-risk dams in their inventory. Scoggins Dam must
be modified to reduce the risk of failure in a major earthquake in
order to protect public safety and present water supply. Modification
would also enable planning for the expansion of Scoggins Dam to move
forward, which would move us further along the path to securing our
community's future water needs. Clean Water Services, the water
resource management utility for more than 542,000 residents of urban
Washington County and surrounding areas, is a managing partner for the
water supply project.
Washington County is the second-fastest growing county in the
state, with a population of more than 542,000, and is the economic
engine of Oregon, home to Intel, Nike, SolarWorld, Genentech, and a
vibrant agricultural economy. The number of jobs on the Westside has
more than doubled in the last 20 years, reaching over 250,000. A safe,
secure, and reliable water resource is central to the state and
region's continued economic success.
Thank you for introducing this important legislation and for your
leadership in helping our region plan for a secure water future for
Oregon.
______
Statement of Michael Sykes, City Manager, Forest Grove, OR
On behalf of the City of Forest Grove, I am writing to thank you
and express our support for S. 1946, a bill to reauthorize and amend
the Bureau of Reclamation Safety of Dams program. This bill would
provide the Bureau of Reclamation with the ability to continue to
monitor and improve the safety of its 476 facilities, including
Scoggins Dam in Washington County, Oregon.
Scoggins Dam/Hagg Lake is Washington County's primary source of
water and a central component to our region's water supply. Hagg Lake
supports nearly 250,000 jobs, provides drinking water for more than
400,000 residents, irrigates 17,000 acres of cropland, and sustains
water quality in the Tualatin River to protect fish and wildlife
habitat. In 2010, Reclamation identified Scoggins Dam as among the most
seismically at-risk dams in their inventory. Scoggins Dam must be
modified to reduce the risk of failure in a major earthquake in order
to protect public safety, secure our region's water supply, and help
meet future needs. This legislation would allow Reclamation to move
forward with securing structurally deficient facilities like Scoggins
Dam.
Washington County is the second-fastest growing county in the
state, with a population of more than 542,000, and is the economic
engine of Oregon, home to Intel, Nike, SolarWorld, Genentech, and a
vibrant agricultural economy. The number of jobs on the Westside has
more than doubled in the last 20 years, reaching over 250,000. A safe,
secure, and reliable water resource is central to the state and
region's continued economic success.
The City of Forest Grove relies on water from Scoggins Reservoir
for its,22,000 person population and industry. In addition, portions of
our town could be flooded by a large dam failure.
Thank you for introducing this important legislation and for your
leadership in helping our region plan for a secure water future for
Oregon.
______
Statement of Richard Whitman, Natural Resources Policy Advisor, Office
of Governor John A. Kitzhaber, Salem, OR
On behalf of the Governor of the State of Oregon, I am writing to
express the state's support for S. 1946, a bill to reauthorize and
amend the Bureau of Reclamation Safety of Dams program. This bill would
provide the Bureau of Reclamation with the authority to continue to
monitor and improve the safety of its 476 facilities, including
Scoggins Darn in Washington County, Oregon.
Scoggins Dam/Hagg Lake is Washington County's primary source of
water and a central component of our region's water supply. Hagg Lake
supports nearly 250,000 jobs, provides drinking water for more than
400,000 residents, irrigates 17,000 acres of cropland, and sustains
water quality in the Tualatin River to protect fish and wildlife
habitat. In 2010, Reclamation identified Scoggins Darn as among the
most seismically at-risk dams in their inventory. Scoggins Dam must be
modified to reduce the risk of failure in a major earthquake in order
to protect public safety, secure our region's water supply, and help
meet future water needs. This legislation would allow Reclamation to
move forward with securing structurally-deficient facilities like
Scoggins Dam.
Washington County is the second-fastest growing county in the
state, with a population of more than 542,000, and is the economic
engine of Oregon, home to Intel, Nike, SolarWorld, Genentech, and a
vibrant agricultural economy. The number of jobs on the Westside has
more than doubled in the last 20 years, reaching over 250,000. A safe,
secure, and reliable water resource is central to the state and
region's continued economic success.
Thank you for introducing this important legislation and for your
leadership in helping Washington County plan for a secure water future.
______
Statement of Justin Wood, Director of Government Relations, Home
Builders Association
On behalf of the Home Builders Association of Metropolitan
Portland, I am writing to thank you and express our support for S.
1946, a bill to reauthorize and amend the Bureau of Reclamation Safety
of Dams program. This bill would provide the Bureau of Reclamation with
the ability to continue to monitor and improve the safety of its 476
facilities, including Scoggins Dam in Washington County, Oregon.
Scoggins Dam/Hagg Lake is Washington County's primary source of
water and a central component to our region's water supply. Hagg Lake
supports nearly 250,000 jobs, provides drinking water for more than
400,000 residents, irrigates 17,000 acres of cropland, and sustains
water quality in the Tualatin River to protect fish and wildlife
habitat. In 2010, Reclamation identified Scoggins Dam as among the most
seismically at-risk dams in their inventory. Scoggins Dam must be
modified to reduce the risk of failure in a major earthquake in order
to protect public safety, secure our region's water supply, and help
meet future needs. This legislation would allow Reclamation to move
forward with securing structurally deficient facilities like Scoggins
Dam.
Washington County is the second-fastest growing county in the
state, with a population of more than 542,000, and is the economic
engine of Oregon, home to Intel, Nike, SolarWorld, Genentech, and a
vibrant agricultural economy. The number of jobs on the Westside has
more than doubled in the last 20 years, reaching over 250,000. A safe,
secure, and reliable water resource is central to the state and
region's continued economic success.
The Home Builders Association of Metropolitan Portland and our over
1,100 members represent the many builders, developers, remodelors and
trade contractors throughout the Portland Metro area. Homebuilding is a
major component to the economic health of our state and region.
Washington County provides the foundation for jobs and growth in our
region and it is vital that this project be moved forward, providing
the county with a safe a reliable water infrastructure to support
continued economic growth.
Thank you for introducing this important legislation and for your
leadership in helping our region plan for a secure water future for
Oregon.
______
Joint Statement of Jerry W. Willey, Mayor, City of Hillsboro, and John
Godsey, Chair, Hillsboro Utilities Commission
On behalf of the City of Hillsboro, we are writing to thank you and
to express our support for S. 1946, a bill to reauthorize and amend the
Bureau of Reclamation Safety of Dams program. This bill would provide
the Bureau of Reclamation with the ability to continue to monitor and
improve the safety of its 476 facilities, including Scoggins Dam in
Washington County, Oregon.
Scoggins Dam/Hagg Lake is Washington County's primary source of
water and a central component to our region's water supply. Hagg Lake
supports nearly 250,000 jobs, provides drinking water for more than
400,000 residents, irrigates 17,000 acres of cropland, and sustains
water quality in the Tualatin River. In 2010, Reclamation identified
Scoggins Dam as among the most seismically at-risk dams in their
inventory. Scoggins Dam must be modified to reduce the risk of failure
in a major earthquake in order to protect public safety, secure our
region's water supply, and help meet future needs. This legislation
would allow Reclamation to move forward with securing structurally
deficient facilities like Scoggins Dam.
Washington County is the second-fastest growing county in the
state, with a population of more than 542,000. It is the economic
engine of Oregon and a vibrant agricultural economy. The number of jobs
on the Westside has more than doubled in the last 20 years, reaching
over 250,000. A safe, secure, and reliable water resource is central to
the state and region's continued economic success.
Hillsboro is a fast-growing community with a population of over
93,000. It is home to Intel, SolarWorld, Genentech, and many other
businesses. The reliable water supply these industries receive from the
city of Hillsboro is critical to their success. Hillsboro's contract
for stored water at Scoggins Dam is an irreplaceable element in our
ability to continue to supply those long term water needs. Protecting
the reliability of that supply by funding Reclamation's construction of
seismic improvements to Scoggins Dam is imperative.
Thank you for introducing this important legislation and for your
leadership in helping our region plan for a secure water future for
Oregon.
______
Statement of Deanna Palm, President, Hillsboro Chamber, on S. 1946
On behalf of the Hillsboro Chamber of Commerce, I am writing to
thank you and express our support for S. 1946, a bill to reauthorize
and amend the Bureau of Reclamation Safety of Dams program. This bill
would provide the Bureau of Reclamation with the ability to continue to
monitor and improve the safety of its 476 facilities, including
Scoggins Dam in Washington County, Oregon.
Scoggins Dam/Hagg Lake is Washington County's primary source of
water and a central component to our region's water supply. Hagg Lake
supports nearly 250,000 jobs, provides drinking water for more than
400,000 residents, irrigates 17,000 acres of cropland, and sustains
water quality in the Tualatin River to protect fish and wildlife
habitat. In 2010, Reclamation identified Scoggins Dam as among the most
seismically at-risk dams in their inventory. Scoggins Dam must be
modified to reduce the risk of failure in a major earthquake in order
to protect public safety, secure our region's water supply, and help
meet future needs. This legislation would allow Reclamation to move
forward with securing structurally deficient facilities like Scoggins
Dam.
Washington County is the second-fastest growing county in the
state, with a population of more than 542,000, and is the economic
engine of Oregon, home to Intel, Nike, SolarWorld, Genentech, and a
vibrant agricultural economy. The number of jobs on the Westside has
more than doubled in the last 20 years, reaching over 250,000. A safe,
secure, and reliable water resource is central to the state and
region's continued economic success.
Hillsboro and its businesses play a vital role in the regional and
state's economy. The ability to locate new or expand businesses and
grow jobs in our industrial areas is a critical element for economic
success. An adequate water resource that is safe and secure is
fundamental in achieving those goals.
Thank you for introducing this important legislation and for your
leadership in helping our region plan for a secure water future for
Oregon.
______
Statement of Jill Eiland, Intel, Corporate Affairs Director
On behalf of Intel Corporation, I am writing to thank you and to
join our government partners, businesses, and environmental
organizations across the region in supporting S. 1946, a bill to
reauthorize and amend the Bureau of Reclamation Safety of Dams program.
This bill would provide the Bureau of Reclamation with the ability to
continue to monitor and improve the safety of its 476 facilities,
including Scoggins Dam in Washington County, Oregon.
Scoggins Dam/Hagg Lake is Washington County's primary source of
water and a central component to the region's water supply. In 2010,
the Bureau of Reclamation identified Scoggins Dam as among the most
seismically at-risk dams in their inventory. Scoggins Dam must be
modified to reduce the risk of failure in a major earthquake in order
to protect public safety, secure the region's water supply needs for
cities, economic development, agriculture, and improve water quality in
the Tualatin River and its tributaries. This legislation would allow
Reclamation to move forward with securing structurally deficient
facilities like Scoggins Dam.
Intel's operations in Oregon represent the Company's largest and
most comprehensive site in the world--a global center of semiconductor
research and manufacturing. With over 17,000 employees in Washington
County, Intel appreciates the work you are doing to help make necessary
infrastructure investments that will provide a reliable water supply
for this growing region.
Thank you for your leadership on this important effort and for
introducing this legislation.
______
Statement of Marilyn McWilliams, Chair, Joint Water Commission,
on S. 1946
On behalf of the Joint Water Commission, I am writing to thank you
and to express our support for S. 1946, a bill to reauthorize and amend
the Bureau of Reclamation Safety of Dams program. This bill would
provide the Bureau of Reclamation with the ability to continue to
monitor and improve the safety of its 476 facilities, including
Scoggins Dam in Washington County, Oregon.
Scoggins Dam/Hagg Lake is Washington County's primary source of
water and a central component to our region's water supply. Hagg Lake
supports nearly 250,000 jobs, provides drinking water for more than
400,000 residents, irrigates 17,000 acres of cropland, and sustains
water quality in the Tualatin River to protect fish and wildlife
habitat. In 2010, Reclamation identified Scoggins Dam as among the most
seismically at-risk dams in their inventory. Scoggins Dam must be
mortified to reduce the risk of failure in a major earthquake in order
to protect public safety, secure our region's water supply, and help
meet future needs. This legislation would allow Reclamation to move
forward with securing structurally deficient facilities like Scoggins
Dam.
Washington County is the second-fastest growing county in the
state, with a population of more than 542,000, and is the economic
engine of Oregon, home to Intel, Nike, SolarWorld, Genentech, and a
vibrant agricultural economy. The number of jobs on the Westside has
more than doubled in the last 20 years, reaching over 250,000. A safe,
secure, and reliable water resource is central to the state and
region's continued economic success.
The Joint Water Commission (JWC) is a water supply partnership
between the cities of Hillsboro, Beaverton, Forest Grove, and the
Tualatin Valley Water District. Together these agencies serve a
population of over 400,000 in Washington County. The stored water at
Scoggins Dam provides the majority of JWC's summer water supplies. As
the JWC member communities continue to grow, they will continue to rely
on a safe and secure supply from Scoggins Dam as the long-term
foundation of their water supply. Protecting the reliability of that
supply by funding the construction of seismic improvements to Scoggins
Dam is imperative.
Thank you for introducing this important legislation and for your
leadership in helping our region plan for a secure water future for
Oregon.
______
Statement of Ryan Deckert, President, Oregon Business Association,
Portland, OR, on S. 1946,
On behalf of the Oregon Business Association (OBA), I am writing to
thank you and express our support for S. 1946, a bill to reauthorize
and amend the Bureau of Reclamation Safety of Dams program. This bill
would provide the Bureau of Reclamation with the ability to continue to
monitor and improve the safety of its 476 facilities, including
Scoggins Dam in Washington County, Oregon.
Scoggins Dam/Hagg Lake is Washington County's primary source of
water and a central component to our region's water supply. Hagg Lake
supports nearly 250,000 jobs, provides drinking water for more than
400,000 residents, irrigates 17,000 acres of cropland, and sustains
water quality in the Tualatin River to protect fish and wildlife
habitat. In 2010, Reclamation identified Scoggins Dam as among the most
seismically at-risk dams in their inventory. Scoggins Dam must be
modified to reduce the risk of failure in a major earthquake in order
to protect public safety, secure our region's water supply, and help
meet future needs. This legislation would allow Reclamation to move
forward with securing structurally deficient facilities like Scoggins
Dam.
Washington County is the second-fastest growing county in the
state, with a population of more than 542,000, and is the economic
engine of Oregon, home to Intel, Nike, SolarW orld, Genentech, and a
vibrant agricultural economy. The number of jobs on the Westside has
more than doubled in the last 20 years, reaching over 250,000. A safe,
secure, and reliable water resource is central to the state and
region's continued economic success.
Thank you for introducing this important legislation and for your
leadership in helping our region plan for a secure water future for
Oregon.
______
Statement of April Snell, Executive Director, Oregon Water Resources
Congress, Salem, OR
On behalf of the Oregon Water Resources Congress (OWRC), I am
writing to thank you and express our support for S. 1946, a bill to
reauthorize and amend the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation)
Safety of Dams program. OWRC is a nonprofit association representing
irrigation districts, water control districts, improvement districts,
drainage districts and other agricultural water suppliers. These local
government entities operate complex water management systems, including
water supply reservoirs, canals, pipelines, and hydropower production,
and deliver water to roughly 1/3 of all irrigated land in Oregon. OWRC
has been promoting the protection and use of water rights and the wise
stewardship of water resources on behalf of agricultural water
suppliers since 1912.
S. 1946 would provide Reclamation with the ability to continue to
monitor and improve the safety of its 476 facilities, including
Scoggins Dam in Washington County, Oregon. Scoggins Dam/Hagg Lake is
Washington County's primary source of water and a central component to
the region's water supply. One of OWRC's members, the Tualatin Valley
Irrigation District, manages the reservoir and delivers water to
approximately 17,000 acres of farm land that sustains a variety of high
value crops. Scoggins Dam/Hagg Lake also supports nearly 250,000 jobs,
provides drinking water for more than 400,000 residents, and improves
water quality in the Tualatin River to protect fish and wildlife
habitat.
In 2010, Reclamation identified Scoggins Dam as among the most
seismically at-risk dams in their inventory. Scoggins Dam must be
modified to reduce the risk of failure in a major earthquake in order
to protect public safety, secure our region's water supply, and help
meet future needs. Scoggins Dam controls releases from Henry Hagg Lake,
sending water down Scoggins Creek toward the Tualatin River, which runs
through Tualatin, Durham, Rivergrove and Lake Oswego and then on to the
Willamette River in West Linn. The inundation zones of Scoggins Dam
cross three counties: including numerous cities, water districts and
unincorporated communities. In the event of a dam failure, there would
be flooding, putting citizens at risk.
This legislation would allow Reclamation to move forward with
securing structurally deficient facilities like Scoggins Dam and would
help the local communities in planning for the potential impact of
future seismic activity in and around Scoggins Dam.
Washington County is the second-fastest growing county in the
state, with a population of more than 542,000, and is the economic
engine of Oregon, home to Intel, Nike, SolarWorld, Genentech, and a
vibrant agricultural economy. The number of jobs on the Westside has
more than doubled in the last 20 years, reaching over 250,000. A safe,
secure, and reliable water resource is central to the state and
region's continued economic success.
Thank you for introducing this important legislation and for your
leadership in helping our water suppliers plan for a secure water
future for Oregon.
______
Statement of Sunny Radcliffe, Director, Government Affairs &
Environmental Policy, on S. 1946
On behalf of Portland General Electric, I am writing to thank you
and express our support for S. 1946, a bill to reauthorize and amend
the Bureau of Reclamation Safety of Dams program. This bill would
provide the Bureau of Reclamation with the ability to continue to
monitor and improve the safety of its 476 facilities, including
Scoggins Dam in Washington County, Oregon.
Scoggins Dam/Hagg Lake is Washington County's primary source of
water and a central component to our region's water supply. Hagg Lake
supports nearly 250,000 jobs, provides drinking water for more than
400,000 residents, irrigates 17,000 acres of cropland, and sustains
water quality in the Tualatin River to protect fish and wildlife
habitat. In 2010, Reclamation identified Scoggins Dam as among the most
seismically at-risk dams in their inventory. Scoggins Dam must be
modified to reduce the risk of failure in a major earthquake in order
to protect public safety, secure our region's water supply, and help
meet future needs. This legislation would allow Reclamation to move
forward with securing structurally deficient facilities like Scoggins
Dam.
Washington County is the second-fastest growing county in the
state, with a population of more than 542,000, and is the economic
engine of Oregon, home to Intel, Nike, SolarWorld, Genentech, and a
vibrant agricultural economy. The number of jobs on the Westside has
more than doubled in the last 20 years, reaching over 250,000. A safe,
secure, and reliable water resource is central to the state and
region's continued economic success.
This project is of great importance to PGE and our customers. As
Oregon's largest electric utility, we know how critical it is that all
of our region's infrastructure keeps up with the needs of our growing
population.
Thank you for introducing this important legislation and for your
leadership in helping our region plan for a secure water future for
Oregon.
______
Statement of John L. Cook, Mayor, City of Tigard, OR, on S. 1946
On behalf of the City of Tigard, I am writing to express our
support for S.1946, a bill to reauthorize and amend the Bureau of
Reclamation's Safety of Dams program. This bill would give the Bureau
of Reclamation the ability to continue monitoring and improving the
safety of its 476 facilities, including Scoggins Dam in Washington
County, Oregon.
Scoggins Dam/Hagg Lake is a primary source of water for Washington
County and a central component to our region's water supply. Water from
Hagg Lake provides drinking water for more than 400,000 residents,
irrigates 17,000 acres of cropland, supports countywide employment with
nearly 250,000 jobs and sustains water quality in the Tualatin River to
protect fish and wildlife habitat.
In 2010, Reclamation identified Scoggins Dam as one of the most
seismically at-risk dams in their inventory. Scoggins Dam must be
modified to reduce the risk of failure in a major earthquake in order
to protect public safety, secure the region's water supply and help
meet future needs. This legislation would allow Reclamation to move
forward with the important task of securing structurally deficient
facilities like Scoggins Dam.
Washington County is the second-fastest growing county in our state
with a population of more than 542,000. It is the economic engine for
Oregon; home to Intel, Nike, SolarWorld, Genentech, and a vibrant
agricultural economy. Employment on the Westside has more than doubled
in the last 20 years, exceeding 250,000 jobs. A safe, secure and
reliable water resource is critical to the state and region's continued
economic success.
The City of Tigard provides drinking water to over 50,000 people in
Tigard and surrounding communities. Tigard provides many of the jobs
mentioned above and depends on Hagg Lake as our redundant water supply
and Scoggins Dam for flood control. Improvements to these facilities
are critical for our continued economic prosperity.
I want to thank you for introducing this important legislation and
for your unwavering leadership in helping our region plan for a secure
water future in Oregon.
______
Statement of Lou Ogden, Mayor, City of Tualatin, OR, on S. 1946
On behalf of the City of Tualatin, I am writing to thank you and
express our support for S. 1946, which would reauthorize and amend the
Bureau of Reclamation Safety of Dams program. This bill would provide
the Bureau of Reclamation with the ability to continue to monitor and
improve the safety of its 476 facilities, including Scoggins Dam in
Washington County, Oregon.
Scoggins Dam/Hagg Lake is Washington County's primary source of
water and a central component to our region's water supply. Hagg Lake
supports nearly 250,000 jobs, provides drinking water for more than
400,000 residents, irrigates 17,000 acres of cropland, and sustains
water quality in the Tualatin River to protect fish and wildlife
habitat. In 2010, Reclamation identified Scoggins Dam as among the most
seismically at-risk dams in their inventory. Scoggins Dam must be
modified to reduce the risk of failure in a major earthquake in order
to protect public safety, secure our region's water supply, and help
meet future needs. This legislation would allow Reclamation to move
forward with securing structurally deficient facilities like Scoggins
Dam.
Washington County is the second-fastest growing county in the
state, with a population of more than 542,000, and is the economic
engine of Oregon, home to Intel, Nike, SolarWorld, Genentech, and a
vibrant agricultural economy. The number of jobs on the Westside has
more than doubled in the last 20 years, reaching over 250,000. A safe,
secure, and reliable water resource is central to the state and
region's continued economic success.
Thank you for introducing this important legislation and for your
leadership in helping our region plan for a secure water future for
Oregon.
______
Statement of Dave Waffle, Chair, Tualatin River Watershed Council,
Hillsboro, OR, on S. 1946
On behalf of the Tualatin River Watershed Council, I am writing to
thank you and express our support for S. 1946, a bill to reauthorize
and amend the Bureau of Reclamation Safety of Dams program. This bill
would provide the Bureau of Reclamation. with the ability to continue
to monitor and improve the safety of its 476 facilities, including
Scoggins Dam in Washington. County, Oregon,
Scoggins Dam/Hagg Lake is Washington County's primary source of
water and a central component to our region's water supply. Hagg Lake
supports nearly 250,000 jobs, provides drinking water for more than
400,000 residents, irrigates 17,000 acres of cropland, and sustains
water quality in the Tualatin River to protect fish and wildlife
habitat. In 2010, Reclamation identified Scoggins Dam as among the most
seismically at-risk dams in their inventory. Scoggins Dam must be
modified to reduce the risk of failure in a major earthquake in order
to protect public safety, secure our region's water supply, and help
meet future needs. This legislation would allow Reclamation to move
forward with securing structurally deficient facilities like Scoggins
Dam.
Washington County is the second fastest growing county in the
state, with a population of more than 542,000, and is the economic
engine of Oregon, home to Intel, Nike, SolarWorld, Genentech, and a
vibrant agricultural economy. The number of jobs on the Westside has
more than doubled in the last 20 years, reaching over 250,000. A safe,
secure, and reliable water resource is central to the state and
region's continued economic success.
The Tualatin River Watershed Council (Council) is an organization
whose mission is ``to foster better stewardship and understanding of
the Tualatin River watershed resources; address natural resource
issues; and ensure sustainable watershed health, function, and uses.''
The 21-member Council represents key interests and stakeholders in the
Tualatin River watershed, including the agricultural community,
business and industry, education, environmental, forestry, local
government, commercial/recreational fisheries, utility districts and
citizens.
The Council values environmental protection of the Tualatin Basin
and believes that improving the safety of Scoggius Dam/Hagg Lake would
address environmental destruction that would result from a catastrophic
dam failure. The Council is willing to work with the Bureau of
Reclamation in addressing any impacts to the natural environment caused
by the project that would improve the dam's structural safety.
Thank you for introducing this important legislation and for your
leadership in helping our region plan for a secure water future for
Oregon.
______
Statement of Brian Wegener, Riverkeeper, Advocacy & Communications
Manager, Tualatin, OR, on S. 1946
On behalf of Tualatin Riverkeepers, I am writing to thank you and
express our support for S. 1946, a bill to reauthorize and amend the
Bureau of Reclamation Safety of Dams program. This bill would provide
the Bureau of Reclamation with the ability to continue to monitor and
improve the safety of its 476 facilities, including Scoggins Dam in
Washington County, Oregon.
Scoggins Dam/Hagg Lake is Washington County's primary source of
water and a central component to our region's water supply. Hagg Lake
supports nearly 250,000 jobs, provides drinking water for more than
400,000 residents, irrigates 17,000 acres of cropland, and sustains
water quality in the Tualatin River to protect fish and wildlife
habitat. In 2010, Reclamation identified Scoggins Dam as among the most
seismically at-risk dams in their inventory. Scoggins Dam must be
modified to reduce the risk of failure in a major earthquake in order
to protect public safety, secure our region's water supply, and help
meet future needs. This legislation would allow Reclamation to move
forward with securing structurally deficient facilities like Scoggins
Dam. According to information provided by the Bureau of Reclamation at
a recent open house, 200 workers lives at the Stimson mill are at risk
with only 15 minutes to evacuate following a subduction zone
earthquake.
Tualatin Riverkeepers is a non-profit organization dedicated to
holistic watershed management for the benefit our communities. TRK
takes a proactive approach to advocacy for clean waters, empowers the
diversity of stakeholders in the Tualatin river basin to care for our
unique river, and educates youth and future activists with creative
curriculum inspired by local ecological traditions. We seek
partnerships with agencies and landowners throughout the watershed to
conserve the lands and biodiversity found within the broader landscape
and analyze watershed issues from the floodplain's perspective. As
such, we find strength from farmer to ecologist's viewpoints and
believe bringing multiple parties together based on shared common
ground will enhance sustainable management of the Tualatin watershed.
TRK is a registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity and a
member of the Waterkeeper Alliance.
Restoration of the Tualatin River has made tremendous progress over
the last 25 years. Restoring cooling flows to tributary streams is a
key missing element in recovery of steelhead trout in the basin.
Expansion of Hagg Lake should make water available for tributary
streamflow augmentation to aid in the recovery of our native fish.
Seismic upgrade of the dam should also provide mitigation for blocked
passage and lost habitat associated with the original construction of
the dam.
Thank you for introducing this important legislation and for your
leadership in helping our region plan for a secure water future for
Oregon.
______
Statement of Richard P. Burke, President, TVWD Board of Commissioners,
Beaverton, OR, on S. 1946
On behalf of TVWD, I am writing to thank you for your leadership in
sponsoring legislation that will address the need for a safer Scoggins
Darn and specifically express our support for S. 1946 in order
reauthorize and amend the Bureau of Reclamation Safety of Dams program.
The reliability of Scoggins Darn is essential to sustain the vital
economy of Washington County.
In 2010, Reclamation identified Scoggins Darn as among the most
seismically at-risk darns in their inventory. Scoggins Darn must be
modified to reduce the risk of failure in a major earthquake in order
to protect public safety, secure an important regional water supply,
and help meet future needs. We appreciate your work on sponsoring
legislation to allow Reclamation to move forward with securing
structurally deficient facilities like Scoggins Dam.
TVWDs Board passed Resolution 05-13 (attached) in May of 2013 as a
way to demonstrate our support and encourage efforts to complete the
seismic upgrades to Scoggins Darn as soon as possible. The Resolution
has been a way to show our support and encourage regional cooperation
and partnerships between water providers in order to develop and
maintain multiple sources of water to meet Washington County's future
water demands. Scoggins Dam is an important part of enableing water
providers in the area to meet that objective.
Thank you for introducing this important legislation and for your
leadership in helping our region plan for a secure water future for
Oregon.
______
Statement of James Love, Chairman of the Board, Tualatin Valley
Irrigation District, Forest Grove, OR, on S. 1946
On behalf of Tualatin Valley Irrigation District, I am writing to
thank you and express our support for S.1946, a bill to reauthorize and
amend the Bureau of Reclamation Safety of Dams program. This bill would
provide the Bureau of Reclamation with the ability to continue to
monitor and improve the safety of its 476 facilities, including
Scoggins Dam in Washington County, Oregon.
The Tualatin Valley Irrigation District was formed by Oregon
statute in 1962 for the purpose of shepherding the Tualatin Project
through the Congress of the United States. The Tualatin Project,
constructed by the US Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Reclamation, provides water for the cities of Beaverton, Hillsboro and
Forest Grove. It also provides water to improve the quality of the
Tualatin River and most importantly the project provides water for the
irrigation of crops within the district boundaries.
Scoggins Dam/Hagg Lake is Washington country's primary source of
water and a central component to our region's water supply. Hagg Lake
supports nearly 250,000 jobs, provides drinking water for more than
400,000 residents, irrigates 17,000 acres of cropland, and sustains
water quality in the Tualatin River to protect fish and wildlife
habitat. In 2010, Reclamation identified Scoggins Dam as among the most
seismically at-risk dams in their inventory. Scoggins Dam must be
modified to reduce the risk of failure in a major earthquake in order
to protect public safety, secure our region's water supply, and help
meet future needs. This legislation would allow Reclamation to move
forward with securing structurally deficient facilities like Scoggins
Dam.
Washington County is the second-fastest growing county in the
state, with a population of more than 542,000, and is the economic
engine of Oregon, home to Intel, Nike, SolarWorld, Genentech, and a
vibrant agricultural economy. The number of jobs on the Westside has
more than doubled in the last 20 years, reaching over 250,000. A safe,
secure, and reliable water resource is central to the state and
region's continued economic success.
Thank you for introducing this important legislation and for your
leadership in helping our region plan for a secure water future for
Oregon.
______
Statement of Andy Duyck, Chairman, Washington County Board of
Commissioners, Hillsboro, OR, on S. 1946
On behalf of Washington County Board of Commissioners I am writing
to thank you and express our support for S. 1946, a bill to reauthorize
and amend the Bureau of Reclamation's Safety of Dams program. This bill
would provide the Bureau of Reclamation with the ability to continue to
monitor and improve the safety of its 476 facilities, including
Scoggins Dam here in Washington County, Oregon.
Scoggins Dam / Hagg Lake is Washington County's primary source of
water and a central component to our region's water supply. Hagg Lake
supports more than 250,000 jobs, provides drinking water for over
400,000 residents, irrigates 17,000 acres of cropland, and sustains
water quality in the Tualatin River to protect fish and wildlife
habitat.
In 2010, Reclamation identified Scoggins Dam as one of the most
seismically at-risk dams in their inventory. Scoggins Dam must be
modified to reduce the risk of failure in a major earthquake in order
to protect public safety, secure our region's water supply, and help
meet future needs. This legislation would allow the Bureau to move
forward with securing structurally deficient facilities like Scoggins
Dam.
With a population of more than 550,000, Washington County is the
fastest-growing county in the state, and has become the economic engine
of Oregon and home to Intel, Nike, SolarWorld, Genentech, as well as a
diverse agricultural economy. The number of jobs in our County has more
than doubled in the last 20 years, surpassing 260,000 in 2013. A safe,
secure, and reliable water resource is essential to our state and
region's continued economic success.
Thank you for introducing this important legislation and for your
leadership in helping our region plan for a secure water future for
Oregon.
______
Statement of Pamela Treece, Executive Director, WestSide Economic
Alliance, Tigard, OR, on S. 1946
On behalf of Westside Economic Alliance (WEA) I am writing to thank
you and express our support for S. 1946, a bill to reauthorize and
amend the Bureau of Reclamation Safety of Dams program. This bill would
provide the Bureau of Reclamation with the ability to continue to
monitor and improve the safety of its 476 facilities, including
Scoggins Dam in Washington County, Oregon.
Scoggins Dam/Hagg Lake is Washington County's primary source of
water and a central component to our region's water supply. Hagg Lake
supports nearly 250,000 jobs, provides drinking water for more than
400,000 residents, irrigates 17,000 acres of cropland, and sustains
water quality in the Tualatin River to protect fish and wildlife
habitat. In 2010, Reclamation identified Scoggins Darn as among the
most seismically at-risk darns in their inventory. Scoggins Dam must be
modified to reduce the risk of failure in a major earthquake in order
to protect public safety, secure our region's water supply, and help
meet future needs. This legislation would allow Reclamation to move
forward with securing structurally deficient facilities like Scoggins
Dam.
Washington County is the second-fastest growing county in the
state, with a population of more than 542,000, and is the economic
engine of Oregon. It is home to high technology and manufacturing
firms, headquarters for active sportswear companies and the seat of a
vibrant agricultural economy. The number of jobs on the Westside has
more than doubled in the last 20 years, reaching over 250,000. A safe,
secure, and reliable water resource is central to the state and
region's continued economic success.
WEA is a business advocacy group, representing members from both
the public and private sectors in Washington and western Clackamas
counties. Together we work to improve the local business climate and
the economic health of our region.
Thank you for introducing this important legislation and for your
leadership in helping our region plan for a secure water future for
Oregon.