[DOCID: f:sr020.110]
From the Senate Reports Online via GPO Access
[wais.access.gpo.gov]
Calendar No. 46
110th Congress Report
SENATE
1st Session 110-20
======================================================================
ALASKA WATER RESOURCES ACT OF 2007
_______
February 16, 2007.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Bingaman, from the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany S. 200]
The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, to which was
referred the bill (S. 200) to require the Secretary of the
Interior, acting through the Bureau of Reclamation and the
United States Geological Survey, to conduct a study on
groundwater resources in the State of Alaska, and for other
purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon
without amendment and recommends that the bill do pass.
PURPOSE OF THE MEASURE
The purpose of S. 200 is to require the Secretary of the
Interior, acting through the Bureau of Reclamation and the
United States Geological Survey, to conduct a study on
groundwater resources in the State of Alaska, and a survey of
water treatment needs and potential technologies.
BACKGROUND AND NEED
Alaska has more than 3 million lakes, of which only 100 or
so are larger than 10 square miles. The State also has more
than 12,000 rivers, including 10 major ones (Yukon, Porcupine,
Koyukuk, Kuskokwim, Tanana, Innoko, Colville, Noatak, Kobuk and
Birch Creek), along with thousands of streams, creeks and
ponds. Combined, these water bodies comprise approximately one-
third of all the fresh water found in the United States.
From early spring with the ice breakup, to fall with its
heavy rains, Alaskans are subject to substantial flood threats.
For example, the Yukon, which originates in western Canada,
runs 1,400 miles and discharges from 25,000 cubic feet of water
per second in early spring to more than 600,000 cubic feet per
second in May during the spring thaw. Despite these flood
threats, Alaska has fewer than 100 stream gauging stations
operated by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)--less than 10
percent of the stream flow information available to other
States. Alaska averages one working gauge for each 10,000
square miles. In contrast, States in the Pacific Northwest
average one gauge for each 365 square miles. To equal the
Pacific Northwest, Alaska would require over 1,600 total gauge
sites.
Alaska also has the Nation's least modern and undeveloped
potable water distribution system. Water for rural Alaska towns
comes mostly from surface water sources--which are prone to
freezing, resulting in both supply and storage problems. Such
surface water sources are also vulnerable to water-borne
contaminants, including wildlife fecal matter, human waste from
inadequate or nonexistent sewage treatment facilities, and
natural mineral deposits (natural arsenic levels in mineralized
zone creeks frequently exceed Environmental Protection Agency
standards). Other areas, such as the densely populated
``Railbelt,'' rely on groundwater sources. However, there is
limited knowledge of the nature and extent of the aquifers that
support those critical groundwater supplies, a problem
exacerbated by extensive permafrost.
According to the Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation, the State has about 16,000 homes in 71 Native
villages that are not served by piped water or enclosed water
haul systems. There are still 55 villages in Alaska where up to
29 percent of the residents are not served by sanitary water
systems, with more than 60 percent of residents not being
served in 16 villages.
In order to plan effectively for these locations, better
information as to the availability and extent of the water
supply is needed, along with an analysis of new technologies
that could be used for water system installations, including
possible desalination for some island and coastal communities.
The studies authorized by S. 200 will help Alaska to plan and
design water systems and transportation infrastructure and
better prepare for floods and summer wildfires.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
S. 200 was introduced on January 8, 2007 by Senator
Murkowski for herself and Senator Stevens and referred to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. At its business
meeting on January 31, 2007, the Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources ordered S. 200 favorably reported.
During the 109th Congress, the Committee considered a
similar measure, S. 1338, introduced by Senator Murkowski on
June 29, 2005. Senator Stevens and Senator Cochran were co-
sponsors. The Subcommittee on Water and Power held a hearing on
S. 1338 on July 12, 2005. S. Hrg. 109-138. The Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources ordered S. 1338, as amended,
favorably reported on September 28, 2005. S. Rept. 109-170. S.
1338 passed the Senate by unanimous consent, on November 16,
2005. No further action occurred prior to the sine die
adjournment of the 109th Congress.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, in open
business session on January 31, 2007, by voice vote of a quorum
present, recommends that the Senate pass S. 200.
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Section 1 provides the short title.
Section 2 sets forth definitions.
Section 3(a) directs the Secretary of the Interior, acting
through the Commissioner of Reclamation and the Director of the
USGS to conduct water studies in the State of Alaska. These
studies include a survey of accessible water supplies,
including aquifers, on the Kenai Peninsula, in the Municipality
of Anchorage, the Matanuska-Susitna Borough, the city of
Fairbanks, and the Fairbanks Northstar Borough; a survey of
water treatment needs and technologies, including desalination
treatment; and a review of the need for enhancement of the
National Streamflow Information Program administered by the
USGS as it relates to critical water needs such as
infrastructure risk to State transportation, flood forecasting,
resource extraction, and fire management.
Subsection (b) directs the Secretary of the Interior to
report the results of these studies to the Senate Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources and the House Resources Committee
within two years of the Act's enactment.
Section 4 authorizes such sums as may be necessary to carry
out the Act.
COST AND BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS
The following estimate of costs of this measure has been
provided by the Congressional Budget Office:
S. 200--Alaska Water Resources Act of 2007
Summary: S. 200 would direct the Secretary of the Interior
to conduct a study of water resources in five areas of Alaska.
The study, to be completed within two years of the bill's
enactment, would include a survey of accessible water supplies
and water treatment needs. Assuming appropriation of the
necessary funds, CBO estimates that conducting those studies
would cost $8 million over the 2008-2012 period. Enacting S.
200 would not affect direct spending or revenues.
S. 200 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal
governments.
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: For this
estimate, CBO assumes that S. 200 will be enacted before the
end of 2007. Based on the cost of similar studies, CBO
estimates that carrying out the proposed study would cost $8
million over the 2008-2012 period, assuming appropriation of
the necessary amounts. The estimated budgetary impact of S. 200
is shown in the following table. The costs of this legislation
fall within budget function 300 (natural resources and
environment).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of
dollars--
---------------------------------------
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES TO SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
Authorization Level............. 8 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays............... 4 4 0 0 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intergovernmental and Private-Sector Impact: S. 200
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as
defined in UMRA and would impose no costs on state, local, or
tribal governments.
Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Julie Middleton;
Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Lisa Ramirez-
Branum; Impact on the Private Sector: Craig Cammarata.
Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
REGULATORY IMPACT EVALUATION
In compliance with paragraph 11(b) rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee makes the following
evaluation of the regulatory impact which would be incurred in
carrying out S. 200. The bill is not a regulatory measure in
the sense of imposing Government-established standards or
significant economic responsibilities on private individuals
and businesses.
No personal information would be collected in administering
the program. Therefore, there would be no impact on personal
privacy.
Little, if any, additional paperwork would result from the
enactment of S. 200, as ordered reported.
EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS
Because S. 200 is similar to legislation considered by the
Committee in the 109th Congress, the Committee did not request
Executive Agency Views. The testimony provided by the Bureau of
Rec1amation at the subcommittee hearing in the 109th Congress
on S. 1338 follows:
Statement of Leslie Holland-Bartels, U.S. Geological Survey, Department
of the Interior
Madam Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Dr.
Leslie Holland-Bartels, Director of the U.S. Geological
Survey's (USGS) Alaska Science Center, located in Anchorage,
Alaska. I thank you for the opportunity to provide the views of
the Department of the Interior (Department) on S. 1338, the
``Alaska Water Resources Act of 2005'' and on S. 49, the
``Alaska Floodplain and Erosion Mitigation Commission Act of
2005.''
The Department agrees that the goals of each bill are
commendable and the needs that could be addressed are real;
however, we have concerns with these bills, including the
availability of funding for the work proposed in the context of
overall funding for the Administration's priorities. I will
address each bill independently in my statement and will begin
with S. 1338, the ``Alaska Water Resources Act of 2005.''
S. 1338, The ``Alaska Water Resources Act of 2005''
S. 1338 directs the Secretary of the Interior, acting
through the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) and the Director of the
U.S. Geological Survey, to conduct a study on ground-water
resources in the State of Alaska. The role identified for the
Department in this bill is consistent with BOR and USGS's
leadership role in monitoring and assessing ground-water
resources.
The bill requires a study that includes a survey of
accessible water supplies (including aquifers on the Kenai
Peninsula, in the municipality of Anchorage and the Matanuska-
Susitna Borough), and a review of the need for enhancement of
the streamflow information collected by the USGS in Alaska
relating to critical water needs.
The USGS has a long history of conducting ground-water
assessments on both a local and regional scale. In the 1950s
and 1960s studies were conducted across the nation to provide a
basic understanding of geohydrologic conditions at a county-
level scale and, in the 1980s, 25 regional aquifer systems were
studied in detail. However, Alaska was not covered in these
studies. As a result, basic geohydrologic information is needed
in Alaska so that specific resource management questions can be
addressed. Congress directed the USGS in their fiscal year 2002
appropriation to ``. . . prepare a report to describe the scope
and magnitude of the efforts needed to provide periodic
assessments of the status and trends in the availability and
use of freshwater resources.'' That report, USGS Circular 1223,
states that ground-water levels should be based on repeated
observations at relatively large numbers of observation wells
in a wide range of representative hydrogeologic environments,
and we continue to work toward that goal.
Many Alaska citizens depend on good quality ground water
for domestic consumption and other uses. However, reliable
assessments of ground-water availability and quality are
limited for expanding population areas such as the Municipality
of Anchorage, the Kenai Peninsula Borough, Fairbanks-North Star
Borough, and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough. In many of these
areas, individual wells supply homes and businesses with
drinking water, and wastewater is disposed of through onsite
septic systems. As populations and development activities on
the surrounding landscape increase in these areas, additional
consumption and demand on these aquifers is coupled with an
increased risk of ground-water contamination. Specific
knowledge of the aquifer properties will support proper
planning to protect the ground water from potential
contamination and to ensure there is an adequate supply and
recharge needed for both domestic and industry related
consumption.
For example, recent observations have been made of elevated
nitrate concentrations in drinking water in parts of the
Municipality of Anchorage and the Fairbanks-North Star Borough.
Arsenic concentrations in some shallow aquifers in the
Fairbanks-North Star and Kenai Peninsula Boroughs exceed the
new EPA maximum contaminant level standards. The information
collected under this legislation would allow for the
determination of sources of water to these wells, and for the
identification of geochemical conditions that may contribute to
these elevated concentrations and provide a basis for
mitigation.
Ground water is also important to sustaining streamflow
during times of low precipitation and surface runoff. Alaska's
world-renowned salmon fisheries are economically important to
the State and to local communities. Salmon that spawn in
streams throughout the State incubate eggs in the streambed
gravels where infiltrating ground water sustains eggs during
dry periods. Activities that disrupt the interaction between
ground water and streams may have adverse effects on these
fisheries. For example, increased withdrawals of ground water
may lower water tables sufficiently that the connection to the
streambed is lost. A lowered ground-water table in Juneau
through natural geologic processes is likely responsible for
the dewatering of some small streams that formerly supported
significant runs of salmon. Current information on the
interaction between ground water and streams is lacking for
important salmon spawning areas in the Kenai Peninsula and
Matanuska-Susitna Boroughs.
Moreover, Alaska has abundant energy resources, including
oil, natural gas, coal, and coalbed methane, the development of
which may require the use or disposal of large amounts of
ground water. Recent interest in the development of coalbed
methane in the Matanuska-Susitna and Kenai Peninsula Boroughs
highlights the need for detailed knowledge about ground-water
resources. Resource managers need to understand the connections
among aquifers to assess consequences of large scale dewatering
of the coal aquifers. The USGS has conducted detailed studies
related to development of coalbed methane in Wyoming and
Montana, but not yet in Alaska.
Infrastructure expansion is also necessary to support
expanding populations. Gravel used in construction material may
be available locally, but removal of gravels may alter ground-
water flow patterns in shallow aquifers. Gravel extraction and
its potential affect on ground water has been a focus of
attention for citizens in the Municipality of Anchorage, in the
Homer/Anchor Point area of the Kenai Peninsula Borough, and in
the Fairbanks-North Star Borough. Shallow gravel deposits are
often the aquifers that provide drinking water for individual
residents and small communities, yet little information exists
on the extent of these aquifers or alternative water supplies.
Other types of resource extraction, such as development of
world-class mineral deposits are ongoing or planned in Alaska.
Newly discovered deposits, such as the Pebble gold-copper
project near Iliamna, Alaska are in areas where minimal
information exists on water resources. The Pebble gold-copper
project is in the headwaters of salmon and trout fisheries
important to subsistence users. An assessment of water
resources that results in predictive models describing
interactions between ground water and surface water will allow
developers and regulators to evaluate alternative designs for
development and operation of the project. The USGS has
extensive experience in conducting detailed studies of
hydrologic and water-quality conditions on such a scale. The
National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program has provided
valuable information on major river basins and aquifer system
in the nation. One NAWQA study area was located in Alaska and
included the Municipality of Anchorage and parts of the Kenai
Peninsula and Matanuska-Susitna Boroughs. S. 1338 also requests
``a review of the need for enhancement of the streamflow
information collected by the USGS in Alaska relating to
critical water needs.'' The USGS's program review process
focuses on program relevancy, quality, and performance.
The USGS has a program in place that can assist in
developing data for this task. National Streamflow Information
Program (NSIP) is currently operating 18 gages to provide
surface water information. In 2004, 6.4 million acres of land,
an area about the size of New Hampshire, were consumed by fire.
While the four streamgages operated by the USGS within the bum
area provided critical information, local land managers
realized that they lacked sufficient credible stream data to
assess watershed effects of fire on hydrologic response and
recovery. This information will also assist in protecting life
and property from flooding events caused, for example, by
outburst floods on glacier-dammed lakes, and would allow the
National Weather Service to do river and flood forecasting
statewide with an appropriate level of certainty.
The USGS in Alaska also works closely with a broad spectrum
of partners, including other federal agencies, State and local
agencies, and Alaska Native villages. Over $1.2 million dollars
in federal cost share funds were used to partner with State and
local agencies in jointly funding critical hydrologic
information for their specific agency needs in 2005. For
example, the USGS has a long-term relationship with most of
these partners such as the Alaska Department of Transportation
and Public Facilities, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and
the Kenai Peninsula Borough. We expect these relationships to
continue.
Finally, also within the Department, the U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation's Science and Technology Program finds solutions to
complex water management challenges through research and
development of state-of-the-art technology.
Reclamation operates a network of automated hydrologic and
meteorologic monitoring stations located throughout the Pacific
Northwest. This network and its associated communications and
computer systems are collectively called Hydromet. Remote data
collection platforms transmit water and environmental data via
radio and satellite to provide cost-effective, near-real-time
water management capability.
The expertise of these two Departmental bureaus is highly
relevant to the tasks contemplated by the legislation. However,
the Department is concerned with the funding requirements that
accompany S. 1338. We note that there are no funds in the
Department's FY 2006 budget to implement the legislation, and
any future funding would have to compete with other priority
projects for funds.
* * * * * * *
Conclusion
In conclusion, Alaska is a state experiencing significant
changes in its water patterns both in quantity and timing of
flow, challenging both Alaska Native and state and federal
agency management efforts. Such water changes can and do affect
infrastructure stability (e.g., road bridge scour), fishery
productivity, and accelerated river erosion and flood patterns.
Establishing a viable and reliable core of federally funded
streamgages and enhanced funding to support ground-water
research, monitoring and assessment would allow the public and
resource managers to make science-based decisions on allocation
of water for the competing interests. We also support a process
for evaluating the options for those Alaska Native villages
that are most subject to a risk of flood damage.
However, funding for the activities in S. 1338 and S. 49
would remain subject to available resources within the
Administration's priorities. In addition, for the reasons
discussed above, we cannot support S. 49 in its current form,
but offer to work with the Subcommittee to develop mutually
acceptable legislation.
Thank you, Madam Chairman, for the opportunity to present
this testimony. I will be pleased to answer questions you and
other Members of the Subcommittee may have.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee notes that no
changes in existing law are made by the bill S. 200, as ordered
reported.
<all>