[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 128 (Saturday, August 4, 2007)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1771]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




   BILL TO PROMOTE COOPERATION WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN ANALYSIS OF 
                         CERTAIN WATER PROJECTS

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. MARK UDALL

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                        Saturday, August 4, 2007

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, today I am introducing the 
``Greater Cooperation with Local Governments in Water Project Analysis 
Act.''
  This bill would require the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers, when acting as a lead federal agency for 
analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, NEPA, of 
certain water projects, to grant ``cooperating agency'' status to 
affected subdivisions of state governments if they seek that status.
  The bill would apply to analysis of any project involving diversion 
of water from one river basin to another river basin and to any local 
government with jurisdiction over any portion of such a project.
  Its purpose is to ensure a ``seat at the table'' for these local 
governments, to make sure they have the fullest opportunity to provide 
input regarding the potential impacts of such a project.
  It's important to note that this bill would not give any state 
subdivision a ``veto'' of the water diversion project. It would only 
ensure the subdivision's more direct involvement of the analysis of 
such a project.
  While the term ``cooperating agency'' is not part of the statutory 
language of NEPA, the Council on Environmental Quality, CEQ, has issued 
regulations providing for that status in order to implement the NEPA 
mandate that Federal agencies responsible for preparing NEPA analyses 
and documentation do so ``in cooperation with State and local 
governments'' and other agencies with jurisdiction by law or special 
expertise.
  As CEQ has noted, ``Studies regarding the efficiency, effectiveness, 
and value of NEPA analyses conclude that stakeholder involvement is 
important in ensuring decision-makers have the environmental 
information necessary to make informed and timely decisions 
efficiently. Cooperating agency status is a major component of agency 
stakeholder involvement that neither enlarges nor diminishes the 
decision-making authority of any agency involved in the NEP A 
process.'' (Memorandum for the Heads of Federal Agencies from James 
Connaughton, Chair, Council on Environmental Quality, January 30, 
2002).
  Having the status of a ``cooperating agency'' does involve some 
responsibilities as well as opportunities. But it is understandable 
that local governments often seek to be granted that status--and, at 
least with regard to the kind of projects covered by this bill, I think 
that if a local government seeks it, it should be granted.
  I was prompted to introduce this bill by the experience of Grand 
County, located on the west side of the Continental Divide, in 
connection with two water diversion projects involving some east slope 
communities and interests that possess rights to water that originates 
in and flows through Grand County.
  Both of these projects have important implications for communities 
and activities in the county, so I joined with the county in requesting 
``cooperating agency'' status to the County for both of these projects.
  However, due to the discretionary nature of granting such status, in 
one case the County status was granted, in another it was denied.
  One of these projects is the Moffat Collection System Project. The 
Denver Water Department owns and collects water in various streams that 
flow west from the flanks of the Continental Divide. The Department 
then pipes this water through a water tunnel associated with the Moffat 
Tunnel, which is also a railroad tunnel.
  In 2004, the Denver Water Department began an effort to increase the 
volume of water it collects and sends through this Moffat Collection 
System. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is the lead agency on this 
project and began the necessary NEP A work. And when Grand County 
requested ``cooperating agency'' status for this project, the Corps 
denied their request.
  The other project is called the Windy Gap Firming Project. This 
project also diverts water from Grand County to the eastern slope. The 
Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District is the prime beneficiary 
of the water from this project, which is designed to increase the water 
collection and diversion from Grand County using features such as Lake 
Granby, Shadow Mountain Reservoir, Grand Lake, and the Alva diversion 
tunnel.
  In this case, the lead Federal agency conducting the NEPA work on 
this project was the Bureau of Reclamation. Again, Grand County sought 
``cooperating agency'' status--and in this case, the Bureau of 
Reclamation granted the County that status.
  This bill responds to this discrepancy by removing the discretion of 
either the Corps of Engineers or the Bureau of Reclamation to deny a 
request for ``cooperating agency'' status by a county or other local 
government having jurisdiction over any portion of such a project.
  In other words, under the bill if a county or other similar 
subdivision of a state requests ``cooperating agency'' status regarding 
a transbasin-diversion water project located within its jurisdiction, 
the Corps or Bureau, if acting as the lead agency under NEPA, would be 
required to grant that request.
  I believe that it is important for counties and other subdivisions to 
be involved in the important issues affecting them, such as transbasin 
water diversion projects. I do not believe that allowing them more 
direct involvement in these issues should be up to the will of the lead 
Federal agency if they have made a decision to seek such status.

                          ____________________