[Senate Hearing 114-14]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 114-14
S. 438, the IRRIGATE Act
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 4, 2015
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Indian Affairs
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
94-556 PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
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 INDIAN AFFAIRS
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Chairman
JON TESTER, Montana, Vice Chairman
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska TOM UDALL, New Mexico
JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota AL FRANKEN, Minnesota
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
STEVE DAINES, Montana HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota
MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
JERRY MORAN, Kansas
T. Michael Andrews, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Anthony Walters, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on March 4, 2015.................................... 1
Statement of Senator Barrasso.................................... 1
Statement of Senator Cantwell.................................... 47
Statement of Senator Daines...................................... 3
Statement of Senator Tester...................................... 2
Witnesses
Cottenoir, Mitchel T., Tribal Water Engineer, Eastern Shoshone
and Northern Arapaho Tribes, Wind River Reservation............ 24
Prepared statement........................................... 25
Fennell, Anne-Marie, Director, Natural Resources And Environment,
U.S. Government Accountability Office.......................... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Headdress, Sr., Hon. Charles, Councilman, Assiniboine and Sioux
Tribes, Fort Peck Reservation.................................. 18
Prepared statement........................................... 19
LaBonde Jr., Harry C., Director, Wyoming Water Development
Commission..................................................... 39
Prepared statement........................................... 40
Washburn, Hon. Kevin, Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs,
Department of the Interior..................................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Appendix
Allen, Hon. Jim, Representative, House District 33, Fremont
County and the Wind River Indian Reservation, letter for the
record......................................................... 75
Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, prepared
statement...................................................... 66
Colorado River Indian Tribes (CRIT), prepared statement.......... 55
Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, prepared
statement...................................................... 63
Crowheart Bench Water User's Association (CBWUA) and the ``A''
Canal Water User's Association (ACWUA), letter for the record.. 76
Finley Hon. Vernon S., Tibal Council Chairman, Confederated
Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Nation, prepared
statement...................................................... 60
Frost, Hon. Clement J., Chairman, Southern Ute Indian Tribe,
prepared statement............................................. 67
Lewis, Tsosie, CEO, Navajo Agricultural Products Industry,
prepared statement............................................. 64
Navajo Housing Authority (NHA), prepared statement............... 68
Tammany, Fred, Chairman, Ray Canal Water Users Association,
letter for the record.......................................... 75
Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation, prepared
statement...................................................... 71
S. 438, the IRRIGATE Act
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 4, 2015
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Indian Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in room
628, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Barrasso,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING
The Chairman. Good afternoon. I call this hearing to order.
Today, the Committee will examine S. 438, the Irrigation
Rehabilitation and Renovation for Indian Tribal Governments and
Their Economies Act or the IRRIGATE Act.
Senator Tester and I introduced the IRRIGATE Act with
bipartisan support, earlier this month. I want to thank him,
along with Senator Daines, Senator Mike Enzi, Senator Orrin
Hatch, and Senator Michael Bennet, for co-sponsoring this
important piece of legislation.
I also want to welcome my friends, Harry LaBonde, Director,
Wyoming Water Development Commission. Thank you very much for
being here. I welcome Mitch Cottenoir, the Tribal Water
Engineer of the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes in
Wyoming. Mr. Cottenoir has testified before this Committee on
irrigation issues in the past. Both witnesses are very familiar
with the challenges facing irrigation projects.
In the late 1880s and early 1890s, the Department of
Interior initiated irrigation projects across Indian
reservations in the west. These irrigation projects were
intended to be a central component for tribal economies.
Construction of these projects ended sometime in the 1940s and
many irrigation projects were never fully completed. In 2006,
the Government Accountability Office found many of these
projects were plagued by maintenance issues, structural
deficiencies and insufficient funding for project operations.
In recent years, the Committee has held two hearings on
Indian irrigation projects, a field hearing in Wyoming in 2011
and an oversight hearing in September 2014. Those hearings
confirmed a serious backlog in deferred maintenance exists and
continues to grow.
Many ranchers and farmers, both Indian and non-Indian,
still depend on the Bureau of Indian Affairs to deliver water
for their needs. While the Bureau has indicated the current
backlog costs exceed $567 million, some Indian tribes have
estimated it may be even higher than that, much higher.
Today, the Indian Irrigation Program is responsible for the
oversight and administration of these projects that deliver
water to over 25,000 users. One of these projects is on the
Wind River Reservation in my home State of Wyoming.
The photos before the dais are taken from various parts of
the Wind River Irrigation Project. In the photos you see before
you, there is a comparison of structures on the reservation.
The left photo represents the ancient deteriorating
infrastructure still in use on the reservation. The other photo
represents the dramatic improvement that has occurred in the
few areas where these systems are rehabilitated and adequately
maintained.
The next set of photos shows the basics of the irrigation
system. On the left, you see the grating system put in place by
the Bureau of Indian Affairs. You can also see the brush
overgrown around the canal.
On the right, you see that modest rehabilitation efforts
can transform these structures. In this case, the tribes
contributed with the State for that rehabilitation.
This legislation would also facilitate more collaboration
between the tribes and the States. Many other Indian irrigation
projects are in the States of members who sit on this
Committee, including Montana, Washington, Arizona, New Mexico
and Idaho.
Careful management of the water in Indian communities is
essential if we are to ensure a reliable supply for the future.
The IRRIGATE Act would bring the Indian irrigation projects
into the 21st century.
It would authorize $35 million each year beginning in
fiscal year 2016 until fiscal year 2036 to begin addressing the
deferred maintenance needs. The bill would also require a study
on the operation of these projects. These projects continue to
be a very important source of income and economic development
for the surrounding communities.
The Federal Government's promises to Indian country to
build and maintain these projects needs to be fulfilled. This
bill is a start in the right direction.
Finally, I am disappointed that the Department of Interior
did not submit their testimony until 11:15 a.m. this morning. I
understand it was not necessarily the department delaying the
testimony but rather the Office of Management and Budget.
Regardless, I hope we don't see this happen again. These
delays only serve to diminish the productivity of these
important hearings.
Vice Chairman Tester, would you like to make an opening
statement?
STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA
Senator Tester. I would and thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate your holding this legislative hearing on the
IRRIGATE Act.
I also want to thank Councilman Headdress for being here
today and making the trip from Fort Peck. We send our thoughts
and good wishes to Chairman Stefani as he continues to heal and
recover back in Montana.
As Chairman Barrasso mentioned, irrigation systems are
critical components on a number of reservations in Indian
country. Unfortunately, what seems to be par for the course
with a lot of tribal issues is we never have done a good job in
ensuring the tribes have the resources they need to make these
irrigation systems successful.
This bill is a step in the right direction as it provides
the mechanism to fund deferred maintenance on these irrigation
projects that have built up over decades. This bill would fund
maintenance for 17 of the biggest irrigation projects across
Indian country.
That is why I have joined the Chairman in sponsoring this
bill. This bill was first included as a part of the authorized
Rural Water Projects Completion Act in the last Congress. That
bill had three components, all of which benefited Indian
country.
In addition to irrigation provisions, that legislation
would have finally provided funds to complete construction of
six authorized rural water projects. Some of these projects are
located on or near reservations but like irrigation systems,
these projects benefit both Indian and non-Indian stakeholders
throughout their service areas.
The Rural Water Projects bill would have also saved funding
to pay for future tribal water settlements across the country.
In each Congress, we are faced with a number of tribal water
settlements that must be authorized. Instead of scrambling to
find funds for each specific settlement, the Rural Water
Projects bill would have created a dedicated funding stream
similar to what has worked well in the past.
Several of the recently enacted tribal water rights
settlements have actually included rehabilitating irrigation
systems as well. In my mind, it really makes sense to consider
these water issues in a more comprehensive manner.
I've also received letters from a number of tribes that
support a larger package and who are interested in long term
planning and funding for rural water projects and water
settlements. I couldn't agree more.
We cannot continue to authorize water settlements and water
projects without a plan to fund them. Accordingly, I expect to
reintroduce the Rural Water Projects bill in the next few
weeks. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this
Committee and others to address the broader needs of Indian
country.
For today, I am happy to hear from our witnesses about the
importance of Indian irrigation systems in their communities
and how we can work to improve those systems and address tribal
water issues across the board.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your holding the
hearing. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chairman.
Senator Daines?
STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE DAINES,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA
Senator Daines. I want to give a warm welcome to Councilman
Headdress. Welcome to Washington. You brought some of that
Montana snow to the wrong place. We are going to send it back
home, I think.
Thinking about your reservation, it is the size of
Delaware, 2 million acres, 2,000 square miles. With a Vice
President who comes from Delaware, we have a councilman here
who has a reservation that is nearly the size of Delaware. It
kind of helps us understand the scope required in these water
projects and the importance of them.
I offer you a warm welcome from both Senator Tester and
myself to Washington.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Daines.
We would now like to hear the testimony from our witnesses.
Please try to keep your comments within five minutes.
We will start with the Honorable Kevin Washburn, Assistant
Secretary, Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior.
STATEMENT OF HON. KEVIN WASHBURN, ASSISTANT
SECRETARY--INDIAN AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR
Mr. Washburn. Thank you, Chairman, Vice Chairman and
Senator.
We are very happy to be here. I want to personally
apologize about the lateness of our testimony. That is all on
me. It is not OMB's fault. We have had a lot of hearings
lately. In fact, the Secretary was testifying this morning at
the Senator Appropriations Committee. It is hard for us to turn
around testimony on time, we have so many hearings.
I will take ownership of that and again, I apologize
because I know your staff needs time to prepare and you need
time to prepare.
Thank you for your leadership on this issue. You and the
Vice Chairman have had a laser-like focus on the importance of
irrigation projects. I want to commend you for that. This issue
would not be getting the attention it does if you hadn't kept
it as focused.
In the interest of time, I am largely going to stand on my
written testimony but I want to raise two modest pieces of good
news for you before I stop.
First of all, I want to talk a little bit about the Land
Buy Back Program. One piece of good news is the Cobell
settlement which was negotiated by the Secretary of the
Interior and the President and enacted by this Congress, this
Committee had a big role in that, has made some forward
progress.
One of our problems with irrigation systems is we need to
assess the owners of interest in agricultural land, the trust
land. Many of those are in fractionated ownership and we often
don't bill the people that have tiny little interests. We are
now consolidating those interests and that will produce more
accessible land and ultimately produce better recoveries, more
recovery of the cost of irrigation projects. That is one piece
of good news.
The other piece of good news is the President's proposed
budget which has a $1.5 million increase for irrigation O&M
recommended to Congress. That is a roughly 12 or 13 percent
increase over what we have in the current fiscal year.
The President has exercised some leadership. I realize it
is modest leadership in this regard because we have a lot of
priorities, but I do want you to know we are trying to fund
irrigation projects better.
I thank you again for your leadership. I think I will stop
there and take your questions whenever you are ready.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Washburn follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Kevin Washburn, Assistant Secretary--Indian
Affairs, Department of the Interior
Good afternoon Chairman Barrasso, Vice Chairman Tester, and members
of the Committee. My name is Kevin Washburn and I am the Assistant
Secretary for Indian Affairs at the Department of the Interior
(Department). Thank you for inviting the Department to provide
testimony on S. 438, the Irrigation Rehabilitation and Renovation for
Indian Tribal Governments and Their Economies Act, a bill to provide
for the repair, replacement, and maintenance of certain Indian
irrigation projects. We appreciate the Committee's continued leadership
on the daunting challenge the Department faces on addressing the
deferred maintenance at the 17 Bureau of Indian Affairs' (BIA)
Irrigation projects.
Larry Roberts, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Indian
Affairs, for the Department, testified before this Committee last
September and provided an overview of the Irrigation Projects in Indian
Country, along with the BIA's Irrigation Program's accomplishments,
Irrigation project condition assessments, and the deferred maintenance
estimates for our 17 BIA Irrigation Projects. S. 438 seeks to address
the deferred maintenance for the BIA's Irrigation Projects by
identifying the eligible projects, establishing a priority for
allocating $35 million per year to our BIA Irrigation projects for
twenty-two years to carry out the maintenance, repair and replacement
activities at the irrigation projects. S. 438 also provides for
establishing programmatic goals and conducting a study aimed at
improving program and project management, and performance of BIA
irrigation projects with a report to be delivered to Congress within 2
years. The Department supports the goals of working with tribes to
address the maintenance of irrigation projects, and we look forward to
working with you to address the best means of doing so given current
budget constraints and the ability of irrigation projects to
financially sustain themselves in the long run.
Background
The Federal Government has been involved with Indian irrigation
since the Colorado River Indian Irrigation Project was authorized in
1867. In the early 1900s, Congress began authorizing funding for the
construction of numerous Indian irrigation projects in the western
United States. At that time, the Indian Irrigation Service led
construction and early administration of the projects. In the late
1930's and through the 1940s, as construction activities wrapped up on
most projects, the Indian Irrigation Service ceased to exist and
operation and maintenance (O&M) was transferred to the BIA, where it
continues today. Many of these programs began at a time when Federal
policies were far different. These irrigation projects remain very
important today to the communities they serve. The BIA irrigation
program is responsible for oversight and administration of fifteen
revenue-generating Indian irrigation projects that provide service and
water delivery to over 25,000 customers and 750,000 acres of land in
Indian Country. The asset inventory and program responsibilities also
include BIA-owned facilities at non-revenue generating irrigation
projects, including the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project in New Mexico
and Pyramid Lake Irrigation Project in northern Nevada. At these
facilities the BIA does not assess O&M charges to irrigators; those
charges are instead paid through appropriations or other means.
S. 438
S. 438 would create an ``Indian Irrigation Fund'' (IIF) in the
Department of the Treasury from the reclamation fund that was
established in the Act of June 17, 1902 (32 Stat. 388, chapter 1093).
The IIF would be funded at $35 million per year for 22 years for a
total investment of $770 million. The legislation also caps the year to
year spending at $35 million, but includes amounts of interest earned
on investments from the IIF, if applicable, ``to carry out maintenance,
repair and replacement activities'' for one or more of the eligible
Indian irrigations projects identified in Sec. 202 of the S. 438.
Section 104 requires the Secretary of the Interior to invest
portions of the IFF that in the judgment of the Secretary are not
required to meet current withdrawals. We recommend that the U.S.
Treasury be designated as the federal agency responsible for investing
IFF assets. We need to consult with the Department of the Treasury in
more detail about these provisions.
Section 201(b) of S. 438 describes funding ``to carry out
maintenance, repair and replacement activities. . . .''. The term
``maintenance'' is used and further states ``including any structures,
facilities, equipment, or vehicles used in connection with the
operation of those projects.'' We interpret this language as
authorizing funding for the purchase of heavy equipment to address some
deferred maintenance items, conduct routine and preventative
maintenance activities, and also to purchase vehicles to support water
delivery/operation activities. If this is the case we request adding
the term ``personnel'' to the list of items in parenthesis in Section
201(b) in order to clarify that hiring personnel is allowable in
supporting O&M of the eligible projects.
Section 202 of S. 438 defines the eligible projects for the IIF.
The following is a list of the 17 Irrigation Projects that meet the
criteria listed in Section 202.
Blackfeet Indian Irrigation Project (MT)
Colorado River Indian Irrigation Project (AZ/CA)
Crow Indian Irrigation Project (MT)
Duck Valley Indian Irrigation Project (NV)
Flathead Indian Irrigation Project (MT)
Fort Belknap Indian Irrigation Project (MT)
Fort Hall Indian Irrigation Project (ID)
Fort Peck Indian Irrigation Project (MT)
Navajo Indian Irrigation Project (NM)
Pine River Indian Irrigation Project (CO)
Pyramid Lake Indian Irrigation Project (NV)
San Carlos Indian Irrigation Project--Indian Works (AZ)
San Carlos Indian Irrigation Project--Joint Works (AZ)
Uintah Indian Irrigation Project (UT)
Walker River Indian Irrigation Project (NV)
Wapato Indian Irrigation Project (WA)
Wind River Indian Irrigation Project (WY)
We recommend amending Section 202(2), as follows: ``are managed and
operated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (including projects managed,
operated and/or maintained under contracts or compacts pursuant to the
Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450
et seq.) or other agreements with water users, water user groups and/or
water user associations; and. . . .'' This is to ensure that the
irrigation projects with 638 Contracts or Memorandum of Agreements
(MOAs) with water user groups for O&M are not excluded.
Section 203, which refers to ``requirements and condition,''
includes the Commissioner of Reclamation. Section 2 also describes the
Secretary of the Interior as acting through the Commissioner or
Reclamation. We recommend amending these references since the Bureau of
Reclamation (Reclamation) is not involved in the operation and
maintenance of the 17 eligible irrigation projects, nor is Reclamation
involved in the allocation of resources among funds created within the
Treasury. In Section 203(2)(E), regarding the funding prioritization
criteria/methodology, the BIA has been collecting Condition Assessment
data that BIA has used over the past decade. The BIA is initiating
irrigation project Modernization Studies, which will provide additional
and very valuable decisionmaking information on how BIA would best
rehabilitate the existing irrigation project infrastructure. We
recommend adding language to Section 203 that allow the results of the
Modernization Studies to be incorporated into the criteria/methodology
used in the implementation of S. 438.
Section 205 requires Tribal Consultation and Water User Input. As
this Committee is aware, Tribal consultation can be a lengthy process,
and we understand our responsibility to consult with affected tribes
and water users for these 17 irrigation projects and to provide
adequate notice to make such consultation meaningful, usually 30 days.
In order to facilitate the consultation required under this Section, we
recommend the timeframe be changed from ``60 days'' to a ``not later
than 120 days.''
Section 206 of S. 438 provides a foundation for establishing which
projects to prioritize and takes into consideration a reduced priority
for those projects that have received funding by an ``act of Congress''
in the previous 15 year period. According to Section 206(b), the
following projects have received funding under an ``Act of Congress
that expressly identifies the Indian irrigation project or the Indian
reservation of the project to address the deferred maintenance, repair,
or replacement needs of the Indian irrigation project:
Crow Indian Irrigation Project, Crow Tribe Water Rights
Settlement Act of 2010, Public Law 111-291, signed into law on
December 8th, 2010.
Duck Valley Indian Irrigation Project, 2009 Omnibus Public
Land Management Act (H.R. 146, 111th Congress).
San Carlos Indian Irrigation Project--Indian Works, Arizona
Water Settlements Act, 118 STAT. 3478 PUBLIC LAW 108-451-DEC.
10, 2004.
Navajo Indian Irrigation Project, Public Law No. 87-483, 76
Stat. 96 (1962) (NIIP Act)--receives annual appropriations for
construction and maintenance activities.
Section 206(b) provides the ``Priority'' as first based on an
Indian irrigation project(s) serving more than one Indian tribe within
``an Indian reservation.'' Based on this requirement the following
irrigation project would receive funding priority under S. 438 over the
first few years.
Priority List:
The only Irrigation Project that serves more than one Indian tribe
within an Indian reservation is:
Wind River Indian Irrigation Project (Northern Arapahoe
Tribe, Eastern Shoshone Tribe, Wind River Reservation).
The priorities identified next according to Sec. 203 ``programmatic
goals'' to fulfill S. 438, and ``critical maintenance needs'' include
the following Projects not listed in order of priorities:
Blackfeet Indian Irrigation Project
Colorado River Indian Irrigation Project
Flathead Indian Irrigation Project
Fort Belknap Indian Irrigation Project
Fort Hall Indian Irrigation Project
Fort Peck Indian Irrigation Project
Pine River Indian Irrigation Project
Pyramid Lake Indian Irrigation Project
San Carlos Indian Irrigation Project--Joint Works
Uintah Indian Irrigation Project
Walker River Indian Irrigation Project
Wapato Indian Irrigation Project
Irrigation Projects that serve only 1 Indian tribe within an Indian
reservation but have received funds in last 15 years (if S. 438 enacted
this year):
Crow Indian Irrigation Project (received Settlement funds)
Duck Valley Indian Irrigation Project (received Settlement
funds)
San Carlos Indian Irrigation Project--Indian Works (received
Settlement funds)
Navajo Indian Irrigation Project (receives annual
appropriations)
Last September, we testified before this Committee that the BIA
operates its irrigation projects consistent with numerous laws,
regulations and policy guidance and many projects have extensive and
specific legislative histories. For example, specific statutory
authorities require that BIA charge an assessment to both Indian and
non-Indian customers for O&M costs. Most of the 15 revenue-generating
projects receive little or no appropriated funds. Whenever possible and
practical, BIA works to leverage cost-share opportunities with any
other funding that is made available to tribes and water user
organizations. Funding to maintain these systems must also compete for
other pressing priorities in Indian Country.
Historically, BIA has not charged sufficient Operation, Maintenance
& Rehabilitation (OM&R) rates to allow for adequate project maintenance
and replacement. Over time, this has resulted in less maintenance
accomplished and a steady increase in deferred maintenance. This
contributed to critical reviews by the Office of Inspector General in
the 1990's and the Government Accountability Office in 2006. The 2013
deferred maintenance estimate for BIA-owned irrigation facilities is
approximately $600 million. Less clear is what should be the
appropriate allocation of responsibility between the users and
beneficiaries of these systems, particularly by non-tribal members, and
the general taxpayer.
Over the past 9 years we have increased our O&M rates an average of
26 percent across all projects. We believe that rates are approaching
levels to stem the growth of deferred maintenance, but the existing
level of deferred maintenance is such that it may be difficult to
address through increased O&M rates alone. To ensure the protection of
the investments that would be provided by this Act, BIA will continue
to evaluate the O&M rates assessed to irrigators while considering the
local agricultural economies. The BIA irrigation projects are vital
economic contributors to the local communities and regions where they
are located. The BIA estimates that irrigated lands served by the 15
BIA revenue generating irrigation projects add $490M in revenue and
supports almost 10,000 jobs. This Administration supports investments
in vital economic contributors and supports the goals of the bill, and
we look forward to working with you to address the best means of doing
so given current budget constraints and the ability of irrigation
projects to financially sustain themselves in the long run.
This concludes my prepared statement. I will be happy to answer any
questions you may have.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Secretary Washburn.
Next, we have Ms. Anne-Marie Fennell, Director, Natural
Resources and Environment, U.S. Government Accountability
Office, Washington, D.C.
STATEMENT OF ANNE-MARIE FENNELL, DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCES
AND ENVIRONMENT, U.S. GOVERNMENT
ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Ms. Fennell. Chairman Barrasso, Vice Chairman Tester and
members of the Committee, I am pleased to be here today to
participate in your hearing on S. 438, a bill to provide for
the repair, replacement and maintenance of certain Indian
irrigation Projects.
In February 2006, we reported on 16 irrigation projects
where water users were charged for project operations and
maintenance by BIA. These projects, some of which date back to
the late 1880s, include water storage facilities and delivery
structures for agricultural purposes, particularly critical in
light of water scarcity out west, my testimony today will
summarize the findings of our February 2006 report, along with
updates and the status of the three recommendations we made in
the report. Specifically, I will discuss BIA's estimated
deferred maintenance costs for the irrigation projects,
shortcomings we identified in BIA's management of its projects
and issues we identified that needed to be addressed to
determine the long term direction of BIA's program.
In our 2006 report, we found that BIA had estimated the
cost for deferred maintenance at the 16 irrigation projects at
about $850 million for fiscal year 2005. To further refine its
cost estimate, BIA planned to hire engineering and irrigation
experts to periodically conduct thorough condition assessments
to identify deferred maintenance needs and costs. The
irrigation projects included in the agency's estimate have
changed somewhat since our report. The most recent estimate for
fiscal year 2014 was reported just under $570 million.
In our report, we found BIA's management of some of its
irrigation projects had serious shortcomings that undermined
effective decision-making about project operations and
maintenance. Specifically, under BIA's organizational
structure, in many cases, officials with authority to oversee
project manager decision-making lacked the expertise needed to
do so effectively. While the staff who had the expertise,
lacked the necessary authority to oversee project manager
decisions.
We also found BIA did not consistently provide information
and opportunities for stakeholders to participate in setting
project priorities. We made two recommendations to address
these management shortcomings, which BIA subsequently
implemented.
In our report, we found the long term direction of BIA's
irrigation program depended on the resolution of several larger
issues. Of most importance, BIA did not know to what extent its
irrigation projects were capable of financially sustaining
themselves which hindered the agency's ability to address
longstanding concerns regarding inadequate funding.
BIA also did not have a plan for how it would obtain
funding to fix the deferred maintenance items, a significant
challenge in times of tight budgets.
Given that BIA must balance irrigation management with many
other missions, we reported that it may be beneficial to
consider whether others such as tribes or water users could
better manage some of these projects.
We recommended in our 2006 report that BIA conduct studies
to determine how much it would cost to financially sustain each
project and the extent to which water users have the ability to
pay these costs. We were later informed that while the
department agreed on the value of these studies, it did not
have sufficient funds to conduct them.
In conclusion, BIA irrigation projects continue to face
hundreds of millions of dollars of deferred maintenance needs.
Senate bill S. 438, if enacted, could help address these needs
and potentially some of the other larger issues that we
reported on by establishing an Indian Irrigation Fund.
Chairman Barrasso, Vice Chairman Tester and members of the
Committee, this completes my prepared statement. I am happy to
respond to questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Fennell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Anne-Marie Fennell, Director, Natural Resources
And Environment, U.S. Government Accountability Office
INDIAN IRRIGATION PROJECTS--Deferred Maintenance and Financial
Sustainability Issues Remain Unresolved
why gao did this study
Over 100 irrigation projects and systems can be found on Indian
reservations primarily across the western United States. The scarcity
of water in much of the western United States makes irrigation critical
to agricultural activities. In February 2006, GAO reported on 16
irrigation projects where BIA charged water users for the projects'
operation and maintenance (GAO-06-314). These projects, which were
generally constructed in the late 1800s and early 1900s, included water
storage facilities and delivery structures for agricultural purposes.
This testimony is based on GAO's February 2006 report and updated
information on BIA's fiscal year 2014 estimate of deferred maintenance
and actions BIA has taken to address GAO's three recommendations. The
testimony focuses on (1) BIA's estimated deferred maintenance cost for
its irrigation projects, (2) shortcomings that GAO identified in BIA's
management of its irrigation projects, and (3) issues GAO identified
that needed to be addressed to determine the long-term direction of
BIA's irrigation program.
GAO is not making any new recommendations in this testimony.
what gao found
The Department of the Interior's Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
estimated the cost for deferred maintenance for the 16 irrigation
projects covered in GAO's February 2006 report at about $850 million
for fiscal year 2005. To further refine the estimate, BIA planned to
hire engineering and irrigation experts to conduct thorough condition
assessments of the irrigation projects to correctly identify deferred
maintenance needs and costs. While the irrigation projects included in
the estimate have changed somewhat in the 9 years since GAO's report,
BIA's fiscal year 2014 cost estimate for deferred maintenance for its
irrigation projects is about $570 million.
In its February 2006 report, GAO found BIA's management of some of
its irrigation projects had serious shortcomings that undermined
effective decisionmaking about project operations and maintenance.
First, under BIA's organizational structure, officials with the
authority to oversee irrigation project managers generally lacked the
technical expertise needed to do so effectively, while the staff that
had the expertise lacked the necessary authority to oversee project
managers' decisionmaking. Second, BIA had not consistently provided
project stakeholders, such as water users, with the necessary
information or opportunities to participate in project decisionmaking,
contrary to federal regulations that required BIA to consult with
project stakeholders in setting project priorities. BIA has implemented
GAO's two recommendations related to these management shortcomings.
In its February 2006 report, GAO found that the long-term direction
of BIA's irrigation program depended on the resolution of several
larger issues.
Financial sustainability. BIA did not know to what extent
its irrigation projects were capable of financially sustaining
themselves, hindering its ability to address long-standing
concerns regarding inadequate funding.
Funding for deferred maintenance. BIA did not have a plan
for how to obtain funding to fix deferred maintenance items--a
significant challenge in times of tight budgets and competing
priorities.
Alternative project managers. Given BIA's many
responsibilities in support of Indian communities, it might be
more appropriate for other entities, such as tribes or water
users, to manage some or all of the irrigation projects.
To obtain information on the long-term financial sustainability of
each of the projects, GAO recommended that BIA conduct studies to
determine how much it would cost to financially sustain each project
and the extent to which water users on each project have the ability to
pay these costs. Subsequently, in June 2008, the Department of the
Interior stated in a memorandum that it did not have sufficient funding
to perform these studies--and did not expect to have such funding in
the foreseeable future. Since GAO's February 2006 report, BIA
irrigation projects continue to face hundreds of millions of dollars of
deferred maintenance needs, and financial sustainability issues also
remain unresolved.
Chairman Barrasso, Vice Chairman Tester, and Members of the
Committee:
I am pleased to be here today to participate in your hearing on S.
438--a bill to provide for the repair, replacement, and maintenance of
certain Indian irrigation projects. There are over 100 irrigation
projects and systems on Indian reservations primarily across the
western United States. As you know, the scarcity of water in much of
the western United States makes irrigation critical to the continued
success of agricultural activities. In February 2006, we reported on 16
Indian irrigation projects where water users were charged for project
operations and maintenance by the Department of the Interior's
(Interior) Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), which is responsible for
providing social and economic services to Indians as well as managing
land and natural resources held in trust by the United States for
Indians. \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ GAO, Indian Irrigation Projects: Numerous Issues Need to Be
Addressed to Improve Project Management and Financial Sustainability,
GAO-06-314 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 24, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Generally initiated in the late 1800s and early 1900s by Interior
as part of the Federal Government's Indian assimilation policy, BIA's
irrigation program was designed to foster agricultural opportunities
and provide economic benefits to Indian communities. The 16 irrigation
projects include water storage facilities and delivery structures for
agricultural purposes. Over time, non-Indians began buying or leasing
the land served by the projects for agricultural purposes, and project
stakeholders evolved from Indian water users and the tribes within the
reservations to include non-Indian water users as well. Many of the
water users today are non-Indian.
Reports by Interior's Inspector General on BIA's irrigation
projects have documented that the annual operations and maintenance
fees BIA has charged water users have historically been set too low to
cover the full cost of running the projects. \2\ In addition, problems
have been reported with collecting the fees that have been assessed.
Because of insufficient funding, project maintenance has been
consistently postponed, resulting in an extensive and costly list of
deferred maintenance items. This deferred maintenance ranges from
repairing or replacing dilapidated irrigation structures to clearing
weeds from irrigation ditches. In addition to the deferred maintenance,
water users had expressed concern that BIA had been unresponsive in
addressing the projects' ongoing operations and maintenance needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Department of the Interior, Office of the Inspector General,
Indian Irrigation Projects, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 96-I-641
(Washington D.C.: March 1996); Department of the Interior, Office of
the Inspector General, Operations and Maintenance Assessments of Indian
Irrigation Projects, Bureau of Indian Affairs, W-IA-BIA-12-86
(Washington D.C.: February 1988).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
My testimony today will summarize the findings of our February 2006
report, along with some recent updates. Specifically, I will discuss
(1) BIA's estimated deferred maintenance costs for its irrigation
projects; (2) shortcomings that we identified in BIA's management of
its irrigation projects; and (3) issues we identified that needed to be
addressed to determine the long-term direction of BIA's irrigation
program. In addition, I will provide information on actions, where
applicable, that BIA has taken to address the three recommendations in
our February 2006 report.
For our February 2006 report, we collected documentation from BIA
headquarters irrigation officials on the 16 irrigation projects, and we
visited and collected information from each of BIA's four regional
offices that oversee the 16 irrigation projects. We also visited 9 of
the 16 projects, where we collected project-specific information from
BIA officials and project stakeholders. \3\ To examine estimated
deferred maintenance costs, we reviewed BIA's lists of deferred
maintenance items and cost estimates, as well as the methodology BIA
used to develop these lists and estimates. To determine whether
management shortcomings existed, we reviewed relevant federal
regulations and agency guidance and we analyzed BIA-wide and project-
specific management protocols and systems for the 9 projects we
visited. Finally, to determine any issues that needed to be addressed
to determine the long-term direction of the projects, we reviewed prior
studies on BIA's irrigation program, and we discussed the long-term
direction of the program with BIA irrigation officials and project
stakeholders. A detailed description of our scope and methodology is
presented in appendix I of the February 2006 report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ We selected these projects based on a combination of factors
aimed at maximizing our total coverage (over 50 percent of the
projects), visiting at least one project in each of the regions where
irrigation projects are located, visiting the project with the highest
deferred maintenance cost estimate in each region using BIA's fiscal
year 2004 data, and visiting what BIA considered to be the three best
projects and the five worst projects. Specifically, we visited: (1) the
Blackfeet Irrigation Project, (2) the Colorado River Irrigation
Project, (3) the Crow Irrigation Project, (4) the Fort Belknap
Irrigation Project, (5) the Pine River Irrigation Project, (6) the San
Carlos Indian Works Irrigation Project, (7) the San Carlos Joint Works
Irrigation Project, (8) the Wapato Irrigation Project, and (9) the Wind
River Irrigation Project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For comparison purposes and to show changes that BIA has made to
its estimate of deferred maintenance costs since our February 2006
report, we collected the most recent estimate of deferred maintenance
costs from BIA--data for fiscal year 2014 as of September 30, 2014. We
did not assess the reliability of the fiscal year 2014 estimate. We
also present information on the status of the three recommendations
from our report. The report upon which this testimony statement is
based was conducted in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform
the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit
objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained for our report
provided a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on
our audit objectives.
Background
BIA's irrigation program was initiated in the late 1800s, as part
of the Federal Government's Indian assimilation policy, and it was
originally designed to provide economic development opportunities for
Indians through agriculture. The Act of July 4, 1884, provided the
Secretary of the Interior $50,000 for the general development of
irrigation on Indian lands. \4\ Over the years, Congress continued to
pass additional legislation authorizing and funding irrigation
facilities on Indian lands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Act of July 4, 1884, 23 Stat. 76, 94 (1884).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BIA's irrigation program includes over 100 ``irrigation systems''
and ``irrigation projects'' that irrigate over 750,000 acres primarily
across the West. BIA's irrigation systems are nonrevenue-generating
facilities that are primarily used for subsistence gardening and are
operated and maintained through a collaborative effort, which generally
involves other BIA programs, tribes, and water users. In contrast,
BIA's 16 irrigation projects that we reported on in our February 2006
report charged their water users an annual operations and maintenance
fee to fund the cost of operating and maintaining the project. Most of
BIA's irrigation projects have been considered self-supporting through
these operations and maintenance fees. The 16 irrigation projects are
located on Indian reservations across the agency's Rocky Mountain,
Northwest, Southwest, and Western regions (see fig. 1).
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
BIA's management of its irrigation projects was decentralized, with
regional and local BIA offices responsible for day-to-day operations
and maintenance. Fourteen projects included in our February 2006 report
were overseen by local BIA agency superintendents, and the 2 largest
projects were overseen directly by regional directors. The local agency
superintendents that oversaw these projects reported to their
respective regional director. BIA's irrigation and engineering experts,
who provide technical assistance to the projects, were located in each
region, as well as in BIA's central office located in Washington, D.C.,
and other BIA locations in the western United States. The regional
irrigation staff and central irrigation office staff did not have line
authority over the projects.
The irrigation facilities constructed by BIA include a range of
structures for storing and delivering water for agricultural purposes.
Figure 2 highlights an example of the key structural features found on
BIA's irrigation projects.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
In our February 2006 report,\5\ we found that BIA had estimated the
cost for deferred maintenance at the 16 irrigation projects at about
$850 million for fiscal year 2005. See figure 3 for a breakdown of the
cost estimate by project at that time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ GAO-06-314.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BIA Estimated the Cost of Deferred Maintenance at about $850
Million in 2005, but the Estimate Has Since Been Refined to about $570
Million
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
In 2006, we acknowledged that the $850 million estimate was a work
in progress, but we also found that it was inaccurate for the following
reasons:
Some projects incorrectly counted certain items as deferred
maintenance. Some projects incorrectly counted certain items,
such as new construction items and vehicles, as deferred
maintenance. For example, the Wapato Irrigation Project
included constructing reservoirs and the San Carlos Indian
Works Irrigation Project included building a new office. In
addition, some projects included the cost of repairing vehicles
or buying new ones in their deferred maintenance estimates,
despite BIA guidance at the time of our report that such items
were not deferred maintenance. For example, the Wind River
Irrigation Project included an excavator vehicle, and the Crow
Irrigation Project included dump trucks.
Some projects provided BIA with incomplete information.
According to BIA officials, some projects did not do thorough
assessments of their deferred maintenance needs, and some may
not have included legitimate deferred maintenance items, such
as resloping canal banks that have eroded by crossing cattle or
overgrown vegetation. Moreover, neither the Walker River
Irrigation Project nor the Uintah Irrigation Project provided
information detailing their deferred maintenance costs at the
time of our report.
BIA made errors when compiling the total deferred
maintenance cost estimates. For example, BIA inadvertently
double-counted the estimate provided by the Colorado River
Irrigation Project when compiling the overall cost estimate,
according to BIA officials. Additionally, BIA officials
erroneously estimated costs for all structures, such as flumes
and check gates, based on the full replacement values even when
items were in good or fair condition and needed only repairs.
In 2006, we concluded that while the inclusion of incorrect items
and calculation errors likely contributed to the overestimation of
BIA's total deferred maintenance costs, the incomplete information
provided to BIA by some projects may have contributed to the
underestimation of the total costs.
As we reported in 2006, to further refine its cost estimate and to
develop more comprehensive deferred maintenance lists, BIA planned to
hire experts in engineering and irrigation to periodically conduct
thorough condition assessments of all 16 irrigation projects to
identify deferred maintenance needs and costs. According to BIA
officials, these thorough condition assessments were expected to more
accurately reflect each project's actual deferred maintenance, in part
because experts in engineering and irrigation who can differentiate
between structural and cosmetic problems were to conduct them. These
assessments were also to help BIA prioritize the allocation of
potential funds to complete deferred maintenance items because they
would assign a prioritization rating to each deferred maintenance item
based on the estimated repair or replacement cost, as well as the
overall importance to the project. The first such assessment was
completed in July 2005, and BIA planned to reassess the condition of
each project at least once every 5 years, with the first round of such
condition assessments to be completed by the end of 2010.
While the irrigation projects included in BIA's estimate of
deferred maintenance costs have changed somewhat since our report, the
most recent deferred maintenance cost estimate for fiscal year 2014 was
just under $570 million (see table 1). \6\ Several reasons may have
contributed to the lower estimate including more thorough condition
assessments and maintenance work performed since our report. However,
we did not assess the reliability of the fiscal year 2014 estimate. \7\
The new estimate is presented for comparison purposes to demonstrate
changes that BIA made to the earlier fiscal year 2005 estimate that we
raised concerns about in our February 2006 report. Table 1 also shows
that most of the condition assessments are now more than 5 years old,
and they were not all completed by 2010. Condition assessments for a
few projects are still ongoing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The fiscal year 2014 and fiscal year 2005 estimates, either by
project or in total, cannot be directly compared without adjusting for
inflation. In addition, since the number of projects included in each
year's total estimate varies, any comparison of the total estimates
would not be meaningful.
\7\ Specifically, we did not determine the extent to which BIA
addressed the inaccuracies that we found in its fiscal year 2005
estimate or whether any such inaccuracies still remain.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
BIA Addressed the Management Shortcomings Identified in Our February
2006 Report
In our February 2006 report, we found that BIA's management of some
of its irrigation projects had serious shortcomings that undermined
effective decisionmaking about project operations and maintenance.
First, under BIA's organizational structure, in many cases, officials
with the authority to oversee project managers' decisionmaking lacked
the technical expertise needed to do so effectively, while the staff
who had the expertise lacked the necessary authority to oversee project
managers' decisionmaking. The BIA regional directors and local agency
superintendents and deputy superintendents that provided oversight on
projects did not generally have engineering or irrigation expertise and
relied heavily on the project managers to run the projects. Of the nine
projects that we visited for our February 2006 report, only two had
managers at the regional or agency levels who were experts in
irrigation or engineering. We found that such an organizational
structure and reliance on the project managers breaks down when the
person managing the project lacks the expertise required for the
position--that is, in cases in which BIA has had difficulty filling
project manager vacancies and has, as a result, hired less qualified
people. For example, at the Crow project in 2002, a project manager
with insufficient expertise decided to repair a minor leak in a key
water delivery structure by dismantling it and replacing it with a
different type of structure. The new structure was subsequently deemed
inadequate by BIA's irrigation experts, and the required reconstruction
delayed water delivery by about a month. Furthermore, we found that the
BIA staff with the necessary expertise--regional irrigation engineers
and central irrigation office staff--had no authority over the 16
projects. Consequently, key technical decisions about project
operations and maintenance, such as when or how to repair critical
water delivery infrastructure, did not necessarily get the technical
oversight or scrutiny needed.
To address this shortcoming, in our February 2006 report, we
recommended that BIA provide the necessary level of technical support
for project managers who have less than the desired level of
engineering qualifications by putting these projects under the direct
supervision of regional or central irrigation office staff or by
implementing more stringent protocols for engineer review and approval
of actions taken at the projects. In response to our recommendation, in
February 2007, the Director of BIA issued a technical review and
assistance policy directive to the relevant BIA regional directors to
ensure that adequate review and assistance is given to BIA irrigation
project managers. The policy provided for strict protocols for engineer
review and approval of actions taken at the projects by those with the
necessary engineering expertise. It also outlined specific
responsibilities for irrigation project managers, as well as other key
irrigation staff. In addition, BIA has made other organizational line
authority changes to address this recommendation. \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ For example, according to BIA, the Rocky Mountain Region
realigned the organizational structure for its five irrigation
projects. The five Irrigation Project Managers now report directly to
the Regional Water Resources Branch Chief, an engineering position.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, in our February 2006 report, we found that BIA did not
consistently provide information and opportunities for stakeholders to
participate in setting project priorities. Federal regulations required
BIA to consult with project stakeholders--such as, tribal council
representatives, as well as Indian and non-Indian water users--in
setting project priorities but BIA did not consistently do so.9 For
example, we reported that the Wapato Irrigation Project had shared
little information on its spending with stakeholders, and the Pine
River Irrigation Project did not meet with its nontribal stakeholders,
limiting stakeholders' ability to have an impact on project decisions
and BIA's ability to benefit from their input.
925 C.F.R. 171.1(c) (2005). This regulation was amended in 2008
to require BIA to cooperate and consult with all interested parties,
especially persons or entities to which it provides irrigation service
and receives uses of BIA irrigation facilities, such as irrigators and
landowners. 25 C.F.R. 171.110(b) (2015).
To address the second shortcoming, in our February 2006 report, we
recommended that BIA require, at a minimum, that irrigation project
management meet twice annually with all project stakeholders--once at
the end of a season and once before the next season--to provide
information on project operations, including budget plans and actual
annual expenditures, and to obtain feedback and input. In response to
our recommendation, in July 2006, the Acting Director of BIA directed
each of the four BIA regional directors responsible for the 16
irrigation projects to personally ensure that irrigation staff meet
twice annually, at a minimum, with water users and other stakeholders--
once at the end of the season and once before the next season. For
projects that operate year-round, the project managers in consultation
with project water users were to determine mutually acceptable times
for holding these two annual meetings. At these meetings, BIA's
irrigation project managers and irrigation staff were directed to
provide information on project operations, including budget plans and
actual annual expenditures, and obtain feedback and input. This policy
change was published in the Federal Register in April 2007. \10\ In
addition, BIA irrigation project managers were directed to submit
documentation of the meetings to BIA headquarters irrigation staff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ 72 Fed. Reg. 19950 (Apr. 20, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Long-Term Direction of BIA's Irrigation Program Depends on Resolution
of a Number of Larger Issues
In our February 2006 report, we found that the long-term direction
of BIA's irrigation program depended on the resolution of the following
larger issues:
Financial sustainability. Of the most importance, BIA did
not know to what extent its irrigation projects were capable of
financially sustaining themselves, which hindered the agency's
ability to address long-standing concerns regarding inadequate
funding. Despite this lack of information on the overall
financial situation for each of the projects, in the early
1960s, BIA classified more than half of the 16 projects that we
reported on as fully self-supporting on the basis of annual
operations and maintenance fees they collected from water
users. These self-supporting projects did not receive any
ongoing appropriated funds. These projects were subject to full
cost recovery despite the absence of financial information to
demonstrate that the water users could sustain this financial
burden. The heavy reliance on water users to sustain these
projects had created ongoing tension between the water users
and BIA. Some water users had complained to BIA that they could
not afford the operations and maintenance fees, and they had
pressured BIA to keep the fees as low as possible. Without
definitive information on the financial situation of each
project, we concluded that BIA could not determine what portion
of project operations and maintenance costs can be reasonably
borne by the water users and to what extent alternative sources
of financing, such as congressional appropriations, should be
pursued.
Funding for deferred maintenance. The future of BIA's
irrigation program also depended on the resolution of how the
deferred maintenance will be funded. BIA did not have a plan
for how it would obtain funding to fix the deferred maintenance
items. Regardless of the precise cost estimate for total
deferred maintenance, we concluded that funding deferred
maintenance costs in the hundreds of millions of dollars will
be a significant challenge in times of tight budgets and
competing priorities.
Alternative project managers. Given that BIA must balance
irrigation management with its many other missions in support
of Indian communities, such as providing education and law
enforcement, we reported that there were inherent limits on the
resources and knowledge that BIA was able to devote to any one
program. As a result of these limitations and competing
demands, officials told us at the time of our report that
irrigation management is not a priority for BIA. In our
February 2006 report, we found that it may be beneficial to
consider whether others for whom irrigation is more of a
priority or an area of expertise, including other federal
agencies, Indian tribes, and water users, could better manage
some of the projects. We concluded that successful management
of the projects by others, however, would depend on the
characteristics of each project and its stakeholders. For
example, turning over projects to tribes may be an option for
projects where most of the water users are Indian, whereas
turning over projects to water users may be an option for
projects where water users share similar interests and have a
desire to organize into an irrigation district or association.
To obtain information on the long-term financial sustainability of
each of the projects, we recommended in our February 2006 report that
BIA conduct studies to determine both how much it would cost to
financially sustain each project, and the extent to which water users
on each project have the ability to pay these costs. \11\ We stated
that this information would be useful to congressional decision makers
and other interested parties in debating the long-term direction of
BIA's irrigation program. However, to date, BIA has not implemented
this recommendation. In June 2008, the Department of the Interior
provided us with a memorandum that stated, while the department agreed
that studies to assess the financial sustainability of the irrigation
projects would be valuable, it did not have sufficient funding to
perform these studies--and does not expect to have such funding in the
foreseeable future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ GAO-06-314.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In conclusion, BIA irrigation projects continue to face hundreds of
millions of dollars of deferred maintenance needs. The Senate bill, S.
438, if enacted, could help address these needs and potentially some of
the other larger issues that we reported on in our February 2006
report. By establishing an Indian Irrigation Fund for fiscal years 2015
through 2036, this bill, if enacted, would help provide needed
resources to carry out maintenance, repair, and replacement activities
for certain Indian irrigation projects and funds to conduct a study of
BIA's Indian irrigation program and project management.
Chairman Barrasso, Vice Chairman Tester, and Members of the
Committee, this completes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to
answer any questions that you may have at this time.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Ms. Fennell.
Next, we will hear from the Honorable Charles Headdress of
Montana.
STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES HEADDRESS, SR.,
COUNCILMAN, ASSINIBOINE AND SIOUX TRIBES, FORT PECK RESERVATION
Mr. Headdress. Thank you.
Good afternoon, Chairman Barrasso and Vice Chairman Tester.
My name is Charles Headdress. I am a member of the Fort
Peck Tribal Executive Board. I want to thank you both for
introducing and holding this hearing on S. 438, the IRRIGATE
Act.
Fort Peck Reservation encompasses 2.1 million acres, over
2,000 square miles in northeastern Montana. The tribes and
individual Indian allottees own about 1 million acres of land
on the reservation. The development of the irrigation project
for the Fort Peck Reservation was a key part of the plan and
obligation that the Federal Government assumed when it
established our reservation.
After our reservation was created, the Federal Government,
using military force, prohibited our people from leaving the
reservation to hunt. Without the ability to hunt, we could not
meet our basic needs. The government wanted us to be farmers,
but reservation resources were not sufficient to do this.
After several years of drought and starvation among our
people, the government recognized the need to develop
irrigation so that we might survive by agriculture. The Fort
Peck Irrigation Project was authorized by a 1908 Act that
required the Bureau of Reclamation to construct the Fort Peck
irrigation system.
The project was planned with the intent of irrigating up to
152,000 acres of land. Unfortunately, this never came to be.
Instead, the Fort Peck Reservation Irrigation Project consists
of two irrigation units, the Wyoming unit and the Frazer-Wolf
Point Unit.
Together, these units can only irrigate 18,953 acres,
approximately 12 percent of what was initially planned to serve
my reservation. The critics stated the Fort Peck system was a
waste and poor.
The national backlog of deferred maintenance on the
irrigation projects is in excess of $600 million. According to
the BIA's 2014 Deferred Maintenance Report, the backlog of
deferred maintenance for the Fort Peck Project is $12.7
million.
The impact of this deferred maintenance on the economy of
the Fort Peck tribes cannot be understated. The income
generated by the farming and grazing has been a mainstay for
the tribes and tribal members. The revenue generated from
grazing and agricultural leasing of trust land is on average
30-50 percent of the tribe's total trust income.
The repair and restoration of the irrigation project is
also key to creating jobs. The Fort Peck Reservation's
unemployment rate has hovered above 50 percent for most of the
last two decades. Poverty among our members remains at epidemic
levels as illustrated by the fact that more than 80 percent of
our children are eligible for free or reduced price school
lunches.
We have to do more to put our people to work and lift our
children out of poverty. It is time for Congress to fulfill the
original promise of the 1908 Act to make our reservation self-
supporting.
As the Committee moves forward with this legislation, the
tribes ask that the legislation be amended in three ways.
First, Congress must clarify the use of these funds to repair
these tribal irrigation projects is not a reimbursable expense
to be levied against the project users.
In the past, when money was appropriated to repair tribal
irrigation projects, the department deemed it to be
reimbursable and levied additional assessments against the
users.
Second, the unpaid construction debt on the Fort Peck
Reservation system is $7 million. Demanding repayment of this
debt is not realistic. While the Secretary has the authority to
forgive this debt, our pleas have fallen on deaf ears. We urge
Congress to act now to forgive this debt.
Finally, we ask that this bill be amended to include the
Rural Water Projects Completion Act to complete the drinking
water systems authorized by Congress. These projects include
the Fort Peck Reservation rural water system and the Rocky Boys
North Central Project.
The fate of our reservations rests on the health of our
people and the health of our people depends on the water we
drink. Thus, I would urge the Committee, as you take up this
bill, to amend it to include provisions that would also ensure
these rural water projects can be completed on time.
I would like to thank you for your time and your interest
in this vitally important matter. I would be happy to answer
any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Headdress follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Charles Headdress, Sr., Councilman,
Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes, Fort Peck Reservation
Good afternoon Chairman Barrasso and Vice-Chairman Tester. My name
is Charles Headdress, Sr., and I am member of the Fort Peck Tribal
Executive Board, the governing body of the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes
of the Fort Peck Reservation. I want to thank you for holding this
hearing on S. 438, the Irrigation Rehabilitation and Renovation for
Indian Tribal Governments and their Economies (IRRIGATE) Act. I also
want to express my appreciation for two of the bill's co-sponsors:
Senator Tester for the invitation to testify today; and Montana's
junior Senator Steve Daines for his interest on this important subject
and in serving on this important Committee.
The Fort Peck Reservation encompasses 2.1 million acres--over two
thousand square miles--in remote northeastern Montana. The Assiniboine
and Sioux Tribes and individual Indian allottees own about 1 million
acres of land on the Reservation. Nearly 10,000 people live on the
Reservation, of which roughly two-thirds are Tribal members and non-
member Indians.
The development of an irrigation project for the Fort Peck
Reservation was an integral element of the plan and obligation that the
Federal Government assumed when it established our Reservation. After
our Reservation was created, the Federal Government, using military
force, prohibited our people from leaving the Reservation to hunt the
game on which we historically depended to meet all of our most basic
needs. The government instead sought to have us engage in farming and
ranching. But the Reservation resources were not sufficient to do this.
After several years of drought and starvation among our people, the
government recognized the need to develop irrigation so that we might,
in fact, survive by agriculture.
The Fort Peck Irrigation Project was formally authorized by the Act
of May 30, 1908. Importantly, pursuant to this 1908 Act, it was the
Bureau of Reclamation that was charged with direct responsibility for
materials, workmanship, and economy of construction of the irrigation
system. Congress recognized that the Bureau of Indian Affairs did not
have the capability of constructing the kind of irrigation project that
was needed at Fort Peck. When Congress enacted this legislation it
intended to provide the Fort Peck Tribes with the means to become
selfsupporting through the development of agricultural and grazing
lands. Accordingly, the project was planned with the intent of
irrigating up to 152,000 acres of land. Unfortunately, for a number of
reasons associated with various failed federal policies--including
allotment, removal of children from homes (which impeded the ability to
run family farms, as there were no families), and the levying of
construction debt against trust property--this never came to be.
Instead today, the Fort Peck Reservation Irrigation Project
consists of two irrigation units: the Wiota Unit and Frazer-Wolf Point
Unit. Together these units irrigate only 18,953 acres, approximately 12
percent of what was initially planned to serve my Reservation to meet
the needs of my people. Out of these 18,953 acres, only 9,758 acres
remain in trust, with the other 9,195 acres held in fee status. Some of
the fee lands are owned by Tribal members.
The current condition of the Fort Peck Reservation Irrigation
System is worse than poor. The national backlog of deferred maintenance
on irrigation projects is in excess of $600 million. According to the
BIA's 2014 Q4 Deferred Maintenance Report, the total backlog deferred
maintenance for the Fort Peck Project is $12.7 million.
The impact of this deferred maintenance on the economy of the Fort
Peck Tribes cannot be understated. Throughout the history of the
Reservation the income generated by the farming and grazing has been a
mainstay for the Tribes and Tribal members. Even in the years when
there was an oil and gas boom for the Reservation, the revenue
generated from grazing and agricultural leasing of the Tribes' trust
lands was still approximately 30-50 percent of the Tribes' total trust
income. In more recent years, where revenues from oil and gas have
declined, the agricultural revenues are at the heart of funding Tribal
government operations, programs, and services that are so critically
needed by our people. The repair and restoration of the irrigation
system is also key to creating jobs. The Fort Peck Reservation's
unemployment rate has hovered above 50 percent for most of the last two
decades. Poverty among our members remains at epidemic levels, as
illustrated by the fact that more than 80 percent of our children are
eligible for free or reduced-price school lunch. We have to do more to
put our people to work and lift our children out of poverty. It is time
for Congress to fulfill the original promise of the 1908 Act to make
our Reservation self-supporting.
Thus, the Fort Peck Tribes stand in support of the IRRIGATE Act.
This Act will address the $600 million tribal irrigation maintenance
and repair backlog by allocating from the Reclamation Fund, $35 million
each year from 2015 through 2036, into a new account in the Treasury
called the Indian Irrigation Fund.
For those who might say this is not an appropriate use of the
Reclamation Fund, we would like to correct them. The use of the
Reclamation Fund to repair the Fort Peck Irrigation Project is entirely
appropriate and is in fact, exactly the purpose for which the
Reclamation Fund was established. The Fort Peck Project was originally
developed as a Reclamation Project. The fact that the project could not
generate revenues necessary to maintain itself is a consequence of
Reclamation's failure to do its job right in the first place.
In this regard, the Tribes ask that the legislation be clarified to
state that use of these funds to repair these Tribal irrigation
projects is not a reimbursable expense. In the past, when money was
appropriated to repair tribal irrigation projects, the Department
deemed it to be reimbursable and levied additional assessments against
the users. Currently, the unpaid construction debt on Fort Peck
Reservation system is $7 million. Almost two decades ago, the Bureau of
Reclamation did an analysis of the users' payment capacity and found it
to be $15.50 per acre ($14.00 in O&M and $1.50 in construction
repayment). Those figures would have meant it would have taken 250
years to satisfy the construction debt. Demanding repayment was not
realistic then and it is not realistic now. We do not believe you
intend the funds to be provided by the IRRIGATE Act to be added to the
Project's construction debt, but given the Department's past positions,
we urge that the legislation make clear that the funds provided are not
to be subject to repayment by the users.
Moreover, to ensure the viability of the Fort Peck Project, we urge
Congress to forgive the existing project debt. The amount of idle
acreage continues to increase because landowners and potential lessees
cannot afford to bring the debt current to get water delivered to the
property. This both leaves the land idle, and decreases its value. As a
consequence the Fort Peck Project is under-serving the intended project
area. Even more troubling, we have heard from fractionated landowners
within the Project that the government has become increasingly
aggressive in seeking to recover Project debt. The Tribes at Fort Peck
have been urging Congress to address this unfairness since 1993. While
the Secretary has the authority to forgive this debt, our pleas have
fallen on deaf ears. Congress has forgiven irrigation project debt in
the past, including past debt for the Fort Peck Project, and we urge
Congress to act now to forgive the current debt.
Beyond strengthening our tribal economy, repairing this project and
addressing its debt would help preserve our resources. We are all aware
of the need to use our resources efficiently, and there is no natural
resource more precious to our people than water. This is especially
true when the West is facing some of the worst droughts this Nation has
ever experienced. By repairing and maintaining this Project, we will be
ensuring that the water resources that the Fort Peck Tribes have fought
so hard to protect are used wisely and efficiently.
In this regard, last Congress both the Chairman and the Vice-
Chairman supported a similar bill in the Senate, the Rural Water
Projects Completion Act, which was approved by the Senate Energy and
Natural Resources Committee. Senator Daines introduced a companion bill
during his tenure in the House. In addition to addressing the
irrigation project maintenance and repair backlog, these bills would
have created a mechanism to complete the several Rural Water Projects
that have been authorized by Congress. These Projects include the Fort
Peck Reservation Rural Water System and the Rocky Boy's North Central
Project. The fate of our Reservations rests on the health of our
people, and the health of our people depends on the water we drink. I
know that Senator Tester knows this. There is probably no other United
States Senator who cannot drink the water that comes from his kitchen
sink, but I know that is the case for Senator Tester. Thus, I would
urge the Committee as you take up this bill to follow the leadership of
Senators Tester and Daines to amend it to include provisions that would
also ensure that these rural water projects can be completed on time.
I would like to thank you for your time and interest in this
vitally important matter, and I would be happy to answer any questions.
Supplemental Testimony
On behalf of the Fort Peck Tribes, we again want to thank you for
introducing S. 438, the IRRIGATE Act, and holding a hearing on this
important measure. We also very much appreciate having the opportunity
to testify at the hearing. We write to supplement the testimony that we
submitted and to provide additional information in response to the
questions raised during the hearing.
What the irrigation project means for Fort Peck today and how
important it and agriculture are for economic development at Fort Peck.
The Irrigation Project and agriculture generally are a central part of
our economy. This is so for several reasons:
First, a working irrigation project provides direct employment to
the families who own the land within the irrigation project and who are
running farms on that land.
Second, a working irrigation project not only benefits the families
that are actually irrigating the land, but also many tribal members who
own interests in trust land within the project and who lease those
lands to farmers. Even where trust lands are fractionated, the rent
paid on the leases of those lands is an important source of income to
tribal members.
Third, the lands that are irrigated are used to grow alfalfa and
hay, which--in turn--helps support the livestock industry on other
parts of the Reservation. Many tribal members are ranchers who buy hay
from the irrigators and others. In some years, if there is drought in
other parts of the country, the market for hay is very good and hay
grown at Fort Peck has been sold to ranchers outside the Reservation.
We estimate that about 30 percent of Tribal members make their living
from farming and ranching.
Fourth, income from farming and grazing is a very large portion of
the Tribes' budget. Even in the years when we had an oil and gas boom
on the Reservation, income from farming and grazing leases was between
30 percent and 50 percent of Tribal revenues. Today, income from these
leases is even a bigger portion of our Tribal income. That money is
then used to help pay for our government programs and services and to
employ many tribal members who work for the Tribes.
In short, agriculture has direct and indirect benefits for
essentially all of the 10,000 people who live on our Reservation,
approximately 8,000 of whom are Tribal members and other Indians.
The current condition of the project. There are 18,953 acres of
land within the Fort Peck Irrigation Project. Approximately 10 percent
of the land within the project is not productive and the backlog of
deferred maintenance is a factor which contributes to this.
The limited funding available to repair and maintain Indian
Irrigation Projects means that maintenance is not done until elements
of the project are at risk of complete failure. That is what has
occurred at Fort Peck. We were fortunate that last year a portion of
the BIA's Irrigation Projects-Rehabilitation Program funds were
allocated to repair portions of the Frazer and Wiota Pump Stations. But
this occurred in large part because of the serious deterioration of
those stations. The need for repairs to these pump stations had been a
high priority for close to 10 years before the funds became available.
As set out in the President's Budget for FY 2015 released in January
2014, the Frazer Pump Station is 40 years old and three of the four
pumps have exceeded their expected service life. The outlet pipes are
severely corroded and on the verge of compromising the entire system.
There are also significant safety issues surrounding the entire system,
and 13,000 acres of farmland would not be irrigated at all if this pump
station were inoperable. The funds allocated last year are now being
used to address part of these problems. We were able to install one new
pump in the Frazer Station and one new pump in the Wiota Station, along
with the related electric work for each and some work on the outlet
pipes.
But additional work still remains to be done. The other pumps at
these stations are old, so while they are still working, they are still
past the expected service life. There is constant need to maintain
canals, laterals and ditches. Many of these have considerable
overgrowth of vegetation, and many of the concrete structures are
cracked and deteriorating. We also see significant silt buildup which
has become worse over time. Some years ago there were fingers of
riprap, rock and other material on the other side of the river which
accelerated the river flow and limited the silt deposit. But those
fingers have worn out and we have since seen considerable buildup of
silt which we will need to remove.
In addition, the low levels of water in the river means that we
often have high growth of moss which then gets caught in and threatens
to clog the intakes of the pumping stations. To prevent clogged intakes
(which would jam and burn-out the pumps and threaten stress cracks in
the structure), we have had to have staff, in boats, manually remove
moss from the intakes. This activity is highly dangerous, as river
currents are pushing the boat into the intakes and we had one near
drowning last year. There is equipment that could do this work
automatically--but the cost, based on estimates a few years ago, was
$100,000 per bay, with the Frazer Pumping Station and Wiota Pumping
Station having a combined total of seven bays. There are no funds to
acquire this equipment.
The adverse impact of reimbursable construction costs on the Tribes
and individual landowners. During the hearing, we explained that the
Interior Department's demands that trust landowners repay construction
debt which has been assessed against the trust property has created a
substantial problem for both tribal members and the Tribes. When the
federal government undertook to develop irrigation projects on Indian
reservations in the late 1800s and early 1900s, congressional policy
regarding the costs of such projects varied. On some reservations, the
costs of construction were initially to be paid simply out of
appropriated federal funds. For others, however, the authorizing
statute directed that the costs be reimbursed out of tribal funds.
Beginning in 1914, Congress directed that construction costs for all
such projects be paid by the persons who owned land served by the
irrigation project. However, these acts were not enforced against non-
Indians who had purchased allotments and acquired vested rights in the
land prior to the statutes' effective dates, although construction
costs were still assessed against Indian lands. \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This history is summarized in Felix S. Cohen's Handbook of
Federal Indian Law at 729-730 (1982 ed.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indians could not pay these costs, and many of the irrigation
projects that were built--including several at Fort Peck--proved not to
be viable due to irregular and undependable water supplies and were
later abandoned. Indeed, at Fort Peck it was not until 1940, with the
construction of the Fort Peck Dam on the Missouri River, that there was
a certain enough water supply to allow for effective implementation of
the irrigation units that remain today.
In 1932, Congress recognized the inequities of seeking to recover
construction costs from Indians and enacted the Leavitt Act to relieve
Indians of liability for construction costs and defer assessment of all
future construction costs so long as the lands remained in Indian
ownership. 47 Stat. 564 codified at 25 U.S.C. 386a. In 1936, another
act of Congress authorized the Secretary of the Interior to investigate
whether the owners of non-Indian lands within Indian irrigation
projects are unable to pay irrigation charges, including construction
costs, and to adjust defer or cancel such charges. Act of June 22,
1936, 49 Stat. 1803, codified at 25 U.S.C. 389-389e.
While a portion of the original construction costs assessed against
the Fort Peck Irrigation Project were cancelled under these acts,\2\
part of those charges remain and continue to be liens against trust and
fee lands. In more recent years, the Secretary has relied on the early
statutes to conclude that other federal funds appropriated to repair or
rehabilitate the projects are to be assessed against and reimbursed
from the landowners. For example, in 1990, when Congress appropriated
$995,000 for rehabilitation and betterment of the Indian Irrigation
Projects, including the Fort Peck Irrigation Project, those
construction costs were assessed against the landowners and, although
collection of the charges were deferred as to trust lands, those costs
are, nevertheless liens against the trust property. See Fort Peck
Water-users Association v. Billings Area Director, BIA, 26 IBIA 90
(1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ For example, following enactment of the Leavitt Act, the
Secretary cancelled only $430,278 of construction and O&M costs
assessed against the Fort Peck Project, on the assumption that the
landowners could repay the remaining $581,530 in construction costs
then assessed against the project. H. Doc. No. 72-501 at 16-18, 27-38
(1932). In 1967, Congress approved a Secretarial order cancelling
$206,902 in reimbursable construction costs, as well as $118,266 in
unassessed construction costs allocable against both Indian and non-
Indian owned lands at Fort Peck. P. L. No. 90-143, Nov. 16, 1967, 81
Stat. 465. The cancelled costs were a portion of the outstanding costs
that related to a) irrigation units that no longer functioned, b) costs
incurred but not attributed to any specific lands within the project,
and c) part of the costs assessed against non-Indian landowners to
equalize the charges with those assessed against Indian lands. S. Rept.
No. 90-691 (1967); H.R. Rept. No. 90-748 (1967).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the complications presented by the outstanding liens on the
property is their impact of the Land Buyback Program. The Fort Peck
Tribes are trying to repurchase the fractioned interests through that
program, but for fractioned trust lands that are within the Irrigation
Project, the liens create significant additional issues. These liens
impact the appraisals required under the Buyback Program. Where there
is outstanding debt and the land has been out of production, there are
questions about whether it should be appraised simply as dryland (at a
much lower value) or for its potential as irrigated lands. In addition,
even when outstanding debts are repaid so that the land can be
irrigated, work often needs to be done to put the land back into a
condition where irrigation will be effective.
It has not yet been possible to maintain the Fort Peck Irrigation
Project through the claims for reimbursement of construction costs and
assessment of O&M charges. The failure to determine the feasibility of
such projects at the time of their original construction, to keep
records necessary to properly allocate costs, and to do the work needed
to properly maintain these projects, has prevented irrigation projects
like that at Fort Peck from becoming self-sustaining. The outstanding
debts, in turn, have resulted in a vicious cycle where lack of adequate
funds to maintain and repair the irrigation systems leads to increasing
amounts of deferred maintenance, which over time, means that land
within the irrigation project is not productively used. And as more
land is out of production, less can be paid in O&M charges, thereby
compounding the backlog of deferred maintenance.
Forgiving the existing debt would make a major difference. At a
minimum, however, S. 438 should include express language that the funds
made available under it not be reimbursable. The funding authorized by
S. 438 should be used to address the deferred maintenance on terms that
create a fresh start--so that these projects can be brought back to
working condition and the landowners given the opportunity to move
forward without the burdens of repaying costs of repair and
rehabilitation that have become so large as a result of past failed
policies.
We do not believe that the sponsors of S. 438 intended that the
funds authorized by this bill be reimbursable from the landowners. When
the substantive provisions of this bill were considered last year (in
S. 715), and OMB scored those provisions, OMB treated these funds as
non-reimbursable. See S. Rept. No. 113-167 at 12 (2014). However, given
the Department's policies in implementing the other federal laws that
can bear on these projects, a clear statement in this legislation, that
the costs are not reimbursable, is important.
The possibility of expanding the current irrigation system. The
Fort Peck Tribes welcome all opportunities to improve our community and
develop our economy. Water is an integral part of that. Over the years,
the Tribes have identified additional locations that, based on
feasibility studies, are good candidates for irrigation projects within
the Reservation. One such project is a potential pivot irrigation
system in Fort Kipp that has access to the Missouri River and would
cover 2,300 acres. Another potential pivot irrigation system is in an
area known as North of Sprole, which is just east of Poplar. This
project, if developed, could irrigate approximately 15,000 acres of
land of which 42 percent are tribal, 30 percent are allotted and 28
percent are fee. We think expanding irrigation on the Reservation will
bring positive results and move toward fulfilling promises that have
been long forgotten.
Conclusion. Again, we want to express our sincere appreciation to
this Committee for its commitment and work on this important matter.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Headdress. I
appreciate you being here.
Our next witness is Mitchel T. Cottenoir, Tribal Water
Engineer, Shoshone and Arapaho Tribes of the Wind River
Reservation, Fort Washakie, Wyoming. Thanks so much for joining
us.
STATEMENT OF MITCHEL T. COTTENOIR, TRIBAL WATER
ENGINEER, EASTERN SHOSHONE AND NORTHERN
ARAPAHO TRIBES, WIND RIVER RESERVATION
Mr. Cottenoir. Chairman Barrasso, Vice Chairman Tester and
members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me as a
representative of the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho
Tribes to appear before you today.
The condition of the Wind River Irrigation Project, as well
as numerous other Bureau of Indian Affairs operated irrigation
systems, is well documented. The Wind River Irrigation Project
was authorized for construction in 1905 but was never
completed.
Since that time, the project, under the operation of the
BIA, has been neglected to the extent that the cost to
rehabilitate and complete the system is estimated in the range
of $30-$90 million.
The Wind River Irrigation Project is significantly under
staffed and has operated inefficiently with only minor
necessary maintenance. The BIA continues to not have a long
term plan for rehabilitation of the Wind River Irrigation
Project.
Therefore, the Eastern Shoshone and the Northern Arapaho
Tribes, the Wind River Water Resource Control Board and the
Office of the Tribal Water Engineer have undertaken a major
rehabilitation effort to rehabilitate aging structures crucial
to the operation of the system.
The tribes have utilized Federal appropriations acquired
through the efforts led by Senator Mike Enzi in 2005 and 2006
totaling $3.72 million and leveraged them with State of Wyoming
funding through the Wyoming Water Development Commission to
rehabilitate 15 major structures in the system at a cost of
$7.7 million.
In further effort to provide the required operational and
maintenance needs of the system, the tribes have encouraged
irrigators to form water user associations. These associations
have negotiated cooperative assistance agreements with the
Bureau of Indian Affairs to assume the operation and
maintenance of their designated portion of the system.
A percentage of the irrigation assessment is returned to
the association to provide funding for operations, staff and
needed maintenance. Under the CAAs, each association has seen a
dramatic improvement in the overall operation and maintenance
in their part of the system compared to the past service
provided by the BIA.
In addition, the tribes have initiated an effort to assume
the operation and maintenance responsibilities of the system
under the Indian Self Determination Act, Public Law 93-638.
This action would empower the tribes to operate the system more
efficiently and effectively. Rehabilitation will become a
priority rather than an afterthought.
This effort has also been encouraged by agency and regional
level BIA water source management.
With these two strategies, the Bureau of Indian Affairs
would be eliminated from the equation. This leaves us with the
responsibility to operate, maintain and rehabilitate an aging
and deteriorating system on the Wind River.
The tribes have compiled a proven track record and have
demonstrated the ability to move the rehabilitation effort
forward for the benefit of not only tribal members but our non-
tribal neighbors.
Funds that would become available through S. 438, the
IRRIGATE Act, would enable the tribes to continue this effort.
The IRRIGATE Act could be utilized to leverage funds from the
Wyoming Water Development Commission. In doing so, this could
expedite the much needed rehabilitation and completion of the
Wind River Irrigation Project which has for so long been
neglected by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Senator Barrasso, Vice Chairman Tester and members of the
Committee, the funding from this bill is simply vital to our
efforts. We realize that only through our efforts and yours
will this absolutely essential rehabilitation occur. Not only
can we do this, we must do this.
Senator Barrasso, the Eastern Shoshone and the Northern
Arapaho Tribes, the Wind River Water Resource Control Board and
the Office of the Tribal Water Engineer strongly endorse S.
438, the Irrigation Rehabilitation and Renovation for Indian
Tribal Governments and Their Economies Act or the IRRIGATE Act,
as we did with S. 715 when the Barrasso amendment was added in
the previous Congress.
We also encourage members of the Committee to do all in
their power in moving the IRRIGATE Act forward successfully.
The Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes look forward
to working closely with you now and in the future.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cottenoir follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mitchel T. Cottenoir, Tribal Water Engineer,
Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes, Wind River Reservation
Chairman Barrasso, Vice Chairman Tester and members of the
Committee, thank you for inviting me as a representative of the
Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes to appear before
you today.
The condition of the Wind River Irrigation Project, as well
as numerous other Bureau of Indian Affairs operated irrigation
systems, is well documented. The Wind River Irrigation Project
was authorized for construction in 1905, but was never
completed. Since that time the project, under the operation of
the BIA, has been neglected to the extent that the cost to
rehabilitate and complete the system is estimated in the range
of $30-$90 million.
Bureau of Indian Affairs Irrigation at the Wind River is
significantly understaffed and the system is operated
inefficiently with only minor necessary maintenance.
The BIA continues to not have a long term plan for
rehabilitation of the Wind River Irrigation Project. Therefore,
the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes, the Wind
River Water Resource Control Board and the Office of the Tribal
Water Engineer have undertaken a major rehabilitation effort to
rehabilitate aging structures that are crucial to the operation
of the system.
To further provide the required operational and maintenance
needs of the system the Tribes have encouraged irrigators in
the system to form water users associations. These associations
have negotiated Cooperative Assistance Agreements (CAA) with
the Bureau of Indian Affairs to assume the operation and
maintenance of their designated portion of the system. A
percentage of the irrigation assessment is returned to the
association to provide funding for operating staff and needed
maintenance. Under the CAA each association has seen a dramatic
improvement the overall operation and maintenance of their part
of the system compared to the past services provided by the
Bureau of Indian Affairs.
It is hoped that each association can accumulate a
rehabilitation fund to assist in the rehabilitation effort and
that can be leveraged to acquire additional funding from
sources such as the Wyoming Water Development Commission
(WWDC). We have had some success in such efforts in recent
years.
In addition, the Tribes have initiated an effort to assume
the Operation and Maintenance responsibilities from the BIA
under the Indian Self-determination Act PL 93-638. This action
would empower the Tribes to operate the system more efficiently
and effectively. Rehabilitation would become a priority rather
than an afterthought. This effort has also been encouraged by
Agency and Regional Level Bureau of Indian Affairs Water
Resource management.
With these two strategies, the Bureau of Indian Affairs is
eliminated from the equation. It leaves us with the
responsibility to operate, maintain and rehabilitate the aging
and deteriorating system on the Wind River.
The Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes, the Wind
River Water Resource Control Board and the Office of the Tribal
Water Engineer strongly endorse S. 438, the Irrigation
Rehabilitation and Renovation for Indian Tribal Governments and
Their Economies Act or the ``IRRIGATE Act''. The funds through
this bill would provide for the much needed rehabilitation of
the Wind River Irrigation Project that has for decades been
neglected by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The Eastern Shoshone
and Northern Arapaho Tribes ask for your individual support in
successfully moving the bill forward.
The Tribes have compiled a proven track record and have
demonstrated the ability to move the rehabilitation effort
forward for the benefit of not only Tribal members, but also
our non-tribal neighbors. Funds that would become available to
the Tribes through the IRRIGATE Act would enable the Tribes to
continue this effort. The IRRIGATE Act funding could be
utilized to leverage funding from the State of Wyoming and the
WWDC. Tribal participation in this program was allowed for
under the 2003 Wyoming State Legislature House Bill 144. In
doing so, this could expedite the much needed rehabilitation
and completion of the Wind River Irrigation Project which has
so long been neglected by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
In 2004 in an effort to facilitate the rehabilitation of
the Wind River Irrigation Project, the Eastern Shoshone and
Northern Arapaho Tribes through the efforts of the Wind River
Water Resource Control Board applied to and were granted a
$3.5M grant from the WWDC to aid in the rehabilitation of
irrigation structures that were critical to the operation of
the system. This State Appropriation was a 50 percent grant
that required an additional $3.5M in matching funds before the
State funds could be used. Through the efforts of the Wind
River Water Resource Control Board in conjunction with the
efforts led by Senator Mike Enzi, a Federal appropriation of
$3.72M was secured in 2005 and 2006 as matching funds for the
$3.5M in State funds.
These funding sources were utilized to rehabilitate 15
major structures that were crucial to the operation of the
irrigation system. These structures include: the Johnstown and
Lefthand Ditch diversion and waste-way structures on the Big
Wind River, the Coolidge Canal--Trout Creek diversion
structure, the Mill Creek--Ray Canal Crossing structure, the
Ray Canal--South Fork of the Little Wind diversion structure,
the Coolidge Canal--Little Wind diversion structure, Ray Canal
11C, 39C and 59C diversion structures, Coolidge Canal 14B
diversion structure, the Sub-agency Canal--Little Wind River
diversion structure, the North Fork of the Little Wind River
diversion chute structure, and the Willow Creek and Meadow
Creek diversion structures in the Crowheart area.
Incorporated in the design and construction of the Coolidge
and Sub-agency structures are Fish Ladders. In addition to a
Fish Ladder, a Fish Screen structure was also designed and
constructed on Ray Canal. The fish passage will mitigate the
loss of hundreds of thousands of fish to the irrigation system.
The fish passage project was a combined effort among the
Tribes, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Indian
Affairs, Trout Unlimited and the State of Wyoming.
The total cost of these 15 structures (Phase I of the Wind
River Irrigation Rehabilitation Project) was $7,713,695.
Without the efforts of the Eastern Shoshone and Northern
Arapaho Tribes through the Wind River Water Resource Control
Board, Phase I of the rehabilitation process would not be
occurring.
The Tribes and WRWRCB continue to pursue additional funds
for the rehabilitation effort from the State of Wyoming through
the WWDC. The Tribes have come to the table with $730,000 and
have requested a matching grant in the amount of $1,482,121
from the Wyoming Water Development Commission. These funds will
enable the Tribes to address the rehabilitation of structures
identified on the Phase II priority list in Table 1.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Tribes will continue this phased approach to the
Rehabilitation Process. Additional phases and priority lists
will be developed and added as funding is acquired.
Although the Tribes appreciate the financial support of the
State of Wyoming, the funding only scratches the surface of
what is necessary to bring the Wind River Irrigation Project up
to the standards of non-Indian irrigation projects in close
proximity to the Wind River Indian Reservation. The Tribes
request the aid and assistance of both Senators Barrasso and
Enzi and the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs to help secure
future funding for the ongoing rehabilitation of the Wind River
Irrigation System. For this reason, the Eastern Shoshone and
Northern Arapaho Tribes, the Wind River Water Resource Control
Board and the Office of the Tribal Water Engineer again endorse
S. 438, the ``Irrigation Rehabilitation and Renovation for
Indian Tribal Governments and Their Economies Act'' or the
``IRRIGATE Act''.
According to the GAO Report 06-314 dated February 2006, the
Wind River Irrigation Project was authorized for construction
in 1905 but construction was never completed.
The Wind River Irrigation Project is comprised of 3 storage
facilities, 11 canals and 377 miles of canals and laterals.
These facilities provide water to 38,300 acres of which 67
percent is Indian owned and 33 percent non-Indian owned.
According to the 1994 Natural Resource Consulting Engineers
(NRCE) Project Assessment and Plan, no Project-wide
rehabilitation of the delivery system has occurred since the
1930's. According to that study due to deferred maintenance
over many years, 60 percent or 1200 structures were in need of
repair or replacement and 45 percent or 190 miles of canals and
laterals need repair or reconstruction. According to the study
structure failures were routine resulting in the progressive
loss of control of Project water and that catastrophic failure
of segments of the delivery system was imminent. According to
the 1994 NRCE Project Assessment and Plan due to the Project's
current configuration, it only has 66 acres of irrigated land
per mile of canal. In comparison, Midvale Irrigation District
has over 160 acres per mile of canal. As a general guideline,
the Bureau of Reclamation suggests that irrigation projects, in
the region, need at least 140 acres of irrigated land per mile
of canal to be economically self-sufficient. The study also
stated that the resulting poor delivery performance had
contributed to a progressive deterioration in crop quality and
the water users' ability to pay assessments. It is apparent
that the Wind River Irrigation System cannot be considered
self-sufficient.
The condition of the Wind River Irrigation Project sadly
continues to deteriorate. With the exception of the Tribes'
Phase I Rehabilitation Project, little has changed since the
1994 NRCE Wind River Irrigation Project Assessment, the 2006
GAO-Report numbered 06-314 or the 2008 HKM Wind River
Irrigation Project Engineering Evaluation and Condition
Assessment. The $7,713,695 of Phase I barely scratched the
surface in addressing the needs as outlined in the 2008 HKM
Wind River Irrigation Project Engineering Evaluation and
Condition assessment where the estimated costs for needed
replacement construction to be $69,640,000. According to the
calculator on the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, something
that cost $100 in 2008 cost $110.70 in 2014, which is a 10.7
percent increase; inflation raises those cost to approximately
$77,091,500 in 2014.
Clearly something needs to be done. If funds are not made
available to deal with the rehabilitation needed, the project
will continue to lose water, and both the Indian and non-Indian
people who rely on the project, as well as the fisheries
impacted by the project, will all suffer.
In addition to the rehabilitation effort, in 2014 the
Tribes successfully submitted Level II Phase II Storage Site
Study applications to the WWDC. These studies will identify at
least 2 suitable storage sites on each of the Big and Little
Wind Rivers. The need for additional storage on the Wind River
Reservation has been graphically demonstrated during drought
years when irrigators have been shut off early in the summer
months as early as the first or second week in July. These
storage studies and the successful identification of storage
sites will not only benefit Tribal irrigators but also all
water users on the Wind/Big Horn River system.
What follows is a report on the Wind River Irrigation
Rehabilitation Project. The photos graphically show what
progress looks like, i.e., what we can jointly accomplish when
we have the funding as well as demonstrate what happens when
maintenance is deferred and the project is allowed to
deteriorate.
In order for the rehabilitation effort to move forward, it
will take a united effort from the Eastern Shoshone and
Northern Arapaho Tribes, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the
Wyoming Water Development Commission, and our State and Federal
Legislators.
Chairman Barrasso, Vice-Chairman Tester and members of the
committee, the funding from this bill is simply vital to our
efforts. We realize that only through our efforts, and yours,
will this absolutely essential rehabilitation occur. Not only
can we do this, we must do this.
Chairman Barrasso, the Eastern Shoshone and Northern
Arapaho Tribes, the Wind River Water Resource Control Board and
the Office of the Tribal Water Engineer strongly endorse S.
438, the ``Irrigation Rehabilitation and Renovation for Indian
Tribal Governments and Their Economies Act'' or the ``IRRIGATE
Act'' as we did S. 715 when the Barrasso amendment was added to
it in the previous Congress.
We also encourage members of this committee to do all that
is their power to help in moving the IRRIGATE Act forward
successfully. The Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes
look forward to working closely with you now and in the future.
Your strong support of the Tribes and their efforts is of
the utmost importance. Our efforts will bring much needed
relief to both Tribal and non-Tribal irrigators on the Wind
River Reservation.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Attachment
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you so much for your testimony, Mr.
Cottenoir.
Our next witness is Mr. Harry LaBonde, Director, Wyoming
Water Development Commission, Cheyenne, Wyoming.
STATEMENT OF HARRY C. LABONDE JR., DIRECTOR, WYOMING WATER
DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
Mr. LaBonde. Chairman Barrasso, Vice Chairman Tester and
members of the Committee, thank you for this opportunity to
appear before you.
The Wyoming Water Department Commission is charged with
developing the water resources of Wyoming for the benefit of
its citizens. Those citizens certainly include residents of the
Wind River Indian Reservation.
My agency is basically a funding agency where we fund water
projects across the State. They tend to fall into two basic
categories: potable water systems and irrigation systems.
Eligible entities include cities, towns, water districts,
irrigation districts and the Northern Arapaho Tribe and the
Eastern Shoshone Tribe in Wyoming.
The program is funded with severance tax revenues directed
to my program. We fund our water projects with a grant-loan
package. Typically, we will see on projects that have access to
Federal funding, like projects on the reservation, we will fund
those projects at a 50-50 ratio, 50 percent State funds in the
form of a grant and the local entity is required to come up
with an additional 50 percent of their share.
Occasionally, those projects will have a different Federal
share. It depends on the funding scenario. I have seen projects
where the Federal share has been 65 percent with a 35 percent
State grant. The point is it is a joint program used to develop
projects across the State of Wyoming.
On the Wind River Indian Reservation, we have funded a
number of potable water systems for Arapaho, Ethete and the
Boulder Flats Project developing potable water. We have also
funded, as mentioned by Mitch, an irrigation rehabilitation
system. That was a 50-50 grant funding scenario. In fact, you
see a project for one of the completed diversion structures on
that project.
We also have a project coming forward, the next phase, a
$2.2 million project and we are funding that project at a 67
percent share grant from the State of Wyoming and a 33 percent
share from the local tribes. That was because they did not have
access to Federal funds in developing their local share.
In 2008, the BIA commissioned a study for irrigation system
assessment on the reservation. They looked at seven or eight
irrigation projects, canals that had been developed over the
years and generated a cost estimate to repair, replace and
upgrade those systems that totaled about $104 million, just on
the Wind River Indian Reservation. The $7 million project that
has been mentioned was working against that backlog.
If you take that 2008 cost estimate, I just inflated it at
3 percent a year and subtracted the $7 million project, as well
as our newer $2 million project, I am still coming up with just
short of $120 million of improvements needed on the Wind River
Indian Reservation.
One of the obstacles that the tribes face in Wyoming is
developing this local funding share. The Wyoming legislature
has created a Select Committee on Tribal Relations. I
frequently attend their meetings during the year.
One of the expressed concerns at these meetings from tribal
irrigators is the inability to get water through their systems,
whether it is head gate issues or maintenance issues, they just
can't get the water when they need it during the summer months.
That inability to get water and also I will tell you our
experience in my program with lining open canals is that it
removes seepage or reduces seepage and we see upwards of 30
percent more water being delivered to fields as a result of
that.
In terms of this project and developing the local share of
funding, it is important for Wyoming to be able to match those
funds. We have had to curtail or reduce projects in size
because there is not a local share available to match our State
funds.
We certainly encourage you to support this bill. I can tell
you that when irrigators cannot get their water in the spring
or the summer months, their crops do not flourish and as a
result, there is a significant impact on the reservation.
I would stand for questions, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. LaBonde follows:]
Prepared Statement of Harry C. LaBonde Jr., Director, Wyoming Water
Development Commission
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. LaBonde.
Senator Daines.
Senator Daines. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Before we get started, I want to give a special warm
welcome to a group of students from Hardin, Montana, from the
Crow and Northern Cheyenne Tribes as well. It is good to have
you here watching your government in action. Thanks for being
here.
I have a question for Councilman Headdress. Again, it is
great to have you here and to have Montana represented so
strongly, here on the dais as well as in the crowd. Thanks for
taking the time to come here.
I am proud to be a co-sponsor of the IRRIGATE Act. I want
to express my support additionally for funding rural water
projects at Fort Peck, at Rocky Boy and other BOR projects in
addition to the projects included in this bill.
I look forward to working with my colleagues on this
Committee to move forward on these important projects for
Indian country and for the State of Montana.
Councilman Headdress, I was struck by a comment you made in
your testimony. You mentioned the total backlog of deferred
maintenance on the Fort Peck irrigation system is $12.7
million.
Mr. Headdress. Yes, sir.
Senator Daines. How quickly do you expect that number to
increase if we continue to delay maintaining this project?
Mr. Headdress. Right now, the actual deferred maintenance
cost is closer to $16 million. The best estimate we had was
from the BIA's 2014 assessment. I would say those costs have
increased by at least $4 million.
Senator Daines. Could you elaborate on the importance of
agriculture on the Fort Peck Reservation and where it ranks in
terms of industries for your communities?
Mr. Headdress. At the present time, agriculture is the
primary industry for both the tribes and many of our members.
Even in the years when we have oil and gas, the income from
farming and grazing leases is between 30 and 50 percent. Other
revenue is in the tribal budget. When oil and gas income is
low, agriculture is even more important.
While I cannot say exactly the percentage of families on
the reservation supported by agriculture, I think it is fair to
say that is likely close to 30 percent of the families.
Senator Daines. It is Montana's number one industry, a $5
billion industry across our State.
Mr. Headdress. Yes, sir.
Senator Daines. How would this project benefit the
viability of agriculture for the tribes at Fort Peck?
Mr. Headdress. The project would allow us to put our lands
to better use and make sure we are able to productively use our
farm lands. This will greatly help us to efficiently use our
water resources also.
Senator Daines. Thank you, Councilman Headdress.
Secretary Washburn, as we look to fund these essential
projects, we also must be aware that we cannot keep adding to
the national debt which is $18 trillion. Today, the CBO came
out with their latest projections that we will be at $25-26
trillion over the course of the next ten years, with $5.6
trillion of interest over the next ten years on the debt alone.
Those are probably some pretty conservative interest rates.
In your view, what are some ways we can find savings in the
BIA budget or the Department of Interior, more generally, to
fund these irrigation projects and other high priority items
for Indian country?
Mr. Washburn. Let me not rate my colleagues in other parts
of the Department of Interior. I wouldn't be welcome if I
started offering up other peoples' budget.
Senator Daines. We will welcome you back, that is all
right.
Mr. Washburn. Thank you.
You raise a really hard question. We have a lot of
priorities particularly in Indian affairs, all of which we
cannot possibly meet. This is one of the frustrating things we
face every day. We don't have all the money we would like to
accomplish everything we need to do.
Irrigation projects are not the only place where we have a
backlog in deferred maintenance, schools, detention centers and
other areas. That is why these things are so difficult.
Indeed, many institutions tend to let go of long term
maintenance type stuff to save money so they can do other
things. Whenever budgets get tight, that is one of the first
things people turn to, let us stop taking care of the stuff we
have now and doing routine maintenance.
That is a little bit of how we got here. There are some
other complications to that but it is not easy to find the
funds to pay these sorts of things. If the Administration has
concerns, it is largely around those. How do we pay for this?
Senator Daines. The concern is the continuing delays. The
price for maintenance keeps going up and we are losing economic
growth opportunities which create more taxes and so forth and
for our people in Montana.
Can I get your commitment that we can work together to find
the necessary savings? It is never easy, the budget process. I
understand that but I think we can work to prioritize some of
these essential items like these irrigation projects.
I don't want to keep introducing bills over and over and we
come back and recycle the same testimony. Let us figure out a
way to get it done.
Mr. Washburn. We are happy to work with you, Senator, and
with the leadership of the Committee.
Senator Daines. I appreciate it. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Daines.
Senator Tester?
Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have a few questions for Charles too. It is good to have
you here.
Do you know offhand how many acres are under irrigation at
Fort Peck now?
Mr. Headdress. I am not sure on that. I will have to find
out.
Senator Tester. If we pass this IRRIGATE Act, would you be
able to add additional acres under your irrigation?
Mr. Headdress. Yes, we would, Senator Tester. We have
projects for which we have plans. The bench above Sprole is a
good potential spot to plant crops like potatoes, certain types
of potatoes. If we have an irrigation project in that area or
coming up to it, that would be a great boon to our economy.
Senator Tester. Let me ask you the same question a little
differently. Do you have land right now that was irrigated say
15, 20 or 25 years ago that now the system no longer can
support?
Mr. Headdress. Again, I will have to defer that to our
experts. I am not sure about that but I will find out for you.
Senator Tester. That would be great.
Offhand, do you have any tribal members this would impact
if we were to get this passed?
Mr. Headdress. If were to get this passed? Could you
rephrase that question?
Senator Tester. How many members of your tribe would be
impacted by a good irrigation system that would work well?
Mr. Headdress. At least 8,000, sir.
Senator Tester. You mentioned the department has charged
some of the irrigation system users to repay construction
costs, user fees. What impact has that has on the tribe or
individual landowners and what would forgiving that debt on the
Fort Peck tribes do to help drive this project forward?
Mr. Headdress. The debt is a problem for both our members
and the tribes. I can speak from personal experience. My son
inherited a fractional interest in trust land sold by the
irrigation project.
As soon as he inherited this land, he was hounded by
aggressive and threatening demand letters saying he had to pay
the outstanding debt on the project, not on the whole project,
of course.
My son is trying to make the payments but when he inherited
this land, he had no idea he was inheriting a debt. This land
is lying idle. It is not being irrigated and in production, yet
he has to pay this levy.
The debt is also a problem for the tribes. We are trying to
repurchase a fractionated interest through the Land Buyback
Program. In order to do this, the tribes have been told that we
also have to pay the past debt on these lands.
Forgiving the debt would make a major difference. You might
recall the claims in the Keepseagle case when non-Indians were
getting debt forgiveness but Indians were not. Many of those
neighbors who had debt forgiven got a new chance and are in
successful business today.
Senator Tester. Thank you, Charles. Again, thanks for
making the trek from Montana. We appreciate your testimony.
Mr. Headdress. It is good to see you. Thank you.
Senator Tester. Kevin, the bill we are talking about, S.
438, will benefit Indian irrigation systems by creating a
dedicated stream of funding for these projects from the
Reclamation Fund. As I said in my opening comments, the
IRRIGATE Act originated from a larger bill that used the
Reclamation Fund also to pay for Indian water rights and rural
water projects.
Can you describe the effect of not having a dedicated
stream of funding on delaying implementation of these water
settlements and rural water projects, as well as the impact on
deferred maintenance on these projects?
Mr. Washburn. Yes, Senator Tester, I can. What happens is
we have to ask you for the money every year and hope and pray
that we get it. That is sort of the way it goes. We do these
long term water rights settlements and we commit to long term
amounts of money. If that money doesn't come through, then the
water rights settlements sometimes falls through.
It is important for us to have some certainty. We have a
lot of water rights settlements that we have already committed
to. Frankly, we have a lot of water rights settlements in the
process that we hope to commit to in the future.
I will tell you that the drought is affecting us all over
the west. Drought is serious. I saw an article a couple days
ago saying the war in Syria was partially responsible for
drought. We are glad that we are in a country that doesn't go
to war about these sorts of things but they are very serious
matters and raise the stakes of these kinds of issues.
Senator Tester. There is no doubt about that. If we were
going to finish all the water projects out there right now,
water settlement projects, how many dollars would that be?
Mr. Washburn. I can provide that to you. It is in the
hundreds of millions.
Senator Tester. It is in the hundreds of millions. I
wouldn't expect you to know this but there is $30 million in
the Bureau of Reclamation Fund in this budget to take care of
those water projects.
I am saying if we are going to move forward on this stuff,
it is going to take Congress to act to appropriate some money
to do it, to be quite frank with you, because we are talking
about hundreds of millions of dollars, maybe even $1 billion.
I appreciate the work you have done and the hard decisions
you have had to make already. There is more to do and I have a
few more questions around.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Cantwell?
STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
holding this important hearing.
I too want to ask Assistant Secretary Washburn a question.
Thank you for being here.
I want to ask about the Wapato Project which is on the
Yakama Nation in central Washington. It is one of the more
troubled irrigation systems run by the Bureau of Indian
Affairs.
According to the GAO study, there is more than $130 million
in delayed maintenance for that project. Yet, the Wapato
Project is for area farmers, tribal members. It has been in
operation for more than 100 years providing for 150,000 acres
on the Yakama Reservation.
Some of the water deliveries were halted in the summer
causing acute economic hardship for many farmers.
Last year, we had Ruth Jim, who serves on the Yakama Nation
Tribal Council to testify before the Committee. Councilman Jim
reported that the supplies of water are increasingly
unreliable. Part of the problem is leaky and unlined delivery
canals, less reliability over time, and lack of reliable
irrigated water is harming fish recovery efforts. We are all
focused on the efforts for fish recovery.
I feel the Bureau is being derelict on our trust
responsibilities to the tribes. What do you think we need to do
to get this problem addressed now before it gets worse?
Mr. Washburn. We have a bunch of hardworking folks in our
irrigation offices at the Bureau. We have something like 400
employees who work on this every day and care a lot about it.
I guess I won't own the fact that the BIA alone has been
derelict; we have all contributed to that. Certainly Congress
has too. Chairman Barrasso explained this most clearly in a
previous hearing when he said these projects were supposed to
be self sustaining and they never were, honestly. That started
well over 100 years ago. He called it the gap between the
theory and the reality. It actually is something that has added
up over time.
In 2006, GAO said we weren't assessing enough money for the
users of these systems. We have increased the assessments,
particularly at Wapato, for example. We think we have probably
right-sized the assessments, that if everything was up to
snuff, the assessments would be fine going forward to cover
O&M.
The problem is it doesn't pay for 100 years or at least
many decades of under-funding of those costs. It took us a long
time to get into this mess and it is not something that we will
quickly get out of. We need to work on that.
Senator Cantwell. What are the next steps to address the
problem?
Mr. Washburn. The President has added $1.5 million to this
year's budget request. That raises our budget request from I
think $12.3 million to the $11-$12 million range. It is not a
lot of money but it is a start.
Senator Cantwell. Will some of that money be spent on this
particular irrigation repair?
Mr. Washburn. Some of it is for irrigation O&M generally,
so yes, I would assume a portion of that would go towards
Wapato. We don't have that many irrigation projects. That is
both a blessing and a curse because it means there is not wide
support across Indian country for correcting these problems.
There is only a handful of tribes that really benefit, so that
is a challenge for us.
It is a challenge we definitely need to meet better than we
have been doing.
Senator Cantwell. I am glad to hear that some of the
resources would go to Wapato and certainly want to look at
addressing shortfall in the future.
Mr. Washburn. Thank you.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Senator Daines, any additional questions?
Senator Daines. No.
The Chairman. Secretary Washburn, your written testimony
recommends adding personnel to the list of deferred maintenance
items authorized by this bill. To me, this bill is intended to
cover repairing structures, not actually increasing
administrative expenses.
Some water users have raised concerns with this Committee
that their fees are used more for administrative costs than for
actual maintenance. Can you elaborate a bit on the need for the
additional personnel you are recommending?
Mr. Washburn. When those ditches are clogged with weeds, it
is human beings that go and pull those weeds. You have to have
personnel to do that work. That is basically the bottom line.
There are lots of other examples like that but maintaining
all these structures requires human beings. I guess that is why
I would say personnel are important. Personnel are key. We have
a lot of hardworking people here but obviously we don't have
enough of them to do the job.
The Chairman. Once the bill is enacted, the Bureau is going
to need to be ready to timely undertake construction and
maintenance repairs. There are other Federal agencies that
manage large water infrastructure projects such as the Bureau
of Reclamation.
Has the Bureau examined and adopted best practices used by
other agencies so that it is ready to go for these additional
responsibilities?
Mr. Washburn. The bill was only recently introduced, so I
am not sure we have every plan in place that we need. I will
tell you if you gave me $770 million today, which is what this
bill projects, I would not be able to spend $770 million in a
responsible way.
However, over time we can. If this bill was enacted, we
would definitely endeavor to spend that money in an appropriate
way and put it to good work.
The Chairman. Ms. Fennell, nine years have passed since the
GAO issued its report highlighting the shortcomings of Indian
irrigation systems. The report concluded the Bureau did not
know to what extent its irrigation projects were capable of
financially sustaining themselves.
For example, the Bureau did not know how much it would cost
to financially sustain each specific irrigation project.
How could the study by the BIA required by this bill
address the financial sustainability issues raised by your GAO
report?
Ms. Fennell. The study that is contained in the bill
appears to be looking at the programmatic issues of BIA. We
think that there might be some opportunities for clarification
in the bill as to whether funds could be utilized for
conducting the financial sustainability assessments that we
recommended in our report.
We would be very happy to work with your staff in terms of
any clarification on that.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Cottenoir, in some locations, the Wind River irrigation
infrastructure is dilapidated, in my opinion, beyond use. You
would have a better idea than I, but that is certainly the
report I have had.
What is the efficiency, in your mind, of the Wind River
Irrigation Project, the whole project?
Mr. Cottenoir. I visited with the Bureau of Indian Affairs
folks and the actual efficiency has not been quantified. They
base it on similar irrigation projects with similar canals,
evaporation rate, canal losses and structure losses.
The estimated efficiency is somewhere between 35 to 45
percent.
The Chairman. Is a number that low sustainable, thinking
about the impact to the system and the users of what seems to
me like a low efficiency rate?
Mr. Cottenoir. It is a very low efficiency rate. Right now,
if nothing is done, that efficiency rate cannot be sustained.
It can only be decreased. With increased funding and
rehabilitation of the system, those efficiency rates could be
raised.
With the current state of affairs and the current
maintenance and schedule that BIA has, I don't think even that
35 percent efficiency rate could be sustained. I think you
would see that decreasing as time goes on.
The Chairman. Users pay an annual assessment to operate the
system and it is only working at 35 percent. Do all users pay
or only those individuals who receive water a lot must pay?
Mr. Cottenoir. Everybody that has a water right on the
reservation pays an assessment. They are charged the assessment
even though, in some cases, there is an inability to deliver
water. For some reason, the allottee cannot lease their lands.
Because of the increasing O&M rate, it makes it not viable for
an allottee to lease their lands, so that goes unpaid.
Yes, everybody is assessed that O&M fee, whether they
receive water or not.
The Chairman. They end up having to pay, even if they don't
get any water. If they are not getting any water or if they
cannot afford to irrigate their land and don't pay the fees,
what happens to those folks?
Mr. Cottenoir. In many cases, that O&M rate, the assessment
rate, accrues over time. Certain individuals are turned over to
Treasury. In some cases, many of our elderly people and
allottees are turned over to Treasury and in many cases, their
social security is attached. It just continues to spiral out of
control.
The Chairman. Let me get this clear. They are not actually
receiving any water because the system itself is dilapidated
and only working at 35-40 percent. They are not getting any
water; they are still required to pay and if they don't pay,
they are turned over to the Treasury Department for collections
or garnishing of some of the payments that are due to them. Is
that an accurate assessment of what you are seeing at home?
Mr. Cottenoir. Yes, Senator Barrasso. In many cases, that
is the case. I also stated in many cases, the increasing on
them just makes it not viable for them to lease their land. If
they don't lease their land, they cannot pay the O&M.
The Chairman. I have one last question, Mr. Cottenoir. In
addition to the efforts of the Wyoming State and the tribal
governments to address the irrigation problems, the two tribes
on the reservation are also encouraging users to perhaps form a
water association or water associations.
How would this bill empower the tribes or the local water
user associations to improve the Indian irrigation system?
Mr. Cottenoir. Forming the water association throws the
responsibility to operate and maintain onto the actual water
users who know what they need and how to do it. If the money
comes to the tribes and we continue to form these associations,
if we do 638, the program, then it would be our responsibility
to take care of that.
We are the ones who know how to do it. We are the ones who
have proven we have the ability to do that along with our
partnership we formed with the Wyoming Water Development
Commission and the State of Wyoming.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Cottenoir.
Mr. LaBonde, I will get to you in a couple seconds. I
wanted to go to a second round first. Senator Tester.
Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We are going to go back to you, Kevin. Nobody knows trust
responsibility better than you. I mean that with the highest
regard. We have heard about the department imposing fees and
construction repayments on Indian irrigation system uses. Can
you talk about whether or not these fees are appropriate for
tribal trust lands?
Mr. Washburn. I think absolutely. We certainly have to
charge all the users on the system to the extent it is
appropriate to do so. I think our highest responsibility for
these systems--this work isn't formed by the trust
responsibilities and that is our highest responsibility, but
some of them do charge the Indian lands. I think they won't
work unless we assess some of the tribal lands as well.
To make these things work economically, we have to do that.
Again, many of these were supposed to be self-sustaining when
originally envisioned. Our policies have changed dramatically
towards Indian tribes and Indian people since these things were
first authorized.
We have to go with the assumptions that were underway when
they were authorized, which was that they ultimately be self-
sustaining. We have to charge the users, whether they are non-
Indian irrigators or Indian and tribal irrigators.
Senator Tester. These dollars would stay in that
reservation or moved to different reservations?
Mr. Washburn. They generally stay in that reservation. They
get assessed and they go to the Treasury, but they get directed
back to that reservation for operation and maintenance of the
system.
Senator Tester. As a matter of fact, are there
administrative fees cut off those dollars when they flow to the
Treasury and then back?
Mr. Washburn. You mean does the Treasury take a cut or
something like that?
Senator Tester. Or does your department take a cut?
Mr. Washburn. I don't know but we can certainly get you
that information.
Senator Tester. Okay.
I have a question for Harry. Can you describe the condition
of the Wind River irrigation system, I hope you haven't asked
this already, Mr. Chairman, relative to other irrigation
systems in Wyoming? Can you describe the condition of Wind
River versus other irrigation systems?
Mr. LaBonde. Senator Tester, it is one of the systems in
poorer condition across the State of Wyoming. With other
districts, I see active programs to upgrade the system. My
agency assists with that but they are assessing the irrigators
for a portion of those costs.
Senator Tester. I think it is great you have been able to
fund the projects at Wind River. There is no doubt about that.
I am curious if the Commission considers the Wind River
irrigation system at the same level or priority as other
irrigation systems in the State when you talk about funding
decisions?
Mr. LaBonde. Most definitely. We consider all of those
applicants equally. I am not aware that we have turned down an
application from the Wind River Indian Reservation.
Senator Tester. I am going back to you, Secretary Washburn.
The bill, as drafted, creates authorization for the department
to take money from reclamation funds each year and apply those
funds to irrigation projects.
Correct me if I am wrong, but funding maintenance for those
irrigation systems is currently authorized, is that correct?
Mr. Washburn. Yes, Senator. There certainly are
authorizations in place.
Senator Tester. That is the right answer.
Mr. Washburn. It is about appropriations.
Senator Tester. That is my next question. As we move
forward on this bill, would we have to make this funding
mandatory to make sure the IRRIGATE Act is effective?
Mr. Washburn. When you start to talk about mandatory
funding, that is kind of a term of art in the budget context. I
am not sure we, ordinary citizens, intend what mandatory means
in that context, sort of the OMB context.
The Administration has asked Congress to provide mandatory
funding for contract support costs but that means we don't
appropriate it every year. It comes out of the mandatory side
of the budget.
No, I don't think you have to make this funding mandatory
to make it happen, but we would need some sort of assured
source of funding to make it happen.
Senator Tester. I want to thank everyone who testified
today. I very much appreciate your testimony. I think this is a
real important issue for Indian country. Moving forward,
hopefully we can come up with some solutions and get some
problems solved.
Thank you all.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Tester.
Senator Cantwell?
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I wanted to follow up with Ms. Fennell because obviously we
have the Act before us but do you think there are other things
we need to do to tackle this problem? Do you think there are
administrative things within the way the projects are
prioritized or administered?
Ms. Fennell. The Senate bill that is before us could help
address a number of the issues we raised in our 2006 report. We
have not had an opportunity to further evaluate the state of
the irrigation projects since 2006. We stand ready to assist
the Committee with any additional work that may be needed.
There are probably some longer term issues that would be
important to address going forward in terms of looking at these
irrigation projects, some of which date back to the late 1800s
or early 1900s, and to think about whether or not there are
questions about modernizing these projects given the scarcity
of water and the advanced technologies that currently exist.
In terms of the bill itself, we do think it would largely
address a lot of the issues we did raise back in 2006.
Senator Cantwell. Did you discuss anything about climate
change impacts on water in your report?
Ms. Fennell. Not specifically in that report. We did visit
9 of the 16 projects. We identified the types of issues we saw
and the state of the projects at that time. We have not
followed up since that particular time.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cantwell.
Mr. LaBonde, thank you for being here and testifying. A
number of the comments you made fit completely with what I
heard as well when we had field hearings in 2011.
Your written testimony describes numerous projects you have
worked on with the tribes on the reservation. State
contributions have assisted in improving portions of the
irrigation systems.
Your testimony further noted there is great need for
significant rehabilitation and upgrade. How big of an impact
would rehabilitation and upgrade really have on the Wind River
area and local communities, if it were completed, in terms of
the economy, economic opportunities, jobs and those sorts of
things?
Mr. LaBonde. The Wind River Indian Reservation I would
characterize as an agricultural operation raising grass, hay
and alfalfa hay to support ranching operations. If the water is
not available or if the water is in the creek or the rivers and
you cannot get it down the ditch, basically you don't have a
hay crop. That has a significant impact.
I don't have any figures to offer to you but I can say that
when ranching operations don't have water, they suffer
significantly. As I said earlier in my testimony, I have heard
that from Indian irrigators at the Select Tribal Relations
Committee meetings.
The Chairman. Your written testimony noted that a 2008
engineering study found excessive water seepage from the Wind
River Irrigation Project. I think you mentioned lining the
canals could result in upwards of 30 percent more water
reaching the crops.
Senator Tester asked how you would compare the conditions
at the Wind River Irrigation Project with neighboring, non-
tribal irrigation systems you have seen around the State.
Can you describe for all of us and for the record what sort
of differences there are and some of the things you have said,
that this is one of the worse systems in terms of the needs?
Mr. LaBonde. Some of the observations I would offer are in
terms of the structures, basically concrete structures, you see
a picture there of a newer structure. When you look at
structures on the reservation, you find significantly
deteriorated concrete, even to the point where the structures
look like they may fail totally.
With other systems, you see ditch banks or canals that are
maintained, weed burning, weed growth, trees that are removed
so that water can flow unimpeded. Also in systems around the
State that we funded, we are also upgrading the technology so a
lot of the control gates are actually operated from a remote
site or from the irrigation district's office. That is a labor
saving mechanism so that you don't have to dispatch somebody
out to adjust a gate.
All of those things were observed in some of the other
systems, non-tribal systems.
The Chairman. Mr. Cottenoir, I don't know if you can do
this estimation but I wondered if you could estimate how many
acres are currently not being farmed because of the situation
and needs, that could be brought back into production if the
system was operating efficiently?
We heard from Mr. Headdress you are handling an area of 2
million acres, larger than the size of Rhode Island. I am
trying to get it into context.
Mr. Cottenoir. I don't have an accurate figure for you but
we are currently doing a study to assess all the irrigated
acres, all the acres that aren't currently being irrigated, and
the reason for that. We should have that completed by the end
of the year. We should have a very accurate accounting of the
exact number of acres out of production because of no water.
The Chairman. I want to thank all of you. I want to remind
the witnesses your full written testimony will be made a part
of the official hearing record.
Just to let you know, some of the members who may not have
been here today will be submitting written and follow-up
questions. The record for this hearing will remain open for two
weeks.
I want to thank each and every one of you for your time and
your testimony today.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:49 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Prepared Statement of the Colorado River Indian Tribes (CRIT)
The Colorado River Indian Tribes (CRIT) greatly appreciates the
opportunity to submit this written testimony for the Senate Indian
Affairs Committee hearing on Chairman Barrasso's pending legislation,
S. 438, Irrigation Rehabilitation and Renovation for Indian Tribal
Governments and Their Economies Act.
CRIT appreciates the Chairman's efforts to focus Congressional
attention on unaddressed capital finance needs for Indian Country
infrastructure. The Federal obligation to resolve the deferred
maintenance and replacement needs on the Indian irrigation projects is
especially strong. These projects are often the backbone of the economy
for rural Indian reservations, which is the case for the Colorado River
Indian Reservation.
Nearly a decade ago the General Accounting Office (GAO) presented a
stark account of the crippling deferred maintenance backlog at the
Colorado River Irrigation Project (CRIP) and the other Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA) operated irrigation projects. Indian Irrigation Projects:
Numerous Issues Need to Be Addressed to Improve Project Management and
Financial Sustainability (GAO-06-314) (February 2006) (``2006
Report'').
CRIT applauds the Committee for securing an updated report from the
General Accounting Office (GAO) on whether the BIA is addressing
maintenance backlogs at the irrigation projects. Indian Irrigation
Projects: Deferred Maintenance and Financial Sustainability Issues
Remain Unresolved (GAO-15-453-T) (March 4, 2015) (``2015 Report'').
The 2015 Report reiterates several key insights on addressing the
deferred maintenance backlog and also reaffirms that the overall scale
of the deferred maintenance problem on BIA-managed irrigation systems
still exceeds $500 million dollars--even using the BIA's own figures.
CRIT recognizes that the GAO has not verified this BIA-supplied
information on either an overall or project-by-project basis. CRIT is,
nevertheless, astonished and greatly concerned to read in the 2015
Report that the BIA is reporting an ``updated'' maintenance backlog at
CRIP that is an eight-fold decrease from the BIA's previous cost
estimate--the CRIP maintenance backlog cost in the 2006 Report is
$134,758,664, as compared to a figure of approximately $17,000,000 in
the 2015 Report. No major maintenance or repairs have occurred in the
intervening years to account for this stunning reduction in cost
estimate.
One of the GAO's key recommendations for addressing the deferred
maintenance backlog is on the need to base plans for remediation on
reliable information. As the GAO explained in the 2006 Report:
``Information on financial sustainability, along with accurate deferred
maintenance information, are both critical pieces of information needed
to have a debate on the long-term direction of BIA's irrigation
program. Once this information is available, the Congress and
interested parties will be able to address how the deferred maintenance
will be funded (and otherwise implemented).''
Contrary to the $17 million figure the BIA reportedly provided to
the GAO, the evidence is overwhelming that the BIA's 2006 remediation
cost estimate of $134,758,664 reflects the actual price tag for
adequate CRIP remediation. (It is important to emphasize that the 2006
figure more closely reflects the correct scale of the cost for
addressing the CRIP deferred remediation backlog; CRIT was not
provided, and consequently has not reviewed, either the 2006 or 2015
BIA cost estimates.)
The attached document provides an overview of the technical and
financial basis for CRIT's conclusion that the cost of addressing the
remediation backlog at CRIP is at least several tens of millions of
dollars more than the BIA's present estimate, and certainly the cost
remains well over $100 million.
CRIT would be pleased to answer any questions and/or provide
additional information to the Committee and/or the GAO on this
testimony, including the details in the attached Summary and Tables on
Colorado River Irrigation Project--Deferred Remediation Costs. Devin
Rhinerson will serve as CRIT's primary point of contact for answering
any questions or supplying any additional information requested by the
Chairman, Ranking Member, or any other SCIA members.
In closing, CRIT again commends the Chairman for his decision to
hold this hearing and for his attention to addressing the critical need
for infrastructure investment in Indian Country.
Attachment
Summary Details and Tables on Colorado River Irrigation Project
(CRIP)--Deferred Remediation Costs
The GAO has consistently advised Congress that well-managed and
adequate irrigation remediation projects require accurate, reliable,
and up-to-date information on irrigation project facilities in need of
rehabilitation or replacement. Based on this recommendation, the BIA
commissioned HKM to conduct an irrigation condition assessment on CRIP,
which assessment was completed in 2011. CRIT Project, Engineering
Evaluation and Condition Assessment, CRIP (April 2011) (``HKM
Report'').
The HKM Report strongly suggests that the CRIP remediation backlog
cost can be addressed for less than $20 million. For example, the HKM
Report states that ``[a] summary of the estimated cost for remediating
the identified deficiencies of the Colorado River Irrigation Project
infrastructure is provided in table 5.''Table 5 of the HKM Report
(``HKM Table 5'') is titled ``Summary of Remediation and Replacement
Costs'' and shows a total of$18,451,022for ``rehabilitation.''
There are at least three (3) reasons the HKM Table 5 cannot --or,
at least should not-- be construed as a reliable estimated of the
deferred maintenance costs that must be address to complete an adequate
CRIP remediation, as follows:
1. HKM Table 5 ($18,451,022) is based almost entirely on
estimated costs for rehabilitating facilities while costs based
on replacing CRIP features are systematically omitted, even
features where the HKM Report indicates a compelling need for
replacement.
a. Anticipated remediation costs and timeframes are rendered
inaccurate when facilities that are in need of replacement are
incorrectly classified as needing only refurbishing and
rehabilitation. For example, the HKM Report indicates that Ramp
Flume ``1WR9'' can be rehabilitated. Nevertheless, photographs
in the HKM Report reveal that \1/4\ to \1/3\ of the Ramp Flume
is missing, making it highly unlikely that this CRIP feature
can be adequately remediated by simply rehabilitating the flume
at an estimated cost of $30,338.09. In fact, adequate
remediation of the Ramp Flume will require its replacement at
four times the cost of the (highly-questionable) rehabilitation
cost estimate.
b. The HKM Report is a budget level study, which is a rough
estimate of the cost to perform the described work. The Bureau
of Reclamation (BoR) Directives and Standards (FAC 09-01)
recommend the use of a contingency factor of twenty percent (20
percent) to twenty-five percent (25 percent) for this level of
study. The HKM Report uses a fifteen percent (15 percent)
contingency factor for structure rehabilitation cost estimates
and 10 percent factor for canal liner rehabilitation.
c. The cost of replacing the eleven key canal and lateral
structures rated by HKM as ``CMDM critical and serious'' that
were in need of replacement, in addition to the two such
structures already marked for replacement by HKM, is
$8,764,378, based on the replacement cost data from the HKM
Report. The total adjusted cost is $9,465,528 after applying
the appropriate contingency factor. Cost adjustments are
identified in CRIT Table 2 and reflected on Row #1 of CRIT
Table 1.
d. CRIT Table 1 shows that the remediation cost of the items
included on HKM Table 5 ($18,451,022) is more accurately a
range between $30,064,091 and $61,093,416. The adjusted
remediation costs of these items is presented as a range,
between $30,064,091 to $61,093,416, because the small sample
size used by HKM to develop its rehabilitation/replacement
costs for the Structures -Remaining Laterals category in the
HKM Report and Canal Liner Rehabilitation creates uncertainty
as to whether to use replacement or rehabilitation as the
anticipated remediation cost and also for gauging how much of
the existing canal lining should be replaced. These estimates
are further adjusted by applying the appropriate contingency
factor of 25 percent. These adjustments to HKM's cost estimates
are reflected on Row #2 of CRIT Table 1.
e. The canal lining remediation cost range based on 10
percent to 25 percent of the cost of replacing some portion of
the sections of canal lining rated by HKM as C&ODM serious for
canal liner rehabilitation was estimated to be between
$5,338,764 and $13,346,908 using cost data from the HKM Report
for canal lining replacement. The total adjusted cost range is
$12,762,714 to $21,499,599 after applying the appropriate
contingency factor. The cost adjustment is shown on Row #4 of
CRIT Table 1.
f. Costs were only included in the HKM Report for the safety
ladder replacement, but not for installing new safety escape
ladders to meet BoR standards. HKM acknowledged that escape
ladders were spaced for 750 feet to one-half mile apart and
that many of the installed ladders had been destroyed by canal
maintenance activities. BoR standards call for escape ladders
to be installed at 750-foot intervals on each side of the canal
or lateral. Safety ladders are installed on alternating sides
of the canal or lateral every 375 feet. Based on BoR standards,
1,046 safety ladders will be required in the currently lined
sections of the Project at a cost of $744,235, using the HKM
cost data. HKM included $133,097 for escape ladders which, when
adjusted for the appropriate contingency factor, is $145,196.
The adjustments to estimated costs are shown on Row #6 of CRIT
Table 1. An additional $599,039 will be required to meet BoR
standards for safety escape ladders. Additional ladders will be
required if the remaining unlined key canals and laterals are
lined. See Row #8 of CRIT Table 1.
2. There are cost-related factors, such as the cost
contingencies and sample size used by HKM that result in
inaccurate or at least unreliable cost estimates for items
included in HKM Table 5 and also elsewhere in the HKM Report.
3. There are key categories of CRIP facilities that are not
included in HKM Table 5, even though these omitted features are
identified and also documented in the HKM Report as needing
remediation, installation, and/or replacement.
a. No costs were included in the HKM Report for resurfacing
operation and maintenance roads. Yet, consistently throughout
the Canal Cleaning/Reshaping Reports and Canal Liner
Rehabilitation Reports in Appendix F of the HKM Report, HKM
recommended the resurfacing of the maintenance roads. If the
O&M roads are resurfaced on both sides of the canals and
laterals, there will be 276 miles to be resurfaced, based on
the lengths of lined and unlined canals and laterals described
in the HKM Report. This cost could be significant addition to
the total estimated cost of rehabilitation and replacement of
system features.
b. The unaddressed cost for resurfacing O&M roads on the
Project will be between $8,976,845 and $20,518,502 depending on
the widths of the O&M roads and whether one or both sides are
resurfaced. CRIT Table 3 shows the cost of resurfacing 14 and
16 feet wide O&M roads on one side of the canals and laterals
and both sides.
c. The unaddressed cost for lining the remaining unlined
canals and laterals in the Project is $138,334,934 as shown on
CRIT Table 3. (The lining of the unlined canals and laterals
will take several years to complete because of the need to keep
the system in service and line small segments each year.)
The BIA's more recent deferred maintenance cost estimate might be
derived, in whole or in part, from the HKM Report. The details
summarized above demonstrate the BIA's $17 million cost estimate is
incorrect and unreliable, even if it is based on the HKM Report.
Addressing the present CRIP remediation backlog will require tens of
millions of dollars more that the BIA's present estimate and certainly
well over $100 million.
The following tables are attached:
CRIT Table 1. Comparison of Certain HKM-Identified Remediation
Items
CRIT Table 2. Structure Remediation Cost Adjustment for Eleven
Structures on Key Canals and Laterals
CRIT Table 3. Estimated Cost of Unaddressed Deficiencies
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Vernon S. Finley, Tibal Council Chairman,
Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Nation
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
Prepared Statement of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville
Reservation
The Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (``Colville
Tribes'' or the ``CCT'') appreciates the Committee holding a hearing on
S.438, the Irrigation Rehabilitation and Renovation for Indian Tribal
Governments and Their Economies (``IRRIGATE'') Act. The CCT wishes to
thank Chairman Barrasso and Vice-Chairman Tester for introducing this
important legislation.
The CCT fully supports the IRRIGATE Act as a first step in
providing Indian country with a path to completing long overdue
irrigation infrastructure. Apart from the Indian irrigation projects
that have already been authorized, the CCT would ultimately like to see
a path forward for those tribes that are developing irrigation projects
to address longstanding needs. The Colville Reservation falls into this
category. The CCT offers this statement for the record to highlight
some of the challenges that the CCT and its members continue to face in
absence of any irrigation infrastructure.
The Colville Reservation was established by the Executive Order of
July 2, 1872. At that time, the Colville Reservation consisted of all
lands within the Washington Territory bounded by the Columbia and
Okanogan Rivers, extending northward to the U.S.-Canadian border. As
established by the 1872 Executive Order, the Colville Reservation
encompassed approximately three million acres.
During the 1880s, the Colville Tribes came under increasing
pressure to cede the ``North Half'' of the Colville Reservation, in
large part because it was rich in minerals. A federal delegation was
dispatched to the Reservation to seek a cession of the Tribes' lands.
In 1891, many of the tribes residing on the Colville Reservation
approved an agreement under which they ceded the North Half to the
United States. The North Half is approximately 1.5 million acres and is
bounded on the north by the U.S.-Canadian border, on the east by the
Columbia River, on the west by the Okanogan River, and on the south is
separated from the south half of the Colville Reservation by a line
running parallel to the U.S.-Canadian border located approximately 35
miles south thereof. With the exception of the northern boundary, both
the North Half and the present day reservation are surrounded by the
waters of the Columbia and Okanogan Rivers.
It is ironic that the Federal Government has never constructed or
provided any assistance for the CCT to establish an irrigation project
on the Colville Reservation despite the presence of the Grand Coulee
Dam on the Colville Reservation. The Grand Coulee Dam and its
reservoir, Lake Roosevelt, supplies water to commercial farming
interests in central Washington State. The area of central Washington
where this farming occurs is referred to as the Columbia Basin.
Congress established the Columbia Basin Project (CBP) to supply water
to more than one million acres in this area. The Bureau of Reclamation
(BOR) administers the CBP.
According to the BOR, the yearly value of the CBP is $630 million
in irrigated crops, $950 million in power production, $20 million in
flood damage prevention, and $50 million in recreation. The project
itself involves costs that are difficult to determine. The farms that
receive irrigation water must pay for it, but the payments account for
only a small fraction of the total cost to the Federal Government. Some
critics describe the CBP as an example of a federal subsidy to a
relatively small group of farmers in a place where it would never be
economically viable under other circumstances.
In contrast to the CBP, the CCT believes that given the opportunity
to establish irrigation on the Colville Reservation, it could grow the
economy not only of the CCT but of the surrounding non-Indian
communities as well. The CCT has long been interested in developing an
on-reservation irrigation project. The reasons for this include the
following:
The Federal Government made promises to the CCT in
connection to the construction of the Grand Coulee Dam that the
CCT would benefit from the irrigation opportunities the Dam
would provide. Although some initial work was conducted, no
irrigation infrastructure ever materialized.
The tribes that compose the CCT irrigated lands for
agricultural purposes prior to western contact in the Columbia
Basin, which is known to our elders as Moses Gardens.
The CCT manages instream water for beneficial public use
such as salmon restoration efforts and utilizing irrigation
infrastructure would reduce the competition between agriculture
and salmon restoration efforts.
The Okanogan River on the western reservation border is
critically endangered by off reservation orchard irrigation in
the spring and summer. Surface and ground water pumping deplete
river water flows and increase the water temperatures. Salmon
mortality increases every year. Supplemental irrigation water
delivered to the head waters of the Okanogan River from the
Columbia River would benefit tribal and non-tribal irrigators
and salmon populations.
Global warming and climate change has reduced annual
precipitation. The CCT's semi-arid region depends on ground and
surface water for domestic and irrigation needs. Our water
wells are going dry. Currently there is a moratorium on any
additional water services in the town of Nespelem, where the
headquarters of the CCT is located. New irrigation
infrastructure could replenish water supplies needed for
growth.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Farm Service Agency,
and the Natural Resources Conservation Service have programs to
encourage tribal members with farming related business. The
benefits these programs provide, which include grants and
loans, are not accessible or feasible to tribes or tribal
members without irrigation. Developing new irrigation projects
on tribal lands would therefore allow tribal member farmers and
ranchers the opportunity to participate in the agricultural
economy as do non-Indian businesses on reservation lands.
The CCT again thanks Chairman Barrasso and Vice-Chairman Tester for
their leadership on this issue. The future economic growth of the
Colville Tribes depends on our ability to utilize the water that
surrounds the Colville Reservation. We look forward to continuing to
work with the Committee and assisting in moving the IRRIGATE Act
forward in both the Senate and the House.
______
Prepared Statement of Tsosie Lewis, CEO, Navajo Agricultural Products
Industry
Introduction
Good afternoon Chairman Barrasso, Vice Chairman Tester, and members
of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. I am Tsosie Lewis and I am
the Chief Executive Officer of the Navajo Agricultural Products
Industry (NAPI), an agricultural enterprise chartered under the laws of
the Navajo Nation (``Nation''). I am pleased to submit this prepared
statement for the record relating to the Committee's legislative
hearing on the Irrigation Rehabilitation and Renovation for Indian
Tribal Governments and Their Economies Act (``IRRIGATE Act,'' S.438).
Background on the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project
In 1868, the United States Senate ratified a Treaty with the Nation
which recognized the importance of agriculture to the self-sufficiency
of the Navajo people.
In 1962, after years of intense negotiations between the Nation,
the State of New Mexico, and the United States, Congress authorized the
Navajo Indian Irrigation Project (``NIIP,'' Pub.L. 87483), to fulfill,
in part, the United States' treaty obligations to supply water and a
farming operation for the Nation.
The plain language of the 1962 Act, as well as its legislative
history, makes clear the Federal obligation to build an 1 10,630-acre,
irrigated-farm.
It was originally estimated that the NIIP would be completed in
approximately fourteen years, in tandem with a companion project--the
San Juan-Chama Project. The Nation made valuable concessions in
exchange for the NIIP, allowing water from the San Juan Basin (to which
the Nation had valid claims) to be transported to the Rio Grande Basin
in New Mexico for the substantial benefit of non-Navajos.
The San Juan-Chama Project was completed in 1976, and the residents
and businesses of the Rio Grande Basin have been enjoying the benefits
of the bargain for nearly forty years while the NIIP, whose
construction began in 1964, is only seventy-five percent complete.
The 1962 Act authorized $135 million to build the substantial
physical infrastructure for the NIIP, and in 1970, Congress amended the
Act to increase the authorized appropriations to $206 million.
In 2005, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) indexed this figure to
2005 dollars and estimated that there might be as much as $229 million
in funding that could be appropriated without the need for a fresh
authorization.
NAPI's Operations and Economic Importance
In April 1970, NAPI was established by the Navajo Nation Council as
a tribal enterprise to manage and operate the NIIP. The idea behind
NAPI was to manage the NIIP, create economic opportunities for the
Navajo people and to build a foundation of commitment, pride, and
dedication to their Nation.
Today, NAPI operates a 75,000-acre farm in Farmington, New Mexico,
generating annual revenues of $223 million to the Nation and San Juan
County. NAPI and its contractors employ more than 425 Navajo people in
the Four Corners Area, and purchases tens of millions of dollars in
goods and services both locally and across the Nation.
In its operations, NAPI has stressed the use of state-of-the-art
technology and environmentallyfriendly practices. Its agribusiness
features state-of-the-art farming equipment, including hightech radio
control, and a computerized center-pivot irrigation system that reduces
operational costs and efficiently manages water resources.
NAPI produces premier ``Navajo Pride'' brand agricultural products,
including alfalfa, corn, feed, wheat and small grains, potatoes, and
pinto beans. NAPI also operates a flour mill and leases land for cattle
grazing, as well as for specialty crops.
Our products have earned the distinction of being ``New Mexico
Grown'' by the New Mexico Department of Agriculture.
NAPI's operations are manifested in the international arena as
well. In 2006, thanks in large measure to then-Congressman Tom Udall, a
NAPI delegation travelled to Cuba and entered an executive trade
agreement to sell to that country a variety of NAPI products.
While the Bureau of Reclamation, a contractor to the BIA, is
responsible for the planning, design, and construction of the NIIP, the
BIA has the sole responsibility, including funding requirements, to
complete the NIIP.
Through its Operation & Maintenance Department, NAPI manages the
operation and maintenance of the NIIP through a contract entered into
pursuant to the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act.
NAPI also manages Operations and Maintenance (O&M), On-Farm Development
(OFD), and an Agricultural Testing Research Laboratory.
NIIP Funding Inadequacies
Annual funding for the NIIP construction was approximately $26
million per year during the Clinton Administration and $14 million
during the Bush Administration. Beginning in fiscal year 2009, the
annual budget request and consequent funding level for the NIIP has
been a paltry $3 million. The fiscal year 2016 budget request proposes
$3.4 million for the NIIP.
Despite the 1962 Act, federal funding to complete the final three
11,000 acre blocks of the NIIP is wholly inadequate. In addition to
funds for new construction, the unavailability of O&M funding is
resulting in the gradual deterioration of existing infrastructure by
creating a large deferred maintenance backlog. As a result, NAPI and
the Nation have been forced to work with the U.S. Department of the
Interior and the Congress to re-program construction funding to the O&M
account.
The BIA Irrigation O&M account nationally receives approximately
$11 million annually and is used primarily for court-mandated payments,
statutory requirements, and water storage costs. Currently, more than
one-third of the $3.4 million NIIP O&M funding pays for electricity for
pumping.
NAPI has made significant economic contributions despite the fact
that the NIIP is only threequarters complete. An economic analysis
recently issued by Compass Lexecon shows that the federal failure to
complete the NIIP has cost the Nation billions of dollars in lost
revenue and untold economic opportunities that will not return.
The Irrigation Rehabilitation and Renovation for Indian Tribal
Governments and Their Economies Act (S. 438)
On February 10, 2015, Chairman Barrasso (R-WY) introduced the
IRRIGATE Act (S. 438), establishing an Indian Irrigation Fund in the
Treasury of the United States.
The bill directs the Treasury Secretary to transfer $35 million
annually into the Indian Irrigation Fund from the existing Reclamation
Fund through fiscal year 2026. These funds are to ``carry out
maintenance, repair, and replacement activities'' on Indian irrigation
projects and gives priority to Indian irrigation projects that have not
been funded for the last fifteen years.
In addition, S. 438 directs the Interior Secretary to consult with
tribal governments and conduct a study that evaluates options for
improving programmatic, project management, and performance of
irrigation projects managed and operated by the BIA.
We believe the NIIP might satisfy the eligibility criteria provided
in S.438. Should broader legislation be considered similar to the
``Authorized Rural Water Projects Act'' (S. 715) introduced by then-
Sen. Max Baucus, we also believe the NIIP would be eligible for the
funding authorized in that legislation.
In the meantime, NAPI strongly supports S.438 and urges the
Committee to expedite consideration of the bill in the weeks ahead.
Further, we wish to thank Chairman Barrasso and Vice Chairman Tester
for their leadership on this important matter.
Conclusion
The history of federal funding and support of the NIIP and related
activities reveals that partial and delayed funding has resulted and
continues to result in delayed or derailed economic opportunities, job
creation, and chronic problems in maintaining physical infrastructure
and irrigation equipment.
Thank you for providing me the opportunity to submit this statement
for the record, and I stand ready to assist the Committee in any way I
can.
______
Prepared Statement of the Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy's
Reservation
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Clement J. Frost, Chairman, Southern Ute
Indian Tribe
Chairman Barrasso, Vice-Chairman Tester and members of the
Committee, thank you for your attention to Indian irrigation projects
and for holding the above-referenced hearing.
On behalf of the Southern Ute Indian Tribe (``Tribe'') and the
Southern Ute Indian Tribal Council, I am pleased to submit this
prepared statement for the record and to register the Tribe's strong
support for S 438, the Irrigation Rehabilitation and Renovation for
Indian Tribal Governments and Their Economies (IRRIGATE) Act. The
Southern Ute Indian Tribe has a long-standing and continuing interest
in working with Congress to address the problems of failing irrigation
infrastructure in Indian Country. The Tribe remains greatly interested
in stopping and reversing the decades-long deterioration of Indian
irrigation projects and firmly believes that the passage of S.438 would
be an important first step in doing so.
The Tribe is heartened that the Congress continues to deliberate
the best method for the United States to meet its obligation to work
with tribes to resolve an issue of great importance for many tribes.
Our Tribe has a particular interest in this legislation because the
Pine River Indian Irrigation Project (PRIIP) on the Southern Ute Indian
Reservation has suffered many decades of neglect and mismanagement by
the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). These years of ignoring the needs
of the PRIIP and its users, both Indian (85 percent of the project's
land base) and non-Indian (15 percent) residents of the Reservation,
have resulted in a rehabilitation and maintenance backlog estimated at
up to $60 million.
The PRIIP has been an important part of the economy and culture of
the local community since the late 1800s. Its continued deterioration
through the decades has caused economic hardship for all of its users,
both tribal members and non-Indians. The project long ago reached a
point where conditions created a disincentive for aggressively
practicing agriculture. Now, as the Tribe pursues greater efforts to
maintain a diversified economy, the state of the PRIIP continues to be
a major impediment to economic progress.
In spite of intermittent efforts by the BIA, the disrepair of the
PRIIP system has still not been adequately evaluated and catalogued.
Nonetheless, previous analysis shows the increasingly dilapidated state
of the project:
only an estimated 15 percent of the project's 175 miles of
canals can be considered in good condition;
some of the project's major diversion structures date to the
1930s and have had no major rehabilitation or improvements
since the 1960s;
an estimated 40 percent of the project's irrigable acreage
is not being irrigated, and a significant amount of that simply
cannot be irrigated given the current state of the project;
the project's largest canal, serving over 4,500 acres of
Indian and non-Indian land, has breached and experienced
multiple major bank slope failures in less than a year and its
ability to deliver a full supply of water in the coming season
is questionable;
dozens of smaller drop structures constructed pre-1920s have
collapsed and simply been abandoned, exacerbating erosion of
the system;
many structures have failed due to erosion, poor design, and
poor maintenance;
ditches have been abandoned and lands that were previously
irrigated have become derelict, requiring costly
rehabilitation; and
erosion has created miles of incised canals and ditches
where elevated headgates no longer allow for the diversion of
water to lands that historically were irrigated.
The amount of work necessary to bring the system to a minimal level
of adequate functionality is staggering.
The Tribe has committed to fixing the PRIIP, and has previously
worked with this Committee on various legislative efforts specific to
the PRIIP; but, at this time, we firmly believe the broader tribal
approach to planning and funding concepts outlined in S.438 are the
best vehicle for finally getting attention and resources paid to the
PRIIP.
We recognize that we are far from the only tribe facing these
issues and, therefore, we strongly support a broad solution that
addresses the greater problem across Indian Country. Furthermore, we
believe that the solution to the problem of irrigation project
rehabilitation, maintenance, and continued operation must include sound
planning intended to create long-term agricultural sustainability and
economic viability. Such an approach must be built on an effective
partnership between the federal government and the tribes, and S. 438,
by requiring adequate study, pre-planning, and, most importantly,
consultation with tribes and irrigation system users, would ensure such
a partnership is developed before repair work begins.
Importantly, the IRRIGATE Act would also authorize tribes to assume
responsibility for repair projects through Indian Self-Determination
and Education Assistance Act contracts and compacts. Last, while we
understand that passage of S. 438 would result in large costs to the
federal government, those costs are spread out over a number of years
and, unfortunately, given the many decades of the federal government's
failure to properly maintain Indian irrigation projects, a significant
federal price tag is simply unavoidable. Unlike other areas of federal
largesse, however, the funds authorized by S. 438 would finally serve
those for whom the federal government stands as trustee and, in many
cases, carry through on solemn treaty promises made to tribes by the
Federal Government over a century ago.
Thank you for considering these comments and including them in the
record. If the Tribe can be of assistance to the Committee as it
considers this legislation, please do not hesitate to contact me. Last,
we urge the Committee to favorably report S. 438 and seek swift passage
by the full Senate.
______
Prepared Statement of the Navajo Housing Authority (NHA)
The Navajo Housing Authority (NHA) is thankful for this opportunity
to submit testimony to the United States Senate Committee on Indian
Affairs for the legislative hearing on, ``S. 710, the Reauthorization
of the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act of
2015 (NAHASDA).'' We appreciate the Committee's efforts to highlight
the importance of Indian housing, and to hold a hearing to examine the
provisions of S. 710. We thank Chairman John Barrasso for introducing
this bill and we look forward to working with him on its passage.
The NHA hopes that the Committee will find this testimony both
informative in understanding our views on the NAHASDA reauthorization,
and to understand and appreciate the direction that NHA is headed in
building sustainable and vibrant communities.
Background on NHA and the Navajo Housing Need
Completed in August 2011, the NHA's housing needs assessment study
established a baseline housing need on the Navajo Nation of 34,100 new
homes and another 34,300 existing homes are in need of major repair--
which equates to approximately $9 billion. After holding a series of
regional workshops and consultations with all 110 Navajo communities
the total housing need was re-adjusted to 50,445 new homes.
It was evident that to meet this overwhelmingly unmet housing need
NHA must break with the status quo and employ new strategies towards an
integrated and comprehensive approach that maximizes our funding,
facilitates large-scale housing development while investing and
building sustainable communities. Furthermore, in 2012, the NHA
developed a five-year expenditure plan (2013-2017) that set aggressive
spending goals to bring down the large balance of undisbursed Indian
Housing Block Grant (IHBG) funds. The organization has been successful
in meeting its targeted goals, and to-date has spent approximately $329
million, built 580 new housing units, modernized 964 older housing
units, and funded the development of 16 group homes and acquisition of
3 housing units for persons with disabilities since implementing the
expenditure plan on October 1, 2012. Moreover, we have broken ground
for the Bluestone Development--our first sustainable master-planned
community that will provide an additional 165 housing units.
It is important to note that NHA is more than just a construction
agency that builds new homes. On a day-to-day basis we cover an array
of housing services that includes the management and operation of over
9,200 housing units including 29 office facilities and oversight of an
additional 2,000 units operated by other local housing providers. NHA
is also addressing longstanding deferred maintenance of older housing
units built before NAHASDA that require modernization and retrofits to
meet Section 504 accessibility requirements for both dwelling and non-
dwelling facilities. Beyond housing, NHA engages in crime prevention
and safety activities as well as model projects that include, but are
not limited to: Boys & Girls Club and other youth facilities, women and
children shelters, college student housing, elderly care homes,
supportive housing, and other relevant projects.
NHA Views on S. 710
NAHASDA was created in the spirit of self-determination to provide
tribes local control and decisionmaking of affordable housing programs
for their tribal communities. We appreciate the advances in S. 710 that
enhance local decisionmaking authority and recognize that tribes have
the sovereign authority to set standards and guidelines within their
tribal community. More specifically, we support the following changes
included in S. 710:
1) Clarifications relating to program and non-program income;
2) Use of tribal prevailing wage and a single environmental
review for projects funded by multiple federal agencies;
3) Ability for tribes to set maximum rents and homebuyer
payments;
4) Technical correction on maximum leasehold terms to reflect
those included in the Helping Expedite and Advance Responsible
Tribal Homeownership Act (HEARTH);
5) Open the eligibility of TDHEs to apply for the ICDBG
program; and
6) Expansion of the Public Assisted Housing Drug Elimination
Act of 1990 to include clean up due to methamphetamine damage.
We feel these changes will help streamline the ability of NHA to
effectively manage and operate its housing programs and services.
Native American Veterans Supportive Housing
Veterans housing and supportive services is a major need on the
Navajo Nation. The 2011 housing survey conducted of 11,500 households
on the Navajo Nation showed that those homes housed 31,213 families. Of
those, 2,726 were households that included at least one veteran. As
noted earlier, many of these homes, nearly 30,000 existing homes, are
in need of major repair. However, because there is no other housing
available, often the veteran and their family are forced to live in
dilapidated housing that could easily be consider substandard or
inhabitable.
NHA was pleased that Congress authorized HUD to set aside funds for
the Native American VASH program through the 2015 ``Cromnibus'' bill.
NHA is anxious to be a part of the Native American VASH Program.
However, as we expressed in our comments to HUD, this program can only
be successful if the design fits with the current NAHASDA programs and
services. Our main request is that the Native American VASH program
ultimately employ a true tribal-federal partnership to ensure the
program will meet the needs of the target population. This would mean
that the Veterans Administration (VA) would need to consider sub-
contracting with tribal housing programs and other tribal departments
those additional supportive services for Native veterans. Delivery of
supportive services to a large population with remote geographic
locations like the Navajo Nation may create challenges for VA personnel
to provide timely and comprehensive supportive services.
Tenant-based rental assistance versus project-based rental
assistance. The biggest problem with using the tenant based rental
assistance vouchers on the Navajo Nation is the lack of private or non-
profit housing for renters. Therefore, the Native American VASH
language should allow rental assistance to be used on housing currently
included in the housing stock of the tribal housing programs. If
vouchers could be used on current NHA rental properties, then we can
set aside a fair number of units for potential VASH renters and build
more rental units for other families. Currently, NHA relies on using
our rental vouchers for only Section 8 approved properties off the
reservation. This solution will not help veterans who wish to stay on
the reservation close to a family who is helping to support their
recovery.
As for project based assistance, NHA is ready today to use the
project based rental assistance. Our sustainable community master plan
project will create several integrated communities that will include
public rental, homeownership coupled with economic development
opportunities. These master-planned communities will be financed and
leveraged with federal products and programs, and the project based
assistance can be an element that would work into the development of
the master-planned communities. NHA's timeline for this project is
moving fast, and to be of greatest value the project based assistance
would need to be available within the next year.
Demonstration Program for Alternative Privatization Authority
A new demonstration program is being proposed as Title IX of
NAHASDA. The new program would allow tribes and TDHEs to work with
investor partners to provide for the housing needs of the tribe. There
should be an option for tribes or TDHEs to participate with some of
their funding allocation while maintaining their participation in the
regular NAHASDA program with the remainder of their block grant funds.
Effect of Undisbursed Block Grant Amounts
Recently, the Navajo Nation Council passed legislation number CF-7-
15, that expresses the position on NAHASDA reauthorization. In brief,
the position states that the Navajo Nation supports NAHASDA
reauthorization, however the Nation expresses opposition to any
``withholding'' language that does not have an effective date of 2018.
We appreciate Chairman Barrasso for hearing NHA's and the Navajo
Nation's concerns, and including in S. 710 an effective date of Jan. 1,
2018 for any ``withholding'' language. NHA would like to note that we
have consistently upheld to our commitment to address our undisbursed
funds. In fact, we have spent a total of $329 million to date since the
start of our expenditure plan in 2012 and we currently have an 80
percent expenditure rate--these numbers show both a significant decline
in unspent IHBG funds and a significant increase in spending IHBG
funds. Our aggressive five year expenditure plan that started on
October 1, 2012 will spend down the backlog of undisbursed funds by the
end of FY 2017. The effective date in S. 710 is in-line with our
targeted expenditures goals--NHA will have brought down our balance of
undisbursed IHBG funds before the ``withholding'' language takes
effect.
The Committee should be assured that NHA is not carelessly spending
this money, we have a prudent development strategy to ensure that our
expenditures are making strategic investments into our Navajo
communities. We must note that it takes nearly three to five years just
to build homes on the Navajo reservation. There is considerable
planning involved just to make housing development a reality.
Conclusion
NHA was one of the first Indian Housing Authorities to be
established, and it was the Navajo Nation leadership who gathered with
other tribal leaders in 1996 to advance NAHASDA's initial passage. We
were honored to work with a broad coalition of tribes and Congress to
pass this important piece of legislation. We hope that Congress will
work to swiftly pass a reauthorization bill that recognizes and honors
the spirit of self-determination and self-governance. NHA must be clear
that we cannot support a bill that does not include a 2018 effective
date for any ``withholding'' language for undisbursed IHBG funds--
Congress should recognize that NHA has gone above and beyond to prove
to Congress that we are meeting our spending goals and we respectfully
ask that our request is honored.
NHA appreciates the opportunity to provide you this written
testimony for the record, and we would be please to answer any
questions that the Committee or the Senate may have.
______
Prepared Statement of the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray
Reservation
Chairman Barrasso, Vice Chairman Tester, and Members of the
Committee on Indian Affairs, including Mr. Hatch, Mr. Enzi, and Mr.
Daines, sponsors of the bill, thank you for the opportunity to testify
on S. 438, the ``Indian Tribal Energy Development and Self-
Determination Act Amendments of 2011.'' The Ute Indian Tribe is a
federally recognized Indian tribe and the beneficial owner of the
Uintah Indian Irrigation Project, which is held in trust by the United
States Secretary of the Interior. The Uintah Indian Irrigation Project
is one of the 16 irrigation projects managed by the Bureau of Indian
Affairs. The Tribe supports S. 438, and requests that the bill include
the amendments described in the final section of our testimony.
Historical Background of the Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray
Reservation
The Ute Indian Tribe is made up of three Bands, the Uintah, White
River, and Uncompaghre Bands. The Tribe was organized pursuant to the
provisions of the Indian Reorganization Act of June 18, 1934 (48 Stat.
984, as amended). The Tribe's Uintah and Ouray Reservation
(Reservation) is located in northwestern Utah.
The Federal Government's allotment policies resulted in substantial
losses of the Tribe's Reservation lands. The Reservation originally
included approximately 4.5 million acres. The Tribe now owns about 1
million acres of trust lands.
The Uintah Indian Irrigation Project
Utah is the second most arid State in the country. It rains little
in the summer and, therefore, the only source of water is the winter
snow melt and the ability to store it. Water management has long been
recognized early and often by the Federal Government as a necessary
component of the development of the Tribe's lands, including
allotments, in the settlement of the Reservation. For example, in his
annual report for 1905, the Commissioner of Indian Affairs observed of
the Ute Indians:
The future of these Indians depends upon a successful
irrigation scheme, for without water their lands are valueless,
and starvation or extermination will be their fate. The
circumstances are such that delay or hesitation will be fatal
because all rights to waters in Utah are based on the priority
of use.
Thus, on June 21, 1906, the United States Congress authorized the
construction of irrigation systems to irrigate ``the allotted lands of
the Uncompahgre, Uintah, and White River Utes in Utah,'' with ``the
cost of said entire work to be reimbursed from the proceeds of the sale
of the lands within the former Uintah Reservation.'' Now known as the
Uintah Indian Irrigation Project, the Congressional authorization
provided:
That such irrigation systems shall be constructed and
completed and held and operated, and water therefor
appropriated under the laws of the State of Utah, and the title
thereto until otherwise provided by law shall be in the
Secretary of the Interior in trust for the Indians, and he may
sue and be sued in matters relating thereto[.] (34 Stat. 325,
375-76) (emphasis added).
Under this authority, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
constructed a system to irrigate 78,950 acres of allotted land, via an
extensive system of canals and ditches to convey water from three river
drainages: the Strawberry-Duchesne, Lake Fork-Yellowstone, and the
Uinta-Whiterocks rivers.
Also, in anticipation of the project, the United States, through
the BIA, made application to the Utah State Engineer in 1905 to
appropriate water from the State of Utah for the Uintah Indian
Irrigation Project (prior to the establishment of the Winters Doctrine
in 1908 of federallyreserved Indian water rights). Some ten to fifteen
years later, the State issued water right certificates for the lands
under the Uintah Indian Irrigation Project to the United States, which
now holds the water rights in trust for the Tribe, allottees, and their
successors.
A program was initiated to level, clear, plow, and fence the Indian
allotments to get them into cultivation. Tribal funds were used for
this purpose. By 1908, over $330,000 had been spent on the irrigation
project; although less than $7,000 had been paid to Indian laborers,
and, out of the 78,950 acres within the irrigation project, about
25,000 acres had already been sold to non-tribal members. In 1916, of
37,380 Indian allotted acres, 13,134 acres were irrigated. Construction
ended in 1922, but no water storage facility was included in the
project.
In 1916, the United States initiated litigation in federal district
court to protect the Ute Tribe's water rights because of increasing
conflicts between the Ute water users of the Uintah Indian Irrigation
Project and their non-Indian neighbors over the water allocations in
the Lake Fork, Yellowstone, Uinta, and Whiterocks Rivers. United States
v. Cedarview Irrigation Company et al., No. 4427 (D. Utah 1923), and
United States v. Dry Gulch Irrigation Company et al., No. 4418 (D. Utah
1923). The Federal District Court determined the quantity and priority
of Tribal water rights under the Uintah Indian Irrigation Project on
the Uinta-Whiterocks River Basin and the Lake Fork-Yellowstone River
Basin.
The court issued two federal decrees recognizing the Ute Indian
Tribe's Winters reserved water rights as present-perfected water rights
in those two Basins with an 1861 priority date, the date of the
creation of the Uintah Valley reservation (recharacterizing the water
rights originally filed by the Indian Irrigation Service with the State
of Utah prior to the 1908 Winters decision). The two Federal Court
Decrees provided 179,315.07 acre-feet per year for irrigation of
59,771.69 acres of Tribal allotments within the Project, with a total
irrigation diversion limit of 3 acre-feet per year per acre, and
permitted year-round diversion of water for domestic, culinary, and
stock watering uses. Project lands irrigated by the Duchesne River
consist of approximately 18,000 acres.
BIA has responsibility for the management of the Uintah Indian
Irrigation Project. There have been a century of reports studying the
problems of the Uintah Indian Irrigation Project. All of them conclude
that the continuous deferred maintenance of the project and failure to
construct the required storage facilities that would support irrigation
through the mid-to-late summer months has significantly impacted the
ability of the Ute Indians to efficiently farm there.
In some of the more recent reports, HKM Associates, a tribal
contractor, issued a report in 1982 and found from a survey of 3,425
Uintah Indian Irrigation Project irrigation structures showed that 84
percent were in need of repair or replacement. Then, in 1988, both the
Tribal engineer and the Department of Interior concluded that $75
million was needed to repair and rehabilitate the Project.
In an attempt to address these problems, under the 1992 CUPCA, the
Secretary retained trust responsibilities to the Ute Tribe and
allottees of the Project, but turned over the daily operation,
maintenance, rehabilitation, and construction of the Uintah Indian
Irrigation Project to a water users' organization. Under the 1992
CUPCA, the Secretary is required to ``use funds received from
assessments, carriage agreements, leases, and all other additional
sources . . . for the Uintah Indian Irrigation Project administration,
operation, maintenance, rehabilitation, and construction . . . ''
Section 203(f), CUPCA.
However, Congress has not provided any funds to the Uintah Indian
Irrigation Project for these activities--even though over half of the
landowners under the Project are Indians, who continue to struggle with
their ability to pay a sufficient level of assessments that could
support the on-going costs of long-time deferred repair, replacement,
maintenance, and construction of the Project works and desperately
required storage facilities.
Another report issued by BIA in 2008 asserted: ``The Uintah
Irrigation Project has deferred maintenance needs in excess of $86.1
million to bring the aging, deteriorated infrastructure up to current
standards. The majority of our diversion structures lack any safety
features to keep personnel safe while operating gates and cleaning
debris for the upstream side of the structures. There is no fencing or
gates to prevent the general public from getting on any of our
structures of features.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See U.S. Dept. of Interior, BIA, Western Region, ``Operation
and Maintenance Guidelines: Uintah Indian Irrigation Project, Uintah
and Ouray Agency'' (Dec. 23, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, a General Accounting Office (GAO) report issued in 2006 on
the Indian Irrigation Projects \2\ stated that the BIA estimated the
cost for deferred maintenance at its 16 irrigation projects, including
the Uintah Indian Irrigation Project, at about $850 million for 2005.
And the BIA, Office of Trust Services, Division of Water and Power,
issued a Program Review of the Uintah Indian Irrigation Project in 2011
and found many deficiencies in the BIA Agency's management and
administration of the Project, resulting in resource mismanagement that
adversely affecting the Project water users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ GAO Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Interior and
Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate, ``Indian
Irrigation Projects: Numerous Issues Need to be Addressed to Improve
Project Management and Financial Sustainability,'' GAO-060-314
(February 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite Congressional direction, the Tribe has yet to see the
comprehensive rehabilitation of the Project or the construction of
storage facilities necessary for the operation of the Project. The Ute
Tribe's and allottees' treatment by the Federal Government with regard
to funding for the Uintah Indian Irrigation Project has been
particularly egregious when one important fact, unique to the Ute
Indians (and maybe only one other Indian irrigation project) is
considered: the United States is designated by statute as the trustee
of the Uintah Indian Irrigation Project, where the Secretary of
Interior holds the Project in trust for the Indians. Act of June 21,
1906, 34 Stat. 325, 375-76.
The Need for Tribal Storage
The need for tribal storage for the Uintah Indian Irrigation
Project has been clearly and repeatedly documented for over 100 years,
since the early 20th Century. Indeed, it is well known that irrigation
cannot be successful in an arid environment without storage. An
extensive historical record supports the conclusion that the Federal
government, through both BIA and the Bureau of Reclamation, has long
recognized the fact that both natural flows and storage are needed to
make farming under the Project successful.
The following excerpts briefly highlight the Federal Government's
acknowledged awareness of its obligation to manage the Project through
storage facilities:
U.S. Indian Service (1916): \3\ The ditch-riders ``were powerless
to overcome the diversion of all the water from Lake Forks and Uintah
rivers above the headgates of the ditches of this project diverting
from the lower reaches of these streams.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Correspondence from the Dept. of Interior Engineer to H.W.
Dietz, Superintendent of Irrigation, dated January 20, 1916, regarding
problems with the Uintah Irrigation Project.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BIA (1938): \4\ ``[T]he Indian Service has not constructed storage
reservoirs, although storage water would be a valuable asset.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs. A Study of Economic Conditions
on the Uintah Irrigation Project, Utah. Including Recommendations for
the Adjustment of Irrigation Assessments with Suggestions for Project
Composition, Rehabilitation and Administration. September, 1938.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOR (1965): ``This [Uintah Indian Irrigation] project is
substantially completed with the exception of storage requirements.''
BOR (1968): \5\ ``Storage regulation for irrigation such as that
which would be provided by the Uintah Unit . . . is urgently needed.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Uintah Unit, Central Utah Project,
Feasibility Report. May, 1968.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOR (1975): \6\ ``There is an urgent need for storage facilities to
regulate the streamflows to match the irrigation demand pattern.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Uintah Unit, Central Utah Project,
Report for Certification of Physical, Economic, and Financial
Feasibility. April, 1975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOI (1977): \7\ ``The Secretary of the Interior has fiduciary
responsibility for the welfare of the Ute Indian Tribe. The Tribe has
supported the Bonneville Unit to assure an orderly development of water
resources for the Tribe through the Central Utah Project. Water for the
Bonneville Unit is available through agreements made by the United
States and the Ute Indian Tribe.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ U.S. Dept. of Interior, Water Projects Review Office,
Preliminary Information and Data Sheets for Bonneville Unit (Bureau of
Reclamation, March 15, 1977).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BIA (1978): \8\ ``Water storage has never been provided [to the
Uintah Indian Irrigation Project]. . . and is greatly needed.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs. Statement of Position Water
Resource Issues Uintah and Ouray Reservation. June, 1978.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOR (1978): \9\ ``Substantial areas of potentially irrigable Indian
lands are entirely without a water supply. . . .''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Uintah Unit, Central Utah Project,
Definite Plan Report. August, 1978.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOR (1980): \10\ ``No storage reservoirs were built [for the Uintah
Indian Irrigation Project], and therefore only a partial supply could
be furnished.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Uintah Unit, Central Utah Project,
Status Report. June, 1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Title II of CUPCA, Congress provided funds for the Central Utah
Water Conservancy District (District) to develop alternative, smaller
storage facilities for the Uintah and Upalco Units, which would serve
the Tribe's Uintah Indian Irrigation Project. Unfortunately, as
planning commenced the Tribe soon found they were yet again not
benefitting. The Tribal allocation for storage in the proposed projects
was smaller than contemplated under the original Upalco and Uintah
Units, and would not fulfill the storage needs of the Tribe under the
Uintah Indian Irrigation Project. By the late 1990s, it became clear
that the projects as designed were not in the best interest of the
Tribe. In 1999, the Tribe decided against supporting the replacement
projects as planned. Although the Tribe withdrew support for these
particular reservoirs, the Tribe did not give up on its pursuit for
storage, nor was the obligation of the Federal Government to provide
storage relieved.
Less than 9 percent of the irrigation water promised to the Tribe
was ultimately developed. Compared to the total amount of water
developed in the Uinta Basin by the CUP, less than 5 percent is
directly made available to the Tribe.
Because of these shortages, the Tribe has sought to develop viable,
environmentally sound storage facility options that will regulate the
flows of Reservation streams and provide an ample and dependable water
supply for the Tribe under the Project. Storage, combined with natural
flow, is the only way the Tribe can fully develop its Reservation lands
under the Project and put its reserved water rights to use.
Proposed Amendments for S. 438, the IRRIGATE Act
The Uintah Indian Irrigation Project is in a debilitated state and
represents a significant hazard to individuals working for the Project
and distributing the irrigation water and to those irrigating under the
Project. To ensure that that the IRRIGATE Act fully addresses the
Federal government's trust responsibility for the Tribe's Uintah Indian
Irrigation Project and focuses funding on the most pressing issues for
creating successful Indian irrigation projects, the Tribe requests that
the following amendments, shown in underline, be included in the bill.
SEC. 201 REPAIR, REPLACEMENT, AND MAINTENANCE OF CERTAIN INDIAN
IRRIGATION PROJECTS.
(a) IN GENERAL.--The Secretary shall establish a program to address
the deferred maintenance needs of Indian irrigation projects, including
the construction of storage needs, that--
(1) Create risks to public or employee safety or natural or
cultural resources; and
(2) Unduly impede the management and efficiency of the Indian
irrigation program.
SEC. 202 ELIGIBLE PROJECTS.
The projects eligible for funding under section 201(b) are the
Indian irrigation projects in the western United States that, on the
date of enactment of this Act--
(1) are owned by the Federal Government, as listed in the
Federal inventory required by Executive Order 13327 (40 U.S.C.
121 note; relating to Federal real property asset management);
or
(2) are held by the Secretary in trust for the Indians
pursuant to Congressional authorization of the project; and
(3) are managed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (including
projects managed under contracts or compacts pursuant to the
Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25
U.S.C. 450 et seq. or any other statute authorizing any such
contract); and
(4) have deferred maintenance documented by the Bureau of
Indian Affairs.
SEC. 203 REQUIREMENTS AND CONDITIONS.
(1) programmatic goals to carry out this title that--
(A) would enable the completion of repairing, replacing,
improving, , or performing maintenance on projects as
expeditiously as possible;
(B) would provide storage facilities to enable the projects to
becomes feasible and profitable by having an adequate water
supply;
(2) funding prioritization criteria to serve as a methodology for
distributing funds under this title, that take into account--
(C) the extent to which deferred maintenance, or failure to
provide storage, poses a threat to the ability of the Bureau of
Indian Affairs to carry out the mission of the Bureau of Indian
Affairs in operating the project;
(D) the extent to which repairing, replacing, improving, or
performing maintenance on, or the construction of, a facility
or structure will--
(iv) assist in protecting natural or cultural resources; and
(v) use modern irrigation technologies for the conveyance
and distribution of irrigation water that will improve the
efficiency of water management and use by a project.
SEC. 206. ALLOCATION AMONG PROJECTS.
(b) PRIORITY.--In allocating amounts under section 201(b), in
addition to considering the funding priorities described in section
203, the Secretary shall give priority to eligible Indian irrigation
projects serving more than 1 Indian tribe within an Indian reservation
or required by Congress in the authorizing project language to be held
by the Secretary in trust for the Indians, and to projects for which
funding has not been made available during the 15-year period ending on
the day before the date of enactment of this Act under any other Act of
Congress that expressly identifies the Indian irrigation project or the
Indian reservation of the project to address the deferred maintenance,
repair, or replacement needs and/or storage needs of the Indian
irrigation project.
______
Letter from Hon. Jim Allen, Representative, House District 33, Fremont
County and the Wind River Indian Reservation
Dear Senator Barrasso,
Thank for sponsoring the IRRIGATE Act. I write today in support of
this important bill. It will, if passed, provide much needed
rehabilitation funding for our dilapidated and crumbling irrigation
delivery canals, ditches and structures on the Wind River Indian
Reservation of Wyoming. This reservation is home to two tribes, the
Eastern Shoshone, Northern Arapaho and several non-tribal residents
totaling approximately 17,000-20,000 people. It is important to note
that the decay of the irrigation system on this reservation is due to a
backlog of uncompleted federal maintenance and to shortfalls in
Congressional funding. This bill will go a long way in bringing this
aging and decadent system back up to the former standards. By repairing
the system, precious water will be better utilized, crops will improve,
our local economy will improve and water will be saved for downstream
users. Just as importantly, water will be delivered fairly and
equitably. Everybody wins.
However, I would caution Congress to designate these irrigation
rehab funds to be spent on repairing the broken irrigation system, not
hiring more BIA adminstrators or funding more studies. That has already
been done and Billings BIA Irrigation staff, the Tribal Water Engineer,
both Tribal Councils and irrigators know exactly what needs fixed and
where. This money could be put to good use immediately if this bill
passes.
I represent a large portion of the reservation and most of its
irrigated lands in the Wyoming House of Representatives. I am also on
the House Agriculture, Public lands and Water committee and the state
of Wyoming knows well the ancient status of reservation irrigation
infrastructure and the need for funding. The state does not have enough
money to adequately fund repairs, but more importantly, the Federal
Government has a trust responsibility to the tribes and it has fallen
decades behind in funding irrigation repairs on the reservation. We
need this bill.
One last point. Since there are also non-tribal landowner/
irrigators residing on the reservation, it is imperative they are
counted and heard too in policy development regarding prioritizing
irrigation rehabilitation projects and timelines. Water is appurtenant
to the land regardless of tribal membership status.
Thank you for bringing this very important and beneficial bill. I
hope it passes.
______
Letter from Fred Tammany, Chairman, Ray Canal Water Users Association
Dear Senator Barrasso,
I am writing in response to your proposed legislation, the
``IRRIGATE'' Act for rehabilitation of the deteriorating irrigation
systems on Indian Reservations throughout the West. Our water-user's
group, the Ray Canal Water Users Association, is comprised of two
hundred seventy-eight (278) members and manages 10,260 acres on the
Wind River Indian Reservation, home to both the Shoshone and Northern
Arapaho Tribes.
As you are aware from your visit with us last summer that was
hosted by the Tribal Water Engineers Office, our system is close to
collapse and in desperate need of rehabilitation after years of neglect
by the controlling BIA. Your legislation would work to correct these
inadequacies would benefit all users of the Wind River Irrigation
Project and fulfill the trust responsibilities of the United States.
The Ray Canal Water Users Association and the Crowheart Water Users
Group on the Wind River Reservation have demonstrated that prudent
maintenance, volunteers, and lower overhead costs make considerable
improvements to the fair and equitable delivery of water to the
irrigators. With the help of this legislation, our groups would be able
to capitalize on best-use practices that have developed over the years
and make a more efficient system that would end up benefiting all
occupants of the reservation.
In closing, our Ray Canal Water Users Association looks forward to
the passage of this legislation and rolling up our sleeves with a ``Get
`er done'' spirit so that we can all reap the rewards from this act.
Our only concern is that the funds need to be correctly allocated in
order to avoid creating more unnecessary administrative positions and
to avoid paying for studies that have already been completed. There
have been many studies completed regarding the irrigation situation on
our reservation, but no action has been taken until now. As water
users, we are quite familiar with the inadequacies of the system and
the areas of critical importance in the rehab project; our experience
should be capitalized upon and could be invaluable to the successful
economic basis of this project. We also hope that there will not be
liens or debts assigned to the users as a result of this Act.
Agriculture has and hopefully always will be an important contributor
to the gross national product and the world with a little help from our
friends in Washington D.C.
This legislation is a last line of hope if our irrigation system is
to survive. We cannot thank you enough for the concern you have
demonstrated for our plight, for work towards the opportunity to
improve our system, and for your contributions to agricultural
communities, Fremont County, the State of Wyoming, and the United
States of America.
______
Letter from the Crowheart Bench Water User's Association (CBWUA) and
the ``A'' Canal Water User's Association (ACWUA)
Indian Affairs Committee,
The Crowheart Bench Water User's Association (CBWUA) and the ``A''
Canal Water User's Association (ACWUA) would like to express our
support for the ``Irrigation Rehabilitation and Renovation for Indian
Tribal Governments and Their Economies Act'' or the ``IRRIGATE ACT''
The CBWUA and ACWUA are irrigator managed irrigation systems in the
Crowheart Unit of the Wind River Reservation. These organizations
manage their systems, totaling approximately 10,500 acres, through a
Cooperative Assistance Agreement (CAA) with the Bureau of Indian
Affairs, directed by an elected board of irrigators. Since the
inception of these organizations, many positive steps have been taken
to improve the delivery and overall operation of the BIA irrigation
systems in the Crowheart area. Dilapidated structures have been
replaced, miles of canals and laterals have been cleaned, and multiple
individual farm turnouts have been updated. All of these tasks have
been completed while maintaining irrigation operations and maintenance
assessments that are significantly lower than those paid by other units
that fall under BIA management on the Wind River Unit. Cost savings on
administration, (board members are on a volunteer basis), low overhead
(the associations do not own equipment or employ operators, but instead
hire contractors) and donated labor by irrigators have made this
arrangement feasible. However, like all the systems on the Wind River
Unit, the deferred maintenance needs we have inherited are significant.
We have been benefited in recent years from funding provided through
legislation spearheaded by the late Craig Thomas and others that was
administered by the Tribal Water Engineer's office and matched by funds
provided by the Wyoming Water Development Commission. These funds have
served to rehabilitate many structures on the Wind River Reservation,
inc luding two major diversion structures in the Crowheart area.
Unfortunately, the 7 million dollar amount provided by the Wyoming
Water Development Commission and the Thomas legislation is far from
adequate to address the rehabilitation needs of the irrigation
infrastructure on the Wind River Reservation.
The ``IRRIGATE ACT'' would provide much needed funding to help
cover the costs of rehabilitation, enhance safety features, and
modernize the systems in Crowheart and throughout the reservation. In
our experience managing our systems, dollars go much further when they
are put to work on the ground, not to add unnecessary administrative
positions or purchase very expensive and often inefficient equipment
and operators. Our systems have been studied extensively, most recently
in 2006. Studies are a valuable tool to ensure proper allocation of
funds within a project, however those landowners who pay the operations
and maintenance assessments and have invested their time and efforts in
improving their systems as we have in Crowheart should be considered
authorities on their systems and should not be ignored. As irrigators,
we would much rather see funds go to work on the ground than on yet
another study. It is also critical that funds are not provided with
strings attached, such as liens against the land serviced by the
systems or debts that are assigned by those who do not own the land.
In summary, we are encouraged by the opportunities this proposed
legislation will bring to the communities throughout the Wind River
Reservation. The water is tied to the land in these communities and
delivery of this water in an efficient manner is the key to the success
of the operations in the area. Wateruser groups like those in Crowheart
are critical to improving operations because those involved have a
financial interest in their success. Thank you for your efforts on this
legislation, and we look forward to working with the Committee in the
future.
[all]