<DOC>
[110 Senate Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:36643.wais]
S. Hrg. 110-86
MISCELLANEOUS WATER BILLS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
S. 175 S. 1112
S. 324 S. 1116
S. 542 H.R. 235
S. 752 H.R. 902
S. 1037
__________
APRIL 25, 2007
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
36-643 WASHINGTON : 2007
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800
Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho
RON WYDEN, Oregon CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
KEN SALAZAR, Colorado BOB CORKER, Tennessee
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
JON TESTER, Montana MEL MARTINEZ, Florida
Robert M. Simon, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
Frank J. Macchiarola, Republican Staff Director
Judith K. Pensabene, Republican Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Water and Power
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota, Chairman
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota BOB CORKER, Tennessee
RON WYDEN, Oregon LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming
KEN SALAZAR, Colorado JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon
JON TESTER, Montana JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
Jeff Bingaman and Pete V. Domenici are Ex Officio Members of the
Subcommittee
Mike Connor, Counsel
Josh Johnson, Republican Professional Staff Member
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Corker, Hon. Bob, U.S. Senator from Tennessee.................... 5
Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator from Idaho.................... 3
Domenici, Hon. Pete V., U.S. Senator from New Mexico............. 4
Glode, Joe, Chairman, Upper North Platte Valley Water Users
Association.................................................... 18
Hagel, Hon. Chuck, U.S. Senator from Nebraska.................... 4
Hirsch, Robert M., Associate Director for Water, U.S. Geological
Survey, Department of the Interior............................. 9
Johnson, Robert, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation, Department
of the Interior................................................ 6
Purcell, Mike, State of Wyoming.................................. 14
Salazar, Hon. Ken, U.S. Senator from Colorado.................... 1
Smith, Hon. Gordon H., U.S. Senator from Oregon.................. 5
Stewart, Dr. David R., Professional Engineer..................... 20
Thomas, Hon. Craig, U.S. Senator from Wyoming.................... 6
Tibbetts, Nicholas R., Redwood Valley County Water District...... 24
APPENDIXES
Appendix I
Responses to additional questions................................ 33
Appendix II
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 43
MISCELLANEOUS WATER BILLS
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 25, 2007
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Water and Power,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ken Salazar
presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. KEN SALAZAR, U.S. SENATOR FROM
COLORADO
Senator Salazar. I call the hearing to order of the Water
and Power Subcommittee of April 25, 2007.
We have a time problem because we have three votes coming
up in half an hour and then following that we have an all
Senators briefing on the Middle East and so we're going to get
all of this hearing done in a very short period of time.
It's my pleasure to welcome everybody to this afternoon's
hearing today. We'll have two panels of witnesses competing
with that we have these three votes and for that reason I
wanted to get the hearing started on time and move it along as
quickly as possible.
In the interest of time what we'll do is we'll ask each
Senator to limit their opening comments and submit their
statements for the record. I have a long statement that I'll
submit for the record and I will ask my colleagues to do as
well.
Second, with respect to the first panel of witnesses from
the administration, we simply accept their statements for the
record and we'll go directly to questions and answers so that
we can get to the second panel in the next half an hour.
If these suggestions are acceptable to Senator Corker and
Senator Thomas, we'll proceed in that expedited fashion. The
following nine bills are before us today:
S. 175, sponsored by Senator Inhofe which authorizes a
feasibility study on water supply alternatives in central
Oklahoma.
S. 324, sponsored by Senators Domenici and Bingaman
authorizing ground water studies in New Mexico.
S. 542, sponsored by Senator Craig, authorizing feasibility
studies on water supply alternatives within the Snake River
Basin in Idaho.
S. 752, sponsored by Senators Nelson, Allard, Hagel and
myself concerning the Federal participation in the Platte River
endangered species recovery program.
S. 1037, sponsored by Senators Smith and Wyden authorizing
a water conservation project within the Tumalo Irrigation
District in Oregon.
S. 1112, sponsored by Senators Feinstein and Boxer and H.R.
235, sponsored by Representative Thompson, which would allow a
contract modification for the benefit of the Redwood Valley
Water District in California.
And finally S. 1116, which Senators Bingaman, Domenici,
Thomas and I are sponsoring and H.R. 902, sponsored by
Representative Mark Udall, which addresses the generation and
beneficial use of produced water.
With that quick opening statement, I'll turn to Senator
Corker, the ranking member, for any brief comments he would
like to make.
[The prepared statements of Senators Salazar, Craig,
Domenici, Hagel and Smith follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ken Salazar, U.S. Senator From Colorado
I call to order this hearing before the Water and Power
Subcommittee. It's my pleasure to welcome everyone to this afternoon's
hearing. We have a full agenda today. Competing with that is an Iraq
briefing for all Senators beginning at 4:00 pm. For that reason, I will
get the hearing started and move it along as quickly as possible.
The following nine bills are before us today: S. 175, sponsored by
Senator Inhofe, authorizes a feasibility study on water supply
alternatives in Central Oklahoma; S. 324, sponsored by Senators
Domenici and Bingaman, authorizes groundwater studies in New Mexico; S.
542, sponsored by Senator Craig, authorizes feasibility studies on
water supply alternatives within the Snake River basin in Idaho; S.
752, a bill I'm sponsoring with Senators Nelson, Allard, and Hagel,
directs federal participation in the Platte River Endangered Species
Recovery Program; S. 1037, sponsored by Senators Smith and Wyden,
authorizes a water conservation project within the Tumalo Irrigation
District in Oregon; S. 1112, sponsored by Senators Feinstein and Boxer,
and H.R. 235, sponsored by Representative Thompson, allow a contract
modification for the benefit of the Redwood Valley Water District in
California; and finally, S. 1116, which I am sponsoring with Senators
Bingaman, Domenici, and Thomas, and H.R. 902, sponsored by
Representative Mark Udall, address the generation and beneficial use of
produced water, a by-product of oil and gas production.
We have 2 panels of witnesses today. The first panel consists of
representatives of the Administration. Bob Johnson is the Commissioner
of the United States Bureau of Reclamation and Bob Hirsch is the
Associate Director for Water at the United States Geological Survey.
Welcome to both of you.
Before we get started, I'd like to note that the Subcommittee has
received written testimony on several bills before us today. That
testimony, as well as the written submissions of all the witnesses
before us, will be made part of the official record.
I'd now like to make some brief remarks about the bills that I'm
sponsoring which are before the Subcommittee today.
Senator Bingaman, Senator Domenici, Senator Thomas and I introduced
legislation, S. 1116, the ``More Water, More Energy, and Less Waste Act
of 2007,'' to facilitate the use of water produced in connection with
development of energy resources for irrigation and other beneficial
uses in ways that will not adversely affect water quality or the
environment.
Our bill is similar to one that has been introduced during this
Congress in the House by Representative Mark Udall (H.R. 902, More
Water and More Energy Act of 2007).
The bill's purpose is to help turn what is today an energy-industry
problem into an opportunity. The development of energy resources
frequently results in bringing to the surface water from underground
sources. Energy producers seek to minimize the waters that are produced
during extraction operations, but inevitably waters are produced and
they must either be treated before being released to the surface or
returned to the ground. In a few cases, the waters are clean enough to
be used for livestock watering, irrigation or other beneficial
purposes.
Especially in the water-short West, increasing the amount of water
that can be used without adversely affecting water quality or the
environment can increase water supplies for irrigation of crops,
livestock watering, wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities.
Everyone will benefit from increased supplies of usable water, even if
the supplies are temporary in nature, provided that the new water is of
good quality and will not adversely affect the environment now or in
the future.
Our bill would direct the Commissioner of Reclamation, the Director
of the U.S. Geological Survey, and the Director of the Bureau of Land
Management to conduct a study to identify the technical, economic,
environmental, and other obstacles to (1) reducing the quantity of
produced water and (2) increasing the extent to which produced water
can be used for irrigation and other purposes, without adversely
affecting water quality or the environment, during or after energy
development. Our bill will also provide grants for at least five
projects to demonstrate (1) ways to optimize energy resource production
by reducing the quantity of produced water generated or (2) the
feasibility, effectiveness, and safety of processes to increase the
extent to which produced water may be recovered and made suitable for
use for irrigation, municipal, or industrial uses, or other purposes
without adversely affecting water quality or the environment.
In the water-short West, the produced waters are a virtually
untapped resource, and the benefits of using them for irrigation and
other purposes could be substantial. It is estimated that up to 18
million barrels of produced waters are generated each year from oil and
gas operations. Finding ways to minimize the waters that are produced
during oil and gas extraction and then putting to beneficial use those
waters that are produced, is a win/win for everyone.
However, there are significant hurdles that must be overcome before
produced waters can be used as a water resource in ways that do not
adversely affect our water quality or harm our environment. The study
required in our bill will bring our country closer to using this
important untapped resource.
Senator Ben Nelson along with Senator Allard, Senator Hagel, and
myself, introduced S. 752, the ``Platte River Recovery Implementation
Program and Pathfinder Modification Authorization Act of 2007,'' to
authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the
implementation of the Platte River Recovery Implementation Program for
endangered species in the Central and Lower Platte River Basin, and to
modify the Pathfinder Dam and Reservoir.
Our bill is similar to one that has been introduced during this
Congress in the House by Representative Mark Udall (H.R. 1462, Platte
River Recovery Implementation Program and Pathfinder Modification
Authorization Act).
Almost ten years ago, the Governors of Nebraska, Wyoming and
Colorado and the Secretary of Interior signed the ``Cooperative
Agreement for Platte River Research and Other Efforts Relating to
Endangered Species Habitat along the Central Platte River, Nebraska.''
The Program will be a basin-wide effort undertaken by the Department of
the Interior and the States of Colorado, Nebraska, and Wyoming to
provide benefits for the endangered interior least tern, whooping
crane, and pallid sturgeon and the threatened piping plover.
The Program has three main elements: 1) increasing streamflows in
the Central Platte River during relevant time periods through retiming
and water conservation supply projects; 2) enhancing, restoring and
protecting habitat lands for the target bird species; and 3)
accommodating certain new water related activities. The Program's long-
term objective for water is to provide sufficient water to and through
the Central Platte River habitat area to assist in improving and
maintaining habitat for the target species.
One of the Program's purposes is to mitigate the adverse impacts of
certain new water related activities through the implementation of
state and federal depletions plans. This will allow continued growth
and water development to occur in the Platte River basin along with
improving conditions for the target species.
Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Larry E. Craig, U.S. Senator From Idaho
Idaho's storage capacity is being stressed by increasing demands
from irrigation, power generation, industrial users, municipal users,
and fish habitat.
Idaho is growing at an unprecedented rate, particularly in the
Treasure Valley. The assessment has already pointed out that, in less
than 30 years, over 100,000 additional acre feet of water per year will
be needed to meet increased demand. Beyond additional water, there is
concern over current flood control because the increasing development
and channelization of the Boise River is decreasing flood control
capacity. Additionally, Idaho has four species of salmonids that are
listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act
that require a significant amount of water for flow augmentation. This
will reduce the pressure of other impoundments that are losing
significant amounts of water causing different resource concerns.
These increasing demands, coupled with limited storage, have caused
concern for me and many of my constituents. In 2003, dialogue regarding
needed water supplies began and a Stakeholder Working Group was created
from many interest groups from federal, state and local partners to
address irrigation, municipal, and environmental interests. These
parties have worked collaboratively with the Bureau of Reclamation to
locate appropriate storage options from adding to existing impoundments
to building new structures to recharge.
I would like to thank the Bureau of Reclamation and the Boise
regional office in particular for their leadership and assistance in
addressing Idaho's water needs.
However, the Bureau of Reclamation needs congressional
authorization to take the next step and do feasibility studies in the
areas identified by the Stakeholder Working Group. I support this
legislation and hope through the feasibility study process, we can
determine possible locations for needed additional storage for my
constituents in Idaho.
This bill is simple and should be non-controversial. S. 542
authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to conduct feasibility studies
and address certain water shortages within the Snake, Boise, and
Payette River systems in Idaho as well as authorizes the required
appropriations.
I ask unanimous consent that the Idaho Water Users Association
testimony be made part of the record.
Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Pete V. Domenici, U.S. Senator
From New Mexico
Mr. Chairman, thank you for having this hearing today.
Approximately 90 percent of New Mexicans depend on groundwater for
drinking water and 77 percent of New Mexicans obtain water exclusively
from groundwater sources. During times of drought, when surface water
is scarce, New Mexicans must be able to reliably turn to groundwater.
While groundwater supplies throughout the State are coming under
increasing competition, not enough is known about these resources in
order to make sound decisions regarding their use.
S. 324, the New Mexico Aquifer Assessment Act would direct the
United States Geological Survey, in collaboration with the state of New
Mexico, to undertake a groundwater resources study in the state of New
Mexico. A comprehensive study of the State's water resources is
critical to effective water planning. I want to thank Chairman Bingaman
for co-sponsoring S. 324.
Another bill we are addressing today, S. 1116, introduced by
Senator Salazar, and which I am an original co-sponsor, addresses one
of the many key interrelationships of energy and water. Reducing where
possible the amount of produced water and using the water that remains
in the most effective manner is a very important issue for New Mexico
and much of the inter-mountain west.
I look forward to hearing from the witnesses today. Thank you Mr.
Chairman.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Chuck Hagel, U.S. Senator From Nebraska
Mr. Chairman: The development of water resources along the Platte
River has altered the habitat of three species of bird and one fish
species, all of which are listed under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA): the least tern; the piping plover; the whooping crane; and the
pallid sturgeon. As a result, in 1997, Nebraska, Colorado, Wyoming, and
the U.S. Department of Interior entered into a partnership to develop a
program to improve habitat for the four species. Between 1997 and 2006,
the Platte River Recovery Implementation Program (Program) was
formulated by the states, the Department of Interior, and other
interested parties.
In December 2006, the Governors of Nebraska, Colorado and Wyoming,
along with the Department of Interior, signed a new agreement to
implement the Program, which took effect on January 1, 2007.
The new Program would:
<bullet> restore and protect lands for the four endangered species by
increasing stream flows during certain times of year, and
through other methods;
<bullet> provide a legal framework to protect existing water users
along the Platte River;
<bullet> prepare for additional water use by new users, and set rules
for those users; and
<bullet> provide for ongoing scientific research on the four species.
S. 752, the Platte River Recovery Implementation Program and
Pathfinder Modification Authorization Act of 2007, authorizes the
relevant federal agencies to participate in the Program, and authorizes
$157 million over 13 years to cover the federal portion of the project
cost. This legislation is essential to the success of the Program.
I applaud Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman for working with the
Governors of Wyoming and Colorado, the U.S. Department of Interior and
local stakeholders for developing a plan that will improve the habitat
of endangered species, and protect both existing and future water users
along the Platte River. This is the kind of infra-state cooperation
that will be necessary to address future water challenges in Nebraska
and across the U.S.
It is important that we assist the states with the implementation
of this Program by passing S. 752 as soon as possible.
Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Gordon H. Smith, U.S. Senator From Oregon
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for convening this hearing to
review several bills that are important to our respective states. As
the sponsor of one of the bills before us today, I would like to submit
for the hearing record the statement of the Tumalo Irrigation Water
District on S. 1037.
Briefly, S. 1037 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
assist in the planning, design, and construction of the Tumalo
Irrigation District Water Conservation Project in Deschutes County,
Oregon. This project involves piping about six miles of open canals.
This will enable the District, in accordance with state water law, to
return an estimated 20 cubic-feet-per-second of conserved water to in-
stream flows in Tumalo Creek and the Deschutes River.
In recent years, sections of the Deschutes River--below diversions
by the federal Reclamation project in the basin--have dropped to as low
as 30 cubic-feet-per-second during certain times of the year. The
Deschutes Basin is in arid central Oregon, and there are several
federally-listed fish species in the river. The water returned to in-
stream flows under this conservation project would be significant, and
could also help mitigate the impact of federal project operations in
the basin.
This project will also enhance public safety in the region by
eliminating the concerns related to open canals. By replacing these
open canals with pressurized pipelines, the project will also improve
the delivery of irrigation water to farmers in the Tumalo irrigation
District's service area.
The bill as introduced provides for the District to fund 75 percent
of the total cost of the project's design, planning and construction.
In addition, the District will pay the operation and maintenance costs
of the project. Upon completion, Tumalo Irrigation District will hold
title to any facilities constructed under this Act.
If we are going to meet the federal goals for the recovery of fish
species in the arid west, we must begin to recognize the value of water
conserved by non-federal partners such as the Tumalo Irrigation
District.
Again, I want to thank the witnesses who are here today, and I look
forward to hearing your testimony.
STATEMENT OF HON. BOB CORKER, U.S. SENATOR
FROM TENNESSEE
Senator Corker. In the interest of time, I'll be very
brief, but Senator, I'm glad to join you at the first meeting
of this subcommittee.
I'm sorry that Senator Johnson cannot be with us but we're
glad that his staff is. We look forward to him being back with
us very soon and just want to welcome our panel and members of
the public who are participating in the meeting and with that
I'll turn it back over to you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Salazar. Thank you, Senator Corker.
Senator Thomas.
STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS, U.S. SENATOR
FROM WYOMING
Senator Thomas. Thank you. I'll also be brief. Thank you
for holding the meeting.
A couple of bills here that I am particularly interested
in, of course, the Platte River and also the recovery. In the
second panel we'll have two leaders from Wyoming here. So, I'll
introduce them then, if I may. So otherwise, get on with the
hearing.
Senator Salazar. Thank you. In the interest of time I think
I have about, it seems that staff has prepared about 20
questions. So what I think we will do in order to be able to
hear from the rest of the panel that has traveled, some of the
other panelists have traveled a long way here.
I will submit these questions to you and if you could
submit written responses to the committee. I would appreciate
that very much and I would ask you both, Mr. Johnson and Dr.
Hirsh, if you have a quick comment with respect to the
legislation that is before us today.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT JOHNSON, COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF
RECLAMATION, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Johnson. We've submitted our comments for the record.
In the interest of time, I'll abstain and be glad to answer
questions but we'll just pass.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert Johnson, Commissioner, Bureau of
Reclamation, Department of the Interior
S. 175
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am Robert Johnson,
Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased to present the
views of the Department of the Interior on S. 175 concerning the
Central Oklahoma Master Conservancy District (District) Feasibility
Study.
S. 175 would authorize Reclamation to conduct a Feasibility Study
of alternatives to augment the water supplies of the District and
cities served by the District. S. 175 would also require the study to
be conducted within one year of the date of enactment, and authorize
$300,000 to be spent in conducting the study. The Department does not
support S. 175.
The one-year timeframe for the study described in S. 175 is
insufficient for a thorough evaluation of alternatives to meet future
water needs of surrounding communities not presently served by the
District and would be a very aggressive schedule. This timeframe would
also make completion of the Feasibility Study, including preparation of
the appropriate National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance
document, extremely problematic and may prove difficult to achieve with
any degree of accuracy.
The Department recognizes that a water need exists for the
District. Reclamation is currently preparing a scope of work in
coordination with the District, which focuses the plan of study to be
completed. However, the Department does not support authorization of a
Feasibility Study at this time.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on S. 175. This concludes
my statement and I am happy to answer any questions.
S. 542
I am Robert Johnson, Commissioner for the Bureau of Reclamation. I
am pleased to be here today to provide the Department of the Interior's
views on S. 542, legislation to authorize the Secretary to conduct
feasibility studies to address water shortages within the Snake, Boise,
and Payette River systems in Idaho.
Reclamation previously provided testimony on September 21, 2006,
regarding the Administration's views on H.R. 2563 as referred to the
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, a bill equivalent to S.
542 introduced this Congress. Consistent with our testimony in the last
Congress, we support S. 542.
The State of Idaho continues to experience the effects of a
prolonged drought as well as tremendous growth and urbanization in the
Boise and Payette River basins. Projected population growth will
eventually over-extend existing ground water supplies for these rapidly
growing areas. In light of this and other water resource issues
elsewhere in the state, the Idaho State House of Representatives issued
Joint Memorial No. 24 in 2004, which ``recognizes the need for
additional water to meet Idaho's emerging needs and encourages Federal
and State agencies to cooperate with Idaho in identifying and
developing such water supply projects.''
Under existing authorities, Reclamation initiated an assessment
level water supply study specifically in the Boise and Payette basins.
Stakeholders with wide representation from the State, Federal,
agricultural, environmental and municipal sectors participated in that
study. The Final Boise/Payette Water Storage Assessment Report was
completed in July 2006 and was distributed to local State, Federal,
agricultural, environmental and municipal parties.
S. 542 would go the next step by authorizing Reclamation to conduct
feasibility studies within the Snake, Boise, and Payette River systems.
However, while the legislation provides authority for feasibility
studies in the Snake River system, Reclamation's assessment report
referenced in the legislation solely evaluated and identified projects
for further consideration in the Boise and Payette river systems, thus
limiting the scope of the bill's authorization.
Reclamation supports focused, basin-by-basin water resource studies
with input and local involvement from the State and the stakeholder
communities. We recognize the need to address projected water supply
shortages in the Boise and Payette River systems, and look forward to
doing so in partnership with future beneficiaries. We would welcome the
opportunity to be an active partner in addressing these water supply
issues with the State of Idaho and its water users. However, any
studies conducted under this new authority would still need to compete
with other needs within the Reclamation program for funding priority in
the President's Budget.
This concludes my testimony. I am pleased to answer any questions.
S. 752
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am Robert Johnson,
Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. I appreciate the opportunity
to appear before you today to discuss S. 752, the Platte River Recovery
Implementation Program and the Pathfinder Modification Authorization
Act. The Department supports passage of S. 752.
The Platte River originates in the mountains of Wyoming and
Colorado and, as it flows through Nebraska, provides important habitat
for the whooping crane, piping plover, interior least tern, and pallid
sturgeon (target species) that are listed as threatened or endangered
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). In 1997, the States of
Colorado, Nebraska, and Wyoming and the Department of the Interior
signed a Cooperative Agreement to develop a basin-wide program that
would provide measures to assist in the recovery of these four target
species in the Platte River in Nebraska. In late 2006, the Platte River
Recovery Implementation Program (Program) Agreement was signed by the
Governors of the three States and the Secretary of the Interior,
allowing for Program implementation to begin January 1, 2007. The
Program assists in the conservation and recovery of the target species
in the Platte River basin and implements aspects of the recovery plans
for these species, thereby providing compliance under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) for existing water related activities and certain new
water-related activities in the Platte River Basin in Colorado,
Wyoming, and Nebraska.
Title I of S. 752 provides authorization for the Secretary of the
Interior, through the Bureau of Reclamation, to fully implement the
Program. It also provides Reclamation with authority to appropriate
non-reimbursable funds for the Program. Reclamation, in cooperation
with the Governance Committee, will implement the Program in
incremental stages with the first increment being a period of 13 years.
Pursuant to the Program Agreement, the Federal cost share for the first
increment is $157 million (2005 dollars), plus indexing. The State
cost-share is the same amount, to be provided from the three State
Parties to the Program Agreement.
Pre-implementation activities, such as forming the new Governance
Committee, initiating the selection of the Executive Director, and
various administrative functions have already begun. Federal activities
up to this point have been authorized under existing law encouraging
the Department of the Interior to work with States to promote habitat
protection and the protection of species. Under the ESA, the Program
can initiate monitoring and research activities; however, actual water
and land acquisitions cannot be initiated using Federal funds prior to
enactment of this legislation. Upon enactment of this authorizing
legislation, Program land and water acquisitions will begin. It is
critical that acquisitions begin early in the Program to allow
sufficient time to evaluate the biological response and effectiveness
of the Program's recovery measures.
Title II authorizes the Secretary, through the Bureau of
Reclamation, to modify Pathfinder Dam and Reservoir and enter into
agreements with the State of Wyoming to implement this modification. No
Federal funds are required for this activity.
In accordance with our commitment to cooperative conservation, the
Department of the Interior seeks to encourage the efforts of States and
local communities to play active roles in managing the resources they
depend on for their livelihoods. The Platte River Recovery
Implementation Program that would be authorized under this Act is an
example of a partnership combining Federal and Non-Federal funding in
an ongoing effort to recover endangered species while also meeting the
water needs of local communities, irrigators, power generation, and the
environment. Enactment of this legislation provides an opportunity not
only to meet ESA requirements using a basin-wide, cooperative, and
scientific approach, but to do so in a manner that protects existing
water uses and allows for future water uses in the Platte River Basin.
For these reasons, the Administration supports S. 752.
Mr. Chairman, this completes my statement. I am happy to answer any
questions the Subcommittee may have.
S. 1037
I am Robert Johnson, Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. I
appreciate the opportunity to provide the Department's views on S.
1037, legislation to authorize the Secretary to participate in the
planning, design, and construction of the Tumalo Irrigation District
Water Conservation Project in Deschutes County, Oregon. The Department
cannot support S. 1037.
The Tumalo Irrigation District (District) and the facilities in
question are not part of a Reclamation project. During the 1990's the
District did have a repayment contract for rehabilitation of Crescent
Lake Dam. The District satisfied its repayment obligation to the United
States in 1998, and holds title to all project facilities.
The Tumalo Irrigation District Water Conservation Project (Project)
would convert approximately 6 miles of open canal in the District into
a pipeline. It is Reclamation's understanding that the Project, known
locally as the Tumalo Feed Canal pipeline, would conserve up to 20
cubic feet per second (cfs) of water for instream use. The
Administration supports the objective of the District to conserve water
and to improve instream flows while not diminishing the amount of water
available for agricultural uses. Furthermore, we recognize the
improvements made in S. 1037 over legislation introduced in the
previous Congress.
S. 1037 authorizes the Secretary to participate in the planning,
design, and construction of the Project and provides authorization for
$4.0 million to be appropriated for the Federal share of the Project.
Project sponsors anticipate the Federal share of the Project would be
made in the form of a grant, however, the language in Section 3(a)(1)
does not clearly give the Secretary such authority.
Most importantly, the Department is concerned that use of
Reclamation funds on non-Reclamation projects would adversely impact
water projects which Congress has charged Reclamation with operating
and maintaining. Reclamation activities are targeted to perform
essential functions at Federal projects, such as security, operations
and maintenance (O&M), resource management, dam safety, and
construction.
As conceived, the District's water conservation project may be
ideally suited to compete for funds within the Department of Interior's
existing water conservation programs like the Water 2025 Program.
Through such conservation programs, local entities develop innovative
on-the-ground solutions to water supply problems with financial
assistance from Reclamation. However, because of the reasons stated
above, the Department cannot support the legislation as written.
This concludes my testimony. I would be pleased to answer any
questions.
H.R. 235
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am Robert W.
Johnson, Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. For the reasons
discussed below, the Department does not support H.R. 235.
Reclamation has worked with the Redwood Valley County Water
District (District) for over 30 years to fund and build a water
distribution system to provide over 1,100 residents and farmers of
Redwood Valley, California with a reliable municipal and industrial
water supply. Although we recognize the need to develop a workable
strategy for ensuring the District is able to repay its loan obligation
to Reclamation, because H.R. 235 could provide the District legislative
loan forgiveness, Reclamation cannot support the bill.
Over 25 years ago, Reclamation executed two 35-year repayment
contracts with the District (contract numbers 14-06-200-8423A and 14-
06-200-8423A Amendatory) for two Small Reclamation Projects Act (P.L.
94-984) loans totaling $7.3 million. Combining those loans with funding
from other sources, the District built an $8.5 million water system
project that is still in use today. By 1982, the District's water rate
for its customers were above the state average, yet still inadequate to
generate revenues for facilities operation and maintenance and
repayment of a projected debt of $200,000 per year. That same year the
District informed Reclamation of possible repayment problems.
Beginning in the late 1980s, the District, congressional
representatives, and Reclamation engaged in numerous discussions over
the District's inability to make the scheduled loan payments.
Subsequent legislation resulted in a postponement of loan interest, but
did not produce any positive outcome on the repayment issue.
Compounding its fiscal problems, the District does not have a firm
and reliable water supply and is currently under a court-ordered
moratorium preventing new service connections. This moratorium has
greatly hampered the District's ability to repay its two loans.
Reclamation cannot support H.R. 235 because the legislation's
repayment provision does not establish a date certain for either
repayment to begin or to be concluded. The proposed legislation does
not provide any assurance that the United States will ever receive
payment on the two loans, and essentially could provide loan
forgiveness. The renegotiated payment arrangement could further
postpone repayment of money owed Reclamation.
Reclamation recognizes that a firm and reliable water supply is
likely necessary to resolve the District's current financial dilemma,
which prevents the District from being able to complete repayment of
these two loans. Also, any deferment legislation should include
language to ensure that the District first uses proceeds from the sales
of such a supply to repay the new obligation used to secure the water
supply and second to satisfy the District's repayment obligations to
Reclamation. Furthermore, such legislation should include a date
certain for repayment of Reclamation loans to begin or to be completed.
We support efforts by the District to recover financially and find a
solution that will enable it to pay its debts. Any such solution must
ensure that the loans made by Reclamation will be wholly repaid.
While the Department cannot support H.R. 235, we look forward to
working with the District to address the repayment issue. This
concludes my prepared remarks. I am pleased to answer any questions.
Senator Salazar. Dr. Hirsh.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT M. HIRSCH, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR WATER,
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Hirsch. Same, same for me. Our statement stands.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hirsch follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert M. Hirsch, Associate Director for Water,
U.S. Geological Survey, Department of the Interior
S. 324
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am Dr. Robert M.
Hirsch, Associate Director for Water for the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS). I thank you for the opportunity to provide the views of the
Department of the Interior (Department) on S. 324, the ``New Mexico
Aquifer Assessment Act of 2007.''
The Department agrees that the goals of the bill are commendable
and the needs that could be addressed are real; however, we have
concerns with this bill, including the availability of funding for the
work proposed in the context of overall funding for the
Administration's priorities. To ensure appropriate flexibility in
budgetary management, the Administration recommends that this bill be
amended to authorize rather than require the study within a statutorily
prescribed timeframe. We would like to work with the committee to
revise the bill to address these issues.
s. 324, the ``new mexico aquifer assessment act of 2007''
S. 324 directs the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the
Director of the USGS, to conduct a study on ground-water resources in
the State of New Mexico. The role identified for the Department in this
bill is consistent with the leadership role of USGS in monitoring and
assessing ground-water resources.
As the Nation's largest water, earth, and biological science and
civilian mapping agency, the USGS conducts the most extensive ground-
water and surface-water investigations in the Nation in conjunction
with State and local partners. The USGS New Mexico Water Science Center
currently operates 203 streamflow stations and routinely measures
ground-water levels at 2573 well sites through cooperative programs
with several Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies. In addition to
hydrologic monitoring programs, the USGS is providing hydrologic
understanding to water agencies through the Cooperative Water Program
by conducting several investigative projects that include describing
the interaction of surface water and ground water in the Mesilla, upper
Rio Hondo, and Middle Rio Grande Basins; planning geohydrologic studies
in the Salt Basin; and evaluating water quality of the Rio Grande and
Rio Chama. In support of all water agencies within New Mexico, USGS
technical specialists actively participate on work groups and
committees addressing critical New Mexico water issues. Currently,
personnel are involved in the Technical Subcommittee of the Gila-San
Francisco Coordinating Committee, the Espanola Basin Technical Advisory
Group, and the Upper Rio Grande Water Operations Model Work Group.
The USGS has a long history of conducting ground-water assessments
at a regional scale. In the 1980s, 25 regional aquifer systems were
studied in detail as part of the Regional Aquifer-System Analysis
(RASA) Program, including the Southwest Alluvial basins, High Plains
aquifer, and San Juan Basin in New Mexico. More recently, the Middle
Rio Grande Basin was studied extensively for 6 years as a partnership
among Federal, State, and local sources.
Congress directed the USGS in their fiscal year (FY) 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.'' We are
midway through a pilot project in the Great Lakes region and a small
effort in the Lower Colorado River basin to develop approaches for
national assessment that began in FY 2005 as part of the USGS Ground-
Water Resources Program. The approaches developed to date could be
applied to New Mexico and nationwide. However, we note that a
comprehensive study of a major aquifer system commonly takes 4 or more
years to complete; and thus, the 2-year time frame for completing the
overall study proposed by S. 324 would yield limited results.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the USGS concurs with the goals of S. 324. The
proposed effort would help ensure long-term water supplies for the
citizens, businesses, industry, and natural features of New Mexico, and
the expertise of USGS is highly relevant to the tasks contemplated by
the legislation. However, we are concerned with the funding
requirements that accompany S. 324. We note that there are no funds in
this year's budget or the President's FY 2008 budget to implement the
legislation, and any future funding requests would have to compete with
other priority projects for funds. We also note there are some ongoing
efforts to address the goals of the Act. Finally, individual major
aquifer studies commonly require 4 or more years to complete, and thus,
the 2-year time frame for completing the overall study proposed by S.
324 would yield limited results.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present this
testimony. I will be pleased to respond to questions you and other
Members of the Committee may have.
H.R. 902
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Dr. Robert M.
Hirsch, Associate Director for Water for the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS). I thank you for the opportunity to provide the views of the
Department of the Interior on H.R. 902, the ``More Water and More
Energy Act of 2007.''
The Department agrees that the goals of the bill are commendable,
but we have concerns regarding the availability of funding and the
Administration's priorities. In addition, the USGS and Bureau of
Reclamation (Reclamation) currently have sufficient authority to carry
out the types of activities authorized by H.R. 902.
Water is the lifeblood of the American West and the foundation of
its economy, yet it is also the scarcest resource in some of the
fastest growing areas of the country. Seeking to remove the obstacles
to putting produced waters to beneficial use is important to our
Nation's energy and water future.
H.R. 902 requires the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the
Commissioner of Reclamation, and the Director of the USGS, to conduct a
study to identify the technical, economic, environmental, legal, and
other obstacles to increasing the extent to which produced water can be
used for irrigation and other purposes; and the legislative,
administrative, and other actions that could reduce or eliminate such
obstacles. It further requires the Secretary, within existing
authorities, and subject to the availability of funds, appropriated for
the purpose, to provide financial assistance for at least four
demonstration projects. The $4 million authorized for demonstration
project grants would be used to develop facilities to demonstrate the
feasibility, effectiveness, and safety of the processes to increase the
extent produced water may be used for irrigation and other purposes.
BACKGROUND
Development of energy resources, such as oil, natural gas, and
coalbed methane, produces water, sometimes in volumes that are
difficult and costly to manage. Often the produced water is of such
poor quality that subsurface disposal is an essential cost of
production. Streams and aquifers can be contaminated by improper
handling of produced water or the failure of disposal systems. The
major concerns over produced water are potential impacts on soils,
water, and the biota that depend on the soil and water. Where produced
water quality is unsuitable for irrigation, industrial, or domestic
uses, it can be disposed of by deep well injection, evaporation, or
after appropriate treatment, percolation or discharge into surface
water drainages.
Prior to environmental regulations in the 1970s, produced waters,
which are often highly saline (3,000 to more than 350,000 mg/L total
dissolved solids) and may contain toxic metals, organic and inorganic
components, and naturally occurring radioactive materials, were
commonly discharged into streams, creeks, and unlined evaporation
ponds, causing salt crusts and surface- and ground-water contamination.
These past practices and current accidental releases of produced water
are national issues that concern managers of Native American, Federal,
and State lands, as well as oil and gas producers, mineral rights and
lease owners, State and Federal regulators, and land owners. A growing
concern is the potential use of land for farming, housing, or other
uses where produced water from oil and gas production has left a legacy
of undesirable environmental effects. Even produced waters of low
salinity can lead to problems because application of such waters to the
land for irrigation or ground water recharge can result in rapid
leaching of the naturally occurring salts present in the soil and the
unsaturated zone, leading to potential contamination of aquifers and
streams.
The USGS has an 80-year history of conducting scientific studies to
evaluate and describe the long-term and short-term effects of the
disposal of produced water on soils, ground water, streams, and
ecosystems. The USGS has also conducted numerous studies to describe
the effects of produced-water salts on water and biota, techniques for
detecting these effects, and techniques for remediation of soils and
ground water.
In 2002, the USGS released a national produced-water geochemistry
database that describes the water quality of waters produced from
conventional oil and gas fields. This database is an invaluable tool
for coalbed methane development companies; land managers; Federal,
State, and local water-quality officials; and the public. The
information facilitates evaluation of issues pertaining to energy
resource development and environmental quality, such as the need for
anti-scaling additives, the design of water handling and treatment
systems, and disposal and beneficial use options.
The USGS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are studying the
impacts on water quality and the landscape caused by waters associated
with coalbed methane production in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming.
This research is being conducted as part of the DOI Landscapes
Initiative in collaboration with the Department of Energy, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, and others. One
component of that project is an examination of hydrology and
geochemistry in the vicinity of a produced-water infiltration pond.
Early findings are that slightly to moderately saline water
infiltrating from the pond dissolved significant quantities of salts
present in the soil and unsaturated zone, resulting in a significant
increase in total dissolved solids. Although coalbed methane production
in the Powder River Basin can provide ecological benefits by increasing
stream flows and creating and enhancing wetlands, there are some
concerns associated with the levels of contaminants in the Basin.
Indeed, preliminary findings were dramatic enough to cause a State
regulatory agency to order that disposal of produced water at the
infiltration pond be stopped and the site be reclaimed.
The USGS, in cooperation with the Osage Nation, Department of
Energy, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, is investigating the
effects of hydrocarbons and produced water (brines) on soil and ground
and surface water at two sites adjacent to Skiatook Lake in the
southeastern part of the Osage Reservation in northeastern Oklahoma.
Results from this investigation will provide information needed by
environmental officials, land managers, petroleum companies, and land
owners to assess human and ecosystem impacts and to develop risk-based
corrective actions to clean up contamination from produced water from
oil and gas wells that are no longer active.
Reclamation has extensive expertise and capabilities in water
storage and delivery infrastructure planning and design. Reclamation
works with the states, BLM, EPA and others in managing produced waters
so that the quality of Western water supplies are not degraded by
impaired produced waters.
Pilot and demonstration projects like those described in this bill
could help provide proof of concept from treatment to beneficial use in
key basins where opportunities may exist for converting produced waters
to beneficial uses. However, the feasibility and potential value of any
demonstration project should be evaluated prior to making any
commitments to conduct pilot and demonstration projects. Any such
demonstration projects should be well coordinated at the federal,
state, and local levels. Other federal agencies with whom Reclamation
and USGS would coordinate such demonstration projects include BLM, EPA,
and DOE's National Energy Technology Lab (NETL).
CONCERNS
The Department concurs with the goals of the bill to identify
impediments to the beneficial use of produced waters. Understanding the
opportunities and overcoming the challenges involved in converting
produced waters to beneficial uses will help irrigators, farmers,
energy producers, and State and Federal agency efforts to increase the
development of western energy sources while protecting the quality of
our streams and aquifers.
Our concerns with the bill include funding for these activities.
The study, report, and pilot activities required by this bill are not
currently in the FY2007 operating plans for the USGS or BOR and the FY
2008 President's Budget also does not fund these activities. The
activities authorized in this bill should compete with other priority
projects for funds.
Additionally, language in Section 3 that directs the Secretary,
acting through USGS and BOR, to conduct a study to identify the legal,
legislative, and administrative obstacles to increasing the extent to
which produced water can be used for irrigation and other purposes. It
is not within the purview or expertise of the USGS or BOR to identify
legal, legislative, or administrative obstacles.
Another concern is that if the bill becomes law, the accomplishment
of the study and report, as proposed in Section 3 of H.R. 902, should
be subject to the availability of funds appropriated for that purpose,
just as the projects proposed by section 4 are. We anticipate that such
a study would focus on existing and potential new technologies for
treating produced waters to make them suitable for beneficial uses and
would also focus on existing and potential new hydrologic and
geochemical models needed to predict the impacts of various management
strategies on streams, aquifers, soils and biota.
We wish to note that S. 1116, a companion bill to H.R. 902 which
was introduced on April 17, 2007, is very similar to H.R. 902 and that
the Administration would have the same concerns about S. 1116 that we
have discussed with respect to H.R. 902. We have one other comment on
S. 1116. Section 3(a) of the Senate bill includes the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) in the list of agencies within the Department of the
Interior that are to carry out the study authorized in this bill. While
Reclamation and USGS are working with the BLM to manage produced
waters, a study of this nature would appropriately be carried out by
Reclamation and USGS. BLM and other Interior agencies, including the
Fish and Wildlife Service, would provide assistance as appropriate but
should not be listed as leads on the study.
Improved technology and collaboration are among the four key tools
proposed as part of Water 2025, an initiative of the Department to meet
the water-supply challenges of the future.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present this
testimony. I will be pleased to respond to questions you and other
Members of the Subcommittee may have.
Senator Salazar. Senator Corker, do you have any questions
for this panel?
Senator Corker. We have a number of questions also. I think
we'll use the same format that you have and that is to just
submit them in writing. Based on the number of bills and the
time allowed and the other panelists there's no way that we'd
have the opportunity, really, to go through all those.
So, we'll submit them in writing and hope you'll return.
Senator Salazar. Senator Thomas.
Senator Thomas. I'll change the pattern and ask one quick
question, if I might, of the Commissioner.
The Governor of Wyoming and the Upper North Platte water
users have asked for Federal regulation prohibiting the Bureau
of Reclamation from calling on the Wyoming water engineers who
regulate water rise upstream of the Pathfinder Dam during
irrigation season. Would you support such an amendment?
Mr. Johnson. Senator, since that is an amendment it's not
appropriate for us to make formal comments. We'd be glad to
comment on a specific amendment when it's offered in writing.
I would say that in general, we would be cautious about an
amendment that would restrict a water right that it is
administered under State law. The Platte River has an
interstate agreement. There's a compact. There's a decree and
it's administered under State law.
Reclamation always operates under State law for its water
rights and we would look to that State law to define the use of
the water entitlements.
So as a general rule, I think we'd be reluctant to have
that sort of amendment in Federal legislation.
Senator Thomas. Well, we'll talk about it more later but I
think you've indicated or the Department has indicated that
they wouldn't plan on calling on that water. So if that's the
case then an amendment to that degree couldn't be troublesome
to you so we'll talk about it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Salazar. Thank you, Senator Thomas. Commissioner
Johnson, as head of the Bureau of Reclamation we welcome you
once again to the committee and look forward to working with
you on all the reclamation issues in the West.
Dr. Hirsh, we appreciate your work in the U.S. Geological
Survey, not only on these bills that we have before us today
but also on other matters that we're working with you on
including legislation that Senator Corker, Senator Bunning and
I are sponsoring on carbon sequestration. Thank you very much
for being here. We'll move on to the second panel.
As our second panel comes up let me introduce them. From
left to right we have Mike Purcell, who is the director of the
Wyoming Water Development Commission.
We also have Joe Glode, who is the chairman of the Upper
North Valley Water Users Association. The two of them will
speak on the Platte River bill.
We also have David Stewart, who will talk about produced
water and Nick Tibbetts, who will testify on the Redwood Valley
Water District bill.
I welcome each of you to the hearing today.
Mr. Purcell, we'll begin with you and I would ask the
witnesses also, if you would keep your remarks, perhaps, to 3
minutes, so we can make sure that we have the opportunity to
ask you some questions and we'll finish on time.
Mr. Purcell.
Senator Thomas. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say, we're
very grateful for our two representatives from Wyoming to come
this far and to be here to represent us. Thank you very much,
gentlemen, for being here.
Senator Salazar. And I join Senator Thomas in making that
comment. I know how far Wyoming is and Senator Thomas, Senator
Enzi and I are often on the same flight back to the West and we
appreciate the distance that you've traveled to come here today
to present your testimony.
Mr. Purcell.
STATEMENT OF MIKE PURCELL, STATE OF WYOMING
Mr. Purcell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Mike
Purcell. I'm Wyoming Governor Freudenthal's representative on
the Governance Committee for the Platte River Recovery
Implementation Program. I'm presently the chair of that
committee.
With us today we have, Ann Bleed, who's the director of the
Nebraska Department of Natural Resources, who is representing
Nebraska Governor Heineman and Ted Kowalski, program manager
for Colorado Water Conservation Board, who's representing
Colorado Governor Ritter.
We also have in attendance Dan Ludke, who is a
representative to the environmental interest in the long
negotiations that led to this program.
All three of them will provide written testimony for your
consideration.
I thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony in
support of S. 752. Issues related to the endangered birds and
critical habitat in the Central Platte River in Nebraska have
affected water use and management in the three States since the
late 1970's. They have affected the relationship between the
States and with the Federal Government.
The Platte River Recovery Implementation Program affords
the States the opportunity to address these issues through
cooperation, rather than conflict.
The program will allow our water users to implement a
simplified consultation process rather than the often
acrimonious formal consultations on all of our water related
activities.
I would like to point out that the States are, in fact,
contributing 50 percent toward this program either in funding
or in kind services and I need to point out also that what the
States have agreed to do is curtail their water use to 1997
levels. While that does not enter into the mathematics of the
50-50 match, I can assure you, it does affect our water
management and our water decisions in the future.
Another important component of S. 752 is the authorization
for the Secretary to modify Pathfinder Dam and enter into
agreements with the State of Wyoming for the implementation of
the project. There are no Federal funds involved in this
project. The part of the partnership is that the State of
Wyoming would provide the sum of $8.5 million to implement the
project.
The operation of the project was carefully crafted during
the settlement of the recent Nebraska v. Wyoming lawsuit. That
settlement was ultimately approved by the U.S. Supreme Court in
2001. The United States and the States of Wyoming, Nebraska and
Colorado were parties to those negotiations.
With my written testimony I have attached a copy of
Appendix F * to that final relevant stipulation which provides
for you the carefully crafted operation we're proposing for
that program and I won't go over it today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Appendix F has been retained in subcommittee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In closing I would suggest to you that the Pathfinder
Modification Project is very important to Wyoming. There are
pieces in it that, it's the manner by which you provide our
water contribution to the Platte River Implementation Program
and that some of the water is needed for us to comply with the
Nebraska v Wyoming lawsuit as well as provide a much needed
supplement municipal supply. Therefore it is very important to
our long term interest. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Purcell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mike Purcell, State of Wyoming
My name is Mike Purcell. I am Wyoming Governor Dave Freudenthal's
representative on the Governance Committee of the Platte River Recovery
Implementation Program. Presently, I am serving as Chairman of that
Governance Committee. I would like to offer the following thoughts
relating to the importance of S. 752 to the Department of Interior,
States of Colorado and Nebraska, and, in particular, the State of
Wyoming.
The Platte River Recovery Implementation Program and Pathfinder
Modification Project enjoy the support of water users in the Platte
River Basin in Wyoming, including the irrigators that contract for
federal storage water, several municipalities, and others.
I. PLATTE RIVER RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM (PROGRAM)
Issues related to the endangered birds and the critical habitat in
the Central Platte River in Nebraska have affected water use and
management in the States of Colorado, Nebraska, and Wyoming since the
late 1970's. They have affected the relationships between the states
and with the federal government. The Platte River Recovery
Implementation Program affords the states the opportunity to address
these issues through cooperation rather than conflict.
After 14 years, the negotiations have been completed. The Wyoming
Legislature has approved the state's Program financial contribution of
$6M and Governor Freudenthal and the other signatories have executed
the necessary agreements. The Program commenced on January 1, 2007.
The Program will provide the states coverage under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) through simplified consultation processes for
existing water related activities and certain specified new water
related activities. The states and their water users will not be
required to complete contentious ESA consultations on each water
related activity requiring federal approvals. Without the Program,
proponents of these activities would likely be required to provide
funding and water to gain clearance under the ESA.
A. Key Components of the Program
1. A major Program objective is to provide 130,000-150,000 acre
feet of water per year to reduce shortages to the Fish and Wildlife
target flows in the Central Platte.
2. Another Program objective is to provide and maintain 10,000
acres of habitat in the Central Platte.
3. The monetary budget is approximately $187M for the first
increment of the Program. The federal government will provide
approximately $157M. To match the federal funding, the three states are
making $160M in contributions. These contributions include: $30M in
cash, approximately 3,000 acres of land, and an average of 80,000 acre
feet of water per year. Program cash will be dedicated to additional
land purchases and restoration, additional water (50,000-70,000 acre
feet of water per year), and an adaptive management program.
4. While it does not show up as a contribution to match the federal
funding, it should not be overlooked that the states have also agreed
to curtail their water use to 1997 levels. Each state has developed a
depletions plan which has been approved by the parties that outlines
how that state will manage its water to meet this threshold.
Implementing these depletions plans will be costly and will affect
future water use and management decisions in all three states.
5. The first increment of the Program will be 13 years. Provisions
in the Program call for additional increments if needed and if approved
by the states and the Department of Interior.
6. An adaptive management scientific approach will be implemented
to determine the water and habitat needs of the endangered birds
(whooping crane, least tern, and piping plover) in the Central Platte
River basin in Nebraska and the pallid sturgeon in the Lower Platte
River basin in Nebraska. The states and their water users will have a
seat at the table during the development of this information, which
will become the best scientific information available for ESA purposes
and will become the basis of future consultations.
7. The Program will be implemented by a Governance Committee in
which the states and their water users will both have individual
members. The Committee will operate on a consensus basis, which will
ensure that all views must be addressed.
8. The Program will serve as the reasonable and prudent alternative
under the Endangered Species Act for existing water related activities
(depletions) that occurred prior to July 1, 1997, the date of the
initiation of the Cooperative Agreement which led to the Program, and
certain specified new water related activities.
B. Why?
Wyoming, Nebraska, and Colorado became interested in the Program
when it became apparent that the ESA provided the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service the authority to require the replacement of existing
depletions until it achieved its water supply goal for the critical
habitat in the Central Platte River in Nebraska. Therefore, the three
states, the Department of Interior, affected water users, and
environmental groups began seeking a cooperative solution in 1993.
Why did the states stay the course during 14 years of negotiations
relating to the Program? The state representatives had several meetings
and discussions relating to future life without a Program and came to
the following conclusions:
1. The Fish and Wildlife Service would be obligated under ESA to
undertake separate ESA consultations on the federal reservoirs and
other major reservoirs in each state. The likely outcome would be that
the operations of those reservoirs that are presently serving our water
users would be reconfigured to provide 417,000 acre of feet water for
the endangered species and their habitat. The loss of this water would
``ripple'' through each state's water right system impacting not only
the users of the storage water but also all water users in our states.
2. Without the Program, ESA consultations required for future
federal actions (permits, including renewals; funding; contracts;
easements; and others) would require our water users (irrigators,
municipalities, industries and others) to replace existing and proposed
new depletions.
3. Prolonged and costly law suits would likely be initiated by each
state, or by the states collectively, challenging the ESA and the Fish
and Wildlife Service's interpretation of the ESA. Recent case history
indicates that unless there is meaningful reform to ESA, investments in
such litigation would likely be lost.
II. PATHFINDER MODIFICATION PROJECT
A. Description
The Pathfinder Modification Project is authorized by Appendix F to
the Final Settlement Stipulation relating to the Nebraska v. Wyoming
law suit, as approved by the U.S. Supreme Court. A copy of the
Stipulation is attached to this written testimony. The Bureau of
Reclamation (USBR) has a Wyoming water right to store 1,070,000 acre
feet of water in Pathfinder Reservoir for the benefit of the North
Platte Project, which includes irrigated land in Eastern Wyoming and
Western Nebraska. Over the years, 53,493 acre feet of the storage
capacity of the reservoir have been lost to sediment. The project would
recapture this storage space. The recaptured space would be
administered through two accounts, the ``Environmental account'' and
the ``Wyoming account.'' The operation of these accounts was carefully
crafted during the negotiations that lead to the settlement of the
Nebraska v. Wyoming law suit which has been approved by the U.S.
Supreme Court in November, 2001. The United States and the States of
Colorado, Nebraska, and Wyoming were parties to the negotiations.
An ``Environmental account'' consisting of 33,493 acre feet of the
proposed 53,493 acre foot enlargement will be established and will be
operated for the benefit of the endangered species and their habitat in
Central Nebraska. The Environmental account is Wyoming's water
contribution to the Platte River Recovery Implementation Program
(Program) on behalf of all of its water users in the Platte River
basin, including the federal government and its major storage
facilities in our state and irrigators in Nebraska that rely on storage
water from the federal dams in Wyoming.
The State of Wyoming has the exclusive right to contract with the
USBR for the use of 20,000 acre feet of the enlargement capacity in a
``Wyoming account.'' The USBR, under contract with Wyoming, will
operate the 20,000 acre feet of storage to insure an annual firm yield
of 9,600 acre feet. This is the same yield that was anticipated from
the proposed Deer Creek Dam and Reservoir. Upon completion of the
Pathfinder Modification Project, Wyoming will cancel existing water
rights and federal permits pertaining to the Deer Creek Project.
The ``Wyoming account'' will serve as a much needed supplemental
water supply for Wyoming's municipalities during times of water rights
regulation. Many of the municipal water supplies along the North Platte
River have junior water rights which may be shut off or severely
curtailed during water rights regulation. The account will also provide
water to meet some of Wyoming's obligations specified in the Nebraska
v. wyoming settlement agreement and documented in the modified north
Platte Decree.
The modification would be accomplished by raising the elevation of
the existing spillway by approximately 2.4 feet with the installation
of an ogee crest. The recaptured storage space would store water under
the existing 1904 storage right for Pathfinder Reservoir and would
enjoy the same entitlements as other uses in the reservoir, with the
exception that the recaptured storage space could not place regulatory
calls on existing water rights upstream of Pathfinder Reservoir, other
than the rights pertaining to Seminoe Reservoir.
The Pathfinder Modification Project is essential to Wyoming in
order for the state to meet its obligations under the Program and the
Modified North Platte Decree.
B. Status
State authorization to contract with the USBR was approved by the
2006 Wyoming Legislature. The Wyoming Legislature has approved an
appropriation of $8.5M to implement the project.
The next critical step is securing Congressional authorization for
the Secretary of the Interior to modify the Pathfinder Dam and
Reservoir and enter into agreements with the State of Wyoming for the
implementation of the project. Upon receipt of this authorization, the
following work can be completed:
1. The USBR must obtain a partial change of use for its Wyoming
water right for Pathfinder Reservoir from the Wyoming Board of Control
for the 53,493 acre feet of Pathfinder storage water from irrigation
use to the uses proposed by the Project. The funding approved by the
Wyoming Legislature cannot be encumbered until the USBR obtains this
partial change of use. This condition was placed on the funding to
ensure that those with concerns about the project could express those
concerns before a state tribunal before construction could begin.
2. The State of Wyoming and USBR must negotiate a contract to
formalize the partnership between the parties.
3. While the final EIS for the Program will serve to address the
regional effects of the project, a site-specific NEPA document will be
required.
4. Under the PRRIP, Wyoming is obligated to have the Project
operational in 2011. However, the WWDC would like to have the project
completed as soon as possible as the water is needed to meet the
state's obligations under the Modified North Platte Decree.
C. Proposed Amendment
An amendment to Senate Bill 752 and House Resolution 1462 has been
proposed on behalf of the Upper North Platte Water Users. The proposed
amendment suggests that the Bureau of Reclamation should be restricted
from seeking water rights administration (calls for regulation) on
behalf of Pathfinder Reservoir during the irrigation season. I would
like to offer the following clarifications:
1. The Platte River Recovery Implementation Program (Program) and
the Pathfinder Modification Project (Project) will not impact the issue
of priority calls on water rights upstream of Pathfinder Reservoir
during the irrigation season. This matter relates to interpretations of
the Modified North Platte Decree and Wyoming water law.
2. All calls for regulation must be deemed valid by the Wyoming
State Engineer before any water rights administration can occur. The
Wyoming State Engineer has advised that a very difficult standard must
be overcome for such calls to be honored.
3. The Wyoming Attorney General, upon review of the Modified North
Platte Decree, concluded that such calls should not be honored
4. The matter of the effects of the Project on Wyoming water users
will be brought before the Wyoming Board of Control during its hearings
on the Bureau of Reclamation's petitions for the partial change of use
to the storage water right for Pathfinder Reservoir. The Upper North
Platte Water Users will be afforded the opportunity to present their
views and evidence to this state tribunal and state statutes ensure
that the project cannot be constructed until the opportunities for any
resulting appeals have been exhausted.
5. Please refer to Section 1 of the attached copy of Appendix F to
the Final Settlement Stipulation which states in part: ``The recaptured
storage space would store water under the existing 1904 storage right
for Pathfinder Reservoir and would enjoy the same entitlements as other
uses in the reservoir with the exception that the recaptured storage
space could not place regulatory calls on the existing water rights
upstream of Pathfinder Reservoir other than the rights pertaining to
Seminoe Reservoir.'' (Emphases added.) The Upper North Platte Water
Users are located upstream of Pathfinder Reservoir.
Senator Salazar. Thank you, Mr. Purcell. I'd like to note
that the subcommittee has received the written testimony on
several bills before us today. That written testimony, as well
as other written submissions of all the witnesses before us,
will be made part of the official record of this committee
hearing.
Mr. Glode.
STATEMENT OF JOE GLODE, CHAIRMAN, UPPER NORTH PLATTE VALLEY
WATER USERS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Glode. Thank you, Senator. My name's Joe Glode. I'm the
president of the Upper North Platte Valley Water Users
Association, representing the appropriators of Wyoming Water
above Pathfinder Reservoir to the Colorado border.
Moving along in 3 minutes, I'd just simply like to say that
we do not oppose the North Platte Recovery Implementation
Program.
However, we do oppose, S. 752 in its current form. In that
we feel that that bill, as currently written, has the potential
to injure us greatly in the administration of Wyoming water
law.
One of the things that we've heard here recently is the
fact that the Federal Government is reluctant to ask for an
amendment here before you today because it may or may not
affect Wyoming water law. We see that as having nothing to do
with Wyoming water law.
We're simply asking you, in your Federal purview to direct
Federal employees to place and I quote, ``To protect the
existing upstream water rights in Wyoming, the Bureau of
Reclamation shall not place a priority call for Pathfinder
Reservoir, including the proposed Pathfinder Modification
Project between May 1 and September 30 in any given year.''
Although this amendment will not completely remove our
injury because most of the injury that's referred to in the
environmental impact statement refers to allocation years which
are a part of the modified decree which Mr. Purcell referred
to.
What we're primarily concerned about is post May 1
administration. Now in Appendix F of the modified decree the
calculations for allocation years run into July. There's no
contemplation of cutting off those allocation years on the
first of May and we feel that we are at great risk to being
called, after May 1.
The original North Platte Decree of 1945 stated that
priority administration for Pathfinder against the upper valley
was not necessary or appropriate.
The Wyoming Attorney General has issued a statement saying
that such a call should not be honored by the state engineer.
The state engineer has said, he probably would not honor such a
call and the environmental impact statement actually says that
it is so unlikely that such a call would be made that they
never even considered it in the impacts of the environment
impacts statement, then why not?
As Senator Thomas said why don't we give it the force of
law instead of the administrative interpretations that we have.
I thank you for the time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Glode follows:]
Prepared Statement of Joe Glode, Chairman, Upper North Platte Valley
Water Users Association
The Upper North Platte Valley Water Users Association (``UNPVWUA'')
is an organization of ranchers and irrigators who utilize the waters of
the Upper North Platte River. Our members divert water from the North
Platte and its tributaries in Wyoming in the area between the Colorado/
Wyoming state line downstream to Pathfinder Reservoir. Our members own
both direct flow and storage water rights with priority dates both
junior and senior to the 1904 priority for Pathfinder Reservoir. The
UNPVWUA was originally formed in 1989 as a reaction to the first call
for administration of the 1904 priority for Pathfinder Reservoir. Up
until that time, the occurrence of such administration was considered
highly unlikely.
The UNPVWA opposes Senate Bill 752 in its current form. The
proposed expansion of Pathfinder Reservoir with the Pathfinder
Modification Project (``PMP'') that is authorized in Senate Bill 752
will cause injury to water rights held by UNPVWA members, and
irreparable harm to the natural resources and economy of the Upper
North Platte River basin.
As proposed, the PMP will enlarge the capacity of Pathfinder
Reservoir by 54,000 acre-feet, and will also add new uses for
Pathfinder Reservoir water. This new capacity and the new uses will not
be administered under a new, junior water right priority as one would
expect, but will instead be given a 1904 priority date. Pathfinder's
December 6, 1904 priority is senior to 1091 of the 1596 Water Right in
the Upper North Platte Basin. This attempt to expand both the size and
the authorized uses of the original 1904 water right violates the
fundamental principle of Western water law that senior water rights
cannot be expanded or changed to the injury of junior users. See e.g.,
Basin Electric Power Cooperative v. Wyoming State Board of Control, 578
P.2d 557 (Wyo. 1978). As the burden of this enlargement will be borne
by the holders of junior water rights in the Upper North Platte River
basin, it also represents a taking of the vested property rights that
our members have in the junior water rights that will be diminished by
the expansion and change. See Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District
v. United States, 49 Fed. CI, 313, 319 (2001).
The taking issue is addressed in greater detail in the March 20,
2007 letter from our attorney to the Wyoming Congressional delegation
that I am submitting as Exhibit A to this written testimony. The
letters attached as Exhibits B and C to this written testimony document
in greater detail the potential injury arising from the PMP and the
administration of the Platte River Recovery Implementation Program
(``PRRIP'').
The supposed call protection in the PMP does not prevent injury to
upstream junior users. By its terms, that protection does not extend to
Seminoe Reservoir. See Modified Decree, App. F. The increased call
against Seminoe that will result from the expansion under the PMP will
mean less water for Seminoe, and Seminoe in turn will place a greater
demand under its priority against junior water rights. Moreover, the
call protection supposedly offered under the PMP as explained in
Appendix F to the Modified Decree is absent and not considered in the
actual formula for determining an ``allocation year'' in Appendix E of
the Modified Decree.
Even the Final Environmental Impact Statement (``FEIS'') for the
PRRIP documents the injury to the Upper North Platte Basin from the
PRRIP. The UNPVWUA feels the FEIS grossly understates the injury from
the PMP and PRRIP, because, among other reasons, it uses a study period
that ends in 1994, and does not even consider the most relevant data
from the past 12 years when drought has increased, and allocation years
and overall demands have all increased. The FEIS also fails to consider
Nebraska's expansion of irrigation during this recent period. Although
issues concerning the FEIS deficiencies were raised to officials
responsible for preparation of the FEIS, they were largely ignored.
Moreover, the FEIS fails to even consider the devastating impacts
on water resources when the Pathfinder 1904 right is administered after
May 1. In this regard, it is important to direct you again to Appendix
F of the final Modified Decree which addresses the PMP. It mandates
that the Bureau of Reclamation cannot proceed with the PMP until it has
been appropriately considered under the National Environmental Policy
Act. As the impacts of a post-May 1 call were not even considered in
the FEIS, such a call cannot be part of the approved PRRIP program.
The foregoing concerns demonstrate the need to place appropriate
limits on Pathfinder Reservoir. The UNPVWA views this proposed
legislation as just such an opportunity. To prevent further and future
injury, we respectfully ask that you consider adding the following
language at the end of Section 202 of the current bill:
To protect existing upstream water rights in Wyoming, the
Bureau of Reclamation shall not place a priority call for
Pathfinder Reservoir, including the proposed Pathfinder
Modification Project, between May 1st and September 30th in any
year.
Although this amendment would not completely remove injury in the
Upper Basin, it will address the most serious threat. The basis for May
1 call protection is explained in the March 20, 2007 letter that is
attached as Exhibit A. As noted therein:
<bullet> The United States never intended that Pathfinder would fill
in the irrigation season against upstream junior users.
<bullet> The original North Platte Decree of 1945 declined to require
strict priority administration for Pathfinder as against the
Upper North Platte Basin.
<bullet> There is a Wyoming Attorney General's Opinion stating the
Wyoming State Engineer should not honor a post May call for any
component of the Pathfinder Reservoir.
<bullet> There is a Wyoming State Engineer letter stating he would
probably not honor an irrigation season call by Pathfinder.
<bullet> As explained above, the language in the FEIS states that
post May 1 administration on behalf of Pathfinder's 1904
priority date is highly unlikely, so unlikely, the impacts of
such a call were never considered in the EIS.
<bullet> Governor Freudenthal issued a letter requesting the Wyoming
delegation's assistance in imposing a May 1st Call Restriction
on Pathfinder.
Finally, we ask you to consider the basic equity of what is going
on here. The FEIS shows no correlation between water uses in the Upper
Basin and deficiencies in the target recovery area in Nebraska. The
Supreme Court and the Special Master in the various Nebraska v. Wyoming
lawsuits have similarly recognized that there is little or no real
hydrologic connection between water use above Pathfinder Reservoir in
Wyoming and water shortage in the critical area in Nebraska.
Nevertheless, by way of the PMP, it is proposed that irrigators and
other water users above Pathfinder be asked to bear the burden of
solving a problem they have not created. The UNPVWA asks that you give
serious consideration to the amendment it proposes, and bring some
small measure of equity 10 those who rely on the waters of the Upper
North Platte River.
I thank the respected members of this Committee for the opportunity
to present our comments.
Senator Salazar. Thank you very much, Mr. Glode.
Dr. Stewart.
STATEMENT OF DR. DAVID R. STEWART, PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER
Dr. Stewart. Today I am here to talk about produced water.
I'm a professional engineer from Colorado and have over 30
years in water treatment.
Why are we talking about produced water? There's 22 billion
barrels of produced water generated every year. That's about
2.3 or 2.8 million acre feet of water.
The cost of water along the Colorado front range has
increased dramatically. It now ranges about $20,000 an acre
foot. In the Western United States it goes anywhere from $5,000
to $35,000 an acre foot. So, there's a huge cost associated
with that.
Why hasn't this worked before? Energy companies talk in
barrels, water users talk in acre feet. So we've got a
communication problem for one. The others are the fluctuating
oil prices, uncertainties with water supply.
The beauty of produced water is that it's drought proof. It
comes up every year whether you want it to or not. It comes up
with the oil or the coal bed methane projects and so there's a
beauty to that water from that standpoint.
You have private industry verses public agencies and the
private companies don't want to take the risk associated with
environmental issues associated with that water, but the
benefits are that it is new water. It's water that doesn't come
to the surface naturally so it adds water to the basin, which
is crucial in the West. We need more water.
It reduces energy because you don't have to re-inject it.
30 percent of the energy that we use when it comes to the
surface, we use 30 percent of it to put that water back in the
ground. We should use that water as a resource.
There is more research that's needed. We need both more
oil, more energy and we need more water and so the Bureau and
USGS are in a perfect position to do that research. We need to
enhance that water recovery.
I have an example of this in Colorado, the Wellington
Waterworks Project, up in northern Colorado. We're the first
plant to utilize, to produce water for beneficial use.
The only plant in the United States that does that today
and that beneficial use is providing the town of Wellington
with the water supply. It increases their water supply by 300
percent, so it's very beneficial to the area and yet the oil
company is now realizing an asset that was a waste to them
before.
So, one of the things that we want to do with this water is
we want to turn that prominent waste product into an asset. All
it takes is treatment to do it. We need to enhance that.
I would suggest that we support S. 1116 and H.R. 902. Thank
you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Stewart follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. David R. Stewart, Professional Engineer
I am David R. Stewart, a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer.
I have worked for over thirty (30) years as an Engineer for various
industrial and commercial companies in the western US. My experience
includes the design and operation of water reuse and reclamation
facilities, design of advanced treatment technologies, and development
of a production water treatment system for augmentation of tributary
water in Colorado. I hold several patents and patent pending
applications in this area of water reuse and reclamation.
BACKGROUND
In 2003, Interior Secretary Norton announced a new Federal
initiative to assist communities in addressing chronic water shortages
in the West. In this initiative, areas where shortages are most likely
were identified. To a large extent, these areas coincide with the
states that produce oil and natural gas. The top producing states are
Colorado, Texas, Louisiana, Alaska, Oklahoma, and California.
In 2002, 2.1 billion barrels of oil and 196 trillion cubic feet of
natural gas were produced in the United States (API). These activities
resulted in nearly 22 billion barrels of produced water or 2.84 million
acre feet per year. Produced water is water, generally mineralized,
brought to the surface with oil and gas.
PRODUCED WATER REMAINS A LARGELY UNTAPPED WATER RESOURCE
Despite individual efforts by the oil and gas industry to
beneficially reuse produced water, and an increasing trend toward reuse
and recycling, by far the most common method of disposal is subsurface
injection. This disposal method is very costly and treats water as a
liability rather than an asset. There appears to be several reasons why
previous reuse efforts have had limited success, including:
<bullet> Unfamiliarity of the oil and gas industry with the
intricacies of water marketing.
<bullet> Uncertainties related to the duration of the produced water
supply.
<bullet> Fluctuating oil and gas prices and the resulting fluctuation
in the willingness to make capital investments in recycling
technology.
<bullet> Wide differences between the desire for rapid development of
recycling by private industry, once a ``go'' decision has been
made, and the slow pace of development for public water
infrastructure.
<bullet> The relatively poor source water quality of produced water
and the need for extensive treatment.
<bullet> Risks associated with environmental and public exposure to
treated produced water.
<bullet> The relatively low value placed on water, particularly in
relation to the high value of oil and gas.
<bullet> Focus of time and capital by the oil industry on their core
business--finding oil.
<bullet> Clean Water Act limits the discharge of produced water to
surface water in the West.
In short, although there are significant technical, economic,
environmental, and legal barriers to produced water development, the
primary barriers are the institutional and communication differences
between the private oil and gas industry and the publicly dominated
water industry.
BENEFITS OF PRODUCED WATER DEVELOPMENT
Despite the barriers to development of produced water, the benefits
are substantial and are both economic and technical.
The economic benefits of produced water treatment include:
<bullet> Adding a new water resource to the shrinking number of water
resources available in the water-short West.
<bullet> Water is becoming an increasingly valuable commodity that is
both transportable and in demand. Along the front range of
Colorado, the cost of an acre foot of water has reached $20,000
for the Perpetual or annual right to divert an acre foot of
water. This is significantly higher than the value of this same
right in California, which is approximately $5,000 per acre
foot. However, there are instances in the western U.S. where an
acre foot of water is valued at $35,000 per acre foot.
<bullet> Dramatically reduce the volume of produced water injected
into disposal wells and eliminate this as a cost of producing
oil and gas. This will reduce the energy loss due to this
operation by as much as 20 percent.
<bullet> Minimize the cost and risk of the environmental impact of
producing oil and gas by dramatically reducing the total use of
chemicals in the recovery and treating process.
<bullet> Make better use of natural and financial resources by
lowering the cost of environmental compliance.
<bullet> Reduce the demand for surface water resources by domestic
and industrial users, which conflict with the maintenance of
endangered species and wild rivers.
<bullet> Reduce some or all of the costs associated with the
underground disposal of produced water including maintenance,
acidizing, drilling new disposal wells, regulatory and
administrative activities.
The technical benefits of produced water treatment include:
<bullet> Improve the efficiency of thermal oil recovery by decreasing
the amount of steam required to heat the water along with the
oil in the reservoir.
<bullet> Reduce the potential for reservoir damage by disposal
injection.
<bullet> Reduce the recirculation of injected water into the oil
producing horizons.
<bullet> Lower the energy demand for oil field operations through
reduced water production and handling.
PRODUCED WATER RECOVERY WILL INCREASE DOMESTIC OIL PRODUCTION
In many oilfields, injected produced water flows to producing areas
and increases the water content of recovered oil. For example, in the
San Ardo Oilfield in California where produced water is reinjected, the
water cut was less than 1 percent in the 1940s, but now is nearly 95
percent. Thus, water removal is the key to increasing production. If
the reservoir could be dewatered, an estimated 150 million barrels of
additional oil could be developed from this oilfield alone.
In reservoirs with thermally enhanced recovery, produced water
reuse will also reduce heat requirements. By increasing the steam
quality, the amount of steam required can be substantially reduced.
Because these heat requirements represent a significant cost and
recoverable oil reserves are based on production economies, more oil
may be recoverable from existing oilfields.
EXAMPLES OF PRODUCTION WATER PROJECTS
There are two examples of production water projects that have been
or are nearing completion. The first project is near Wellington,
Colorado. This project is treating oil production water as a new water
resource. This new water resource will be used to augment shallow water
aquifers to prevent injury to senior water users. The oil company is
embarking on this project to increase oil production. A separate
company will then purchase and utilize this water as an augmentation
water source. This water will eventually be used to allow the Town of
Wellington and northern Colorado water users to increase their drinking
water supplies significantly. In this example, the Town of Wellington
can increase their water supply by 300 percent due to this new water
source.
Another example of the beneficial use of production water is the
San Ardo field near Monterey California. Research of this production
water system is being conducted by Kennedy/Jenks Consultants of San
Francisco, California. This oil field is currently utilizing 50,000
barrels per day for steam, but has over 100,000 barrels per day of
water available for beneficial reuse. The end users of this water could
be agriculture, groundwater recharge for salt barrier intrusion and
environmental reclamation.
A third example would be the coal bed methane production waters
that are being developed in the west. These waters need to be removed
in order to develop the resource of the coal bed methane. This is a
difficult water to dispose of due to the mineral content of the water.
Technologies have been developed to treat this water, but the
beneficial use of this water has not been researched or developed.
Potential uses of this water are for municipal augmentation of a new
water resource, industrial and agricultural interests as well as
environmental enhancement through the creation of wetlands and in-
stream flows.
A NEED FOR PRODUCED WATER RESEARCH
I believe that there is a real need for production water research.
Presently, there is a lack of information on the amount of effort
required to produce this water. I have been working on this effort in
Colorado for over 5 years. Most of this time was spent obtaining
regulatory approvals and working on the legal aspects of our project. I
believe that the United States Bureau of Reclamation in conjunction
with the United States Geological Survey is in the best position to
provide this research. The USBR is the one agency that has a
significant amount of technology information on desalting of brackish
waters and is an agency that currently has access to the end users. The
USGS is an agency that understands how this water can be utilized and
what water quality constraints might be required of the technology
developed. In addition, there will be a need to prove to the energy
industry that these technologies are feasible and will assist in the
development of these new energy resources.
As S. 1116 and H.R. 910 states, there is a need for a collaborative
effort to identify the obstacles in the development of this water
resource and to provide research and demonstration plants to implement
this in the future. This is a role of our government and will allow for
the future use of this resource.
Senator Salazar. Thank you very much, Dr. Stewart.
Mr. Tibbetts.
STATEMENT OF NICHOLAS R. TIBBETTS, REDWOOD VALLEY COUNTY WATER
DISTRICT
Mr. Tibbetts. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank
you for the opportunity to testify. I'm Nicholas Tibbetts,
representing the Redwood Valley County Water District in rural
Mendocino County.
We support S. 1112 and its companion H.R. 235, which will
permit the district to develop a water supply and achieve the
revenues that will allow it to repay two Federal loans.
In 1975 and 1983, the district built water supply
facilities using two Bureau of Reclamation loans totaling
$7,313 million.
The district supplies water for agricultural and
residential purposes and covers an area for about 3,800 people.
Unfortunately right from the outset, it became apparent that
the district could not depend on its water source and in fact
had no firm supply or water right.
This was known to the Bureau at the time the loans were
made. Since 1988, a perfect storm of adversity has prevented
the district from repaying its loans. Because of the endangered
species act, water supplies in the Russian River, upon which
the district depends, averted in order to protect salmon and
steel head runs.
Second, a California court in 1989 imposed an injunction
against the district prohibiting it from adding new customers
and increasing its rate, pay or base. That moratorium is still
in effect today.
Third, the local flood control district that supplies water
for Redwood has suggested the district might be wise to look
elsewhere for water. The district has identified three
potential sources of a firm supply of water. It will borrow
non-Federal funds to build new facilities.
In order to do so, however, it must subordinate the
existing two loans to the new non-Federal funding. This
legislation permits this subordination and will enable the
district to build facilities that will repay new financing and
the existing two Federal loans, this not a loan forgiveness but
rather a forbearance that will result in the repayment of those
loans. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tibbetts follows:]
Prepared Statement of Nicholas R. Tibbetts, Redwood Valley
County Water District
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I am Nicholas Tibbetts
testifying on behalf of the Redwood Valley County Water District. I
appreciate the opportunity to address you in support of S. 1112 and
H.R. 235 which will allow for the renegotiation of the payment schedule
of contracts between the Secretary of the Interior and the Redwood
Valley County Water District.
The legislation before you enables the Redwood Valley County Water
District (District or Redwood Valley) to reschedule the payment of its
two Small Reclamation Projects loans to the United States. The
legislation allows Redwood Valley to enter into financial obligations
as are necessary to finance the procurement of dedicated water rights
and improvements necessary to store and convey those rights to provide
for the District's water needs. In short, it means that Redwood Valley
will be able to financially pursue and construct a firm and reliable
water supply that it has never had since its inception over 30 years
ago. The following testimony will explain why this legislative relief
is so critical to the residents and farmers of Redwood Valley.
Redwood Valley is located five miles north of Ukiah, California in
Mendocino County. It is largely rural with a significant element of
small agricultural operations most notably vineyards. The Redwood
Valley County Water District was formed as a California Special
District in January, 1964, to provide a reliable water supply for the
1100 residents and farmers of Redwood Valley. The. District built an
$8.5 million water system project. The project was funded with a $1.2
million local share and two Small Reclamation Projects Act loans
totaling $7.3 million.
In the early 1970's the Redwood Valley County Water District
commissioned studies and analyses by a reputable engineering firm. The
studies recommended constructing and operating a water supply system
which was to be a dual distribution system for irrigation and domestic
water service. The studies included engineering, cost analysis and loan
repayment capabilities. The analysis concluded that the project was
economically feasible. Further, it was reasonably anticipated that the
loans could be repaid from income derived from the sale of water. The
Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau) concurred that the project was feasible.
In 1975 the Redwood Valley voters approved the project and a
$4,800,000 loan to build it. Construction commenced in 1977. Funds were
insufficient to complete it. The District, nonetheless, went into
operation in 1979 with 95 percent of its domestic system and 50 percent
of its irrigation system in service.
The Bureau of Reclamation recommended that the District assume a
second Small Reclamation Projects Act loan to complete the project.
This supplemental loan of $2,513,000 was approved by the voters in
1980, and the system was completed in 1983. The two loans were to be
repaid in 35 annual installments.
In the 1970's when the Redwood Valley County Water District was
being formed and financing agreements were being negotiated with the
Bureau of Reclamation, it was known that the District did not have a
firm and reliable water supply. It did not have a summertime water
right to Russian River water or to Lake Mendocino water, nor did it
possess a firm and reliable water supply from any other source. Redwood
Valley negotiated with its neighbor, Russian River Flood Control
District (RRFCD or Flood Control), for water from Flood Control's 8000
AF water right to Lake Mendocino. The water ticketed from the 8000 AF
was understood to be excess or surplus to the needs of Flood Control.
The negotiations culminated in a legal settlement in Superior Court in
1980 resulting in the Redwood Valley County Water District securing
excess or surplus water from Flood Control's 8000 AF water right.
EMERGING FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES
In 1983 Redwood Valley made its first and only loan payment of
$58,000 against the principal to the Bureau of Reclamation. Shortly
thereafter it became apparent that repayment projections generated by
Redwood Valley's engineering consultant, and concurred in by the Bureau
of Reclamation, did not come close to meeting either the actual costs
of operation or the actual revenues generated from the water sales.
District studies conducted at that time concluded that domestic water
sales were 75% of initial projections, and agricultural (irrigation)
water sales were 11% of initial projections. Redwood Valley embarked
upon a program to raise water rates to generate the necessary revenues
to meet its operational and loan repayment obligations. Since the
1980's rates have been raised six times--the most recent two years ago.
In the 1980's and today Redwood Valley County Water District's rates
are in the top tier of water rates in Mendocino County.
In the mid 1980's the Redwood Valley and the Bureau of Reclamation
engaged in numerous exchanges over the District's inability to make the
scheduled loan payments. Redwood Valley requested that payments be
suspended until water sales could carry the annual debt load. The
Bureau refused, indicating that any debt postponement or suspension
needed congressional authorization.
GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION--LOAN SUSPENSION AND CONNECTION MORATORIUM
In October 1988 Congress passed P.L. 100-516 suspending Redwood
Valley County Water District's loan repayment obligation until a
renegotiated schedule of payment takes effect. Currently, the District
is in the 19th year of the loan suspension. P.L. 100-516 suspended
payments on principal, interest, and eliminated any accrued penalty
interest associated with the two loans.
In 1989 Redwood Valley was dealt a lethal blow to its ability to
repay its Small Reclamation Projects Act loans. The Mendocino County
Superior Court imposed a moratorium on domestic water service
connections. This connection moratorium prohibits the District from
making any new domestic service connections to its water system. This
moratorium is still in effect 18 years later.
In 1998 the Redwood Valley County Water District sought
``moratorium relief'' from the California Legislature. The District
sought legislation which would set aside the 1989 Superior Court
decision. Instead of legislatively setting aside the moratorium, the
legislature passed SB 1432 which allowed Redwood Valley to add a
limited number of connections based on a demonstrated hardship. In the
last nine years there have been a total of 60 such connections.
The legislature in passing the limited relief recognized that the
blanket moratorium on connections for domestic water service was
onerous, not simply to the District, but to Redwood Valley's residents.
Further, the legislature recognized that the District had over the
years made unsuccessful, but good faith attempts, to find a firm and
reliable water source.
GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION CONTINUED--ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT AND FERC
The area wide water source for Redwood Valley and the neighboring
Ukiah Valley is the Russian River and its depository Lake Mendocino.
Lake Mendocino is largely dependent upon water diversions emanating
from the Eel River. In 1996, 1998, 1999 the United States government
declared Salmon and Steelhead inhabiting California's northern coastal
rivers, including the Russian River and the Eel River, as threatened
species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
Lake Mendocino is the source of Russian River Flood Control's 8000
acre feet water right. It has been the water supply source for the
Redwood Valley County Water District since 1979. Most of Lake
Mendocino's water is diverted from the Eel River. The diverted water
originates in neighboring Lake County and passes through a Pacific Gas
and Electric Company power generation facility before cascading through
an underground water tunnel into the Russian River in Mendocino County
on its way to Lake Mendocino.
Water users in the Ukiah Valley, including Redwood Valley, are
dependent upon the continued diversion of Eel River water to the East
Fork of the Russian River since this represents the only reliable
source of summertime flow in the Russian River. The loss or reduction
of this source of supply will have a significant impact upon the
reliability of water supplies in Mendocino County and northern Sonoma
County.
In January, 2004, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
issued a decision which further threatens Redwood Valley's future water
supply and its dependence upon Lake Mendocino and Russian River Flood
Control. FERC determined that more water should stay in the Eel River
and less diverted south to the Russian River. This decision ostensibly
brought to an end a six decade long disagreement over the impacts of
diverting Eel River water south to Sonoma and Mendocino counties. FERC
concluded that cutting diversions by 15% should benefit three species
of threatened fish protected by the ESA.
In 2007 the National Marine Fisheries Service announced an error in
the above 15% reduction in Eel River diversions south to Mendocino
County, New calculations concluded that the Eel River diversions should
be cut by 33% and not 15% as determined in 2004.
Officials in Sonoma and Mendocino counties believe the dramatically
reduced diversions will harm farmers and city residents in their
counties. FERC's decision puts tremendous pressure on water supply
available to Lake Mendocino which is the depository of water for the
Russian River Flood Control District and consequently for the Redwood
Valley County Water District.
TODAY--VULNERABLE TO RUNNING OUT OF WATER
The California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) has
declared the Russian River to be fully appropriated each year during
the months of June through October. The only new water rights being
considered by the SWRCB are those diversions of winter/spring flood
flows which can be stored off stream for later summertime use.
In 1999 the Russian River Flood Control District reported to the
SWRCB that it diverted 8049 AF to its constituent users (including 1704
AF to the Redwood Valley). The diversion exceeded Flood Control's 8000
AF appropriative water right. The 1999 flood Control numbers suggest
that the Redwood Valley County Water District's ``surplus water''
supply is entering an era of diminishing returns.
It is increasingly clear that Redwood Valley enters the 21st
century facing a fragile water supply future. In December, 2001, the
Flood Control District in Resolution No. 1-83 informed the Redwood
Valley County Water District that Flood Control no longer had surplus
water to sell Redwood Valley. In December, 2002, Flood Control again
noticed the Redwood Valley County Water District that it had no surplus
water to sell. On April 1, 2007, Flood Control notified Redwood Valley
``to plan for potential shortages later this year.''
The California Department of Health Services in April, 2002, in its
``Drinking Water Adequacy Assessment'' for the Ukiah Valley concluded
the following:
The Redwood Valley District continues to lack an adequate and
reliable source of supply during the critical months of June
through October and has to rely upon an interruptible supply
(surplus water) from the RR District (Flood Control).
The report goes on to state:
Given that the RR District is currently exceeding its water
rights limit, which does include surplus water sold to Redwood
Valley, the amount of surplus water available for Redwood
Valley can be expected to decline each year as authorized users
(six area public water systems) of the RR District's increase
their demand on water.
The report notes that, ``Of the seven public water systems
receiving RR District (Flood Control) water only the Redwood Valley
County Water District is without a legally firm and reliable water
supply.''
The District since its creation has been aware of its vulnerability
in not having a reliable water supply predicated on a firm water right.
In 1974 and in 1992 the District conducted extensive investigations of
potential water reservoir sites. All potential sites came with legal
and or development problems of some sort and all were expensive. In
anticipation of a restricted water supply future the Redwood Valley
County Water District implemented a water conservation program.
TOMORROW--SECURING RELIABLE WATER
In a letter to its ratepayers in 2001 Redwood Valley indicated that
it had conducted water storage site surveys in the past and again was
taking another look at that option. The District pointed out to its
customers that all potential sites were expensive to develop. Redwood
Valley notified the Bureau of Reclamation of its interest in pursuing
such a project. Redwood Valley informed the Bureau that if a future
water supply project were necessary for the District to maintain a
viable water system, then the District would not be in a position to
make payments to the Bureau of Reclamation on its two Small Reclamation
Projects Act loans.
In January, 2002, Redwood Valley engaged a water resource
development company to assist it in finding and securing a firm and
reliable water supply and water right. The effort identified three
potential projects.
The first diverts water in the wintertime and stores it for
summertime use. The project costs range from $100 million to $150
million. Redwood Valley applied to the State Water Resources Control
Board (SWRCB) for a water right permit for 52,000 AF for storage and
for 4,000 AF of diversion annually. The Redwood Valley County Water
District has ruled this potential project as financially infeasible.
The second potential project captures 5600 AF at an estimated cost
of $10 million. Redwood Valley applied to the SWRCB in 2002, for a
water right permit on this project. The third potential project
implements the same practice of diverting water in the wintertime for
storage and use in the summertime. The project is for 17,000 AF and has
an estimated cost of $10 million.
THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION AND THE PROBLEM
The Bureau of Reclamation in an August 2000 Draft Report on the
Redwood Valley County Water District recognized the source of the
District's financial problems when it wrote the following:
The District has been unable to meet its financial obligation
. . . due to:
1) Lack of buildup in demand for both M&I (domestic)
and agricultural (irrigation) water service as
initially projected in the loan application reports.
2) . . . Redwood Valley CWD (District) has an
agreement with the Improvement District (Flood Control)
which allows them to use water from the Lake
(Mendocino) but they are last in line behind Sonoma and
(Flood Control). Because of this uncertainty, Redwood
Valley CWD's water supply is not considered a
dependable firm supply.
3) Some of the District's (Redwood Valley) customers
filed a lawsuit in the California Superior Court for a
writ of mandate (connection moratorium) prohibiting the
District from increasing its number of M&I (domestic)
customers. The District has been working towards
firming up their water supply and meet the requirements
necessary to get the writ of mandate (connection
moratorium) lifted, however, at present the District is
still prohibited from adding new M&I (domestic)
customers. This severely limit's the District's ability
to increase the M&I revenue to make repayment on the
P.L. 84-984 loan obligation.
The Bureau of Reclamation concludes, ``Reclamation recognizes that
a firm water supply is paramount for a complete solution to the
District's current financial dilemma.''
The Bureau, writing in 2000, believed that the Redwood Valley
County Water District's water supply problem could be solved by it
becoming geographically part of the Flood Control District. The merger
was intended to qualify Redwood Valley as a ``firm water'' customer
instead of a ``surplus water'' one using Flood Control's 8000 AF.
That idea did not come to fruition in part because of potential
legal conflicts, and more importantly as noted earlier, Flood Control
was already reaching and breaching its 8000 AF water right limit. Flood
Control announced in 2001 and 2002 that it did not have surplus water
to sell to Redwood Valley. If that were true, then Flood Control might
have believed in 2000 that it did not have water to sell to Redwood
Valley as a ``firm water'' customer.
The Bureau of Reclamation did not mention in its 2000 report that
Redwood Valley's future water supply became increasingly threatened
when another federal agency, National Marine Fisheries, listed salmon
and steelhead in the Eel River and Russian River as threatened under
the Endangered Species Act. That federal action prompted the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to announce in 2004, a 15% cut in
water diverted from the Eel River into the Russian River and to Lake
Mendocino. In 2007 the National Marine Fisheries Service increased that
reduction to 33%.
THE SOLUTION
The Bureau of Reclamation is correct when it recognizes that ``a
firm water supply is paramount for a complete solution to Redwood
Valley's current financial dilemma.'' Unfortunately there is no quick
fix. There is no free fix. The Redwood Valley County District is and
has been for years actively searching for a new firm and reliable water
supply source. The current evidence suggests that the cost of a water
project which will provide future firm water will range between $10
million and $100 million.
The evidence is becoming crystal clear that the Redwood Valley's
water supply trend line is moving away from having an adequate water
supply--firm or surplus. The District needs to commit its financial
resources to finding, securing and building a water supply source which
is firm and reliable. Not only will it take money and lots of it, it
will require taking on new debt. Redwood Valley cannot take on new
debt, comparable in size or larger than its existing debt. This is
especially true with an existing loan obligation to the United States
that is and has been inoperable since the day it was incurred. The
District cannot seek new debt financing with a $7.3 million bad debt on
its books.
Passage of S. 1112 and/or H.R. 235 is critical to Redwood Valley's
ability to find and finance a firm water supply and to maintain a
viable water system. These bills will enable Redwood Valley to commit
future revenues to pay for projects which will secure water for its
present and future customers.
When that happens, the judicially imposed moratorium on revenue
producing domestic water service connections can be lifted. That will
enable Redwood Valley to escape its Catch 22 circumstance. The District
needs a judicially approved firm and reliable water supply which will
enable the District to add additional domestic service (MU) customers.
The ability to add new domestic customers becomes a source for new
revenues which is necessary if the District is to finally achieve long
term financial stability. Financial stability is essential if the
District is to meet its mission of providing safe, firm, reliable and
affordable water for its customers in Redwood Valley.
S. 1112 and H.R. 235 enable Redwood Valley to reschedule the
payment of its two Small Reclamation Projects loans to the United
States. This legislation will allow Redwood Valley to enter into
financial obligations as are necessary to finance the procurement of
dedicated water rights and improvements necessary to store and convey a
firm and reliable water supply for Redwood Valley's families, farms and
businesses. This ultimately will make it possible for Redwood Valley
and its ratepayers to pay their original loan obligations to the United
States.
On behalf of the Redwood Valley County Water District--its Board of
Directors and its ratepayers, I respectfully request that your
committee recommend the passage of S. 1112 and/or H.R. 235. Thank you
very much for your time and attention to this request.
Senator Salazar. Thank you very much, Mr. Tibbetts. I'll
just take a few minutes and ask a couple of questions. Mr.
Purcell and Mr. Glode, with respect to S. 752, it seems we have
a conflict going on here in Wyoming.
Mr. Purcell, your point of view is that we do not need an
amendment to essentially protect the upstream water users from
a call.
Mr. Glode, you believe that we do need an amendment that
essentially sets forth what is already a part of the decrees
that were entered into the settlement that was agreed to by the
U.S. Supreme Court.
So, which is it? Where is Wyoming on this? Are the Governor
and you, Mr. Purcell, in a different position than Mr. Glode
and the water users that he represents? Is there a way in which
we can resolve this issue?
Mr. Purcell. Mr. Chairman, I hope so. I would contend that
this is a matter that is best left to the parties'
interpretation of the Modified North Platte Decree and Wyoming
Water law. We've respected this body's actions in the past,
which has deferred such issues as this to our law and to the
modified decree and to those who interpret it.
Senator Salazar. Mr. Glode, why would you say that isn't
sufficient then, to simply defer to State law and to the
modified Supreme Court decree, if the language already
addresses the issue, why is that that you believe the amendment
is necessary?
Mr. Glode. First of all, Senator, the Wyoming Water law,
the 1904 appropriation in Pathfinder is a water right in good
standing and we feel that it's only a matter of time, given the
fact that there's another 150,000 give or take acre foot
requirement on an already over appropriated river. It's only
going to be a matter of time before the Federal Government
comes in and asks for the enforcement of Wyoming Water law.
What we're asking for here is, not, for you to interfere in
Wyoming Water law in any way shape or form. We're simply
asking, you're asking for additional 54 thousand acre foot of
water to be placed in storage in that reservoir.
We're asking for protection from that. We're asking for you
to limit your Federal asset. We're not asking for anything to
do with Wyoming Water law, whatsoever, at this particular
point.
What's been resisted up to this point is that the State
engineer and the State of Wyoming have refused the ability to
limit the powers of the State engineer and we're not asking to
limit the power of the State engineer. We could see where that
could be a problem for you to ask them to do that, but we're
asking for you is to limit your own Federal agency and their
ability to place a call.
Senator Salazar. I will turn over to my colleagues for
additional questions given the remaining time.
Senator Corker.
Senator Corker. I'll go ahead and let Senator Thomas. I
know that he's got a more specific interest in this.
Senator Salazar. Senator Thomas.
Senator Thomas. Thank you. I want to follow up on that. I
think that what we're seeking to do, as I understand it, that
your recommendation has indicated, that they're not likely to
increase that demand during the season. However, there's no
assurance that that's necessarily going to be the case. We want
it to be the case and therefore we're simply saying that that
increase be called on and for the lake, it would not happen
during this period of time and to ensure that's right.
And so, Mr. Purcell, why is that a problem if we put that
into the law, that that increase would be at the, what is it,
125 or whatever during that period of time.
Mr. Purcell. Mr. Chairman, Senator Thomas, I think it's the
request of the Upper North Platte Water Users, there's a little
more than that. There's already language in the stipulation of
the modified decree that says the 54 thousand acre foot of the
recaptured space.
Now understand, this is an existing water right held by the
Federal Government for a million seventy thousand acre foot.
We're just reactivating 54,000 acre foot of space of that and
we have said in the stipulation that that 54,000 acre foot
cannot place calls on the upper basin. What is being asked of
you is that the entire million seventy cannot place a call
during the irrigation season.
My Governor has written to you requesting that this
amendment be approved. Personally, we've worked very hard to
get the Federal Government to comply with our laws on water
related issues.
Senator Salazar. Let me ask, if I may, just a question on
that. Governor Freudenthal supports the amendment? Mr. Glode is
here in support of the amendment and yet, Mr. Purcell, you're
here testifying that the amendment is not necessary and isn't
welcome to be part of the legislation.
So where's the State of Wyoming with respect to the
proposed amendment that Mr. Glode and his concerned user
district are proposing today.
Mr. Purcell. Governor Freudenthal, a year ago, asked the
delegation to support an amendment similar to this. My issue
is, I don't want this amendment to affect the Pathfinder
Modification Project in this potential authorization.
To me, that is the key. We need this project very badly to
meet our obligations to both the program and to provide water
that we have promised under the settlement, as well as to
supplement some very junior water rights.
Senator Thomas. But the Bureau of Reclamation has indicated
they're not going to do that. All we're doing is assuring that
what they say will happen, will happen.
Mr. Purcell. And if you think that, Mr. Chairman, Senator
Thomas, and if you think that's appropriate, so be it.
Senator Thomas. Well, I do, obviously. Would you like to
respond, Mr. Glode, to Mr. Purcell's comment?
Mr. Glode. No, I think the information speaks for itself. I
just see that the risk is there and we're simply asking for the
force of law for what everybody thinks is fairly ours to begin
with. We're just simply asking for what everybody says we have
already. I don't see it as being controversial either.
Senator Thomas. I agree. Thank you.
Senator Salazar. Senator Corker.
Senator Corker. No.
Senator Salazar. Dr. Stewart, in the project that you
referred to, which is already online in Wellington, Colorado,
where you are saving some of this produced water. How long will
that occur? How much water is available from a project that's
already functioning in the way that we contemplate under this
legislation?
Dr. Stewart. That's an oil project and so that has life of
about 500 years.
Senator Salazar. About 500 years?
Dr. Stewart. Yes.
Senator Salazar. So the water supply from essentially the
mining of this water will be available for a period of nearly
five centuries?
Dr. Stewart. Yes.
Senator Salazar. And Mr. Tibbetts, to you, it seems clear
that a firm water supply is the foundation of the Redwood
Valley to establish a water system at a rate base that will
help solve its financial problems.
Has the district done a sufficient analysis of its
alternatives to warrant the conclusion that it is feasible to
implement a project that will provide a revenue stream adequate
to repay the new loans and its outstanding obligations to the
Bureau of Reclamations.
Mr. Tibbetts. The stage of its analysis, Senator, is that
they've identified three sources, potential sources. Any one of
the three would work for Redwood Valley. Two of those sources
have taken to the State water board a request to provide for
water right and that issue is pending and it's not clear, quite
frankly, how soon there will be an action taken on that.
What would be needed in both cases, essentially, is an
ability to divert water in the winter high flow season, send it
off stream, impound it and then transmit it through with a pipe
up the valley to Redwood Valley.
It is estimated and it's only an estimate at this time,
that that project would probably run $7 million to $10 million.
Senator Salazar. Thank you very much. Are there any other
questions of this panel from either of my colleague Senators?
Senator Corker.
Senator Corker. Since we do have a few moments before the
vote, I'd love to understand from Dr. Stewart, exactly what the
process is of reusing produced water in the method that we're
talking about.
Dr. Stewart. There are a bunch of different processes.
That's why I think it's important for the Bureau to be involved
because they can help develop that tool box, but in Wellington,
for example, we bring that water to the surface. We separate it
in a knock out tank. We remove the wall head gases. We allow
the water to come to the surface and remove any residual oils.
Then we send it through a walnut shell filter, a ceramic micro
filter activated carbon and discharge it.
But when the water leaves, it has no alter organics. It has
no metals associated with it. It can be used on ag land or for
augmentation is what we use it for.
We're involved in another project, CBM project, where we're
doing treatment there and that has only sodium as the issue. So
we remove the sodium to lower the sodium absorption ratio for
ag land reuse and in that particular case, the Wellington case
we generate about 150 acre feet per year.
In the CBM project, we generate about 10,000 acre feet per
year. So that's the difference. The CBM projects, coal bed
methane projects, are very high volume but they only last 20 to
30 years. The oil projects are low volume but they last
hundreds of years.
Senator Salazar. Let me ask, Senator Corker, I'm sorry.
Senator Corker. No, go ahead.
Senator Salazar. I was going to ask one more question of
Mr. Purcell on S. 752 relating to the Platte River Recovery
Program. That's a program that I have been involved with for
longer than I care to think about and as I see Dan Ludke and
you, Mr. Purcell and others in the audience, I remember when we
first held the meeting in Denver back in 1990 or 1991, to get
that program off the ground.
What would be the consequence to the program if S. 752 is
not adopted?
Mr. Purcell. Mr. Chairman, in essence, without the money,
you can't do the work. It provides the authorization to access
$157 million of Federal funds of which we're matching; the
States are matching, with watered land and of course, dollars.
But the primary components of the program are acquiring
additional lands for restoration, acquiring additional water.
The States are contributing 80,000 acre foot of water per year.
We'd like another 50 to 70,000 acre foot of water per year.
Plus, we're involved in what's called a Scientific Adaptive
Management Program, which is going to judge how the habitat
reacts to additional water and our other improvements to the
habitat.
So, in essence, we have a lot of work to do and the funding
is required, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Salazar. So, S. 752 is very essential for the
program on the South Platte River Recovery Effort to continue
and to succeed.
Mr. Purcell. Yes, Mr. Chairman, very much so.
Senator Salazar. Well, with that I want to thank all of the
witnesses. The legislation that we've covered in today's
hearing is set out in the joint staff memoranda of April 25,
2007. We have no additional questions for the witnesses.
I want to thank each of you for your willingness to testify
today and for those of you who traveled to our Nation's capital
today, I want to thank each of you very much for the
information of Senators and their staffs and those of you who
are interested in any of the bills before us today.
Any questions for the record will be due by the close of
business tomorrow, and with that, the hour of 3 o'clock having
come and gone, know that this meeting is adjourned. Thank you
very much.
[Whereupon, at 3 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIXES
----------
Appendix I
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Responses of Mr. Glode to Questions From Senator Salazar
Question 1. If the modified North Platte Decree and Wyoming State
law, as interpreted by the State Engineer and the Attorney General,
prohibit Reclamation from placing a call on upstream water users during
the irrigation season, why is an amendment needed?
Answer. 1. Neither Formal Opinion No. 2004-001 nor previous Wyoming
State Engineer opinions prohibit the Bureau of Reclamation from placing
a call on upstream water users during the irrigation season. Rather,
they opine that the State Engineer probably would not honor such a
call, and that refusing to honor a post-May 1 call would be the proper
course. The 2005 letter from the Wyoming State Engineer that we sent
with our earlier materials states: ``[I]n my opinion, a Wyoming State
Engineer cannot say he will never honor a call for regulation for
Pathfinder Reservoir from May 1 to September 30 in each year.'' See
September 30, 2005 letter by Patrick T. Tyrrell, p. 4. Although Mr.
Tyrrell also stated that it would be difficult to conceive of
circumstances leading to his office honoring such a call, there are no
guarantees, absent the legislation we have proposed, that such a post-
May 1 call would not be made and honored.
2. There is no guarantee that the Wyoming Supreme Court, or the
U.S. Supreme Court, will agree with the conclusions made in Formal
Opinion No. 2004-001. Even if the State Engineer were to follow the
Opinion and refuse to honor a post-May 1 call for regulation, he may be
forced to do so if a judicial challenge is made to that decision.
3. Mr. Tyrrell serves at the pleasure of the Wyoming Governor.
Given Governor Freudenthal's recent withdrawal of his previous support
for legislation limiting the Bureau of Reclamation's ability to place a
post-May 1 call, there are no guarantees that the current Engineer or
his successor will not similarly change position concerning whether to
honor a post-May 1 call.
4. Throughout the entire Final Environmental Impact Statement
(``FEIS'') for the Platte River Recovery Implementation Program
(``PRRIP'') there is no clear indication of where the water for the
PRRIP would come from. This left some uncertainty about which water
rights will be limited as a result of the PRRIP. Following the
Governor's dramatic reversal, it is now crystal clear that Wyoming's
contribution will be borne by irrigators above Pathfinder Reservoir.
Indeed, despite the many assurances we have had to the contrary, we
note that the Modified North Platte Decree contemplates calculating an
allocation year by including months all the way into July. Modified
Decree, App. E. Accordingly, despite all the promises, a post-May 1
call has been contemplated, and only by way of the amendment we seek
will protection be provided.
5. The amendment we have endorsed will leave room for compromise
regarding future implementation of the PRRIP, and can only hasten
implementation of the program. Without the amendment, the possibilities
for compromise diminish significantly. We will be forced to challenge
the PMP and PRRIP by all legal means.
6. The amendment we suggest is fully consistent with Wyoming law
and is consistent with the primacy of state water law. Indeed, it is
the current proposal for the PMP that is not consistent with Wyoming
law, as it would create a new federal water right, for new
environmental uses in Nebraska; yet would have a 1904 priority date.
There is certainly nothing in Wyoming water law that recognize such a
right. Our proposal would at least mitigate the injury to upstream,
junior water rights that will be cause by the PRRIP and the PMP.
7. By way of the amendment, the United States could not place a
post-May 1 call. In so doing, the Wyoming State Engineer would not have
to decide whether to honor any call. The United States would be treated
like any other state water right owner who has agreed to limit a water
right to prevent injury from a proposed change.
8. Formal Opinion No 2004-001 only applies to calls from Pathfinder
Reservoir, and specifically does not apply to the additional storage
proposed to be created by the Pathfinder Modification Project
(``PMP''). See Formal Opinion No. 2004-001, p. 2. Pursuant to the
Nebraska v. Wyoming settlement and the modified North Platte Decree,
the Bureau of Reclamation cannot call against upstream junior water
rights with the exception of those stored in Seminoe Reservoir. The
Formal Opinion does not address the impact of a rebound call when the
1931 Seminoe water right calls for regulation of upstream rights. When
calls are made against Seminoe Reservoir due to the Pathfinder
Reservoir 1904 right, and Seminoe places a subsequent call, the impact
will be effectively the same as if Pathfinder had made a call against
all upstream water rights.
The amendment will provide some measure of relief to the irrigators
in the Upper North Platte River basin, while at the same time allowing
the funding mechanisms for the PMP to move forward without significant
delay.
Question 2. Isn't it more appropriate to raise this issue before
the Wyoming Board of Control when Reclamation petitions the Board for a
change in its storage permit for Pathfinder Reservoir.
Answer. 1. Only the federal government can agree to the voluntary
restrictions the Upper North Platte Water Users have suggested by way
of the proposed amendment to Senate Bill 752.
2. Action by the federal government in implementing the PMP is a
matter of federal law, including issues concerning the taking of vested
property rights. See Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District v. United
States, 49 Fed. Cl. 313, 319 (2001). These issues cannot be addressed
before the Board of Control.
3. If post-May 1 call protection is provided as an amendment to
Senate Bill 752, there will be no need to raise the issue before the
Board of Control. It only makes sense to deal with the issue of post-
May 1 call protection in Congress, which has the ultimate authority for
United States property and to bind the Bureau of Reclamation.
4. Congress is also the appropriate body to consider the equities
involved in the impact of the PMP. As we have previously noted, (1) the
FEIS shows no correlation between water uses in the Upper North Platte
River Basin and water shortages in the Nebraska recovery area, and (2)
the Supreme Court and the Special Master in the Nebraska v. Wyoming
lawsuit recognized that there is little or no hydrologic connection
between water use above Pathfinder Reservoir in Wyoming and water
shortage in the Nebraska recovery area. Yet, the Upper Basin water
users are asked to bear the brunt of the PMP impacts. This inequity may
not be given the weight it deserves by the Board of Control. It is up
to Congress.
5. The shortcomings of the FEIS are also properly before Congress
as the Board of Control cannot remedy its deficiencies. As we have
noted, Appendix F of the final Modified Decree mandates that the Bureau
of Reclamation cannot proceed with the PMP until it has been
appropriately considered under the National Environmental Policy Act.
As the impacts of a post-May 1 call were not even considered in the
FEIS, such a call cannot be part of the approved PRRIP program.
6. The North Platte River is already overappropriated. There is
simply no additional water available for storage in Pathfinder
Reservoir, and no new water will be created by way of the PMP. In
addition, the environmental and municipal accounts contemplated for the
PMP will store water on an equal priority basis with all other users of
the Reservoir. This becomes an additional demand for the full,
unrestricted 1.016 million acre-feet of existing storage capacity in
the Reservoir. Irrigators in the Upper North Platte River basin are
asked to give up their water rights for both the PRRIP and
municipalities.
Congress, and specifically the Water and Power and Power
Subcommittee, is the appropriate forum to provide the relief necessary
for the water users in the Upper North Platte River Basin. Amending
Senate Bill 752 now with the language proposed in our previous comments
will achieve that very end and lessen the chance for future disputes on
the PMP implementation.
We thank you again for the opportunity to comment on Senate Bill
752, for your questions on the appropriate mechanism to provide post-
May 1 call protection, and for your interest in the Upper North Platte
River Basin.
______
Responses of Dr. Hirsch to Questions From Senator Salazar
Question 1. S. 324 (Domenici/Bingaman)--According to your testimony
on S. 324, USGS is conducting a pilot project on approaches to a
national assessment of water resources.
What are you evaluating in the pilot project and how might it apply
elsewhere to address the need identified in S. 324?
Answer. The National Water Availability and Use Program--a pilot
effort that is part of the USGS Ground Water Resources Program line
item is intended to provide citizens, communities, and natural-resource
managers with a clearer knowledge of the status of the Nation's water
resources (how much water we have now), trends over recent decades in
water availability and use (how water availability is changing), and an
improved ability to forecast the availability of water for future
economic and environmental uses. This pilot effort includes a study in
the Great Lakes Basin and a small effort in the Lower Colorado River
Basin. The pilot is helping determine the best ways to evaluate the
resource and how to deliver the information in a manner that is most
helpful to planners and policymakers working at local, regional, and
national levels. The program is based on concepts presented in the
report, Concepts for National Assessment of Water Availability and Use
(http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/circ/circ1223/), which was produced at the
request of the House Appropriations Committee. It could be expanded to
include other major aquifers in the United States.
Question 2. S. 1116 (Salazar) & H.R. 902--Your testimony notes that
USGS and Reclamation have sufficient authority to carry-out the
activities in the produced water bills.
My question is: Are you actually carrying out any such activities?
You described USGS's activities with respect to assessing the impact of
produced water contamination on the landscape. Are you doing anything
right now to look at cleaning up and using produced water?
Answer. The USGS has conducted some preliminary compilations of the
volumes and quality of produced water presently being generated in
selected areas by oil and gas activities from existing conventional and
coalbed methane producing wells. The volume is important because it has
impact on whether the water available justifies the development of an
infrastructure to use the water. The quality is important because the
more varied the contaminant types and higher the concentrations, the
more expensive the cleanup. This information may allow some
understanding of the availability of produced water in producing areas
and the costs that may be associated with cleaning up waters for reuse
in those areas.
In 2006, the USGS patented a general solar distillation loop
process that accepts saltwater, wastewater, brine, mine water, etc.
This low-energy process accelerates distillation of impaired water to
produce distilled water and hyper-concentrated brine (which is dried
for disposal). Current research with a local public water agency in San
Diego County is looking for options for disposal of a high-copper
discharge from their reverse osmosis stream. The goal of this three-
year project is to treat all discharge leaving the plant, returning the
solar distillate to the water production plant, and disposing the high-
copper precipitate into a landfill.
Question 3. In your testimony, you say that USGS and Bureau of
Reclamation do not have the expertise ``to identify the legal,
legislative, or administrative obstacles'' to the use of produced
waters. Which agency or agencies do you believe possess this expertise?
Answer. The potential legal, legislative, and administrative
obstacles to using produced waters are many and varied and may include
such things as water-quality restrictions for proposed uses; land-use
restrictions; habitat alteration for threatened and endangered species;
rights-of-way issues for water pipelines; liability issues for harm due
to improper or incomplete treatment of water to remove contaminants;
unanticipated or unintended environmental consequences of use and
resultant liability; and water-rights issues. The States and tribes
play major roles in the regulation of water supply and quality and thus
should play a significant role in such an evaluation. This task might
best be accomplished through involvement of a State-based organization
such as the Western States Water Council. Also, a consortium of State
Water Resources Research Institutes may be able to provide such an
analysis given their interdisciplinary nature, including their
expertise in legal matters. The presentations and the affiliations of
the participants in the April 2006 produced water beneficial use
conference held in Ft. Collins, Colorado, and hosted by the Colorado
Water Resources Research Institute provides information on the
interested parties and the extent of the issues of concern. The issues
raised are primarily regulatory. Neither the USGS nor the Bureau of
Reclamation is a regulatory agency.
Responses of Dr. Hirsch to Questions From Senator Domenici
REGARDING S. 324
Dr. Hirsch, New Mexico has limited potable ground water supplies.
However, it has vast supplies of brackish water. Many communities in
the state are exploring the possibility of desalinating brackish ground
water. However, very little is understood about this resource.
Question 1. What role do you believe the USGS should have in
characterizing brackish water aquifers in order to more fully
understand and make use of this resource?
Answer. The USGS carries out many studies of ground-water systems,
including fresh and saline resources. Roles of the USGS include (1)
better definition of the distribution of saline ground-water resources
and their chemical characteristics; (2) development of methods and
predictions of the effects of saline-water extraction on the
environment and connected hydrologic systems; and (3) hydrogeologic and
chemical studies to support proper disposal of waste products.
My understanding is that the Interior Department often conducts
water resource studies, including aquifer characterization. In New
Mexico, there is very little information available on the size and
recharge capabilities of the state's aquifers.
Question 1. If this bill is enacted, what will the Department do to
characterize these aquifers?
Answer. The New Mexico Office of the State Engineer has recognized
40 Underground Water Basins in New Mexico for the purpose of
administering ground-water resources. In many cases, multiple aquifers
comprise those administrative ground-water basins. One would first need
to prioritize these basins/aquifers and evaluate ongoing or recent
studies to characterize their geologic framework and ground-water
resources. Depending on the issues and availability of information,
ground-water assessments for individual systems would require 3 to 6
years and studies may require drilling, testing, and monitoring of
observation wells; investigations of ground-water-flow paths, recharge,
and discharge; and conceptual model testing prior to development of
ground-water-flow models. These studies would be subject to available
appropriations.
Question 2. What do you believe would be an appropriate non-Federal
cost share for a study of this kind?
Answer. A minimum 50 percent non-Federal match for any Federal
resources would seem to be appropriate for the work proposed by the
bill.
Question 3. What types of assistance, in addition to what is
authorized in this bill do you believe USGS could offer the state to
more fully understand its water resources?
Answer. The USGS conducts the extensive ground-water and surface-
water data collection and investigations in conjunction with State and
local partners through the Cooperative Water Program. National programs
such as the National Streamflow Information Program (NSIP), Ground-
Water Resources Program, and National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA)
Program provide fundamental monitoring data and interpretive analyses.
USGS technical specialists also actively participate on key work groups
and committees addressing critical New Mexico water issues. Any
assistance offered by the USGS would be subject to available
appropriations.
Responses of Dr. Hirsch to Questions From Senator Corker
REGARDING H.R. 902
Question 1. If a good solution were developed and demonstrated to
increase the extent produced water may be used for irrigation and other
purposes, what is the potential economic value/savings of doing that?
Answer. We have not done such an analysis.
Question 2. You state that ``it is not within your purview to
identify the legal, legislative, and administrative obstacles to
increasing the extent to which produced water can be used for
irrigation. Who should conduct this analysis? Should USGS and
Reclamation still be consulted during the analysis?
Answer. The USGS and Bureau of Reclamation may be able to provide
data and interpretation that might be useful to those conducting such
an analysis. The potential legal, legislative, and administrative
obstacles to using produced waters are many and varied and may include
such things as water-quality restrictions for proposed uses; land-use
restrictions; habitat alteration for threatened and endangered species;
rights-of-way issues for water pipelines; liability issues for harm due
to improper or incomplete treatment of water to remove contaminants;
unanticipated or unintended environmental consequences of use and
resultant liability; and water-rights issues. The States and tribes
play major roles in the regulation of water supply and quality and thus
should play a significant role in such an evaluation. This task might
best be accomplished through involvement of a State-based organization
such as the Western States Water Council. Also, a consortium of State
Water Resources Research Institutes may be able to provide such an
analysis given their interdisciplinary nature, including their
expertise in legal matters. The presentations and the affiliations of
the participants in the April 2006 produced water beneficial use
conference held in Ft. Collins, Colorado, and hosted by the Colorado
Water Resources Research Institute provides information on the
interested parties and the extent of the issues of concern. The issues
raised are primarily regulatory. Neither the USGS nor the Bureau of
Reclamation is a regulatory agency.
______
Responses of Mr. Johnson to Questions From Senator Salazar
S. 175 (Inhofe)--It's my understanding that Reclamation completed
an Appraisal Report on Central Oklahoma water supply alternatives in
August 2005.
Question 1. Isn't the Appraisal Report the prerequisite for moving
forward with a Feasibility Study? Why is a plan of study now needed,
and how long will it take to develop?
Answer. Yes, an Appraisal Report is a prerequisite for the
Feasibility Study, If a Feasibility Study is warranted, Reclamation
normally initiates a draft Plan of Study as part of an Appraisal
Report. The circumstances of finalizing the Appraisal Report did not
allow Reclamation to include the draft Plan of Study, so the Plan of
Study was initiated after completion of the Appraisal Report. The
purpose of the Plan of Study is to develop specific scopes of work and
cost estimates associated with performing a Feasibility Study. This
provides the basis for which draft cost-sharing agreements can be
developed and facilitates implementation of a Feasibility Study when or
if Congress provides the necessary authorization. The draft Plan of
Study is complete.
S. 542 Craig--Your testimony refers to a Boise/Payette Water
Storage Assessment Report that was completed in July 2006, and
indicates that the Report is the foundation for future feasibility
studies to address water shortages in Idaho.
Question 2. What is the range of alternatives identified in the
Assessment Report? Are those alternatives limited to surface water
storage options? If so, what types of issues do you anticipate
evaluating in the feasibility studies?
Answer. The Boise/Payette Assessment Study only looked at surface
water storage options it as acknowledged in the process that a
comprehensive water supply program would be necessary in the Boise
basin to meet future water needs. This may include water conservation
and other water management measures. The Assessment Study identified
``areas oil opportunity'' that showed high hydrology potential with
relatively low social/environmental impacts. However, alternatives have
not yet been formulated. Evaluation of physical site constraints and
formulation of alternatives will be developed at the Appraisal or
Feasibility study level.
A Feasibility level study will identify and evaluate social,
environmental, and economic issues specific to each site in accordance
with NEPA and the ``Principles and Guidelines'' for the evaluation of
potential water development projects. Some of the areas of opportunity
identified in the Assessment Study were within ESA listed hull trout
migration corridors. As such, passage and mitigation issues would
likely be significant at those sites. Other areas may also have
significant benefits, such as enhanced flood control along the Boise
River. Alternatives will also be evaluated in terms of their potential
to affect flow augmentation for Columbia River ESA listed salmon.
S. 752 (Nelson/Salazar . . .)--You note in your statement that S.
752 will help ensure compliance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
and the protection of existing and future water uses.
Question 3. Can you explain a little more the basis for that
statement? If the Platte River Recovers Program were not implemented,
with its habitat restoration goals and consensus-based process to
acquire water for ESA needs, what would be the implications for
Colorado, Wyoming, and Nebraska?
Answer. A collaborative, basin-wide approach to resolving the
endangered species issues is the best way to ensure that the current
water use can continue and new uses can proceed in compliance with the
ESA while providing for the needs of the species. Trying to address ESA
requirements separately for each of the hundreds of Federal and private
water projects in the Platte Basin would be vastly more expensive,
provide less certainty for water users, and be less effective for the
species.
A collaborative effort among the States and water users in the
basin allows for a more equitable distribution of effort than might
occur under individual project ESA consultations. Without a cooperative
approach and coordination between the States' administrations of water,
many projects will literally compete for both land and water to improve
habitat in order to meet their ESA obligations, Past experience has
demonstrated that the likelihood of litigation between water users and
between the States would also increase without a cooperative effort.
S. 752--Based on the testimony to be given on the 2 panel, there
appears to be disagreement on whether the Pathfinder Modification
Project will impact the water rights of the Upper North Platte Valley
Water Users in Wyoming. Specifically, there is concern that an expanded
Pathfinder Reservoir will either (1) place priority calls on the Upper
North Platte Water Users during the irrigation season, or (2) place
priority calls on Seminoe Reservoir, which through a domino effect will
result in calls being placed on the Upper North Platte folks.
Question 4. Reclamation is supporting the Pathfinder Modification
Project. Have you analyzed the situation? If so, are there risks to the
water supply of the Upper North Platte water users? Would Reclamation
support an amendment that limits its right to place a priority call for
the Pathfinder Modification Project?
Answer. Reclamation does not take formal positions on potential
amendments. However, an amendment of this nature could: 1) greatly
diminish Reclamation's entire 1,070,000 AF of 1904 senior water right
by limiting the ability of Reclamation to request priority
administration to adequately protect the water supply for Reclamation
contractors in Wyoming and Nebraska; 2) potentially affect the
apportionment of North Platte River between Wyoming and Nebraska as set
forth in the North Platte decree; and 3) set a precedent of federally
legislating State water law.
We believe that the program under the legislation as currently
written and the 2001 Amended Stipulation to the North Platte Decree
between the States and the Federal Government provides for protection
of water rights through a state water law process. We are not likely to
support amendments that undermine the water rights of Reclamation's
project beneficiaries downstream of Pathfinder Dam.
Question 5. Would the amendment proposed by the Upper North Platte
Valley Water Users Association be contrary to the amended stipulation
between the State of Nebraska, the State of Wyoming, and the State of
Colorado entered in 2001 by the Supreme Court or contrary to Wyoming
State water law?
Answer. Yes, the potential amendment is contrary to the Amended
Stipulation because it addresses the entire Reclamation Pathfinder 1904
water right of 1,070,000 AF rather than the Pathfinder Modification
which recovers 54,000 AF of storage. Limiting the water right with
regard to the Pathfinder modification (54,000 An has been addressed in
the 2001 Amended Stipulation between the States and the Federal
Government. Appendix F of the stipulation with regard to the 54,000 AF
of storage space states ``. . . the recaptured storage space could not
place regulatory calls on existing water rights upstream of Pathfinder
Reservoir other than the rights pertaining to Seminoe Reservoir.''
Question 6. What is the nature of the 54,000 acre feet of storage
space that would be gained by the Pathfinder Modification proposal?
Does this reclaimed storage space constitute a new water right or an
existing water right that dates back to the original 1904 water right
associated with Pathfinder Reservoir?
Answer. The Pathfinder modification project would restore 54,000 AF
of storage space lost to sediment in Pathfinder reservoir. The
recaptured storage space would store water in the Reclamation's
existing 1,070,000 AF 1904 storage right for Pathfinder reservoir to be
administered per the 2001 Amended Stipulation as agreed to by the
States and the Federal Government. Thus, it would be part of the
existing water right.
S. 1037 (Smith/Wyden)--Your statement on S. 1037 is a little
confusing. First, you express concern that the Tumalo Irrigation
District is not associated with a Reclamation project, and that the
Department is concerned that funding a non-Reclamation project would
adversely impact Reclamation's core projects. You then state that the
Tumalo water conservation project may be ideally suited for
Reclamation's Water 2025 Program.
Question 7. Is Water 2025 siphoning off funds from Reclamation's
core projects? If not, what benefits is Water 2025 producing with
respect to existing Reclamation projects? From Reclamation's
perspective, will the Tumalo Irrigation District water conservation
project advance any federal interest?
Answer. The President's FY 2008 budget request funds the Water 2025
Program to achieve the overarching goal of preventing crises and
conflict over water before they occur, especially in the areas of the
west where we can predict problems. The FY 2008 proposal for Water 2025
represents a balance of getting ahead of crises while not detracting
from the needs of Reclamation projects. Water 2025 uses a competitive
process to award grants focused on stretching existing supplies through
innovation, technology and market based solutions. In evaluating
applications for grants, one of the ranking criteria used is whether
the request involves a Reclamation. project. However, this is not the
sole criteria. Consideration is also given to factors such as benefits
to ESA listed species and the accomplishment of other federal
interests. The proposed Tumalo Irrigation District Water Conservation
Project appears to be a candidate for a Water 2025 grant because it
would help restore instream flows to the middle Deschutes River,
benefiting downstream ESA-listed fish. However, it would he subject to
the program's competitive evaluation criteria and funding levels.
S. 1112 (Feinstein & H.R. 235--While you are not supporting H.R.
235, it sounds as though you could with some modifications to its text.
Question 8. Can you provide for the record, legislative language
that would implement your suggestions on the deferment legislation?
Answer. The Department and Reclamation recognize that a firm and
reliable water supply is likely necessary for a. complete solution to
the District's current financial dilemma related to repayment of these
two loans. Such legislation should include a date certain for repayment
of Reclamation loans to begin or to be completed. Extending out the
payment dates and not charging interest until repayment begins serves
to devalue the loan.
Responses of Mr. Johnson to Questions From Senator Corker
REGARDING S. 175
Question 9. Commissioner Johnson, in your testimony regarding S.
175, you state that the one-year time frame for the study authorized in
the bill is ``insufficient for a thorough evaluation of alternatives.''
What would be a sufficient time frame?
Answer. Three years would be sufficient to complete a thorough
investigation of the alternatives.
Question 10. If the time were lengthened, would the Administration
consider supporting the bill, or are there other concerns that would
need to be addressed in order to gain that support?
Answer. In addition to an insufficient time frame, the department
believes that $300,000 would not be sufficient to meet the Federal cost
share of 50 percent. The Federal cost of the study is now estimated at
$850,000 (federal share only) based on results of the draft Plan of
Study for meeting the future water demands of the cities currently
served by the Central Oklahoma Master Conservancy District. The
Administration's support of the bill would be determined at the time
when the bill is introduced and reviewed in its entirety. However, this
project is not in BOR's budget and will have to compete with other
funding priorities.
Since the April 25 Subcommittee hearing, S. 175 has been reported
from Committee with amendment on 5/23/07. The legislation now specifies
a three-year window to conduct the specified study. The bill authorizes
an appropriation of $900,000. It also specifies that Federal costs may
not exceed 50 percent of the study's total cost. The legislation allows
DOI to accept in-kind services to count toward the non-Federal portion
of the project's costs.
REGARDING S. 1037
Question 11. You have stated that the Department does not support
S. 1037 and that the Tumalo Irrigation District and the facilities in
question are not part of a Reclamation project. Has Reclamation worked
on any project like this in the past or a project that Reclamation
would have originally considered non Reclamation?
Answer. Reclamation has been directed by Congress in the past to
work on non-Reclamation projects. However, limited budgets require
Reclamation to focus Federal funding on existing Reclamation programs
and on the significant water management challenges facing existing
Reclamation projects and irrigation districts. The Water 2025 program
also allows Reclamation to assist in funding non-Reclamation projects
on a competitive basis. A recent example is the collaborative
conservation project involving Tumalo and Swaney Irrigation districts,
both non-Reclamation projects.
______
Responses of Mr. Purcell to Questions From Senator Salazar
Question 1. S. 752 (Mike Purcell--Wyoming Water Development
Commission)--Your testimony indicates that negotiations on the Platte
River program took 14 years to complete.
How was ESA compliance and ongoing water use maintained during that
time? Will this legislation add more stability and certainty to the
situation?
Answer. During the negotiations, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) was completing interim consultations, whereby the water users
were required to provide offsetting measures. If the water users were
seeking federal clearances for new water related activities that would
deplete 25 acre feet or more, the offsetting measures were to replace
the new depletions and provide funding for habitat. If the water users
were seeking federal clearances for existing water related activities,
the offsetting measures were annual depletion fees. The annual average
depletions resulting from the existing water related activities were
applied to formulas which determined the total annual fees required for
each project. The formulas were based on achieving 417,000 acre feet of
water per year and 29,000 acres of habitat. The fees were provided to
the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and were used to acquire land
and water.
The interim consultations documented that if there was no Platte
River Recovery Implementation Program (Program), the water users would
be required to re-consult with the USFWS. The likely result of these
re-consultations would be that all of the water users would be required
to replace depletions and provide funds for habitat until the USFWS
achieved 417,000 acre feet of water per year and 29,000 acres of
habitat, rather than the 150,000 acre feet of water per year and 10,000
acres of habitat to be provided under the Program.
The Program will serve as the reasonable and prudent alternative
for specified new water related activities and all existing water
related activities. Those water users whose activities are covered by
the Program will not be required to provide water and pay the annual
depletion fees and will not be subjected to complex and often
contentious consultations. There will be an abbreviated consultation
process in which the states will be involved through their respective
depletions plans. The purpose of this long-winded response is to assure
that the legislation will certainly add stability and certainty for the
states and their water users.
Question 2. S. 752 (Mike Purcell)--Your testimony seems to indicate
that the amendment proposed by the Upper North Platte Water Users is
unnecessary because the Bureau of Reclamation is precluded from the
placing an upstream call by the modified North Platte Decree and
Wyoming state law.
Is my description of your testimony correct?
Answer. The modified North Platte Decree does not preclude the
Bureau of Reclamation from placing an upstream call for water rights
administration for the benefit of Pathfinder Reservoir. In an effort to
address concerns expressed by Mr. Glode and the Upper North Platte
Water Users, Wyoming Governor Dave Freudenthal requested the Wyoming
Attorney General to address this matter. The Wyoming Attorney General
issued an opinion that the Wyoming State Engineer should not legally
recognize such a call by the Bureau. The opinion was based on the
Attorney General's review of the modified North Platte Decree and
Wyoming water law.
Question 2a. Mr. Glode's testimony, though, cites a letter from
Governor Freudenthal that requests the Wyoming delegation to impose a
legal restriction on Reclamation's ability to place an upstream call.
Do the Wyoming Water Development Commission and other proponents of the
Program oppose the amendment? If so, what's the basis for the
objection?
Answer. Attached is copy of a letter, dated May 4, 2007, from Dave
Freudenthal, Governor of Wyoming, to the Wyoming delegation. This
letter explains the Governor's letter of March 15, 2005 to the Wyoming
delegation and clarifies the state's position related to the proposed
amendment. In his closing, Governor Freudenthal states:
Frankly, I am perplexed by the apparent strategy of some to
leverage the passage of the proposed Act to provide the
assurances that were being sought in 2005. In my view, the
proposed Act should stand apart from the requested assurances
and the two should not be intertwined--as to do otherwise would
compromise not only this important legislation, but also our
working relationship with Colorado, Nebraska, the Bureau of
Reclamation and other Wyoming water users in the Platte River
basin.
I am hopeful that S. 752 and H.R. 1462 can be passed in their
original form.
______
Responses of Dr. Stewart to Questions From Senator Salazar
Question 1. S. 1116 & H.R. 902--Based on your experience, what are
the capital investment costs at a typical oil production site that
would have to be made to treat produced waters so they can be used
safely?
Answer. Typically, the cost of a plant for produced water would
vary between $1,000,000 to $5,000,000
Question 2. S. 1116 & H.R. 902--One of the components of S. 1116
would look at ways to reduce the amount of produced waters that are
generated at an oil production site.
In your professional opinion, can you estimate by what percentage
the produced waters can be reduced, and briefly describe how this is
done?
Answer. One way to reduce produced water is to provide the water/
oil separation within the well. However, this does not always work
Question 3. S. 1116 & H.R. 902--Your testimony talks about a
project coming online near Wellington, Colorado. I assume that the
produced water will be available as long as the oil and gas production
is taking place.
How long do you expect that water will be available from this
project? Are we talking about a long-term supply in most cases?
Answer. We anticipate the produced water will be available for
approximately 300 to 500 years. This would be typical for an oil well.
Regarding the Coal Bed Methane produced water, we anticipate that these
wells will last approximately 20 to 50 years.
______
Response of Mr. Tibbetts to Question From Senator Salazar
Question. S. 1112 & H.R. 235--It seems clear that a firm water
supply is the foundation for Redwood Valley to establish a water system
and a rate base that will help solve its financial problems.
Has the District done a sufficient analysis of its alternatives to
warrant the conclusion that it is feasible to implement a project that
will provide a revenue stream adequate to repay new loans and its
outstanding obligation to the Bureau of Reclamation?
Answer. Yes it has. First, the existing plant has the capacity to
increase water deliveries to new revenue generating domestic hook-ups
which have been embargoed since the 1989 court decision. Second, since
1990 the District has looked at several options which it believes would
judicially qualify as a firm water supply source.
One option is the claiming an abandoned water right in its
vicinity. This option is referred to as the Mill Creek Project. The
District has analyzed its capacity at 3200 AF which is more than
sufficient for the District needs. The District has done preliminary
engineering and design work. It has conducted preliminary fish studies,
identified water flows and has identified necessary water storage site
locations. The District has a pending water rights application on file
with the California State Water Board. The preliminary estimated cost
for the project is about $10,000,000.
The State Water Board will require that Redwood Valley conduct
environmental review on the proposed project. These reviews generally
take about one year. In California the environmental review process is
costly. The District is prepared to take that step when its current
loan obligations to the federal government are deferred as provided for
in S. 1112 and H.R. 235.
The second option is similar to the one above in that it diverts
water during high wintertime flows and stores it for summertime use.
This option known as the West Fork Project would provide for 8,000 AF
of water.
Preliminary work by the District includes identifying water
diversion points, a flow study, and looking at potential storage sites.
This project has on file with the California State Water Board a water
rights application. As in the above option the California State Water
Board would require environmental review. The estimated cost of this
project is also about $10,000.000.
The third project is a much larger undertaking and as such would
require the participation of the Mendocino County Water Agency and
other smaller water districts in the county including Redwood Valley.
This project is known as the Eel River Diversion Project. On April 24,
2007, the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors voted to initiate a
feasibility study in conjunction with other interested water districts
on this project.
The project is located in the Eel River Watershed area in northern
Mendocino County. The project would divert Eel River water during
wintertime high flows, sending water south to the Ukiah Valley and
Redwood Valley areas. Redwood Valley has a water rights application on
this project pending before the California State Water Board. The
application would need to be amended to include the participating
consortium of users. This project is roughly estimated to carry a big
price tag of over $100,000,000. This project is presently in the early
stages of analyses. Because it may include others in need of water, it
has the potential to move fairly quickly in the study stage.
Fourth, in 1990 Redwood Valley undertook a preliminary analysis of
locating storage sites which could hold between 2000 AF and 3000 AF of
water for summer release. In 1990 these sites ranged in cost between $5
and $7 million dollars. Any selected storage site would require
environmental review. The dollar amount would need to be upwardly
adjusted by approximately 50%. The engineering analysis shows that the
identification of a preferred site and construction is feasible.
Finally, in 2006 Redwood Valley entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) with five other water agencies in the valley area
to explore the possibilities of identifying and constructing joint use
storage sites. A new study is presently underway.
Redwood Valley is and will continue to engage other area water
agencies and districts for the purposes of seeking partnerships where
such collaboration would facilitate the acquisition of a firm water
supply source.
Once the court imposed moratorium on revenue producing domestic
hook-ups is lifted the District could sustain a payment schedule
similar to that which would be necessary to pay its existing federal
loans. However, the District cannot simultaneously pay off the existing
loan obligations and new capital debt obligations. Following the
retirement of new debt necessary to create and construct a firm water
supply, the District could then repay its present outstanding loan
obligations to the federal government.
Appendix II
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
City of Aurora,
Utilities Department Administration,
Aurora, CO, April 20, 2007.
Hon. Tim Johnson, Chairman,
Hon. Robert Corker, Ranking Member,
Water and Power Subcommittee, Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Johnson and Senator Corker: We are writing you today
to request your support for S. 752, to authorize the Secretary a the
Interior to participate in the implementation of the Platte River
Recovery Implementation Program (``Program'') for Endangered Species in
the Central and Lower Platte River basin and to modify the Pathfinder
Dam and Reservoir.
The States of Nebraska, Wyoming and Colorado and the U.S.
Department of the Interior have entered into a comprehensive basin-wide
Program to address habitat needs of endangered and threatened species
in the Central and Lower Platte River basin. This cooperative basin-
wide approach is an equitable and effective means to resolve conflicts
and provide greater certainty that the Platte River will continue as a
reliable water source for the many people who reside and use water in
the basin as well as wildlife. The proposed Program will allow water
use and development activities in each of the three states to continue
in compliance with the Endangered Species Act (``ESA.'').
For Colorado, the Program will provide regulatory compliance under
the ESA for both existing and prospective new water uses within the
South Platte River basin. This compliance is needed for water providers
to meet the water supply needs of the urban, agricultural and
industrial sectors of this rapidly changing and growing part of the
state.
Additionally, we request sour support and assistance in ensuring
federal funding for the Platte River Recovery Implementation Program.
This cooperative Program has the objective of recovering three species
of threatened or endangered birds and one endangered fish while
allowing water use to continue and water development to proceed in
compliance with the ESA. We respectfully request support and assistance
by the Subcommittee to fund this vitally important Program.
Sincerely,
Peter D. Binney, P.E.,
Director, Aurora Water.
______
Denver Water,
Denver, CO, April 20, 2007.
Hon. Tim Johnson, Chairman,
Hon. Robert Corker, Ranking Member,
Water and Power Subcommittee, Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Johnson and Senator Corker: I am requesting your
support for S. 752, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
participate in the implementation of the Platte River Recovery
Implementation Program (Program) for Endangered Species in the Central
and Lower Platte River basin and to modify the Pathfinder Dam and
Reservoir.
The States of Nebraska, Wyoming, and Colorado and the U.S.
Department of the Interior have entered into a comprehensive basin-wide
Program to address habitat needs of endangered and threatened species
in the Central and Lower Platte River basin. This cooperative basin-
wide approach is an equitable and effective means to resolve conflicts
and provide greater certainty that the Platte River will continue as a
reliable water source for both wildlife and the many people who reside
and use water in the basin. The proposed Program will allow water use
and development activities in each of the three states to continue, in
compliance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
For Colorado, the Program will provide regulatory compliance under
the ESA for both existing and prospective new water uses within the
South Platte River basin. This compliance is needed for water providers
to meet the water supply needs of the urban, agricultural, and
industrial sectors of this rapidly changing and growing part of the
state.
Additionally, we request your support and assistance in ensuring
federal funding for the Platte River Recovery Implementation Program.
This cooperative Program has the objective of recovering three species
of threatened or endangered birds and one endangered fish while
allowing water use to continue and water development to proceed in
compliance with the ESA.
We respectfully request support and assistance by the Subcommittee
to fund this vitally important Program.
Sincerely,
HJ Barry,
Manager.
______
City of Lakewood,
Public Works Department,
Lakewood, CO, April 20, 2007.
Hon. Tim Johnson, Chairman,
Hon. Robert Corker, Ranking Member,
Water and Power Subcommittee, Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Johnson and Senator Corker: I am requesting your
support for S. 752, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
participate in the implementation of the Platte River Recovery
Implementation Program (Program) for Endangered Species in the Central
and Lower Platte River basin and to modify the Pathfinder Dam and
Reservoir.
The States of Nebraska, Wyoming, and Colorado and the U. S.
Department of the Interior have entered into a comprehensive basin-wide
Program to address habitat needs of endangered and threatened species
in the Central and Lower Platte River basin. This cooperative basin-
wide approach is an equitable and effective means to resolve conflicts
and provide greater certainty that the Platte River will continue as a
reliable water source for both wildlife and the many people who reside
and use water in the basin. The proposed Program will allow water use
and development activities in each of the three states to continue, in
compliance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
For Colorado, the Program will provide regulatory compliance under
the ESA for both existing and prospective new water uses within the
South Platte River basin. This compliance is needed for water providers
to meet the water supply needs of the urban, agricultural, and
industrial sectors of this rapidly changing and growing part of the
state.
Additionally, we request your support and assistance in ensuring
federal funding for the Platte River Recovery Implementation Program.
This cooperative Program has the objective of recovering three species
of threatened or endangered birds and one endangered fish while
allowing water use to continue and water development to proceed in
compliance with the ESA. We respectfully request support and assistance
by the Subcommittee to fund this vitally important Program.
Sincerely,
Richard J. Plastino,
Director of Public Works.
______
City of Loveland,
Department of Water and Power,
Loveland, CO, April 20, 2007.
Hon. Tim Johnson, Chairman,
Hon. Robert Corker, Ranking Member,
Water and Power Subcommittee, Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Johnson and Senator Corker: I am requesting your
support for S. 752, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
participate in the implementation of the Platte River Recovery
Implementation Program (Program) for Endangered Species in the Central
and Lower Platte River basin and to modify the Pathfinder Dam and
Reservoir.
The States of Nebraska, Wyoming, and Colorado and the U. S.
Department of the Interior have entered into a comprehensive basin-wide
Program to address habitat needs of endangered and threatened species
in the Central and Lower Platte River basin. This cooperative basin-
wide approach is an equitable and effective means to resolve conflicts
and provide greater certainty that the Platte River will continue as a
reliable water source for both wildlife and the many people who reside
and use water in the basin. The proposed Program will allow water use
and development activities in each of the three states to continue, in
compliance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
For Colorado, the Program will provide regulatory compliance under
the ESA for both existing and prospective new water uses within the
South Platte River basin. This compliance is needed for water providers
to meet the water supply needs of the urban, agricultural, and
industrial sectors of this rapidly changing and growing part of the
state.
Additionally, we request your support and assistance in ensuring
federal funding for the Platte River Recovery Implementation Program.
This cooperative Program has the objective of recovering three species
of threatened or endangered birds and one endangered fish while
allowing water use to continue and water development to proceed in
compliance with the ESA. We respectfully request support and assistance
by the Subcommittee to fund this vitally important Program.
Sincerely,
Ralph Mullinix,
Director.
______
Nebraska Public Power District,
Columbus, NE, April 20, 2007.
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Washington, DC.
Subject: S. 752
Dear Honorable Committee Members: My name is Brian Barels and I am
the Water Resources Manager for Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD).
On behalf of NPPD I would like to offer NPPD's support for S. 752 to
authorize the Secretary of Interior to participate in implementation of
the Platte River Recovery Implementation Program (Program) for
endangered and threatened species in the central and lower Platte River
Basins in Nebraska.
NPPD provides approximately one-half of the electricity consumed in
Nebraska. NPPD's customers received a substantial amount of electricity
from generating facilities associated with water resources along the
Platte River Basin. NPPD has been directly involved in monitoring and
providing habitat for endangered and threatened species along the
Platte River for many years. In addition, NPPD, as part of the
relicensing of our Platte River hydroelectric project, has committed
habitat, water, and monitoring resources that have been integrated into
this Program and we have actually been implementing those activities
with the intention to jump-start this Program and provide benefits to
the species.
NPPD has been directly involved in the process that has led to the
development of this program since its inception by the governors of the
three states and the Secretary of Interior in 1993. NPPD believes this
program provides for a collaborative effort by three states, water
users, environmental interests, and two federal agencies to provide for
monitoring and habitat enhancement for endangered and threatened
species in the central Platte River Basin.
In summary, NPPD urges your support of S. 752 which will authorize
the Secretary of Interior to participate in this collaborative Program
for endangered and threatened species.
If you should have any questions, I can be reached at 402-563-5335.
Sincerely,
Brian L. Barels,
Water Resources Manager.
______
South Adams County
Water & Sanitation District,
April 20, 2007.
Hon. Tim Johnson, Chairman,
Hon. Robert Corker, Ranking Member,
Water and Power Subcommittee, Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Johnson and Senator Corker: I am requesting your
support for S. 752, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
participate in the implementation of the Platte River Recovery
Implementation Program (Program) for Endangered Species in the Central
and Lower Platte River basin and to modify the Pathfinder Dam and
Reservoir.
The States of Nebraska, Wyoming, and Colorado and the U. S.
Department of the Interior have entered into a comprehensive basin-wide
Program to address habitat needs of endangered and threatened species
in the Central and Lower Platte River basin. This cooperative basin-
wide approach is an equitable and effective means to resolve conflicts
and provide greater certainty that the Platte River will continue as a
reliable water source for both wildlife and the many people who reside
and use water in the basin. The proposed Program will allow water use
and development activities in each of the three states to continue, in
compliance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
For Colorado, the Program will provide regulatory compliance under
the ESA for both existing and prospective new water uses within the
South Platte River basin. This compliance is needed for water providers
to meet the water supply needs of the urban, agricultural, and
industrial sectors of this rapidly changing and growing part of the
state. South Adams County Water and Sanitation District (District) is a
municipal water supply provider in the northeastern Denver metro area
and is experiencing rapid growth. The Program will provide significant
benefit to the District in meeting the needs of its members.
Additionally, we request your support and assistance in ensuring
federal funding for the Platte River Recovery Implementation Program.
This cooperative Program has the objective of recovering three species
of threatened or endangered birds and one endangered fish while
allowing water use to continue and water development to proceed in
compliance with the ESA. We respectfully request support and assistance
by the Subcommittee to fund this vitally important Program.
Sincerely,
Curt W. Bauers, P.E., P.G.,
Water Systems Manager.
______
Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District,
Berthoud, CO, April 20, 2007.
Hon. Tim Johnson, Chairman,
Hon. Robert Corker, Ranking Member,
Water and Power Subcommittee, Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Johnson and Senator Corker: On behalf of the Northern
Colorado Water Conservancy District, I am requesting your support for
007-752 to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in
and contribute funding toward the Platte River Recovery implementation
Program for Threatened and Endangered Species in the Central and Lower
Platte River basin, and to modify the Pathfinder Dam and Reservoir.
The States of Nebraska, Wyoming, and Colorado and the U.S.
Department of the Interior have entered into a comprehensive basin-wide
Program to address habitat needs of endangered and threatened species
in the Central and Lower Platte River basin. The Program is a
cooperative, basin-wide solution created to resolve escalating
conflicts between water use and endangered species protection that
affect federal permitting of both existing and planned irrigation and
municipal water supply projects in the Platte River basin, and more
specifically in Colorado's South Platte River basin. Resolution of
these conflicts is of state interest and important to all who live and
work along Colorado's rapidly growing Front Range.
For Colorado, the Program will provide regulatory compliance under
the Endangered Species Act for both existing and prospective new water
uses within the South Platte River basin. This compliance is needed for
water providers to meet the water supply needs of the urban,
agricultural, and industrial sectors of this rapidly changing and
growing part of the state. This cooperative Program also preserves and
enhances habitat that is critical for the continued survival of three
species of threatened or endangered birds and one endangered fish. We
respectfully request support and assistance by the Subcommittee to fund
this vitally important Program.
Sincerely,
Alan D. Berryman,
Assistant General Manager.
______
Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District,
Berthoud, CO, April 20, 2007.
Hon. Tim Johnson, Chairman,
Hon. Robert Corker, Ranking Member,
Water and Power Subcommittee, Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Johnson and Senator Corker: On behalf of the Northern
Colorado Water Conservancy District (Northern Water), I am requesting
your support for S. 752, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
participate in the implementation of the Platte River Recovery
Implementation Program (Program) for Endangered Species in the Central
and Lower Platte River basin and to modify the Pathfinder Dam and
Reservoir.
The states of Nebraska, Wyoming, and Colorado and the U.S.
Department of the Interior have entered into the comprehensive basin-
wide Program to address habitat needs of endangered and threatened
species in the Central and Lower Platte River basin. This cooperative
basin-wide approach is an equitable and effective means of resolving
conflicts and providing greater certainty that the Platte River will
continue as a reliable water source for both wildlife and the many
people who reside and beneficially use water within the basin. The
proposed Program will allow water use and development activities in
each of the three states to continue in compliance with the Endangered
Species Act (ESA).
For Colorado, the Program will provide regulatory compliance under
the ESA for both existing and future water uses within the South Platte
River Basin. This compliance is needed for water providers to meet the
water supply needs of the urban, agricultural, and industrial sectors
of this rapidly changing and growing part of Colorado.
Northern Water requests your support and assistance in ensuring
federal funding for the Platte River Recovery Implementation Program.
This cooperative Program has the objective of recovering three species
of threatened or endangered birds and one endangered fish, while
allowing water use to continue and water development to proceed in
compliance with the ESA.
We respectfully request support and assistance by the Subcommittee
to fund this vitally important Program.
Sincerely,
Eric W. Wilkinson,
General Manager.
______
The State of Wyoming,
Office of the Governor,
Cheyenne, WY, May 4, 2007.
Hon. Craig Thomas,
U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Michael B. Enzi,
U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Barbara Cubin,
U.S. House of Representatives, Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Thomas, Senator Enzi and Representative Cubin: During
the recent hearing held before the Senate Subcommittee on Water and
Power on S. 752, the Platte River Recovery Implementation Program and
Pathfinder Modification Project Authorization Act (proposed Act), there
was discussion regarding the State of Wyoming's position as it relates
to an amendment being circulated on behalf of the Upper North Platte
Water Users. The amendment proposes a restriction on the Bureau of
Reclamation's ability to place a priority call for Pathfinder
Reservoir, including the proposed Pathfinder Modification Project,
between May 1st and September 30th in any year.
In terms of the history of this issue, on March 15, 2005, I wrote
each of you a letter noting my support for the Platte River Recovery
Implementation Program and the Pathfinder Modification Project,
advising that the Town of Saratoga filed a petition for the abandonment
of the storage space needed for the Pathfinder Modification Project,
and offering that the Town, through the Upper North Platte Water Users,
had suggested that they would withdraw their petition if they could be
guaranteed that the Bureau of Reclamation would not request a call for
Pathfinder Reservoir between May 1st and September 30th. The Wyoming
Attorney General had issued an opinion which indicated that the Wyoming
State Engineer should not legally recognize such a call by the Bureau.
While this opinion provided some comfort to the Upper Platte users,
they were interested in assurances that the Bureau would recognize
Wyoming law. Therefore, I sought assistance from the Wyoming Delegation
in obtaining the requested guarantee through congressional action.
Today, it unfortunately seems that my now two year old letter, written
wholly outside the context of the proposed Act, may derail federal
legislation that is critical to the long term viability, predictability
and sustainability of water use in Wyoming.
Frankly, I am perplexed by the apparent strategy of some to
leverage the passage of the proposed Act to provide the assurances that
were being sought in 2005. In my view, the proposed Act should stand
apart from the requested assurances and the two should not be
intertwined--as to do otherwise would compromise not only this
important legislation, but also our working relationship with Colorado,
Nebraska, the Bureau of Reclamation and other Wyoming water users in
the Platte River basin.
I am hopeful that S. 752 and H.R. 1462 can be passed in their
original form.
Best regards,
Dave Freudenthal,
Governor.
______
Statement of Dennis Strauch, General Manager, Pathfinder
Irrigation District
My name is Dennis Strauch, General Manager of the Pathfinder
Irrigation District, headquartered in Mitchell, Nebraska. The
Pathfinder Irrigation District by contract with the Bureau of
Reclamation operates the Interstate Division of the Bureau's North
Platte Project. The District provides irrigation water to over 102,000
acres in western Nebraska and eastern Wyoming. In addition the
District, by contract delivers water to two irrigation districts in
Wyoming serving approximately 15,000 acres.
There are 13 irrigation districts, including Pathfinder in western
Nebraska and eastern Wyoming that by contract with the Bureau of
Reclamation receive their storage water supplies from Reclamation's
Pathfinder and Guernsey Reservoirs in Wyoming. Because of these
districts connection by contract with a federal agency, their water use
is subject to review under the Endangered Species Act.
For the past 10 plus years I have represented water users in
western Nebraska and eastern Wyoming on the Governance Committee
negotiating the Platte River Recovery Implementation Program (PRRIP).
The Platte River Recovery Implementation Program provides for a
cooperative basin-wide approach to addressing endangered species issues
on the Central Platte River in Nebraska, involving the states of
Colorado, Wyoming and Nebraska, the Department of Interior, water users
in all three states and conservation interests.
The water users I represent fully support Senate Bill 752, which
authorizes the Secretary of Interior's participation in the Platte
River Recovery Implementation Program and the necessary federal
funding. S. 752 also authorizes the Pathfinder Modification Project,
which is a water component for the PRRIP, offered by the State of
Wyoming and the water users whose water supply comes from Pathfinder
Reservoir.
It is my understanding that there are some interests in the upper
reach of the North Platte River basin that support amending S. 752 to
include restrictions on the water right for Pathfinder Reservoir. This
is totally unacceptable to the 13 irrigation districts and the hundreds
of water users who heavily rely on Pathfinder Reservoir for their water
supply. For the past 5 years and once again this year, the drought in
Wyoming and Nebraska has severely limited the available water supply
for our irrigators. To restrict the ability of the Bureau of
Reclamation to call for administration of junior water rights above
Pathfinder Reservoir for the benefit of it's senior right would cause
severe injury to the water users in Nebraska and Wyoming who depend on
water from the reservoir. This issue was addressed in the Final
Settlement Stipulation in Nebraska v. Wyoming, 534 U.S. 40 (2001). S.
752 is not the proper place to address water right concerns. If water
users in the upper North Platte River Basin are unhappy with the
settlement reached in Nebraska v. Wyoming, they should discuss their
displeasure with Wyoming representatives to the North Platte Decree
Committee.
I strongly encourage passage of S. 752, with no amendments. Your
consideration of my comments as you contemplate advancement and passage
of S. 752, would be greatly appreciated.
______
Statement of Ann Bleed, Director of the Nebraska Department of
Natural Resources
My name is Ann Bleed. I am the Director of the Nebraska Department
of Natural Resources and am Nebraska Governor David Heineman's
representative on the Governance Committee of the Platte River Recovery
Program.
Thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony in support of
Senate Bill 752 (House Resolution 1462) and its authorization of the
Platte River Recovery Implementation Program.
The Platte River system arises in the mountains of Colorado and
Wyoming crosses the State of Nebraska and empties into the Missouri
River on Nebraska's eastern border. The Platte River and its
tributaries irrigate millions of acres of farmland, provide water to
cities such as Denver, Colorado, Casper, Wyoming, Lincoln and Omaha
Nebraska, as well as numerous smaller cities and towns, and provide
water for power plants that provide power throughout the western United
States.
The Platte River in Nebraska also provides critical habitat to the
endangered or threatened whooping crane, least tern, piping plover and
pallid sturgeon, as well as habitat for numerous other species, and is
a major staging area for migrating sandhill cranes. In the 1990's the
State of Nebraska granted instream flow permits to protect fish and
wildlife habitat along the Platte and put a moratorium on the issuance
of new surface water permits on the western two-thirds of the Platte
River and its tributaries.
Nevertheless, the importance of this river for so many competing
interests led to conflicts not only among these interests, but also
among the three states through which it flows. Exacerbating these
conflicts was the need to comply with the federal Endangered Species
Act. In an attempt to avoid costly litigation in 1994 the three states
and their constituents and the U.S. Department of Interior signed a
Memorandum of Understanding that after thirteen years of intense
negotiations developed and approved the Platte River Recovery
Implementation Program.
The goal of the Program is to use a basin-wide cooperative approach
to assist in the conservation and recovery of habitat for the Platte's
endangered and threatened species and help prevent the need to list
more basin associated species pursuant to the Endangered Species Act,
while at the same time provide regulatory certainty to the people and
industries that also rely on the flows of the river.
The Program has established an organizational structure that will
ensure appropriate state and federal government and stakeholder
involvement in the implementation of the Program. The Program will
utilize an incremental approach to land and water management that
places an appropriate and heavy reliance on the development of sound
science through an adaptive management program. This adaptive
management program has developed extensive protocols for testing
hypotheses and management techniques to insure that the efforts of
program participants will produce the desired results.
The States and other interests in the basin have committed
substantial resources to the success of this effort including $30 M,
major land contributions and an average of 80,000 acre-feet of water.
In addition each state has committed to reduce their consumptive use of
water to 1997 levels and implement administrative procedures to hold
water use at this limit.
Before closing I would like to address an amendment to Senate Bill
752 and House Resolution 1462 that has been proposed on behalf of the
Upper North Platte Water Users in Wyoming relating to the Pathfinder
Modification Project, which is part of the Platte River Recovery
Implementation Program. The Bureau of Reclamation has a Wyoming water
right to store 1,070,000 acre feet of water in Pathfinder Reservoir for
the benefit of the North Platte Project, which includes irrigated land
in Eastern Wyoming and Western Nebraska. Over the years, 53,493 acre
feet of the storage capacity of the reservoir have been lost to
sediment. The Pathfinder Modification Project would recapture this
storage space.
The administration of the water rights for using this recaptured
space was the subject of much negotiation among the United States and
the States of Colorado, Nebraska, and Wyoming, all of whom were parties
to the settlement of the Nebraska v. Wyoming law suit, which was
approved by the U.S. Supreme Court in November, 2001. The results of
these negotiations were codified in Appendix F to the Final Settlement
Stipulation This appendix, which establishes the terms and conditions
under which the Pathfinder Modification Project will be operated states
in part:
The recaptured storage space would store water under the
existing 1904 storage right for Pathfinder Reservoir and would
enjoy the same entitlements as other uses in the reservoir with
the exception that the recaptured storage space could not place
regulatory calls on the existing water rights upstream of
Pathfinder Reservoir other than the rights pertaining to
Seminoe Reservoir.
The proposed amendment suggests that the Bureau of Reclamation
should be restricted from seeking water rights administration on behalf
of Pathfinder Reservoir during the irrigation season. It is Nebraska's
view that the restrictions on calls for regulation for Pathfinder
Reservoir during the irrigation season in the proposed amendment would
be in violation of the Modified North Platte River Decree.
In summary, the negotiations to develop this program were long and
arduous. The time, land, water and financial commitments by the States,
water and power districts, environmental interests and the people in
the basin are very substantial. There are a lot of future challenges
that the Program must overcome. However, when the Governor's of all
three States signed the Program agreement, the States attested to the
premise that cooperation and collaboration will provide a much higher
likelihood of protecting habitat and providing regulatory certainty for
all involved than any other alternative. For this reason I urge you to
enable the federal government to be a partner in this collaborative
effort.
Thank you again for this opportunity to provide testimony.
______
Statement of The National Wildlife Federation
INTRODUCTION
The Platte River basin is one of the most important ecosystems and
economic areas in the Rocky Mountain-High Plains region. With its
watershed in Colorado, Wyoming, and Nebraska, the river has played an
essential role in both defining the character of the region
ecologically and in sustaining the economy. Unfortunately, the
environmental value of the river has often been ignored in the pursuit
of more narrowly defined economic goals. The challenge now, from both
an environmental and economic perspective, is to begin the process of
correcting the past imbalance in an equitable and efficient fashion.
The river supports millions of ducks and geese and hundreds of
thousands of sandhill cranes on their Central Flyway migration. But
what makes the environmental challenge even more important and
imperative is the role the river plays in supporting endangered
species.
The Platte River Recovery Implementation Program (recovery program)
and its approval under the Platte River Recovery Implementation Program
and Pathfinder Modification Authorization Act of 2007 will mark a
significant step in correcting the disparity between the economic and
environmental importance of the Platte. The recovery program identifies
an initial set of flow and land protection measures that the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service has determined to be a sound basis for the first
stage in restoration of the structure and function of the Platte River
ecosystem in central Nebraska. The ultimate goal is the reestablishment
of a riverine/land habitat complex that can meet the needs of the
endangered whooping crane, interior least tern, and piping plover and,
farther east, the testing of actions and associated research activities
that will provide a better understanding of the needs of the pallid
sturgeon.
The states of Colorado, Wyoming, and Nebraska, their water users,
and the environmental community have accepted these resource management
goals and the associated research agenda as the basis for starting the
process of restoration. An important feature of the structure of the
recovery program is its incorporation of flexible provisions that allow
the states' water users to continue to divert water to which they are
entitled and, at the same time, providing them a substantial measure of
regulatory certainty under the Endangered Species Act. This concept of
flexibility is also incorporated in a land conservation plan that is
based on willing seller/willing buyer agreements and in a research and
monitoring protocol that incorporates a carefully constructed adaptive
management program.
The Platte River Recovery Implementation Program Cooperative
Agreement, signed at the end of 2006 by the Secretary of Interior and
the governors of the three states, is the product of several years of
negotiations among the states, the Department, water users, and
environmentalists (including National Wildlife Federation). It sets in
motion the process of putting in place the detailed land and water
program elements designed to reverse the long-term process of habitat
deterioration in the Platte River.
In April 2004 the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) issued a
report on the importance of the Platte River to the endangered species
mentioned above (Endangered and Threatened Species of the Platte River)
and the role of the recovery program in the Platte's restoration. The
Academy committee that reviewed the Platte agreed unanimously that the
habitat in central Nebraska is unique, that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service's proposal for habitat restoration measures that have been
incorporated in the recovery program were sound, and that ultimately
``. . . [s]uccessful, sustainable solutions of species issues . . .
must begin with water management.''
At the time the NAS report was released, the environmental
community strongly supported its conclusions and we believe they remain
applicable today. We believe that the report validates the data and
science embodied in the recovery program, a set of sound water and land
protection activities.
With the passage of SB 752, we will have taken a major step in the
authorization for a Platte River Program that is based on the following
actions:
<bullet> A water program that includes modifying Pathfinder Dam in
Wyoming, Lake McConaughy environmental storage in Nebraska,
groundwater recharge and management in Colorado (at Tamarack
State Wildlife refuge and elsewhere), and other water actions
that will reduce flow shortages in the central Platte by at
least 130,000 to 150,000 acre-feet.
<bullet> Channel improvements in the North Platte River near the town
of North Platte that will increase capacity to 3,000 cubic
feet/second (cfs) or such improvements that will increase the
flood stage to six feet allowing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service to use its McConaughy environmental water to produce a
flow of at least 5,000 cfs at Lexington, Nebraska for three
days in the spring.
<bullet> A 10,000-acre land plan based on habitat complexes that will
establish channel areas and other important habitat by means of
purchase, permanent conservation easements, and long-term
leases.
<bullet> A sediment management plan that will clear islands upstream
of the central Platte habitat and that will be sufficient to
ensure no further river habitat degradation downstream.
<bullet> A research and monitoring plan that will be sufficient to
track the impacts of all changes to the habitat and their
relationship to species.
CONCLUDING COMMENT
We believe that there is a clear need for an endangered species
recovery program in the Platte River that is basinwide, comprehensive,
and cooperative. Because we recognize the importance of constructing a
program that is politically feasible, we support the program's key
principles of protecting water entitlements, of willing seller/willing
buyer land conservation arrangements, an incremental approach to
habitat improvement and protection, and adaptive management. The
recovery program honors all these key principles. For these reasons and
because the Platte is a unique and vital habitat, the National Wildlife
Federation supports the recovery program and urges this committee and
the Senate to authorize the program by passing SB 752.
______
Statement of Don Kraus, General Manager, The Central Nebraska Public
Power and Irrigation District
My name is Don Kraus, General Manager of The Central Nebraska
Public Power and Irrigation District (District), with headquarters in
Holdrege, Nebraska. My testimony today is offered in support of S. 752
and its authorization of Department of the Interior's participation in
the Platte River Recovery Implementation Program (Program) for three
threatened or endangered species using the central Platte River and one
using the lower Platte.
The District operates the Kingsley Dam Project (Project) in south-
central Nebraska. Using water from the North Platte and Platte Rivers,
the Project directly provides irrigation water to approximately 200,000
acres, groundwater recharge resulting from project operations
indirectly provides irrigation to an additional 300,000 acres and
recreation benefits to over 1,000,0000 visitors annually. The Project
also generates hydroelectric power at four hydropower plants under the
jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).
In the mid-1980s, the District applied to renew its FERC license, a
process which included consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (the Service) under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA).
The relicensing proceeding continued through many years and cost many
millions of dollars as a result of conflicting scientific and legal
opinions on ESA issues. Concurrent with the relicensing proceeding,
other water users in the Platte basin were also entering ESA
consultation with the Service, and together the complex regulatory
conflicts were headed toward what was then popularly called an ``ESA
train wreck.''
As a result of these ongoing conflicts regarding ESA issues in the
Platte basin, the District and many other entities started to seek a
comprehensive basin-wide approach to addressing ESA requirements. The
process went through many phases, starting with a simple Memorandum of
Understanding in 1994 and culminating with the Platte River Program
(Program) that is the subject of S. 752. At its core, the program
provides a way for existing and potential future water uses throughout
the Platte basin to operate while meeting the regulatory requirements
of the ESA. Indeed, the District's FERC licensing was resolved in 1998
because FERC assumed that the Program would be developed and
implemented. Since that time the District has been making millions of
dollars of contributions of habitat and water for endangered species
that will become a part of the Program. Key to reaching agreement on
the District's commitments was the Program's assurance of mitigation
for the impacts to water development after 1997, and the regulatory
certainty that meeting Program milestones will address ESA compliance
concerns into the future. The development of the Program has not been
easy and has required a great deal of effort on the part of all
involved. We believe it offers a better opportunity than any
alternative to protect endangered species and provide regulatory
certainty for the District and water users throughout the basin.
For all of these reasons I urge passage of S. 752 to authorize the
Department of the Interior to participate in implementing the Program.
______
Supplemental Statement of Don Kraus, The Central Nebraska Public Power
and Irrigation District
My name is Don Kraus, General Manager of The Central Nebraska
Public Power and Irrigation District (District), with headquarters in
Holdrege, Nebraska. The following testimony is offered to supplement
earlier testimony that was supportive of S. 752 and its authorization
of federal participation in the Platte River Recovery Implementation
Program (Program).
I was disappointed to learn in the discussion of S. 752 that there
is now consideration of potential restrictions on the rights of the
United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) to place a call under
Wyoming state water administration affecting waters stored in
Pathfinder reservoir. The District strongly opposes this potential
change to S. 752.
Such a change represents an attempt to interfere with state water
administration. The administration of waters within a state has
historically been reserved to the states and I believe that any
infringement on that authority should be strongly resisted. In
addition, the restriction has apportionment ramifications between
Nebraska and Wyoming that could negatively affect the water supply for
hundreds of thousands of irrigated acres in the panhandle of Nebraska.
This amendment would also undermine the principles established in the
decree between Nebraska and Wyoming and may result in additional
litigation regarding the division of water between the two states.
In addition, the change would upset the balance among the three
basin states and the federal government that was carefully struck in
the Program agreement. If the agreed upon balance is not maintained,
years of work to develop a basin wide approach to addressing endangered
species issues are in jeopardy.
Your efforts to ensure that a potential amendment to place a
restriction on the rights of the USBR to place a call under Wyoming
water law is blocked would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for your
consideration of this supplemental testimony.
______
Statement of Ted Kowalski, Colorado Water Conservation Board
My name is Ted Kowalski and I manage the Platte River Program for
the State of Colorado. I am providing this written testimony in support
of the Platte River Recovery Implementation Program and Pathfinder
Modification Authorization Act. The State of Colorado appreciates this
subcommittee's attention to these issues, and we are grateful to
Senators Nelson, Salazar, Hagel, and Allard for their leadership in
pursuing this important legislation.
By way of background, the North and South Platte Rivers start in
Colorado. The South Platte River basin is Colorado's most populous
basin, with more than 3 million residents. Like much of the western
United States, the population in the South Platte basin is increasing
dramatically. With the increases in population in Colorado comes
additional water development.
For many years, the States of Colorado, Nebraska, Wyoming, and the
Department of the Interior have been working with our stakeholders to
establish the framework for an Endangered Species Act Recovery Program
(Program) to recover the endangered whooping crane, interior least
tern, and pallid sturgeon, and the threatened piping plover. Each of
these species has designated habitat the State of Nebraska along the
Platte River. That critical habitat is impacted by actions upstream of
it in Wyoming and Colorado. I am pleased to testify that this hard work
has paid off, and that the three States and the federal government
signed a Program agreement in the fail of 2006. The Program,
established by that agreement, began on January 1, 2007.
The Program is modeled after the very successful and longstanding
Upper Colorado River Recovery and the San Juan River Recovery Programs.
The State of Colorado has benefited from these programmatic approaches
to recovering endangered species while allowing water development to
continue within the States that participate in these types of recovery
programs.
The Platte Program is incremental, and the first increment is
expected to last thirteen years. Within the first thirteen years, the
participants will: 1) acquire and restore 10,000 acres of habitat; 2)
provide 130,000 to 150,000 acre-feet of water to meet certain target
flows; 3) operate within state and federal laws and the depletion plans
established under the Program; and, 4) provide integrated monitoring
and research through a comprehensive adaptive management plan.
By pursuing recovery of these species on a programmatic basis, as
opposed to pursuing recovery efforts on a case-by-case basis, we wilt
use our resources more efficiently and effectively. Moreover, water
users will benefit from streamlined consultations with the Fish and
Wildlife Service as opposed to individualized consultations and
negotiations.
Colorado is dedicated to the success of the Platte River Recovery
Program. The State has already appropriated and authorized the
expenditure of up to $7 million dollars to meet Colorado's cash and
water obligations. In addition, there is legislation pending that
immediately authorizes an additional expenditure of $3 million dollars
on July 1, 2007 and sets forth a plan to fund the majority of
Colorado's remaining obligations over the next several years. Water
providers, environmental organizations, and the agricultural community
have all expressed support for the State legislation.
Water providers, in particular, have been partners with the State
since the beginning of the three states negotiations. Colorado water
users have established an organization called the South Platte Water
Related Activities Program (SPWRAP), which is a nonprofit organization.
SPWRAP has the authority to assess annual assessments from its members,
and to use that money to help the State of Colorado meet its
obligations under the Program.
It is important to note that the Colorado Water Conservation Board,
Colorado's statewide water policy board, unanimously passed a
resolution in support of this federal legislation. A copy of this
resolution is attached to this written statement.
Once again, thank you for your consideration. I hope that you will
support this legislation that is important to the Recovery of
endangered species and the citizens of the United States and, in
particular, the States of Colorado, Wyoming and Nebraska.
[Attachment.]
CWCB RESOLUTION 2007-1
In Support of Federal and State Legislation Authorizing and
Appropriating funds for the Platte River Recovery Implementation
Program
WHEREAS, the State of Colorado is signatory to the South Platte
River Compact, C.R.S. Section 37-65-101, et seq., executed on behalf of
the State on the 27th day of April, 1923. The South Platte River
Compact divides and apportions the water of the South Platte River
between the State of Colorado and the State of Nebraska.
WHEREAS, the State of Colorado is subject to a decree of the United
States Supreme Court regarding the use of the waters of the North
Platte River. Nebraska v. Wyoming, 325 U.S. 589, 65 S.Ct. 1332, 89
L.Ed. 1815 (1945) as amended or as it may be amended.
WHEREAS, the South Platte River Compact and the decree in Nebraska
v. Wyoming limit the use of the waters of the South Platte and North
Platte Rivers within the State of Colorado.
WHEREAS, the State of Nebraska, in the case of the South Platte
River, and the States of Wyoming and Nebraska, in the case of the North
Platte River, are entitled to use such waters of the South and North
Platte Rivers, respectively, which flow out of the State of Colorado in
accordance with the requirements of the South Platte River Compact and
the decree in Nebraska V. Wyoming.
WHEREAS, all water which is not required to flow out of Colorado
under the South Platte River Compact and the decree in Nebraska v.
Wyoming is available for diversion and beneficial use within the State
of Colorado.
WHEREAS, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
(``U.S.F.W.S.'') has listed the whooping crane, piping plover, least
tern, and pallid sturgeon under the federal Endangered Species Act, and
has designated critical habitat for the whooping crane pursuant to the
Endangered Species Act. These species, and the designated critical
habitat, are located in the Central Platte Region of the State of
Nebraska.
WHEREAS, the State of Colorado was a signatory to a Cooperative
Agreement between the States of Colorado, Wyoming, and Nebraska, and
the United States Department of the Interior for the purpose of
developing a program to protect and improve habitat for the endangered
and threatened species, originally executed on July 1, 1997, and which
was extended three times.
WHEREAS, the Bureau of Reclamation has issued a Final Environmental
Impact Statement and a final Record of Decision (``ROD''), and the
U.S.F.W.S. has issued a final Biological Opinion, in support of the
Platte River Recovery Implementation Program (``Program'').
WHEREAS, the Governors of the States of Colorado, Wyoming, and
Nebraska, and the Secretary of the United States Department of the
interior signed the Program. Agreement to protect and improve habitat
for the endangered and threatened species.
WHEREAS, the State of Colorado and Colorado water users will
benefit from the regulatory certainty associated with the Program.
WHEREAS, the State of Colorado recognizes the value in recovering
threatened and endangered species and supports the Program and the
Adaptive Management Plan as a measured effort towards this goal.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Colorado Water Conservation
Board:
1. Supports the passage of federal legislation that would federally
authorize the Program, as well as any other legislation that would
appropriate federal funds for the Program.
2. Supports the passage of House Bill 07-1182, and any other
subsequent legislation that would authorize the expenditure of State
funds necessary to satisfy Colorado's obligations under the Program.
Unanimously approved on March 12, 2007 in Canon City, Colorado.
______
Statement of Bryan Mitchell, P.E., Capital Projects Engineer, City of
Norman, OK
Chairman Bingaman and Members of the Committee: The citizens of
Norman, Oklahoma, along with all other Oklahomans realize the
importance of their water supply. Regardless of their needs, everyone
understands their future depends on reliable amounts of water. Everyone
desires a future with adequate water supplies.
Norman, Oklahoma, along with Midwest City and Del City rely upon
Lake Thunderbird as their primary source of drinking water. This
reservoir was constructed by the United States Department of the
Interior Bureau of Reclamation in the early 1960's. The three cities
share the responsibility of its operation through the Central Oklahoma
Master Conservancy District (the District). Each city holds rights to a
portion of the water supply provided by Lake Thunderbird. No additional
rights are currently available to others.
Into the early 1980's Lake Thunderbird provided an adequate supply
source of water for the District. Midwest City and Del City had
abundant supply reserves within their portion of the District but
during this time Norman began to draw near to their allotted capacity.
In 1988 Norman exceeded their allocation of the District for the first
time. Since then, Norman's allocation has been exceeded a total of 15
times. This threshold has been crossed the last 10 consecutive years
with no projected future demands below our legally allocated amount.
As Norman's demands upon Lake Thunderbird grew, it was understood
that additional supplies were needed. Beginning in the early 1980's
Norman started drilling new water wells into the naturally occurring
aquifer beneath its city boundaries. This aquifer was the supply source
prior to the construction of the lake and was relied upon again to meet
Norman's needs. Wells drilled over the last 25 years help meet an ever
growing demand in Norman. Lake Thunderbird and the District's supply
capabilities have been relied upon continuously throughout this period.
In 1999 the City of Norman, facing the now common supply shortfall
from the District, built a waterline connecting to the City of Oklahoma
City's treated water supply system. This line serves as an emergency
supply source only. Norman voters have not approved a water rate
structure capable of relying upon this high priced water. This
alternative supply shortfall reflects Norman's desire to rely upon the
District and its supply capabilities over the long term.
Norman's decision to rely, long term, upon the District is the
beginning of the process that has led to this testimony today. In 2003
the 108th Congress provided funding through the Energy and Water
Appropriation Bill to begin the process of achieving additional long
term water supplies for the District and the possibility of an even
larger public benefit. The Norman Project, Oklahoma, Water Supply and
Augmentation Enhancement--Appraisal Investigation was initiated with
the 2003 approval. The final report was delivered in August 2005. A
copy of this report is included for the record as Attachment No. 1.
In May 2005 discussions were underway between Norman, the District,
the Oklahoma Water Resources Board and the Bureau of Reclamation as to
the need for investigating the feasibility of augmenting the supply
capability of Lake Thunderbird. In May 2005 it was communicated that
the cost of a feasibility study was $600,000. With this information,
Senator Inhofe and Congressman Cole, both of Oklahoma, introduced
companion bills calling for the appropriation of $300,000 and
authorization for the Bureau of Reclamation to perform the needed
studies. The legislation introduced in 2006 did not make it through
committee due to timing limitations.
It has long been the idea to bring water into the District from
some outside source to help meet long term demands. The idea of out of
basin water is a good idea but is not allowed under the existing State
of Oklahoma water permit for the District. A purpose of the Appraisal
Investigation was to formally introduce the idea of using Lake
Thunderbird to assist with the redistribution of the waters of the
State of Oklahoma to the metropolitan area citizens. This was
considered in the initial report and will be further pursued in the
Feasibility Study. The State of Oklahoma Water Resources Board is
participating in this study and supports the option of augmenting the
waters in Lake Thunderbird while protecting the rights of all parties
potentially impacted.
The Appraisal Investigation, completed by the Bureau of
Reclamation, reports four possible scenarios to help meet the
District's ability to continue to meet their member's long term water
supply needs. This document completes the appraisal-level assessment of
alternatives and opportunities that could be implemented to meet
present and future water needs of the District and Central Oklahoma.
The purpose of completing this investigation was to determine the
desirability of proceeding to a Feasibility Study of the project. This
series of investigations, each looking in defined levels of detail,
review the validity of the District's needs. The Appraisal Study,
Feasibility Study, and the concluding Final Design Report are the
series of events that must be completed by the Bureau of Reclamation
before taking formal action to construct or modify any federal
projects. Lake Thunderbird is a federal project and the District is
pursuing this series of events to continue their ability to meet the
water service expected of them.
Four options were considered in the Appraisal Investigation report.
These options centered on the replacement of key pieces of
infrastructure and supply availability. Broad cost projections were
completed for each option and detailed in Attachment No. 1. The
conclusion of this initial review is the foundation for starting the
Feasibility Study. The Feasibility Study begins to look in detail at
very specific items for consideration. Implementing any project in the
future to help the District with its ability to serve the public better
will involve more than just water. Augmenting the water supplies of
Lake Thunderbird could impact water rights, water quality, and instream
uses for fish and wildlife as well as recreation. Associated studies to
address these items would need to be completed during the Feasibility
Study. This effort, if approved and funded, would determine actual
environmental impacts and any mitigation actions that may be required.
On January 4th, 2007 Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma introduced S. 175
which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
This bill, if approved, will lead towards solving the District's long
term water needs. S. 175 will provide for a Feasibility Study of
alternatives to augment water supplies of the District and the cities
so served. A copy of S. 175, as proposed, is included for the record as
Attachment No. 2. In addition, Congressman Cole of Oklahoma has also
introduced H.R. 1337 to address this same issue. The combined
involvement of Senator Inhofe and Congressman Cole reflects the need to
address the water supply issues faced by the District and the citizens
of Oklahoma.
Prior to and following the submission of S. 175 the City of Norman
and the Central Oklahoma Master Conservancy District believed that the
project cost of May 2005, $600,000, was reasonably accurate for the
efforts to be undertaken. In March 2007 City of Norman and District
officials learned that the cost for the Bureau of Reclamation's efforts
had escalated from $600,000 to between $1,700,000 and $6,700,000 to
complete the needed tasks. This change was unexpected and is counter to
prior information and contradictory to both bills introduced on
Norman's and the District's behalf. Therefore, Norman is requesting
that S. 175 introduced by Senator Inhofe be amended to reflect an
appropriate amount based on the Bureau of Reclamation's level of effort
soon to be approved by the District's member cities. Member cities of
the Central Oklahoma Master Conservancy District will provide the
matching funds upon approval of this bill.
Completion of the Feasibility Study is required in order to
consider using Lake Thunderbird as an enhanced long term water supply
source. Without it, the District will not have the means to advance
toward using Lake Thunderbird beyond its original design parameters.
The original design parameters will soon be insufficient to meet the
District's long term needs. The amount of water available to Norman is
an example of the problems faced. Much more water will be needed in our
future. Approval of S. 175, with appropriate funding, is the second
step of many to be taken towards providing long term water supplies to
the almost 200,000 persons served by the District.
Thank you for your time and effort in representing the public and
in your role within the committee addressing the natural resource needs
of our great nation. I greatly appreciate the opportunity to present
this testimony on behalf of the City of Norman and the Central Oklahoma
Master Conservancy District.
Attachment No. 1: Norman Project, Oklahoma, Water Supply
Augmentation and Enhancement--Appraisal Investigation, August 2005.
Attachment No. 2: S. 175 as proposed.
[Note: Attachments have been retained in subcommittee files.]
______
Statement of Elmer G. McDaniels, Manager, Tumalo Irrigation District,
Bend, OR
Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, I am Elmer G. McDaniels,
Manager of the Tumalo Irrigation District in Bend, Oregon. The Tumalo
Irrigation District (TID) was founded in 1914 and currently serves
about 45 square miles with 8,100 irrigated acres between Bend and
Sisters, Oregon, on the east slope of the Cascade Mountains.
The District greatly appreciates the introduction of S. 1037, the
Tumalo Water Conservation Project Act of 2007, by Senator Smith and
Senator Wyden and the opportunity to provide our strong support for the
legislation at this hearing. S. 1037 would authorize the Secretary of
the Interior to assist in the planning, design, and construction of the
TID Water Conservation Project in Deschutes County, Oregon.
This legislation is vital to our area as we continue to undergo the
rapid urbanization and growth that is occurring throughout our part of
the State during a period of continuing drought. The project involves
the piping of approximately six miles of open canals, and returning
20cfs of conserved water to in-stream flows under the Oregon State
Water Conservation Statute. This project, when completed, will result
in a major benefit to the Deschutes River which is why we know of no
opposition to it in the area.
The benefits of this particular water conservation project are to
eliminate water loss, enhance public safety, and conserve energy along
the project's six-mile length. The completed project, including other
work by TID, will deliver pressurized water to TID irrigators during
drought years, whereas they now receive an inadequate water supply in 8
out of 10 years. From a watershed enhancement perspective, this project
is to provide significant in-stream flow benefits to both Tumalo Creek
and the Deschutes River, a major tributary to the Columbia River,
draining much of central Oregon. The Middle Deschutes River in the
recent past has been reduced to seasonal flows as low as 30cfs, and the
goal for this project is to enhance that flow to eventually achieve 250
cfs for the Middle Deschutes basin, a river reach that is significantly
productive for trout and anagromous fisheries.
The TID Water Conservation Project will provide a 20 cfs water
savings to transfer to in-stream in the Tumalo Creek and the Deschutes
River. Together with previous TID water conservation efforts, this
represents 10.4% of the 250cfs basin goal for restoring the Deschutes
River, which will greatly benefit stream ecosystem and habitat for
listed species as well as provide flow stability for both anagromous
fisheries and resident species. The completed project will eliminate or
reduce farm pumping systems thereby saving energy, realize
pressurization throughout the irrigation systems, and reduce the risk
of injury and drowning to small children growing up in our District
around open canals.
The Tumalo Irrigation District, even though it is a non-Federal
Reclamation District, has a history of working with the Bureau on
solutions. The Federal and State interest in having this project
constructed becomes apparent given the need for solutions in the
Deschutes basin for in-steam flow, anagromous fish, and environmental
issues; we view the work that would be undertaken with this project as
a model that the Bureau should consider for their own projects,
consistent with their Water 2025 Program.
We support the cost-sharing called for under the legislation
recognizing the Federal fiscal constraints for the Bureau of
Reclamation program. We believe S. 1037 offers a District such as ours
the opportunity to undertake a project having so many positive benefits
including: water conservation savings, watershed enhancement,
protection of listed species, and a reliable water supply to our
service area customers during the drought while increasing the public
safety of our communities.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this statement for the
hearing record on such an important piece of legislation for our
District. And thank you again to Senator Smith and Senator Wyden for
their assistance. We look forward to favorable action by the full U.S.
Senate on this legislation.
______
Trout Unlimited,
Boulder, CO, April 23, 2007.
Hon. Jeff Bingaman, Chairman,
Hon. Pete V. Domenici, Ranking Member,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Re: S. 1116
Dear Chairman Bingaman: Trout Unlimited appreciates the Committee's
consideration of S. 1116, the More Water, More Energy and Less Waste
Act, that Senator Salazar recently introduced along with you, Ranking
Member Domenici and Senator Thomas.
Trout Unlimited is a national non-profit organization with 140,000
members dedicated to the conservation, preservation and restoration of
our nation's cold water fisheries and their habitats. In the semi-arid
West, there are rivers that cannot provide healthy habitat for native
and wild fishes because dams and diversions have so altered the river's
natural hydrograph that it can no longer support a fishery. In
addition, our working rivers and aquifers are being stressed even
further as the region grows ever more rapidly, as climate change
threatens to lower water yield through increased evaporation and as
global markets affect the viability of the region's irrigated
agriculture.
Given all of these factors, one might think that the vast
quantities of produced water brought to the surface during energy
development, especially coal bed methane development, would be a boon
to western fisheries. And yet, this water is rarely put to beneficial
use. Rather, its quality is often too poor even for stock watering, and
its discharge to the surface can wreak havoc on both productive
farmland and fragile aquatic ecosystems. For this reason, producers
usually re-inject the water into the ground.
Treatment of produced water on the surface prior to discharge may
be an alternative that allows both those who have unmet consumptive
needs for water and the environment to benefit. For this reason, TU
supports S. 1116, with one small amendment, explained below. Senator
Salazar's statement upon introduction of the bill makes clear that what
is currently a liability not only for the industry, but also for
landowners, ecosystems and would-be water users, could become a
benefit, with proper management and the application of technologies.
The study that S. 1116 proposes in section 3 is critical to
reaching the legislative goal. It will be important that the study
consider the environmental consequences of various strategies
identified not only in terms of whether the strategies will protect the
environment during production, but also once production has ceased.
Similarly, it will also be important that, in considering the economic
obstacles to increasing the beneficial use of produced water, the study
assess what are the potential adverse effects of creating a temporary
water supply for irrigators and other users, especially down the road
when the temporary supply is no longer available. Will the creation of
such a temporary supply allow irrigators to stay in business for
another generation but also assure an increased battle over scarce
resources then?
Suggested amendment: In order to ensure that the study includes the
critical issues mentioned in the preceding paragraph, we recommend that
you amend the bill to add an additional paragraph to subsection 3(a) to
study, ``the environmental and economic impacts likely to occur in an
area where produced water is used for irrigation or other uses and then
ceases to be available for such uses because the energy development
that created the produced water shuts down.''
TU looks forward to learning more about the pilot projects that S.
1116 would fund, and to commenting through the public process that the
statute establishes.
Sincerely,
Melinda Kassen.
______
Statement of Hon. Mark Udall, U.S. Representative From Colorado
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing on my bill, H.R.
902, the ``More Water and More Energy Act,'' and the related
legislation (S. 1116) introduced by Senator Salazar.
The purpose of H.R. 902 as passed by the House of Representatives
is to facilitate the use of water produced in connection with
development of energy resources for irrigation and other uses in ways
that will not adversely affect water quality or the environment.
The House bill is similar to one that passed the House last year
but on which the Senate did not complete legislative action. It was
cosponsored by Representative Pearce of New Mexico and also by
Representative Edwards of Texas. I greatly appreciate their support.
The Senate bill expands on the House version in some respects, and
I note that it also has impressive support.
I think these bills can help change an energy-industry problem into
an opportunity, not just for oil and gas producers but for everyone
else who would benefit from increased supplies of useable water.
Especially in the arid west, that covers everyone--not least our
hard-pressed ranchers and farmers.
The focus of the House bill is the underground water extracted in
connection with development of energy sources like oil, natural gas or
coalbed methane. It would do two things:
First, it would direct the Bureau of Reclamation and the USGS to
identify the obstacles to greater use of produced water and the how
those obstacles could be reduced or eliminated without adversely
affecting water quality or the environment.
Second, it would provide for federal help in building 3 pilot
plants to demonstrate ways to treat produced water to make it suitable
for irrigation or other uses, again without adversely affecting water
quality or the environment.
At least one of these pilot plants would be in Colorado, Utah, or
Wyoming. At least one would be in New Mexico, Arizona or Nevada. And
there would be at least one each in California and Texas. This is to
assure that, together, the plants would demonstrate techniques
applicable to a variety of geologic and other conditions. The federal
government could pay up to half the cost of building each plant, but no
more than $1 million for any one plant. No federal funds could be used
for operating the plants.
The House bill's goal is reflected in its title--the ``More Water
and More Energy Act of 2006.''
The extent of its potential benefits was shown by the testimony of
Mr. David Templet at a hearing on the similar bill of mine the House
considered last year.
Mr. Templet testified in support of that bill on behalf of the
Domestic Petroleum Council and several other groups, including the
Colorado Oil & Gas Association. He noted that produced water is the
most abundant byproduct associated with the production of oil and gas,
with about 18 billion barrels being generated by onshore wells in 1995.
And he pointed out that if only an additional 1% of that total
could be put to beneficial use, the result would be to make over 75
billion gallons annually available for use for irrigation or other
agriculture, municipal purposes, or to benefit fish and wildlife.
Now, remember that in the west we usually measure water by the
acre-foot--the amount that would cover an acre to the depth of one
foot--and an acre-foot is about 32,8560 gallons, so an additional 75
billion gallons is more than 230,000 acre feet--more water, indeed.
And at the same time making produced water available for surface
uses, instead of just reinjecting it into the subsurface, can help
increase the production of oil and gas.
At least year's hearing, this was illustrated by the testimony of
Dr. David Stewart, a registered professional engineer from Colorado. He
cited the example of an oil field in California from which an estimated
additional 150 million barrels of oil could be recovered if water were
removed from the subsurface reservoir. And he pointed out that where
oil recovery is thermally enhanced, a reduced amount of underground
water means less steam--and so less cost--is needed to recover the oil.
The potential for having both more water and more energy is also
illustrated by the example of a project near Wellington, Colorado, that
treats produced water as a new water resource. I had the opportunity to
visit it just last week, and found it very interesting.
An oil company is embarking on the project to increase oil
production while a separate company will purchase the produced water to
supplement existing supplies, eventually allowing the town of
Wellington and other water users in the area to have increased water
for drinking and other purposes.
In view of its potential for leading to both ``more water'' and
``more energy'' I was pleased but not surprised that last year the
Administration, through the Interior Department, testified that it
``agrees that the goals of the House bill are commendable and the needs
that could be addressed are real'' and that the roles the bill would
assign to the Bureau of Reclamation and the USGS are consistent with
the missions and expertise of those agencies.
In view of all this, I submit that legislation along these lines
deserves the support of the Senate as well as the House of
Representatives.
______
Statement of the Domestic Petroleum Council, Also on Behalf of the
Colorado Oil & Gas Association; Independent Petroleum Association of
America; Independent Petroleum Association of the Mountain States;
International Association of Drilling Contractors; New Mexico Oil & Gas
Association; Petroleum Association of Wyoming; U.S. Oil and Gas
Association; and Western Business Roundtable
The large independent exploration and production companies of the
Domestic Petroleum Council as well as the member companies of the
Colorado Oil and Gas Association, Independent Petroleum Association of
America, Independent Petroleum Association of the Mountain States,
International Association of Drilling Contractors, New Mexico Oil & Gas
Association, Petroleum Association of Wyoming, US Oil & Gas Association
and the Western Business Roundtable appreciate the opportunity to offer
our support for S. 1116, the More Water, More Energy and Less Waste Act
of 2007 and its goals of facilitating beneficial use of water that must
be produced by energy extraction operations while also exploring ways
of reducing such water production.
Produced water is the most abundant byproduct--unfortunately often
characterized as a ``waste''--produced in the oil and gas production
process. There are not many wells in this country that do not produce
some water. While the quality of the water varies dramatically, we
believe there are significant opportunities to convert more produced
water to beneficial use.
According to the American Petroleum Institute (API) about 18
billion barrels of produced water was generated by U.S. onshore
operations in 1995. Some significant share of that water is already
used for irrigation, livestock watering and the like, but converting
just 1% more of that total to additional beneficial use would yield
over 75 billion gallons more useable water for irrigation, ranching,
fish and wildlife enhancement, stream augmentation or drinking water.
The produced water that contains the lowest concentration of total
dissolved solids, or TDS, (less than 10,000 parts per million, or ppm)
is found in the Western United States where water is a critical
resource (see attachment). For example, energy operations in the Powder
River Basin in north-central Wyoming produce approximately 1.4 million
barrels of relatively good-quality water per day. A large volume of
this water could be used for agricultural, ranching and other purposes.
Beneficial use of water in these arid environments should be a win-
win for the energy industry and water consumers, but the costs of water
treatment and inconsistent water quality regulations among states make
that process extremely difficult.
Section 3 of the proposed legislation recognizes the need to fully
identify the legal and regulatory problems with beneficial use water
and find solutions. Early attempts to implement beneficial use
solutions have faced state-specific water rights issues and regulatory
restrictions or prohibitions. The research conducted in response to
this legislation needs to evaluate existing regulatory barriers for
beneficial use, particularly with surface discharge under the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) onshore permit programs. Additionally, a
number of the issues preventing or posing obstacles to the surface
discharge of produced water are firmly within the arena of state
agencies, current rulemaking and lawsuits.
Often the biggest hurdle to beneficial use is finding the
technology to accomplish water treatment in a cost effective manner.
Water treatment must compete with the lower-cost option of deep well
injection. And while deep well injection is the most environmentally
sound method of disposal, it forgoes the opportunity to use millions of
gallons of water as a resource.
Management and/or conservation of produced water can represent a
critical cost component that affects the economic viability of oil and
gas production. Research that provides concise and comprehensive
information on produced water and ways in which it can be managed can
help operators, regulators, landowners, and other stakeholders to be
better informed and support management options that can lower
production costs and protect and even enhance the environment.
With respect to the demonstration projects authorized in S. 1116,
we trust that a Senate-House conference agreement will ensure
appropriate direction with respect to their regional allocation. We
note, however, that such projects will undoubtedly be most important in
areas that are seeing the most significant energy activity increases
and corresponding water quantity and quality issues. And, since
produced water volume and quality varies greatly across the country, it
will be important to have enough projects to fully evaluate the
opportunities for increased conservation and use of that water.
The consultation language of S. 1116 specifying involvement of
those with experience ``. . . relating to production of oil, natural
gas, coalbed methane, or other energy resources (including geothermal
resources) . . .'' is important to ensure that appropriate projects are
selected. To ensure that their potential is fulfilled to the maximum
degree, however, the legislation may need to be more explicit as to the
qualifications of those who may apply and be awarded grants. The
ability to carry out meaningful projects with real potential benefits
will be crucial. We strongly support the involvement of energy industry
representatives to help guide the research and demonstration project
efforts to help ensure that practical and transferable technology is
developed.
Again, useable produced water can be an abundant resource but the
technology must be cost-effective when compared with other disposal
options available to the industry.
We encourage you to evaluate the cost implications and incentives
that may be necessary to fulfill the true intent of this legislation
which is to find ways to conserve such a valuable resource, while
converting water that must be produced as part of our energy supply
efforts is put to beneficial use.
We will be glad to help see a final version of S. 1116 signed into
law, and we appreciate the opportunity to provide our views.