<DOC>
[109 Senate Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:30834.wais]
S. Hrg. 109-677
MISCELLANEOUS WATER & POWER BILLS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
S. 1812 S. 1965
S. 2129 S. 2470
S. 2502 S. 3404
H.R. 2383 H.R. 4204
__________
JUNE 28, 2006
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
_____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
30-834 PDF WASHINGTON : 2006
_________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free
(866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail:
Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, Chairman
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska RON WYDEN, Oregon
RICHARD M. BURR, North Carolina, TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
MEL MARTINEZ, Florida MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
CONRAD BURNS, Montana MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia KEN SALAZAR, Colorado
GORDON SMITH, Oregon ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
Bruce M. Evans, Staff Director
Judith K. Pensabene, Chief Counsel
Robert M. Simon, Democratic Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Water and Power
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman
GORDON SMITH, Oregon, Vice Chairman
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
RICHARD M. BURR, North Carolina BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
MEL MARTINEZ, Florida RON WYDEN, Oregon
CONRAD BURNS, Montana DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
JIM BUNNING, Kentucky MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri KEN SALAZAR, Colorado
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
Pete V. Domenici and Jeff Bingaman are Ex Officio Members of the
subcommittee
Nate Gentry, Counsel
Mike Connor, Democratic Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator From Idaho.................... 21
Dieker, Richard, Secretary-Manager, Yakima-Tieton Irrigation
District....................................................... 22
Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., U.S. Senator From Utah..................... 2
Johnson, Hon. Tim, U.S. Senator From South Dakota................ 11
Macy, Richard, Chairman, North Unit Irrigation District, Madras,
OR............................................................. 13
Maisch, Einar L., Director of Strategic Affairs, Placer County
Water Agency................................................... 23
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator From Alaska................... 1
Peltier, Jason, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Water and Science,
Department of the Interior..................................... 10
Rinne, William E., Acting Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation,
Department of the Interior..................................... 2
Smith, Hon. Gordon, U.S. Senator From Oregon..................... 12
APPENDIX
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 39
MISCELLANEOUS WATER & POWER BILLS
----------
WEDNESDAY JUNE 28, 2006
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, Dirsken Senate Office Building, Hon. Lisa
Murkowski presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
Senator Murkowski. This hearing will come to order. I'd
like to welcome you all this afternoon to the Water and Power
Subcommittee.
We have eight bills that are before the subcommittee this
afternoon: S. 1812, sponsored by Senator Hatch, which
authorizes the participation in a conjunctive use project in
Utah; S. 1965, sponsored by Senator Cantwell, which conveys
certain buildings and land of the Yakima Project; S. 2129,
sponsored by Senator Crapo, conveying certain land and
improvements on the Minidoka Project; S. 2470, sponsored by
Senator Craig, authorizing the early repayment of construction
costs within the A&B Irrigation District; S. 2502, sponsored by
Senator Smith, which amends the repayment contract between the
Secretary of the Interior and the North Unit Irrigation
District; S. 3404, sponsored by Senator Johnson, extending the
date of the authorization for the Mni Wiconi Rural Water Supply
Project; H.R. 2383, sponsored by Representative Nunes, renaming
the Tracy Pumping Plant; and H.R. 4204, sponsored by
Representative Doolittle, transferring ownership of the
American River Pump Station Project.
I'd like to welcome the administration witnesses: Mr.
William Rinne, the Acting Commissioner of the Bureau of
Reclamation, and Mr. Jason Peltier, the Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Water and Science. And we have some additional
witnesses that will be joining us on the second panel.
The subcommittee has received some written testimony on
several of the bills before the subcommittee today, and that
testimony will be made part of the official record.
So with that, why don't we invite up our two administration
witnesses.
Mr. Rinne, am I pronouncing your name correctly?
Mr. Rinne. Yes.
Senator Murkowski. Makes it easier, doesn't it? Nice to
have you here, and you, as well, Mr. Peltier.
With that, why don't we go ahead and start off with you,
Mr. Rinne.
[The prepared statement of Senator Hatch follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Orrin G. Hatch, U.S. Senator From Utah,
on S. 1812
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing today. And thank
you for giving me the opportunity to express my support for S. 1812,
the Juab County Surface and Ground Water Study and Development Act of
2005. S. 1812, if enacted, would amend the Reclamation Projects
Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-575) to allow Juab
County, Utah to receive Central Utah Project (CUP) funds. Mr. Chairman,
as you know, the House of Representatives approved a companion bill
(H.R. 4013) earlier this month.
Under the original plan for the Bonneville Unit of the Central Utah
Project, several counties in central Utah, including Juab, were to be
delivered supplemental water through an irrigation and drainage
delivery system. Over the years, however, the planning requirements for
the Bonneville Unit have changed and, presently, most of the water
allocated to the Bonneville Unit of the Central Utah Project is planned
for use in Wasatch, Salt Lake, and Utah Counties.
Many central Utah counties have elected not to participate in the
plan and no longer pay the requisite taxes to the Central Utah Water
Conservancy District, the political division of the State of Utah
established to manage CUP activities in the state. But, unlike other
central Utah counties, Juab County remained active in the Central Utah
Water Conservancy District's efforts and has paid millions in property
taxes to the district. Unfortunately, the County has yet to reap any of
the benefits of its membership.
My bill would simply allow Juab County to use Central Utah Project
funds to complete water resource development projects. It will enable
the County to better utilize their existing water resources and will
ensure that farmers, ranchers, and other citizens of Juab County have a
reliable water supply. It will give the citizens of Juab County the
opportunity to benefit from the system they have financially supported
for so many years.
Once again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for considering this important
measure today. I urge the committee to swiftly approve the measure and
send it to the full Senate for further consideration.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM E. RINNE, ACTING COMMISIONER, BUREAU OF
RECLAMATION, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Rinne. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
I'm Bill Rinne, Acting Commissioner for the Bureau of
Reclamation. I'm pleased to present the Department of the
Interior's views on seven bills before the subcommittee today.
Madam Chairwoman, I would request my full statement on each
of these bills be submitted for the record, and I'll also do my
best and stay within the 5-minute time allotment here.
Senator Murkowski. Your full statement will be included as
part of the record.
Mr. Rinne. Just a minute or two over here. S. 1965 would
authorize the Secretary of the Interior to convey buildings and
lands of the Yakima Project in Washington to the Yakima-Tieton
Irrigation District. Reclamation supports S. 1965. The transfer
proposed in the bill is the culmination of a collaborative
process and should be a model for other districts. The full
cost of the land and the facilities to be transferred under
this bill have been repaid pursuant to the district's original
repayment contract. All the lands were acquired by Reclamation
and the repayment contract incorporated their value and the
costs of construction. This title transfer will give the
district more local control of buildings for their use and
eliminate duplicative administrative obligations for the
district.
Turning to S. 2129, Reclamation also supports this
legislation, which would authorize the Secretary to convey
facilities and lands of the Gooding Division of the Minidoka
Project in Idaho to the American Falls Reservoir District No.
2. The primary feature of the proposed transfer is the Milner-
Gooding Canal. Reclamation and the district have collaborated
to enter into a transfer agreement, and have also worked with
the bill sponsors on the legislation under consideration today.
This title transfer will eliminate periodic facilities
reviews and paperwork that currently requires significant staff
time. In addition, Reclamation can improve public management of
remaining properties by transferring specific parcels to other
governmental units.
S. 2470 would authorize early repayment to Reclamation for
works within the Minidoka Project's A&B Irrigation Districts in
Idaho. Reclamation supports this bill with some minor
modifications.
The A&B Irrigation District is the only district in the
Minidoka Project that remains subject to the acreage limitation
provisions of the Federal Reclamation law. In order to provide
consistency for the landowners in the A&B Irrigation District,
we support S. 2470's approach to allow early repayment.
However, we recommend that the bill be amended in order to
ensure consistency for all landowners within the project.
There's Reclamation's policy to require landowners who want to
pay early to pay out all their land in the subject district,
and not just a portion of their land. This concept is included
in the recently enacted Southern Oregon Bureau of Reclamation
Repayment Act of 2005, which provided early payout authority
for two districts in Oregon.
As currently written in S. 2470, it can be interpreted to
provide the opportunity for landowners to pay out either all of
their land or only a portion of that land. The latter is a
benefit that other landowners do not enjoy and would inject
inconsistency into the administration of the acreage limitation
provisions. We believe our concerns can be addressed with a
simple revision to S. 2470, and we stand ready to provide
revised language.
S. 2502 will resolve limitations on the North Unit
Irrigation District's contract with the Deschutes Project,
enabling the district to be--to more efficiently manage its
water supplies. Because Congress approved the district's
contract, and contracts which are beyond the scope of the
contracting officer's authority must also be approved by
Congress. In order for the district to be eligible for State-
financed water conservation funds, Oregon law requires
districts to dedicate a portion of conserved water to in-stream
flows.
Currently, the project authorization and the district's
contract do not allow it to dedicate water to in-stream uses.
The district has self-financed over $8 million of these
conservation activities and would like to be eligible for the
State program. S. 2502 amends a district contract to make this
possible. The bill would also allow the district to deliver the
Deschutes Project water to families who are irrigating
approximately 9,000 acres of land in the district with non-
project water diverted by the district's Crooked River pumping
plant. These lands exceed the current contract ceiling of the
49,818 acres that are within the district's boundary and have
pertinent water rights issued by the State. Using the Deschutes
Project water on these lands will allow the district to devote
less Crooked River water and leave more water in-stream.
Reclamation supports this bill.
S. 3404 recognizes the Mni Wiconi Rural Water System by--
reauthorizes the Mni Wiconi Rural Water System by extending the
sunset for completion of project construction from 2008, as
currently authorized, until 2012. With construction expected to
be nearly 70 percent complete by the end of the fiscal year
2006, we are committed to completing project construction in a
timely manner. However, given the amount of work yet to be
completed, we believe a more appropriate extension date would
be 2013, and we recommend that the bill be amended accordingly.
We support the legislation to extend the sunset date, and look
forward to working with the sponsors and the committee to
address these issues.
Turning to H.R. 2383, Reclamation is neutral on the
proposed bill to rename the Tracy Pumping Plant to the C.W.
``Bill'' Jones Pumping Plant. However, Mr. Jones' contribution
to Central Valley agriculture are well known. We believe that
Mr. Jones contributed greatly to the building of common
understanding between Reclamation and its customers.
Finally, the Department also supports H.R. 4204, which
would build and transfer ownership of the American River Pump
Station Project to the Placer County Water Agency--PCWA--upon
completion of construction. PCWA constructed a permanent
pumping plant on the north fork of the American River in the
late 1960's. In 1967, Reclamation initiated construction of
Auburn Dam, which was halted in 1975. Reclamation removed the
PCWA Pumping Plant, located upstream of the proposed dam site,
at the beginning of construction. The agreement between
Reclamation and PCWA obligated Reclamation to deliver 25,000
acre-feet of water per year to PCWA until Auburn Dam was
completed, at which time PCWA would divert all of its water
from the reservoir.
We currently install a temporary pump station every April
and remove it in November because of high winter flows that
typically inundate the site. Because of urbanization in Placer
County, PCWA will soon require year-round access to its full
water supply from the Middle Fork Project. Demands
substantially exceed the capacity of the temporary facility and
configuring the pump station each year is becoming increasingly
costly.
In 2003, Reclamation and PWCA entered into a cost-share
agreement for the construction of a permanent pumping plant,
and under the agreement, PCWA will pay all costs for a
permanent pumping plant that provides for delivery of water at
a capacity greater than Reclamation's obligations, and the
title will be transferred to PCWA upon completion of the
permanent pumping plant, scheduled for 2008. Legislation is
necessary to complete the title transfer, and we support its
passage.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today, and
I'm pleased to answer any questions the subcommittee may have
on any bills.
[The prepared statements of Mr. Rinne follow:]
Prepared Statements of William E. Rinne, Acting Commissioner,
Bureau of Reclamation
s. 1965
Madam Chairwoman, members of the Subcommittee, I am Bill Rinne,
Acting Commissioner of Reclamation for the Bureau of Reclamation. I am
pleased to provide the Department of the Interior's views on S. 1965,
legislation to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to convey
certain buildings and lands of the Yakima Project in Washington to the
Yakima-Tieton Irrigation District. We support this legislation and
thank the committee for considering it today.
The transfer proposed in S. 1965 is the culmination of a
collaborative and cooperative process and should be a model for other
districts and groups interested in title transfer.
What we experienced in this case, and what has made other title
transfers successful, is that Reclamation and the non-Federal entities
interested in title transfer followed a simple plan--identifying
obstacles and dealing with them at the local or regional level before
drafting legislation.
S. 1965 would authorize the title transfer of federally owned
buildings and lands to the Yakima-Tieton Irrigation District.
Reclamation and the Yakima-Tieton Irrigation District have worked
collaboratively and efficiently to lay the groundwork for this title
transfer. Thanks to the cooperative efforts of the District, the
process has successfully addressed all the elements of Reclamation's
policy framework that guides our title transfers.
One of the Administration's goals in title transfer is to protect
the financial interest of the United States, that is, to make sure that
the United States is no worse off financially following title transfer.
In this case, the full costs of the lands, buildings and facilities to
be transferred have already been repaid pursuant to the district's
original repayment contract. All the lands to be transferred under this
legislation were acquired by Reclamation when the project was built.
Thus the original repayment contract incorporated their value together
with the costs associated with the construction of the facilities and
buildings. There are no ongoing revenue streams associated with these
lands and facilities, and the value of all the assets has been repaid.
The district has fulfilled its repayment obligation under the contract
and thus no payment is required.
On December 6, 2004, Reclamation and the District entered into a
title transfer agreement for the federally owned facilities (Contract
No. 5-07-10-L1658) which spells out the terms and conditions for this
title transfer and which is the basis for the transfer of the
facilities in the legislation. Subsequently, Reclamation worked with
the District and with Representative Hastings and Senator Cantwell on
how to structure the legislation to authorize the implementation of the
title transfer agreement.
We believe that this title transfer will give the District more
local control of buildings that were constructed for their use. It will
also eliminate the need for duplicative and unnecessary administrative
obligations that exist for the District based on the fact that title to
the buildings and associated properties is held by the United States.
For example, the District currently has to seek approval for utility
work, building improvements, and similar activities by virtue of the
fact that the buildings and properties are Federally owned.
For Reclamation, the title transfer will obviate the periodic
facility reviews and processing of paperwork that currently consumes
significant staff time.
In summary, we support passage of S. 1965. It is a good bill, a
good title transfer, and reflects a cooperative and cost effective
process that will provide a benefit to the District and to Reclamation.
That concludes my testimony; I would be pleased to answer any
questions.
s. 2129
Madam Chairwoman and members of the Subcommittee, I am Bill Rinne,
Acting Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased to
provide the Department of the Interior's views on S. 2129, legislation
to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain
facilities, buildings and lands of the Gooding Division of the Minidoka
Project in Idaho to the American Falls Reservoir District #2. We
support this legislation and thank the committee for considering it
today.
The transfer proposed in S. 2129 is the culmination of a
collaborative and cooperative process and should be a model for other
districts and groups interested in title transfer. What we experienced
in this case, and what has made other title transfers successful, is
that Reclamation and the non-Federal entities interested in title
transfer followed a simple plan--identifying obstacles and dealing with
them at the local or regional. level before drafting legislation.
S. 2129 would authorize the title transfer of federally owned
facilities, buildings, and lands to the American Falls Reservoir
District #2. The primary feature of the proposed title transfer is the
Milner-Gooding Canal. Reclamation and the American Falls Reservoir
District #2 have worked collaboratively and efficiently to successfully
address all the elements of Reclamation's title transfer policy
framework.
One of the Administration's goals in title transfer is to protect
the financial interest of the United States, that is, to make sure that
the United States is in the same or better financial position following
title transfer. In this case, the full costs of all facilities,
buildings, and acquired lands to be transferred, including the Milner-
Gooding Canal, have already been repaid pursuant to the District's
amendatory repayment contract. The District has also identified some
withdrawn lands for which they would like to gain title and have agreed
to pay the fair market appraised value for these lands. There are no
ongoing revenue streams associated with the facilities, buildings, and
lands. Because the District has fulfilled its repayment obligation
under its contract, payment is required only for the additional
withdrawn lands that the District has proposed for title transfer.
On October 3, 2005, Reclamation and the District entered into a
title transfer agreement for the federally owned facilities (Contract
No. 5-07-10-L1688) that spells out the terms and conditions for this
title transfer and that is the basis for the transfer of the facilities
in the legislation. Subsequently, Reclamation worked with the District
and the bill sponsors regarding how to structure the legislation to
authorize the implementation of the title transfer agreement.
We believe that this title transfer will give the District more
local control of facilities that were constructed for its use. The bill
will also eliminate the need for duplicative and unnecessary
administrative obligations that exist for the District because title to
the facilities, buildings, and lands is held by the United States. For
example, the District currently has to seek approval from Reclamation
for certain canal maintenance, utility work, and building improvement.
For Reclamation, the title transfer will eliminate the periodic
facility reviews and processing of paperwork that currently consumes
significant staff time. In addition, with the proposed transfer of the
Milner-Gooding Canal and other Gooding Division facilities to the
District, Reclamation can improve public management of remaining
dispersed properties by transferring specific parcels to other
governmental agencies. Accordingly, the legislation directs Reclamation
to transfer title for specific smaller parcels to the National Park
Service, the State of Idaho, and the City of Gooding, since those
entities currently manage the relevant lands. Regarding the transfer of
39.72 acres of land to the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, we note
that existing law codified at 16 U.S.C. 667b authorizes the General
Services Administration to transfer land to States for conservation
purposes. This authority has been used to transfer other Federal lands
to State ownership.
The title transfer also involves Reclamation relinquishing title
for withdrawn lands to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). These
associated transfers will place those properties more directly under
the administrative control of the appropriate governmental entities and
will allow Reclamation to better focus on its core mission of
delivering water and power. Further, Reclamation has worked closely
with the National Park Service, the State of Idaho, the City of
Gooding, and the BLM to craft the language that appears in the transfer
agreement. We look forward to continuing those close and cooperative
relationships once this legislation has been adopted to implement the
agreement in a timely manner.
In summary, we support passage of S. 2129. It is a good bill, a
good title transfer, and reflects a cooperative and cost effective
process that will provide a benefit to the District and to Reclamation.
That concludes my testimony; I would be pleased to answer any
questions.
s. 2470
Madam Chairwoman and members of the Subcommittee, I am Bill Rinne,
Acting Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. Thank you for the
opportunity to provide the Administration's views on S. 2470, the
Southern Idaho Bureau of Reclamation Repayment Act. The bill, which we
support with some modifications, would authorize early repayment of
obligations to the Bureau of Reclamation within the A&B Irrigation
District of Idaho.
The A&B Irrigation District is the only district in the Minidoka
Project that remains subject to the acreage limitation provisions of
Federal reclamation law. Under section 213 of the Reclamation Reform
Act of 1982 (RRA), early repayment of a district's construction costs
is prohibited unless the district's repayment contract with Reclamation
included a provision allowing for early repayment when the RRA was
enacted.
At one time, over 50 districts in the Minidoka Project were subject
to the acreage limitation provisions and many of those districts had an
early repayment provision in their contracts. In order to provide
consistency for the landowners in the remaining district, we support S.
2470's approach to allow early repayment in A&B Irrigation District.
However, we recommend that the bill be amended in order to ensure
consistency for all landowners within the project.
In general, early repayment authority in contracts is limited to
landowners. In other words, a district cannot pay out early; rather,
each landowner can decide if his or her land should be paid out early.
It is Reclamation policy to require landowners who want to pay early to
pay out all of their land in the subject district and not just a
portion of their land. This concept was included in the recently
enacted ``Southern Oregon Bureau of Reclamation Repayment Act of
2005,'' which provided early payout authority for two districts in
Oregon (Public Law 109-138).
As currently written, S. 2470 can be interpreted to provide the
opportunity for landowners to pay out either all of their land in A&B
Irrigation District or a portion of that land. The latter is a benefit
that other landowners who are subject to the acreage limitation
provisions simply do not enjoy and would inject inconsistency into the
administration of the acreage limitation provisions. Early payout would
accelerate the repayment of these project costs to the United States
Treasury. Where these repayment obligations are not accompanied by
interest, early repayment has a net positive impact on overall
repayment to the Treasury and we are highly confident that this will be
the case under this bill. However, we should note that a small number
of landowners hold in excess of 960 acres and therefore pay full cost.
Since full cost has an interest component, if these landowners opt to
pay out early, this could result in slightly lower repayment from those
landowners.
We believe our concerns can be addressed with a simple revision to
S. 2470 and we stand ready to provide revised language. This concludes
my testimony and I would be pleased to answer any questions you may
have.
s. 2502
Madam Chairwoman and members of the Subcommittee, I am William
Rinne, Acting Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. Thank you for
the opportunity to testify on S 2502. The Department supports S 2502.
The North Unit Irrigation District receives water from the Bureau
of Reclamation's Deschutes Project and the District's privately
developed Crooked River pumping plant in Oregon. Over 900 small farm
and ranch families in Oregon's Deschutes Basin rely upon the District
for the delivery of irrigation water. Since the District's formation a
century ago, these families have shifted from dryland wheat to alfalfa
hay, grass seed, garlic seed, and carrot seed, as well as raising
cattle, sheep, horses, and other livestock.
In the mid-1950s, Reclamation and the District renegotiated the
District's repayment contract in accordance with section 7, subsection
(a), of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939. Pursuant to the Act of
August 10, 1954, Congress approved the contract along with an
authorization for the construction of Haystack Dam and regulating
reservoir. The contract established the maximum irrigable acreage that
can receive Reclamation project water at 49,818 acres.
S. 2502 will resolve several limitations in the District's
contract, enabling the District to more efficiently manage its water
supplies. Because Congress approved the District's contract, changes to
the contract which are beyond the scope of the Contracting Officer's
authority must also be approved by Congress.
Oregon law requires irrigation districts that participate in a
publicly financed ``conserved water project'' to dedicate a portion of
conserved water resulting from the project to instream flows for fish,
wildlife or other purposes (ORS 537.455 et seq.). The District has self
financed over $8 million in conservation activities, and would like to
consider participation in a publicly financed program. Unfortunately,
the underlying Project authorization and the District's contract do not
allow it to dedicate water to instream uses. S. 2502 amends the
District's contract so the District can comply with State law if it
chooses to participate in a conserved water project.
A related change to the District's contract would allow the
District to deliver Deschutes Project water to families who are
irrigating approximately 9,000 acres of land in the District with non-
project water diverted by the District's Crooked River pumping plant.
All of these lands are within the District's present boundary, have
been irrigated for decades, and have appurtenant water rights issued by
the State, but they exceed the current contract's ceiling of
approximately 49,818 acres. Using Deschutes Project water on these
lands will allow the District to divert less Crooked River water and
leave more water instream.
S. 2502 will benefit fish and wildlife by enabling the District to
use less water from the Crooked River, and participate in State
conserved water projects that return a portion of the conserved water
to the Deschutes River. The United States would also realize financial
benefits in the form of accelerated repayment of Project construction
costs through the annual participation of an additional 9,000 acres in
Project repayment. The District's current contract is based on a
variable repayment plan, which means that rather than paying fixed
annual installments, the District's annual payments vary based on
factors such as crop production. Thus it is difficult or impossible to
predict when the District would pay out its contract if this bill is
not enacted. This legislation not only increases the number of acres in
Project repayment, but also requires the District to pay its remaining
obligation of $6,649,371 in fixed annual installments.
The Administration also supports the language that this bill
inserts at the end of the bill, in section 4 to be inserted into the
underlying act. This provision gives the Secretary the authority to
renegotiate this contract upon mutually agreeable terms without having
to have Congress approve of changes agreed upon between the District
and the Secretary. This provision reflects the general rule that
repayment contracts do not require Congressional approval.
The legislation is specific to the District; it would not affect
any other district in the Deschutes Project, their patrons, or any
others in Oregon. The District will continue to comply with all
applicable state and federal laws including the Reclamation Reform Act
of 1982.
On behalf of the Department, I would like to compliment the
District on its proactive approach to addressing the water management
issues it is facing, as well as obtaining the support of other
interested parties in the local community. We are pleased to support
this legislation.
I am happy to respond to any questions.
s. 3404
Madam Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am Bill Rinne,
Acting Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify on S. 3404.
S. 3404 reauthorizes the Mni Wiconi Rural Water System by amending
Section 10(a) of the Mni Wiconi Project Act of 1988. Specifically, S.
3404 extends the sunset date for the completion of project construction
from 2008, as currently authorized, until 2012. Reclamation supports
the need for this amendment, but would prefer that the sunset be
extended through the end of 2013.
Reclamation is committed to completing project construction in a
timely manner, and should be nearing 70% completion by the end of
fiscal year 2006. Reclamation is supportive of extending the
authorization for the project. However, given the amount of remaining
construction work needing to take place prior to full completion,
Reclamation feels a more appropriate date for extending the
authorization would be 2013. Consequently, Reclamation would ask that
the sponsors and the committee consider extending the sunset date
through 2013 rather than 2012 as currently proposed.
We support the amendment to extend the sunset date for completing
construction of the Mni Wiconi Project and look forward to working with
the sponsors and the Committee to address issues concerning the
appropriate length for extending the authorization.
That concludes my testimony and I would be pleased to answer any
questions.
h.r. 2383
Madam Chairwoman, and members of the Subcommittee, my name is Bill
Rinne, Acting Commissioner for the Bureau of Reclamation. I appreciate
the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the proposed name
change for the Tracy Pumping Plant in Byron, California, to the ``C.W.
`Bill' Jones Pumping Plant.''
As you know, Reclamation's Mid-Pacific Region operates the Central
Valley Project (CVP)--the Nation's largest water delivery project. The
CVP is a system of 20 dams and reservoirs, 500 miles of major canals,
power plants, and other facilities located mainly in the Sacramento and
San Joaquin Valleys of California. The CVP develops or manages about 9
million acre-feet of water and delivers about 7 million acre-feet for
urban, industrial, agricultural, and environmental uses annually;
produces electrical power; and provides flood protection, water for
navigation, fish and wildlife, recreation and water quality benefits.
A major facility of the CVP is the Tracy Pumping Plant in the
southern portion of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. The
function of the pumping plant is to move water into the Delta-Mendota
Canal. Up to approximately 2.5 million acre-feet of water is delivered
to highly productive agricultural lands in the Central Valley annually.
The San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority has had responsibility
for the operation and maintenance of the Tracy Pumping Plant since 1993
through various agreements with Reclamation.
Mr. Jones served as the Chairman of the San Luis & Delta-Mendota
Water Authority. He had a career that spanned more than 40 years in the
water industry, and was instrumental in promoting the need for a
reliable water supply to keep Central Valley agriculture economically
viable for the state of California.
While Reclamation remains neutral on the proposal to change the
name of the Tracy Pumping Plant to the ``C.W. `Bill' Jones'' Pumping
Plant,'' Mr. Jones' contribution to the Central Valley's agricultural
viability through his leadership of the Water Authority and his
numerous other contributions to the water industry in the Central
Valley are recognized by the Department and are well known. In
addition, Mr. Jones contributed greatly to the building of common
understanding between Reclamation and its customers.
That concludes my testimony and I would be happy to answer any
questions you might have.
h.r. 4204
Madam Chairwoman and members of the Subcommittee, I am Bill Rinne,
Acting Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. Thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today. The Department supports H.R.
4204, a bill to transfer ownership of the American River Pump Station
Project to Placer County Water Agency (PCWA) upon completion of
construction.
The American River Pump Station replaces a permanent pumping plant
constructed by PCWA in the late 1960's on the North Fork of the
American River. The principal function of the original pumping plant
was to convey water supply from PCWA's Middle Fork Project to the
Auburn Ravine Tunnel for use in Placer County, California.
Reclamation initiated construction of Auburn Dam in 1967.
Construction of the dam was authorized by the Act of September 2, 1965
(P.L. 89-161, 79 Stat. 615). At the time construction of the dam was
beginning, PCWA maintained a pumping station just upstream from the
proposed dam site. The pumping station could not remain in place during
construction of the Auburn Dam.
In lieu of condemnation by the United States, PCWA entered into a
Land Purchase Agreement with Reclamation in 1972, transferring PCWA's
land and facilities in the American River canyon to the United States,
but not their water rights. The Land Purchase Agreement obligated
Reclamation to deliver 25,000 acre-feet of Middle Fork Project water
annually to PCWA until Auburn Dam was completed, at which time PCWA
would divert all their water from the reservoir. To fulfill this
obligation under terms of the Land Purchase Agreement, every year since
1972 Reclamation has installed a temporary pump station each April. The
temporary facility remains in service until November when it is removed
because of high winter flows that typically inundate the site.
Construction of Auburn Dam was halted in 1975 and has yet to be
resumed. In the interim, Placer County has become increasingly
urbanized. Consequently, PCWA will soon require year-round access to
its full water supply from the Middle Fork Project. This demand
substantially exceeds the capacity of the temporary facility. In
addition, installation and removal of the temporary pump station each
year is becoming increasingly costly.
Considering the circumstances, Reclamation and PCWA determined that
a new permanent pumping plant was the best long-term solution for
providing PCWA access to its water. PCWA further determined that it had
needs for a higher-capacity pump than Reclamation would be obligated to
provide. In 2003, Reclamation and PCWA entered into a cost-share
agreement for the construction of a permanent pumping plant which
stipulates that PCWA will pay all incremental costs of materials and
construction necessary to enable the pumping plant to deliver water
above the capacity negotiated to meet Reclamation's obligations to PCWA
and that title will be transferred to PCWA upon completion of the
permanent pumping plant, currently scheduled for 2008. The title
transfer is contingent upon statutory authority, as provided in H.R.
4204.
H.R. 4204 would not impact other Central Valley Project (CVP) water
or power contractors. The completed project will not be operationally
or financially integrated with the CVP, nor will it provide benefits to
other CVP water and power contractors. Georgetown Divide Public Utility
District could potentially access water through agreements with PCWA.
Total costs for the completed project are projected to be approximately
$55 million, and the cost share agreement provides that the Federal
share for construction is approximately 70 percent. Although the
payment of fair market value is normally a requirement for transfer of
facilities from Federal ownership, given the circumstance that
Reclamation is responsible for the destruction of PCWA's original
pumping plant and obligated to provide equivalent water deliveries, and
the expense of annually installing annual pump stations, the cost share
agreement protects the interest of taxpayers in this case. Transferring
title will also relieve the Federal Government of the obligations and
liabilities of operating and maintaining the facility.
That concludes my testimony. I am pleased to answer any questions.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Rinne.
Mr. Peltier.
STATEMENT OF JASON PELTIER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
WATER AND SCIENCE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Peltier. Thank you. My name is Jason Peltier. I'm
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Water and Science, and it's my
pleasure to be here to testify in support of S. 1812,
introduced by Senator Hatch.
It's a rather simple bill. It will simply add Juab County,
in Utah, to the list of preexisting counties which were
eligible to participate in conjunctive water programs. It makes
all the sense in the world for Juab County to have the access
to this program that the other counties do. They have some
creative ideas, they have some needs, and we're pleased to
support the bill.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Peltier follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jason Peltier, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Water and Science, U.S. Department of the Interior, on S. 1812
Madam Chairwoman and members of the Subcommittee, my name is Jason
Peltier. I am a Deputy Assistant Secretary for Water and Science in the
Department of the Interior. I appreciate the opportunity to appear
before you to express the Administration's support for S. 1812, which
would amend the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act
of 1992, or more specifically the Central Utah Project Completion Act.
The proposed legislation would provide the opportunity for conjunctive
use of surface and groundwater in Juab County, Utah.
The Central Utah Project Completion Act provides for the completion
of the construction of the Central Utah Project by the Central Utah
Water Conservancy District. The Act also authorizes programs for fish,
wildlife, and recreation mitigation and conservation; establishes an
account in the Treasury for deposit of appropriations and other
contributions; establishes the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and
Conservation Commission to coordinate mitigation and conservation
activities; and provides for the Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement.
Section 202(a)(2) of the Central Utah Project Completion Act
provides authorization to develop conjunctive use projects involving
groundwater recharge, management and conjunctive use of surface water
and groundwater in five counties within Utah. S. 1812 would allow
conjunctive use funds currently restricted for use in Salt Lake, Utah,
Davis, Wasatch, and Weber counties to also be used in Juab County. To
date, only one project in Salt Lake County has participated in the
conjunctive use program, leaving approximately $8.5 million of
authorized appropriations for the program. No other counties have
requested to participate in the conjunctive use program.
The conjunctive use program was originally limited to five counties
that had been part of the Bureau of Reclamation's High-Plains States
Groundwater Demonstration Program. The Central Utah Project (CUP) as it
was originally planned would have provided Juab County with sufficient
water supplies. However, this project has evolved over time. Under
current plans, CUP water will be used in more populated areas of Utah.
East Juab County is now planning to meet its water needs without CUP
water, and this bill will provide it with an opportunity to develop
needed water resources.
This bill would not increase the level of authorized appropriations
for the Central Utah Project Completion Act, but would allow Juab
County to compete for funds in the same way that its five sister
counties do today.
Madam Chairwoman, this bill would allow Juab County to efficiently
develop its water resources, and the Administration is pleased to
support it. This concludes my testimony. I am happy to answer any
questions.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you very much.
Mr. Peltier. Thank you.
Senator Murkowski. At this time, I'd ask either Senator
Johnson or Senator Smith if you care to comment on either of
the--I guess any of the legislation we have which have been
sponsored by Senator Johnson.
STATEMENT OF HON. TIM JOHNSON, U.S. SENATOR
FROM SOUTH DAKOTA
Senator Johnson. Well, if I may. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
On June 6th, I introduced legislation that extends the
project authorization to the Mni Wiconi Rural Water System.
Senator John Thune joined me in introducing S. 3404. The
legislation is necessary because the current authority to
appropriate funds from this vital world water project expires
after 2008. I want to thank the Bureau of Reclamation for
working with my staff to help us understand how best to
complete this vital project. It's my hope that the Congress can
act on the legislation this year in order to provide the
certainty, and continuity, and funding necessary to fulfill the
promise of clean and reliable drinking water.
When the Mni Wiconi Rural Water System is completed, the
Bureau of Reclamation, along with the four local South Dakota
projects' sponsors, will have constructed one of the largest
and most ambitious public works projects in the American West,
designed to deliver clean drinking water over a vast geographic
area. Water from the Missouri River will be pumped and
transported hundreds of miles to serve some of the most
impoverished communities in the United States.
Importantly, the system will serve three Indian
reservations: The Oglala Sioux tribe, the Lower Brule Sioux
tribe, and the Rosebud Sioux tribe. The residents of these
tribes utilize route-of-entry drinking water networks that
would be significantly improved with new water transmission and
distribution systems. The system will also serve the West
River/Lyman-Jones Rural Water System in southwestern South
Dakota as well.
Since the project's original authorization in 1988, the
Congress has had to amend the project to expand the service
territory, and increase authorized project cost. S. 3404 does
not change the service territory or increase the cost
authorization to the project, but simply provides for the
necessary authority to expend funds for the project past fiscal
year 2008.
After 12 years of construction activities, the project is
now 70 percent complete, but important aspects of the project
remain unfinished. Mni Wiconi is roughly translated to mean
``Water is life''. Certainly, in the West and on the prairies
of South Dakota, the ability to secure clean and reliable water
supplies is critical for public health, economic development,
and the lives of our communities.
S. 3404 will provide for the full completion of the
project, and I appreciate the Committee's favorable
consideration of the legislation. I also appreciate the
observation that we will work with the bill relative to what
final date that is. The bill provides for 2012, and a
suggestion is that 2013 might be the more appropriate number,
but we will be in conversation about that, and if there are
adjustments, we will be open to making that happen.
But the remaining portion of the Mni Wiconi Water Project
that remains to be constructed is the portion that goes into
the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation of the Oglala Sioux. There
are other areas in which the construction will take place as
well, but this is principally what remains to be done.
And this is truly among the poorest of the poor in America.
I've been to the Pine Ridge repeatedly. I've seen the multiple
families living in the same shack, with a garbage barrel out at
the end of the gravel road where the tribe occasionally comes
by and fills it with water. But no electricity, no drinking
water, and no paved roads. Sub-par housing is characteristic of
the lives of a great many people in this part of the country.
This is truly a Third World situation and it exists right here
in the United States, in my home State of South Dakota. So it's
my hope that while the annual funding, because of the limited
allocations we've had, has forced us to stretch out this
project more than we'd like, I hope that we can reauthorize the
timeframe on this to allow us to finally get this water to the
people who need it in such desperate fashion.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Johnson.
Senator Smith.
STATEMENT OF HON. GORDON SMITH, U.S. SENATOR
FROM OREGON
Senator Smith. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
I appreciate you holding this hearing today on several
bills. One of the bills is S. 2502. I appreciate the
administration's support of the bill. It's legislation that
I've sponsored with my colleague, Senator Wyden. It will
provide a win-win for the environment, and for farmers and
ranchers who receive their irrigation water from the North Unit
Irrigation District in central Oregon.
Companion legislation introduced in the House by
Congressman Greg Walden has also been reported out of the House
Resources Committee. I'd like to put in the record the balance
of my statement, and also ask that there be included the
testimony of Richard Macy regarding this bill, S. 2502. It
explains it in full and will help complement the record of this
hearing.
[The prepared statements of Senator Smith and Mr. Macy
follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Gordon H. Smith, U.S. Senator From Oregon,
on S. 2502
Madam Chairman, I appreciate your holding this legislative hearing
today on several bills pending before the subcommittee. One of the
bills, S. 2502, is legislation I have sponsored that will provide a
win-win for the environment and for the farmers and ranchers who
receive their irrigation water from the North Unit Irrigation District
in central Oregon. My colleague, Senator Ron Wyden, joins me in
cosponsoring this bill. Companion legislation, introduced in the House
by Congressman Greg Walden, has been reported out of the House
Resources Committee. I would like to submit, for the record, written
testimony from Richard Macy, the chairman of the North Unit Irrigation
District.
This legislation represents an opportunity to benefit nearly nine
hundred farm and ranch families, as well as the fish and wildlife
resources of the Deschutes and Crooked Rivers. It will do so by
removing a limitation in North Unit's federal water contract with the
Bureau of Reclamation. This limitation prevents the District and its
patrons from participating in a conserved water project pursuant to the
laws of the State of Oregon.
Removing this contract restriction will enable North Unit to
conserve its water supplies further through the implementation of
conserved water projects. In order to comply with state law, the
District would return a specific percentage of the ``conserved'' water
back to the Deschutes River permanently as instream flows for fish,
wildlife, or other purposes. A related change would enable the District
to use Deschutes Project water on acreage in its service area that is
currently irrigated with Crooked River water. The savings from these
two changes could ultimately allow the District to reduce its reliance
on its privately developed Crooked River supplies.
Located in central Oregon's Deschutes Basin, the farm and ranch
families of the North Unit Irrigation District are the embodiment of
the federal Reclamation program. Working small and medium parcels of
land, they raise grass seed, carrot seed, and alfalfa hay, as well as
cattle, sheep, and horses. The overriding limitation to their ability
to compete successfully in the International marketplace is a shortage
or water. For these families, conservation is the most efficient means
to alleviate their shortage and succeed in the market.
After self-financing over eight million dollars in canal lining and
other measures to increase the efficiency of their limited water
supplies, North Unit would like to participate in a state water
conservation program. Unfortunately, the District's federal contract
prevents it from doing so. This point has been confirmed to me by
officials with the Bureau of Reclamation, an agency of the Department
of the Interior. Therefore, North Unit's contract must be amended.
Since Congress actually legislatively executed the District's contract
in a 1954 statute, it is Congress, and not the Department of the
Interior, that must remove this contract restriction.
These targeted contract changes are specific to the North Unit
Irrigation District's contract. For the landowners served by the
District, these changes will enable them to use their water resources
more efficiently, maintain their competitiveness in the market, and
benefit the fish and wildlife resources of both the Deschutes and
Crooked Rivers. Our efforts are supported by the Oregon Water Resources
Department, which has jurisdiction over state water rights issues.
I look forward to hearing from the witnesses here today. I also
look forward to working with the Chairman to enact S. 2502 in the near
future.
______
Prepared Statement of Richard Macy, Chairman, North Unit Irrigation
District, Madras, OR, on S. 2502
introduction
Madam Chairwoman, Senator Smith, Senator Wyden, and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for scheduling today's hearing on S. 2502, the
North Unit Irrigation District Act of 2006. I am pleased to submit this
written testimony in support of this legislation, and I respectfully
request it be included in the hearing record.
The enactment of S. 2502 will benefit nearly 900 farm and ranch
families in our District, as well as the fish and wildlife resources of
the Deschutes and Crooked Rivers. The legislation will provide these
benefits by amending North Unit's amendatory repayment contract with
the United States. The contract prevents the District from
participating in conserved water projects pursuant to Oregon State law
and further prevents the District from providing Deschutes Project
water to a limited amount of land within the present District boundary.
Our contract, which has served North Unit and the United States
relatively well for fifty years, today has the unintended effect of
restricting the District's ability to conserve water and reduce its
reliance on the Crooked River.
Background and History
Located in Oregon's Deschutes Basin, the North Unit Irrigation
District lies southeast of Mt. Hood. It is east of the Deschutes River
and north of the Crooked River, and surrounds the cities of Madras,
Culver, and Metolius. The District was first established in 1916 as the
Jefferson Water Conservancy District, and later became the North Unit
Irrigation District. Like other irrigation districts in Central Oregon,
North Unit was formed to address the serious water shortages
confronting individual farmers and ranchers around the turn of the
century.
North Unit receives its irrigation water from the Deschutes River
(through storage facilities) and Crooked Rivers (through diversion
facilities). This water is conveyed through federal facilities that
comprise part of the Deschutes Project. The District has an amendatory
repayment contract with the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) for its
Deschutes Project supplies. Based upon its 1913 Deschutes River water
rights, the District is entitled to approximately 406,000 acre-feet of
water, when such water is available. In 1955, the District obtained
Crooked River water rights to supplement those acres irrigated under
the District's Deschutes River water right. In 1968, the District
developed additional water rights to irrigate certain lands, referred
to as the Crooked River lands. The Crooked River lands are covered by
State of Oregon Water Right Certificates (Certificate Nos. 72283 and
72284). With these two Crooked River water rights, the District is
entitled to a 200 cubic feet per second (cfs) right during the
irrigation season; in the past decade, the District has annually
diverted an average of 23,000 acre-feet from the Crooked River.
Despite these water rights and supplemental supplies, the
District's water shortage continues to be a problem for the 900 farmers
and ranchers who irrigate approximately 59,000 acres. Roughly 9,000
acres of these lands are irrigated primarily with our Crooked River
supplies. Since the District's formation nearly a century ago, local
farmers and ranchers have shifted from primarily dry land wheat to
irrigated alfalfa hay, carrot seed, garlic seed, and grass seed. They
also raise cattle, sheep, horses, and other livestock. Because of
significant conveyance losses, due to a 26-mile long section of the
main canal that passes through porous, volcanic soils, local farmers
and ranchers rely on less than 2 acre-feet of water per acre. This
amount of water is inadequate for agricultural production in today's
competitive international markets. For North Unit, conservation is the
most efficient means to alleviate this shortage so our farmers and
ranchers can succeed in the market.
Congressional Authorization
In the mid-1950s, Reclamation and North Unit renegotiated North
Unit's repayment contract. In 1954, Congress authorized Reclamation to
execute the contract, and more importantly, Congress actually approved
the contract, along with an authorization for the construction of the
Haystack Dam and regulating reservoir (Act of August 10, 1954, ch. 663,
68 Stat. 679). For nearly 50 years, the contract served the United
States and the District relatively well.
Now, after self-financing over $8 million in canal lining and other
conservation measures, the District would like to participate in a
State of Oregon publicly cost-shared, conserved water project.
Unfortunately, North Unit's contract with the United States prevents it
from doing so, because it does not allow the District to dedicate a
portion of the savings to instream use, which is a requirement of State
law. Importantly, the underlying authorization for the federal
Deschutes Project also prevents the District from complying with State
law. This point was confirmed in a January 11, 2006 letter from
Reclamation's Pacific Northwest Regional Director, J. William McDonald,
to Senator Gordon Smith, Senator Ron Wyden, and Congressman Greg
Walden.
Accordingly, North Unit's contract must be amended. Because
Congress actually authorized the District's contract, however, Congress
must amend our contract to remove these limitations.
Specific Contract Amendments
S. 2502 proposes several amendments to North Unit's contract.
First, it authorizes the District to comply with Oregon law with regard
to conserved water projects authorized by State statute. Under Oregon's
conserved water statute, an irrigation district that participates in a
conserved water project is required to dedicate a minimum of 25 percent
of its ``saved'' water to instream purposes, such as fish and wildlife.
North Unit must comply with these requirements, whether it implements
its own conserved water project or leases conserved water from another
district to serve its existing lands.
Reclamation has stated that North Unit's contract, and the
underlying authorization for the Deschutes Project, do not authorize
the District to dedicate water to instream flow purposes--even for the
purpose of complying with State law governing conserved water projects.
A specific amendment to the District's contract to authorize the
District to dedicate water to instream flow purposes as required by a
State conserved water project will remove this limitation.
We understand it may appear easier to authorize Reclamation to
renegotiate North Unit's contract. Unfortunately, this will not solve
our problem or that of the United States because it will not address
the restriction in the underlying authorization for the Deschutes
Project. North Unit and the United States need legislation directly
authorizing the District to place water instream in conjunction with a
conserved water project consistent with the requirements of Oregon law.
This will enable the District to achieve all of the benefits we
anticipate additional conservation will provide our local economy and
environment.
The second amendment will authorize the District to deliver
Deschutes Project water to the Crooked River lands. The District's
present contract allows it to deliver Deschutes Project water to a
maximum of 50,000 acres within the District's boundary. Approximately
9,000 acres of land, known as the Crooked River lands, are irrigated
with Crooked River water supplies through the District's own diversion
facilities, pursuant to existing and valid water rights issued by the
State of Oregon. The legislation will authorize the District to deliver
Deschutes Project water to the Crooked River lands, for a total of
59,000 acres, instead of 50,000 acres. All of the Crooked River lands
are within the District's existing boundary, have been irrigated for
decades, and have appurtenant water rights issued by the State of
Oregon.
These changes to North Unit's contract will not increase the
District's allocation of Deschutes Project water. For example, if North
Unit were to participate in a State of Oregon conserved water project--
following the passage of this legislation--by replacing open canal with
pipe, and thereby eliminating 10 cfs of ditch loss, North Unit would be
required by State law to leave a minimum of 2.5 cfs of this 10 cfs
savings instream. The remaining 7.5 cfs would then be available for
irrigation. This 7.5 cfs is not a new or additional allocation. It is
water the District is entitled and for which the District is paying,
but it is losing due to open, unlined canals.
An additional benefit of water conservation in this case is energy
conservation. If the District were to deliver this 7.5 cfs of conserved
Deschutes River water to the Crooked River lands (through energy
conserving gravity flow distribution), the District would avoid the
cost of the electricity normally used to pump this same amount of water
up from the Crooked River. In essence, the District seeks to replace
natural flow from the Crooked River that comes with a significant
pumping cost with conserved Deschutes Project water that is available
without the same pumping costs. An additional benefit is that North
Unit's reduced energy consumption would occur during peak usage
periods.
The changes to North Unit's contract only authorize the District to
comply with State instream flow requirements if it chooses to
participate in an Oregon State conserved water project, and to supply
Deschutes Project water to all of its lands including the Crooked River
lands. North Unit will continue to comply with all applicable state and
federal laws, including the Reclamation Reform Act, National
Environmental Policy Act, and Endangered Species Act in its pursuit of
any given conserved water project.
Economic and Environmental Benefits
Amending the District's contract will result in real benefits to
our patrons and the environment. District participation in a State
conserved water project will improve efficiency for local farmers and
ranchers, and lead to a dedication of a portion of the District's
Deschutes Project water for Deschutes River fisheries. With the passage
of this legislation and implementation of a conserved water project,
the District plans to diminish its use of Crooked River water--leaving
more instream for the Crooked River's fisheries resources and
recreation purposes.
These amendments will also benefit the federal government. Under
this legislation, the United States has no financial obligations. More
importantly the legislation will accelerate the District's repayments
to the United States. All of the District's patrons eligible to receive
Deschutes Project water will be charged equally for the capital
repayment portion of North Unit's obligations for the Deschutes
Project. The legislation will also increase the District's annual per
acre charge, accelerating its capital repayment obligation of
approximately $6.6 million.
The District is pleased that S. 2502 is supported by the State of
Oregon's Water Resources Department, Jefferson County Board of
Commissioners, Oregon Farm Bureau, Deschutes River Conservancy, Oregon
Water Resources Congress, Arnold Irrigation District, Central Oregon
Irrigation District, Ochoco Irrigation District, Swalley Irrigation
District, Three Sisters Irrigation District, and Tumalo Irrigation
District.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you. And both your testimony and
that of Mr. Macy will be included as part of the record. Thank
you for participating this afternoon.
A couple questions for you this afternoon, gentlemen.
I appreciate your efforts in explaining in pretty
abbreviated detail a number of these measures, Commissioner
Rinne. Let's start out with S. 1965. This is the Yakima-Tieton
Irrigation District conveyance. In terms of annual cost that
could be saved by Reclamation if we're to enact this
legislation, what are we looking at? What kind of a savings are
anticipated?
Mr. Rinne. Madam Chairwoman, I don't actually have the
actual----
Senator Murkowski. You can give round figures, certainly.
Mr. Rinne. I can get back to you.
Senator Murkowski. OK. That's fine.
And then in the same vein, in terms of any administrative
obligations that might be reduced if this bill was enacted, do
you have that information?
Mr. Rinne. Of what would be reduced?
Senator Murkowski. Right.
Mr. Rinne. Yes. There are several things, Madam Chairwoman,
that I would suggest, right now, the district would have to--
whenever they make any changes, there's always approval through
Reclamation, so it kind of works in both ways. It works to
reduce the Federal burden, but it certainly works in the case
of the district. So if they want to make changes to building or
come in and do things like that, they're going to have to check
in with Reclamation. So it just takes out a layer of that kind
of that administrative duplication which is just not necessary.
And I think the fact that they are paid out--fully paid out at
this time, and all of the construction costs are repaid, and
that was figured in to the bill, it's just a real good deal to
move ahead that way.
Senator Murkowski. Then we'll look for information on the
cost savings.
With regards to S. 2129--this is the Minidoka Project--you
mentioned the title transfer; are there any issues associated
with that title transfer that this committee should be aware
of? Anything that would cause the transfer to be held up in any
way? Anything that we should be aware of?
Mr. Rinne. Not that I'm aware of, Madam Chairwoman. I mean,
there's the normal stuff to work through. I was just trying to
think here. You know there will be, after the title's
transferred, where there's withdrawn land and Muriel Land
Management becomes involved, but those are not--they're not
obstacles and what you just process, it has to go through.
Senator Murkowski. What about any other governmental
entities that may be involved with the transfer; are they in
agreement that this legislation is something that needs to move
forward?
Mr. Rinne. We know of no opposition that would impact that.
Senator Murkowski. OK. Let's move to S. 2470. This is the
A&B Irrigation. You mentioned that the Bureau supports this
with some minor modifications. I guess the first question would
be, why this irrigation--why the A&B Irrigation District is the
only remaining district in the project that's subject to this
acreage limitation?
Mr. Rinne. Why we're just dealing with this district?
Senator Murkowski. Right.
Mr. Rinne. All the other districts in the Minidoka Project
have either--have been relieved of RIA responsibilities. In
other words, they've been fully paid out, they've met the
criteria, and they've had in their contracts--they had the
ability within their contract to do early payout. And under the
Reclamation format, that would have not been in this particular
A&B District's contract. So what has to happen, if you don't
have that, they can't do early payout. So this would just make
an equitable situation. It's the one remaining unit, it's the
Minidoka Project. So on that particular project, the other
one's out, so it allows landowners within that district, should
they choose to, to go ahead and do an early payout.
Senator Murkowski. And with this early payout, landowners
can opt for--does this bring more money to the Treasury?
Mr. Rinne. If you do an early payout, it does. It can
benefit the Treasury, because what would happen is, over time,
according to the contracts, you have interest on top of it. So
it can benefit the Treasury in that regard.
Senator Murkowski. Good. Let's see. I don't really have a
question about Senator Smith's legislation, S. 2502, I wanted
to ask about the status of the--I've been mispronouncing it--
it's Mni Wiconi.
Mr. Peltier. Wiconi.
Senator Murkowski. Mni Wiconi. Senator Johnson, I think you
indicated that the project is about 70 percent complete?
Senator Johnson. That is correct.
Senator Murkowski. That's kind of where we are with it. And
then, if we are to move forward with the extension of the
sunset date, as you have proposed, did I understand correctly
that that doesn't increase the authorized appropriations that
would be needed for the project?
Senator Johnson. At this time, the feeling is it is
adequate at this time to complete the project. So it's our----
Senator Murkowski. Even if we have to bump that date out a
year or two?
Senator Johnson. Yes, particularly if you moved it. And
again, as the Senator said, I guess we can talk and decide
whether it's 2004 over 2013, but if it were to move out a year,
we still feel we would be OK on that. We are not required
authorization to increase the ceiling.
Senator Murkowski. OK. And then the last one, a question
for you. This is H.R. 4204, the American River Pump Station
Project. What's the cost to Reclamation for installing the
temporary pump station there?
Senator Johnson. The total--well, the temporary station--I
may have to go back--but I would tell you every year they're
doing it, we might be around--I think the last time I looked,
maybe it was a--roughly like--as I recall, a couple million
dollars a year. This is on a temporary that we would have as
our operating costs.
Senator Murkowski. And then the permanent pumps then would
be--that project would be complete in 2008?
Senator Johnson. 2008, that's right. It's substantially
underway, and the construction's been going on. I just spoke
with our Regional Director today, and he affirmed again that
it's on schedule.
Senator Murkowski. Good. Good. And then, Mr. Peltier, as it
relates to S. 1812, the Juab County Conjunctive Use Projects,
why do you believe that only one of the five communities
participated in this conjunctive use project or program?
Mr. Peltier. The Central Utah Project was passed in 1992,
and since then, only Salt Lake County has participated in
developing a conjunctive use program. My guess is that the
other counties primarily focus on surface development of
surface water and surface water systems and that eventually
their needs will turn to ground water and conjunctive use
projects. So it's more--I think it's because they're viewed
more as something in the future.
Senator Murkowski. OK. But you believe that Juab County
will need the assistance that's going to be provided by the
bill?
Mr. Peltier. Yes. They are interested in pursuing work in
part because in the early days of the Central Utah Project, it
was envisioned that water from the project would flow toward
them. Over the decades, the view has shifted, so the project is
focusing more on this for industrial water supplies, and we'll
be north to the more urbanized areas.
Senator Murkowski. Do you know what they plan to do with
the assistance then?
Mr. Peltier. I'm sorry.
Senator Murkowski. Do you know what they plan to do with
the assistance?
Mr. Peltier. No, I don't know the specific project, but
development of a conjunctive use project would allow them to
operate and manage their existing surface water supplies in
conjunction with the more developed and more managed ground
water system.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you. I appreciate it.
Senator Johnson, if you had questions--and Senator Craig,
would like to make a comment on your legislation?
Senator Johnson. Thank you. Well, I do have some questions,
if Senator Craig wants to make a----
Senator Craig. No, go ahead.
Senator Johnson. OK. All right. Well, for Acting
Commissioner Rinne, relative to S. 1965, your testimony notes
Reclamation and the Yakima-Tieton Irrigation District entered
into a title transfer agreement prior to legislation being
introduced. The question that--and how to ask it, I'm sure
Senator Cantwell would have--do you know how long it took to
negotiate the agreement with YTID, and what types of issues
were addressed and resolved, and has this been the model you'd
suggest for all title transfers?
Mr. Rinne. Senator, I think from that standpoint, we feel
that on the second part--we do think it's a good model or at
least a good example of the way we should work through these
kinds of title transfer agreements. And I think the key reason
I say that is, it has a very clarity in the sense of both back
and forth with the district and Reclamation. So we truly had
kind of agreements done up front before we then moved forward
with the legislation. And I think, in the big picture, it
probably saved some time and possibly saved some costs in that
too.
Senator Johnson. Well, this legislation states the
expectation the title transfer will occur within 1 year of
enactment of the bill; is that a realistic timeframe in your
view?
Mr. Rinne. My understanding is that it is. And I know that
sometimes in other transfer bills--title transfer bills
generally may be difficult because of prerequisites and things
you have to go through. I think that the thought here is that
the front work that's been done on this, and in the memorandum
agreement that's between the district and Reclamation, that
that'll help shorten that. Some of the times, it stretches the
time out, and to meet the compliance--meeting the compliance in
this is not a major issue, I think. In fact, I think there
might be an environmental assessment completed on it. So that's
the type of thing that--sometime you stretch them out.
Senator Johnson. The transfer in 1965 appears to be
relatively straightforward, and I guess the question would be,
has Reclamation transferred title to any facilities which
served multiple entities and different purposes, and are such
transfers currently being negotiated?
Mr. Rinne. From memory, I would tell you that I think we
have probably about 70 title transfers that would have
occurred, and we have had some that do have--we try to go into
ones that make sense and you get through. But many of these
have had a lot of issues with them and a lot of interest and we
continue to work. We continue to think the title transfers
where they make sense to the parties or--I'm not saying it
happens in all cases.
Senator Johnson. I have a couple questions relative to S.
2129 and S. 2470, which I'm sure my colleague from Idaho would
have interest in.
On S. 2129, the bill involves not only the proposed sale of
land and improvements to entities in Idaho, but also directs
the Bureau of Land Management and the National Park Service to
assume responsibility for sizable parcels of land. Were those
agencies parties to the title transfer agreement, and do they
support the addition of land that will add to the agencies'
management responsibilities?
Mr. Rinne. It's my understanding on that, as far as the
title transfer agreement, they would not be part of the one
between us and the district. However, the land then that would
free us up, enable us to make that available, it will go
through the Bureau of Land Management, so we can actually do a
title transfer to those States. I guess it would be Fish and
Game and National Park Service intervention. I think what city
bidding--I think there's three of them that I am aware of that
are involved.
My understanding is that, for example, the city of Gooding,
I think they have a site for an airport that they're interested
in. The State Fish and Game, they're already managing this area
for wildlife purposes, so it's consistent with that. And the
Park Service, I think, is interested in taking the one site,
it's like a 10-acre tract. So the answer then would be, yes, I
think that in most cases, they are.
Senator Johnson. Relative to S. 2129, has there been an
estimate to the fair market value of the properties to be
conveyed under the bill?
Mr. Rinne. If there has, I'm not aware of the value. I can
check back with you, but I do know that fair market value will
be applied, and there's an agreement that it must be--the lands
must be conveyed at fair market value. So that part, I confirm
to you. Whether the estimate had been completed, my sense is
that it maybe has not. And I'm not saying there hasn't been
some work done. We'd be happy to get back to you with that.
Senator Johnson. Relative to S. 2470, which my colleague
has sponsored, let me ask you, the bill establishes that upon
repayment of all construction costs allocated to each parcel of
land within the irrigation district, that those parcels will
not be subject to Reclamation law. Is that result unique to
this bill or is that the typical effect of satisfying the
repayment obligation in the construction cost repayment
contract?
Mr. Rinne. That is typical of the Reclamation Reform Act of
1982. It's when they are fully paid--when the construction
costs are fully paid out, then they're not subject anymore to
section 213 of the Reclamation Reform Act.
Senator Johnson. Let me ask you, relative to my own
legislation and Senator Thune's, S. 3404, 2006 appropriations,
as well as the 2007 budget, provide about $23 million for
continuing construction activity in the Mni Wiconi Project.
Does that $23 million represent the maximum amount of annual
work that Reclamation is capable of in constructing the
remaining features of the project? And if not, what is the
maximum extent of Reclamation's capabilities on an annual
basis?
Mr. Rinne. As I think you're aware, Senator, on that point
you made, it is completed by contractors, on the West River/
Lyman-Jones, and others. Their capability--their current
capability, I'm not sure whether they could do more or not then
about the $23 million. I can tell you from the history, and I'm
sure you're aware of this, the million dollar benefit, that's
fairly consistent with about where they've been over the last
few years. That tells me it's like everything else. When
there's a lot of pipe being put in the ground, if they can get
more contracts in place, possibly there could be more
capability.
Senator Johnson. I guess that's where we are because that's
how large the appropriations have been. There was a time, a
number of years ago, when Mni Wiconi was receiving well over
$30 million in construction each and every year.
Let me ask you, on the 2007 budget, it indicates that the
balance to complete the project in 2008 and beyond is $106
million; is that $106 million still accurate? And if so, it
would appear that Reclamation could complete the project by
2012, assuming that appropriations for construction remains at
about the $23 million level; is there a particular reason why
your testimony suggests 2013?
Mr. Rinne. I think the numbers are still good and accurate.
I think our thinking behind the extension is based on the work
that's remaining to be done, and it would probably be, in some
part, a judgment--somewhat of a judgment call. It would just--
it's going to take that much time to get through.
I think what we're concerned about, Senator, is if it
didn't get done, and officially had to be authorized--excuse
me--extended to 2012, and we were not able to get there, we're
trying to make sure we have just a little cushion, in case, so
we wouldn't have to come back and request another extension. So
I think it's close, and that's our best feeling, just being up
front, that we think we're going to be there.
Senator Johnson. One last question relative to H.R. 4204:
As I understand it, this bill would free Reclamation from
having to install, operate, and take down a temporary pumping
facility each year. Do you have an estimate of how much that
operation costs on an annual basis?
Mr. Rinne. Well, earlier, when I--Senator, when I was
trying to respond to the chairwoman, I said I wasn't exactly
sure. But I remember I was looking at some of the budget
documents, and I may be off on this just a little bit, so I'd
like to confirm this. But I'd say it is in the area of $2
million, but it might be a little more. The reason I say that
is I looked at the operating part of it, and it may be that
it's a little more than that. But it's not--it's not
inexpensive.
Senator Johnson. Madam Chairman, thank you.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
Senator Craig.
STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY E. CRAIG, U.S. SENATOR
FROM IDAHO
Senator Craig. Madam Chairman, thank you very much for
convening the hearing of this Subcommittee.
I'll speak briefly only to S. 2470 and S. 2129. I
appreciate the Committee reviewing both of these bills at one
time. And Senator Johnson has asked a question of S. 2470. In
the 1982 Reclamation Act, when we increased the acreage
limitation to 960 acres in this particular project in south-
central Idaho, the Minidoka Project, for some reason the A&B
Irrigation District didn't fall into it at that time. So what
is obviously sought is equity for this irrigation district.
And what oftentimes happens out there, beyond the original
owners and the original intent, once the construction costs are
paid off--you know, it's happening in your State, and it's
happening in mine--that's consolidation of acreages, and farms
get larger instead of smaller. And these acreage limitations,
prior to you and I coming, got battled out pretty robustly in
the 1960's and into the 1970's, because the limitation was
substantially less, and there was argument that some large
operators were operating on, if you will, subsidized Federal
water. Those differences have been worked out.
This is simply to bring equity to that irrigation district,
as it is elsewhere across the Minidoka Project. It is not
precedence setting, and the commissioner responded to that, as
I understand it, appropriately to what the law is currently.
We're just asking that these members of this particular
district have the same advantage. And we also understand there
may be the dotting of I's and crossing of T's. We'll work
closely with the bill to make sure all of that happens
appropriately.
The other one is an interesting anomaly in my State, a
World War II anomaly, and one that we look back on not with
fond memory, and that was the internment of both Japanese and
Japanese-Americans. During World War II, some of those
locations were detention centers. One of these that housed some
13,500 Japanese and Japanese-Americans is in that same area,
and it was called the Minidoka Internment Camp. The bill will
convey a small acreage to, I understand, the National Park
Service so that this can be recognized and sustained as part of
our national history.
That's what the intent of this is. It makes economic sense
to be a law, and I think it's important to the local
communities involved. So S. 2129 is a conveyance of--do we know
the total acreage involved?
Senator Johnson. I think it's around 10 or less acres.
Senator Craig. I think it's 10 or less acres, something
around that nature. And again, we'll work cooperatively
obviously with the Bureau to make sure that the appropriate
language--that if there's some difference in the language, it
is worked out, so that we can move these pieces of legislation.
Madam Chairman, thank you for doing this.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
Senator Craig. 10.18 acres. Thank you.
Senator Murkowski. Is that right on?
Senator Craig. Yes.
Senator Murkowski. OK, any further questions of our
witnesses on the first group? With that, we thank you very much
and appreciate your testimony.
We'll call forward our second group of witnesses. We have
Mr. Rick Dieker, the secretary-manager of the Yakima-Tieton
Irrigation District in Yakima, WA, and Mr. Einar Maisch, the
director of strategic affairs, Placer County Water Agency, out
of Auburn, CA.
Welcome, gentlemen, to the subcommittee. We appreciate you
traveling all the way from the West Coast to join us on this
soggy East Coast. You could use a little bit of the water we've
got here back on the coast.
Gentlemen, you've heard the statements from our two
previous witnesses on the questions. We'd be delighted to
entertain your statements.
Mr. Dieker, if you want to proceed.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD DIEKER, SECRETARY-MANAGER, YAKIMA-TIETON
IRRIGATION DISTRICT
[Inaudible. Prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Richard Dieker, Secretary-Manager, Yakima-Tieton
Irrigation District, on S. 1965
Good afternoon, my name is Richard Dieker. I am the Secretary-
Manager of the Yakima-Tieton Irrigation District. I am here today on
behalf of the Board of Directors and water users of the Yakima-Tieton
Irrigation District to provide background and information in support of
S. 1965, legislation to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
convey certain lands and buildings of the Yakima Project in Washington
to the Yakima-Tieton Irrigation District. We strongly support this
legislation and thank the committee for considering it today.
yakima-tieton irrigation district
The District is located in Central Washington and is part of the
Yakima Project. The District has a long history of involvement with the
United States dating back to 1906 when construction began on project
facilities. The delivery of irrigation water began in 1910. The
District assumed operation and maintenance of delivery facilities in
1947 and were the first reclamation project to repay our construction
indebtedness to the United States in that year. In 1988 after
completion of a rehabilitation and betterment project, the District
again repaid its obligations to the United States. The District
delivers water to approximately 28,000 acres.
s. 1965, the yakima-tieton irrigation district conveyance act of 2005
The act would authorize the Secretary of Interior to convey title
of federally owned lands and buildings to the Yakima-Tieton Irrigation
District. The title would be conveyed to approximately nine acres of
land, two houses and associated structures, the headquarters office
building and a warehouse. The houses and property are used to
accommodate district employees who maintain and inspect delivery
facilities. The headquarters office building is the base of operation
for the District. On November 15, 2005 the House of Representatives
approved H.R. 1564 containing the same language as S. 1965. This is a
great example of the bipartisan support for this bill.
title transfer process
It has been the desire of the District to obtain title to buildings
and lands outlined in the legislation and owned by the United States
for many years. In 1995 when the Bureau of Reclamation policy framework
for title transfer began the District began to investigate the process
to complete title transfer. The Bureau and the District worked
cooperatively and successfully to address all of the elements necessary
to bring this legislation forward. We then worked with Senator Cantwell
to introduce the legislation.
benefits of this title transfer
The title transfer will give the District more local control of
buildings which were constructed for our use. There will be one less
administrative layer caused by the United States ownership when changes
or improvements of the property and buildings are needed. The Bureau of
Reclamation will no longer need to complete periodic facility reviews
of these transferred buildings and properties. They can direct
personnel to more important activities.
conclusion
In conclusion, I would like to thank several people who have made
this transfer possible. Within the Bureau of Reclamation I would like
to thank former Commissioner Keys for his support as Commissioner and
also when he was Regional Director in the Pacific Northwest Region.
Next is Mike Reif of the Pacific Northwest Regional Office and Keith
Angwin from the Upper Columbia Area Office who worked hard to make the
process successful. Finally, I would like to thank and acknowledge
Senator Cantwell and her staff who worked closely with us to move this
legislation forward.
In summary, S. 1965 is a good bill, a good title transfer and shows
a cooperative process of benefit to both Reclamation and the District.
I urge the Committee to move this legislation forward so that the title
transfer process for the District can be completed.
This concludes my testimony; I would be pleased to answer any
questions.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Dieker.
Mr. Maisch.
STATEMENT OF EINAR L. MAISCH, DIRECTOR OF STRATEGIC AFFAIRS,
PLACER COUNTY WATER AGENCY
[Inaudible. Prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Einar L. Maisch, Director of Strategic Affairs,
Placer County Water Agency, on H.R. 4204
introduction
Chairman Domenici and members of the committee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today in strong support of H.R. 4204, a Bill to
Direct the Secretary of the Interior to transfer ownership of the
American River Pump Station Project to the Placer County Water Agency
upon completion of the project's construction.
My name is Einar Maisch and I am the Director of Strategic Affairs
for the Placer County Water Agency, located in Auburn, California.
Placer County ranks as one of the fastest growing counties in
California and currently the Agency provides water delivery and power
generation to more than 150,000 customers covering an area from the
Sacramento Valley to Lake Tahoe.
It is a privilege to be here before you today to support this
transfer legislation and highlight the positive partnership we have
enjoyed with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation on this project. The Agency
and the USBR Regional Office in northern California have worked very
closely over the years on this project and we both enthusiastically
support the facilities transfer.
While many parties brought us here, I would like to single out my
Board of Directors, Chairman Alex Ferreira, and Directors Pauline
Roccucci, Mike Lee, Lowell Jarvis and Otis Wollan for the leadership
and vision they have consistently shown on this issue; the
indefatigable spirit and drive of our General Manager David Breninger;
and the hard work of my staff. I also wish to commend Kirk Rodgers, Mid
Pacific Regional Director, Mike Finnegan Central California Area
Manager, and their respective teams within the USBR for their
cooperation and strong support. They are real pros and have been a
pleasure to work with on this project.
And on behalf of our Agency and customers, I would like to share
our gratitude with our Congressman, John Doolittle, for introducing
this legislation and to Senator Diane Feinstein for her continued
support for this project and regional water solutions in northern
California. The Agency and our customers are fortunate indeed to have
such representation here in Washington, DC.
There are three primary points I wish to make in urging your
support for this transfer:
1. All parties are in agreement. Reclamation is not
interested in being in the O&M business for a facility that
only serves one agency and we feel we can better operate the
facility to deliver a reliable water supply to our customers.
The project meets Reclamation's framework for the transfer of
title to facilities that can be more effectively and
efficiently managed by non-federal entities;
2. Congressional consistency. This transfer is consistent
with actions the Congress has taken historically in such
situations--with the authorization of transfers such as Sugar
Pine Dam (Foresthill PUD) and Sly Park Reservoir (El Dorado
Irrigation District).
3. Completes a Four Decade Long Cycle. The Placer County
Water Agency (Agency) constructed a pump station on the
American River at Auburn in 1966 to access its Middle Fork
Project water rights. When Congress authorized and appropriated
funds for the construction of the Auburn Dam, Reclamation
acquired the Agency's pump station property and removed the
pump station. In return Reclamation agreed to maintain
responsibility to provide water to the Agency until such time
as the Auburn Dam was completed--pursuant to the 1972 Land
Purchase Contract.
A temporary pump station was installed in 1977 by Reclamation to
meet the Agency water supply needs and then annually since 1990 as
Agency water supply demands increased. This temporary fix proved to be
very costly: it is incapable of meeting the Agency's needs; and, as all
parties have agreed, it does not satisfy Reclamation's responsibilities
under the 1972 Land Purchase Contract.
Working in collaboration, Reclamation and the Agency designed a
permanent pump station to meet the Agency's needs and executed Contract
No. 02-LC-20-7790 that details the facilities to be constructed, cost
sharing and ownership. The project has successfully completed all
environmental review requirements and is currently under construction.
Under this contract Reclamation is obligated to pay the costs of
replacing the original pump station with a 100 cfs capacity facility as
compensation for the land it acquired in 1972 and the pump station the
federal government first removed, and the Agency is obligated to pay
the cost of any over-sizing above 100 cfs.
Passage of H.R. 4204 will enable Reclamation to transfer the
American River Pump Station to the Placer County Water Agency, upon
completion and under the terms of Contract No. 02-LC-20-7790.
background
Placer County Water Agency
Placer County Water Agency (Agency) was created by an act of the
California State Legislature in 1957. The boundaries of the Agency are
coterminous with the County of Placer, an area of approximately 1500
square miles that extends roughly along the I-80 corridor from
Roseville to Lake Tahoe. The Agency is governed by an independently
elected five member Board of Directors. The Agency is functionally
divided into three business units; those being Agency Wide; Power
System and Water System.
The American River Pump Station
In 1972, under threat of condemnation, the Agency entered into a
Land Purchase Contract with the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) to
convey its property and pump station on the American River at Auburn to
Reclamation to make way for the construction of the Auburn Dam. This
contract provides that Reclamation will provide water to the Agency
through a temporary pump station, when needed, at a rate of 50 cfs and
25,000 acre-feet per year until the Auburn Dam is completed.
Construction work on the Auburn Dam was halted in 1975 and never
restarted.
The first time that the Agency needed to access its MFP water
rights was during the drought of 1977. Previously, and for several
years after, the Agency was able to acquire sufficient water to meet
its customers needs from its PG&E contracts for Yuba/Bear River water.
By 1990 growth within the Agency's service area was using nearly all of
the available PG&E water and the Agency began to request that
Reclamation install pumps annually to allow the Agency to access its
MFP water rights.
Reclamation used the original pumps installed by the Agency in 1966
for their temporary pump station; by constructing a channel through a
sand bar to an inlet screen a few hundred feet upstream of the Auburn
Coffer Dam and Diversion Tunnel. The pumps are only a few feet above
the summer water level and are subject to flooding in the winter, so
they must be removed each fall and cannot be installed again until
April or May.
At first the pumps were only needed during the annual PG&E canal
maintenance period which begins in mid October. But with continued
urban growth the Agency currently operates the pumps at maximum
capacity during the peak summer period. Unfortunately, the maximum
capacity of the temporary pump station is less than 50 cfs (due to
piping restrictions) and the maximum annual usable diversion capacity
is only about 13,000 acre-feet per year (due to the limited time of the
year that the pumps are operable) which are less than required under
the Land Purchase Contract.
Early in the 1990's the Agency and Reclamation staff agreed that
the current temporary pumping arrangement was unsatisfactory for both
parties and began work on the design and environmental elements of a
new permanent pump station.
Excerpts from Reclamation's Record of Decision for the project
``The Project is the subject of the Final Environmental
Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/EIR),
American River Pump Station Project, dated July 2002, developed
in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA), and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The FEIS/EIR was prepared jointly by Reclamation
(Reclamation) and the Placer County Water Agency (PCWA). The
purpose of the Project is threefold: (1) to provide facilities
to allow PCWA to convey its Middle Fork Project (MFP) water
entitlement to the Auburn Ravine Tunnel to meet demands within
its service area; (2) to eliminate the safety issue associated
with the Auburn Dam bypass tunnel; and (3) to allow for all
pre-construction beneficial uses of water in what is now the
dewatered river channel, including recreation, navigation, and
other instream beneficial uses.
Prior to the onset of construction, Reclamation and PCWA
would approve and execute Contract No. 02-LC-20-7790, entitled
``Contract Between the United States and Placer County Water
Agency Related to American River Pumping Plant and Associated
Facilities'' (Contract).
Reclamation would construct the Project facilities, and
pursuant to the Contract, transfer the ownership of the pump
station and appurtenances to PCWA for operation and
maintenance.
The decision is to implement the Proposed Project, identified
and discussed in the FEIS/EIR as the Mid-Channel Diversion
Alternative.''
Contract No. 02-LC-20-7790
Contract No. 02-LC-20-7790 (2003 contract) was executed by
Reclamation on September 11, 2003 after adoption of the Record of
Decision for the project. The 2003 contract provides in relevant parts:
``Project Facilities to be Constructed
3. (a) Project facilities to be constructed pursuant to this
Contract shall enable the AGENCY to divert water from the
American River near Auburn, California into its Auburn Ravine
Tunnel on a year-round basis. Project facilities shall . . .
include, but not be limited to: A screened intake structure of
sufficient size to allow diversion of not less than 225 cubic
feet per second (``cfs'') of water from the American River; A
year-round pipeline of sufficient capacity to convey to the
Pump Station such water as is diverted from the intake; A
pumping station of sufficient capacity to allow future increase
of diversions to an instantaneous rate of 225 cfs; Pumps of
sufficient capacity to allow instantaneous diversion of 100 cfs
of water from the American River, with adequate backup
electrical power and pumping facilities as may be dictated by
prudent design guidelines; A discharge pipe capable of
delivering up to 100 cfs from the Pump Station into the Auburn
Ravine Tunnel; All-weather roads sufficient to enable the
AGENCY to conduct all necessary operation, maintenance, repair
and reconstruction of the Project and the Auburn Ravine Tunnel.
Such roads, adjacent slopes and associated surface water runoff
control facilities shall be designed and constructed so that
the roads remain unobstructed.
Project Costs
4. (a) Except where costs are made the responsibility of the
AGENCY under the express terms of this contract, the UNITED
STATES shall be responsible for the reasonable and necessary
costs associated with the Project, including: The design of the
Project facilities; The preparation of all necessary
environmental documentation and implementation and monitoring
of any necessary mitigation measures; All required
construction, management, construction inspection and
construction engineering services; All on site grading, road
construction, stabilization work, runoff control, restoration
and re-vegetation work; Required river gradient control
structures; All safety facilities; and The cost of the
diversion structure, conveyance pipeline to the Pump Station,
the Pumps, the Pump Station and the discharge pipeline to the
Auburn Ravine Tunnel, all sized for 100 cfs capacity. The
AGENCY shall pay the incremental costs of materials and
construction necessary to enable the facilities to deliver
water at rates in excess of 100 cfs. Such payments by the
AGENCY shall be made in advance of construction of any such
facilities by the UNITED STATES.
Operations and Maintenance
7. (a) Upon approval by the AGENCY of the Notice of
Completion of Construction issued by the UNITED STATES, the
AGENCY, without expense to the UNITED STATES, shall care for,
operate, and maintain the Project facilities.
Grant of Real Property Interest
8. Within 12 months of the AGENCY's approval of the UNITED
STATES' Notice of Completion of Construction of the Project
facilities, or as soon thereafter as practicable, the UNITED
STATES shall grant to AGENCY title to the Project facilities,
and a recordable indefeasible easement, easements, or other
interest in lands, in a form acceptable to the County of
Placer, sufficient to provide AGENCY with permanent, year-round
access to all Project facilities and to the Auburn Ravine
Tunnel, for maintenance, operation, enlargement, repair,
reconstruction, and, if necessary for continued reliable
operation, for relocation of Project facilities, and for
electrical power lines necessary to operate and maintain the
Project. Said real property interests shall include sufficient
rights to allow the AGENCY access to the river for future
construction and operation of facilities to divert water
pursuant to its appropriative rights under its Middle Fork
Project.''
Following the completion of the final EIR/EIS, issuance of a
Biological Opinion of no jeopardy, adoption of the ROD, execution of
the 2003 contract and commencement of construction, Reclamation
determined that Congressional authorization would be required in order
for it to properly affect the transfer of the pump station and
easements to the Agency.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$ in millions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction Costs
Reclamation share (per the 2003 contract)............ 37.42
PCWA oversizing...................................... 12.80
------------------
Total estimated construction cost................ 49.60
------------------
PCWA contributed funds............................... 17.00
PCWA oversizing...................................... 12.80
------------------
Total PCWA cost for construction................. 29.80
------------------
Total Reclamation cost for construction...... 20.42
==================
------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Bureau of Reclamation,
Mid-Pacific Regional Office,
Sacramento, CA, September 11, 2006.
Mr. David A. Breninger,
Placer County Water Agency, Auburn, CA.
Subject: Transmittal of Executed Contract No. 02-LC-20-7790, Contract
Between the United States and Placer County Water Agency (Agency)
Related to American River Pumping Plant and Associated Facilities
Dear Mr. Breninger: Enclosed is an executed original of the
contract between the Agency and Bureau of Reclamation, Contract Number
02-LC-20-7790, for the construction and operation of the American River
Pumping Plant. We appreciate all the time and effort your Agency has
put into working out this contract. We also appreciate your Agency's
willingness to agree in Article 9(a) of the contract to assume all
responsibility--for any damage caused by any previous disturbance to
the American River Canyon related to the construction of Auburn Dam.
We also wish to remind the Agency that this contract does not
convey to Reclamation any responsibility for additional work outside
that specifically related to construction of the pumping facility, or
for making any payment for such work. Specifically, Reclamation will
not be responsible for the construction, maintenance, operation, or for
any costs associated with the proposed equestrian/pedestrian bridge or
alternative trail system across the American River at the Auburn Dam
site. Additionally, Reclamation will not be responsible for any costs
associated with any item assigned to the Agency in the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program/Environmental Compliance Plan as
approved in the Agency's Resolution No. 02-25.
If you have any questions, please contact Rick Johnson at 916-989-
7181 (TDD 989-7285). Sincerely,
Sincerely,
Kirk C. Rodgers,
Regional Director.
[Enclosure.]
______
Contract No. 02-LC-20-7790
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
central valley project, california
Contract Between the United States and Placer County Water Agency
Related to American River Pumping Plant and Associated
Facilities
THIS CONTRACT, made this 11th day of September, 2003, in pursuance
generally of the Act of June 17, 1902 (32 Stat. 388), and acts
amendatory or supplementary thereto, including, but not limited to, the
acts of August 26, 1937 (50 Stat. 844), as amended and supplemented,
August 4, 1939 (53 Stat. 1187), as amended and supplemented, all
collectively hereinafter referred to as the Federal Reclamation law,
between THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, hereinafter referred to as the
UNITED STATES, and Placer County Water Agency, hereinafter referred to
as the AGENCY, a political subdivision of the State of California, duly
organized, existing and acting pursuant to the laws thereof, including,
but not limited to, the Placer County Water Agency Act; with its
principal place of business in Auburn, California;
WITNESSETH, That:
explanatory recitals
WHEREAS, the UNITED STATES has constructed and is operating the
Central Valley Project, California for diversion, storage, carriage,
distribution and beneficial use, for flood control, irrigation,
municipal, domestic, industrial, fish and wildlife mitigation,
protection and restoration, generation and distribution of electric
energy, salinity control, navigation and other beneficial uses, of
waters of the Sacramento River, the American River, the Trinity River,
and the San Joaquin River and their tributaries; and
WHEREAS, in 1963, the AGENCY obtained the right to divert certain
flows of the American River pursuant to water right permits for the
AGENCY's Middle Fork Project, which permits were issued by the
California State Water Rights Board, which has been succeeded by the
State Water Resources Control Board; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to those rights, the AGENCY secured land and
constructed diversion, year-round pumping and conveyance facilities in
the American River canyon near Auburn, California for the purposes of
diverting water under its permits and conveying it to and through the
Auburn Ravine Tunnel, also known as the Auburn Tunnel or Ophir Tunnel,
for use within the AGENCY's Service Area; and
WHEREAS, in 1965, the UNITED STATES authorized a water project
known as the Auburn-Folsom South Unit (``Auburn Dam''), and, in
furtherance of said project, desired to acquire the land upon which the
AGENCY's pumps and conveyance facilities were located; and
WHEREAS, the UNITED STATES has modified the American River canyon
to construct the Auburn-Folsom South Unit (``Auburn Dam''), and some of
those modifications have created unstable land features; and
WHEREAS, under threat of condemnation by the UNITED STATES, the
AGENCY entered into a Land Purchase Contract (14-06-859-308) with the
UNITED STATES, transferring the AGENCY's land and facilities in the
American River canyon to the UNITED STATES, and as partial
consideration for the taking of this property, the UNITED STATES agreed
to provide a water supply to the AGENCY until the Auburn Dam was
completed; and
WHEREAS, at the time the Land Purchase Contract was negotiated and
executed, the Auburn Dam project, as then designed, was expected to
enable the AGENCY to obtain water from the American River by gravity
flow through the Auburn Ravine Tunnel, without the necessity of
pumping; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Land Purchase Contract (14-06-859-308A),
UNITED STATES has, for many years, annually installed a seasonal
pumping station and conveyance facilities to enable the AGENCY to pump
water from the American River into the Auburn Ravine Tunnel during
summer months, and
WHEREAS, the AGENCY has determined that it now requires year-round
pumping to meet its water supply obligations to its customers; and
WHEREAS, the parties have recognized that yearly installation of
seasonal pumps and facilities no longer satisfies the UNITED STATES'
obligation under the Land Purchase Contract; and
WHEREAS, the parties have recognized that yearly installation of
seasonal pumps and facilities is inefficient and costly to the UNITED
STATES; and
WHEREAS, the parties now propose to construct a year-round pumping
facility which fully satisfies the UNITED STATES' obligations under the
Land Purchase Agreement, to replace the AGENCY's original pumping
facility; and
WHEREAS, the parties now desire to enter into a new contract, which
will supersede the Land Purchase Agreement regarding issues of cost-
sharing, operations and maintenance of the new pump station to deliver
50 cfs which is the obligation of The UNITED STATES, and up to a total
of 100 cfs, the remainder of which would be the responsibility of the
AGENCY.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual and dependent
covenants herein contained, it is hereby mutually agreed by the parties
hereto as follows:
Definitions
1. When used herein, unless otherwise distinctly expressed or
manifestly incompatible with the intent hereof, the term:
(a) ``Auburn Ravine Tunnel'' shall mean that existing 12-foot
diameter tunnel through the ridge separating Auburn, California from
the American River and used to convey water from the American River to
the tunnel's outlet in Auburn Ravine. The Auburn Ravine Tunnel is also
referred to from time to time as the Ophir Tunnel or Auburn Tunnel.
(b) ``Calendar Year'' shall mean the period January 1 through
December 31, both dates inclusive;
(c) ``Land Purchase Contract'' shall mean the agreement entered
into between the UNITED STATES and the AGENCY, identified as Contract
No. 14-06-859-308 and dated July 25, 1972, as amended, modified and
supplemented by the Supplemental Agreement to Land Purchase Contract,
identified as Contract No. 14-06-859-308a and dated May 25, 1979;
(d) ``Project'' shall mean the installation of a permanent
diversion intake, pumping station, electric facilities, electric
transmission lines, water conveyance facilities, access roads, and all
ancillary facilities necessary to allow the AGENCY to divert the water
of the American River to the Auburn Ravine Tunnel, on a year-round
basis, until the Auburn Dam is completed;
(e) ``Service Area'' shall mean the area to which the AGENCY is
entitled to deliver its water rights water from the American River for
beneficial use;
(f) ``Secretary'' or ``Contracting Officer'' shall mean the
Secretary of the 98 UNITED STATES Department of the Interior or her
duly authorized representative;
(g) ``Year'' shall mean the period from and including March 1 of
each too Calendar Year through the last day of February of the
following Calendar Year.
Organization of Contract
2. Upon execution of this Contract by both parties, and until the
AGENCY approves a Notice of Completion of Construction of the Project
facilities, Articles 1 and 2 and Sections A and D shall apply. Upon
approval by the Agency of a Notice of Completion of Construction issued
by the UNITED STATES and until the AGENCY accepts title to the Project
facilities and the related real property interests, Section A shall no
longer be applicable; instead, Articles 1 and 2 and Sections B and D
shall apply. Upon transfer of title to the Project facilities and the
related real property interests to the AGENCY and thereafter, Section B
shall no longer apply: instead, Articles 1 and 2 and Sections C and D
shall apply for the remaining life of this contract
section a. construction of project facilities
Upon execution of this contract by both parties and until such time
as the AGENCY has approved a Notice of Completion of Construction of
the Project facilities, the following provisions shall apply:
Project Facilities to be Constructed
3. (a) Project facilities to be constructed pursuant to this
Contract shall enable the AGENCY to divert water from the American
River near Auburn, California into its Auburn Ravine Tunnel on a year-
round basis. Project facilities shall be defined by the drawings and
technical specifications for the construction of the Placer County
Water Agency American River Pump Station (``Pump Station''), once they
are approved by the parties, and shall include, but not be limited to:
(1) A screened intake structure of sufficient size to allow
diversion of not less than 225 cubic feet per second (``cfs'')
of water from the American River;
(2) A year-round pipeline of sufficient capacity to convey to
the Pump Station such water as is diverted from the intake;
(3) A pumping station of sufficient capacity to allow future
increase of diversions to an instantaneous rate of 225 cfs;
(4) Pumps of sufficient capacity to allow instantaneous
diversion of 100 cfs of water from the American River, with
adequate backup electrical power and pumping facilities as may
be dictated by prudent design guidelines.
(5) A discharge pipe capable of delivering up to 100 cfs from
the Pump Station into the Auburn Ravine Tunnel;
(6) All-weather roads sufficient to enable the AGENCY to
conduct all necessary operation, maintenance, repair and
reconstruction of the Project and the Auburn Ravine Tunnel.
Such roads, adjacent slopes and associated surface water runoff
control facilities shall be designed and constructed so that
the roads remain unobstructed.
(b) All Project facilities shall be designed to meet both parties'
specifications, at a minimum.
(c) (1) The UNITED STATES shall be responsible for construction of
all Project facilities and their proposed locations.
(2) The AGENCY shall review and approve the proposed
locations of all Project facilities and shall approve the
configuration and designs of any Project facilities; and any
submissions, change orders and the Notice of Completion of
Construction issued by the United States for the Project
facilities.
Project Costs
4. (a) Except where costs are made the responsibility of the AGENCY
under the express terms of this contract, the UNITED STATES shall be
responsible for the reasonable and necessary costs associated with the
Project, including:
(1) The design of the Project facilities;
(2) The preparation of all necessary environmental
documentation and implementation and monitoring of any
necessary mitigation measures;
(3) All required construction, management, construction
inspection and construction engineering services;
(4) All on site grading, road construction, stabilization
work, runoff control, restoration and revegetation work;
(5) Required river gradient control structures;
(6) All safety facilities; and
(7) The cost of the diversion structure, conveyance pipeline
to the Pump Station, the Pumps, the Pump Station and the
discharge pipeline to the Auburn Ravine Tunnel, all sized for
100 cfs capacity. The AGENCY shall pay the incremental costs of
materials and construction necessary to enable the facilities
to deliver water at rates in excess of 100 cfs. Such payments
by the AGENCY shall be made in advance of construction of any
such facilities by the UNITED STATES.
(8) The cost of parallel facilities as detailed in Article 5,
herein.
UNITED STATES' Obligation to Continue Water Deliveries
5. Reclamation shall sequence construction of Project facilities
and/or construct parallel temporary facilities as required to continue
American River water deliveries during the period from June 15 through
September 15 and during scheduled PG&E maintenance outage periods.
Notice of Completion
6. Upon substantial completion of construction of all Project
facilities, the UNITED STATES shall issue a Notice of Completion of
Construction. Upon the AGENCY's approval of said Notice, which approval
shall not be unreasonably withheld, Section A of this contract shall no
longer apply.
End of Section A.
section b. operations and maintenance of project facilities
Upon approval by the AGENCY of a Notice of Completion of
Construction of Project facilities issued by the UNITED STATES, and
until the transfer of Project facilities and related property interests
to the AGENCY, the provisions in Section A, ``Construction of Project
Facilities,'' shall no longer be applicable. Instead, provisions of
Articles 1 and 2 and Sections B and D shall apply:
Operations and Maintenance
7. (a) Upon approval by the AGENCY of the Notice of Completion of
Construction issued by the UNITED STATES, the AGENCY, without expense
to the UNITED STATES, shall care for, operate, and maintain the Project
facilities in full compliance with the terms of this contract and
regulations and instructions furnished by the Contracting Officer, and
in such manner that said Project facilities will remain in good and
efficient conditions.
(b) The AGENCY shall promptly make any and all repairs to the
Project facilities being operated by the AGENCY which are necessary for
proper care, operation, and maintenance. In case of neglect or failure
of the AGENCY to make such repairs within 60 days following written
notification, the Contracting Officer may cause the repairs to be made,
and the cost thereof shall be paid by the AGENCY as prescribed by the
Contracting Officer.
(c) No substantial change shall be made by the AGENCY in any of the
Project facilities without first obtaining the written consent of the
Contracting Officer.
(d)(1) The AGENCY agrees to indemnify the UNITED STATES for, and
hold the UNITED STATES and all of its representatives harmless from,
all damages resulting from suits, actions, or claims. of any character
brought on account of any injury to any person or property arising out
of any act, omission, neglect, or misconduct in the manner or method of
performing any construction, care, operation, maintenance, supervision,
examination, inspection, or other duties of the AGENCY required under
this Article 5 regardless of who performs those duties.
(2) Within thirty (30) days of receipt by either party of any claim
for liability arising from actions within the scope of this contract,
the party receiving the claim shall notify the other party of such
claim and provide a copy of the claim to the other party, if it is in
written form. Nothing in this article shall be construed to limit the
right of either party to assert such affirmative defenses and file such
cross complaints as may be appropriate in relation to any claim
affecting the liability of such party.
(e) In the event the AGENCY is found to be operating the Project
facilities in violation of this contract, then upon the election of the
Contracting Officer, the UNITED STATES may take over from the AGENCY
the care, operation, and maintenance of the transferred facilities by
giving written notice to the AGENCY of such election and of the
effective date thereof. Thereafter, during the period of operation by
the UNITED STATES, the AGENCY shall pay to the UNITED STATES annually,
in advance, the cost of operation and maintenance of such facilities as
prescribed in notices from the Contracting Officer to the AGENCY. Such
facilities may be retransferred to the AGENCY in the manner originally
transferred.
Grant of Real Property Interest
8. Within 12 months of the AGENCY's approval of the UNITED STATES'
Notice of Completion of Construction of the Project facilities, or as
soon thereafter as practicable, the UNITED STATES shall grant to AGENCY
title to the Project facilities, and a recordable indefeasible
easement, easements, or other interest in lands, in a form acceptable
to the County of Placer, sufficient to provide AGENCY with permanent,
year-round access to all Project facilities and to the Auburn Ravine
Tunnel, for maintenance, operation, enlargement, repair,
reconstruction, and, if necessary for continued reliable operation, for
relocation of Project facilities, and for electrical power lines
necessary to operate and maintain the Project. Said real property
interests shall include sufficient rights to allow the AGENCY access to
the river for future construction and operation of facilities to divert
water pursuant to its appropriative rights under its Middle Fork
Project, and also to allow diversion and conveyance of a total of 25
cfs. of American River flows to Georgetown Divide Public Utility
District, pursuant to PL 101-514, from the Project intake, diversion,
conveyance and pumping facilities if and when such conveyance is
necessary.
End of Section B.
section c. transfer of project facilities
Upon acceptance by the AGENCY of Title to the Project facilities,
the provisions in Section A. ``Construction of Project Facilities'' and
Section B. ``Operations and Maintenance of Project Facilities,'' shall
no longer be applicable. Instead, the provisions of Articles 1 and 2
and Sections C and D will be effective throughout the remaining life of
this Contract.
Obligations of the Parties Following Transfer of Project Facilities
9. (a) Upon acceptance of title to Project facilities and easements
by the AGENCY, the AGENCY shall have sole responsibility for operation,
maintenance, repair and reconstruction of such Project facilities,
including any damage caused by any previous disturbance to the American
River canyon related to construction of Auburn Dam. The UNITED STATES
shall be relieved of its obligation to provide pumping of water to the
AGENCY as set forth in the Land Purchase Contract.
(b) The UNITED STATES shall cooperate and assist the AGENCY in the
AGENCY's efforts to fully access, divert and utilize its water
entitlements under its water rights.
(c) The UNITED STATES shall retain, beyond the date on which AGENCY
accepts title to Project facilities, all responsibility for ensuring
public safety associated with public access to the lands it acquired or
which were withdrawn for the Auburn Dam project and/or use of the water
within such lands.
Future Projects
10. (a) In the event that the UNITED STATES makes or permits
changes to the course or channel of the American River or to the
American River canyon slopes, features or improvements other than as
provided for in Article 9 above, which change or impair the AGENCY's
ability to divert or pump water from the American River, UNITED STATES
shall assist AGENCY in AGENCY's efforts to modify, construct or adjust,
as necessary and to AGENCY's satisfaction, the Project facilities
constructed pursuant to this Agreement so that the AGENCY shall
continue to have access to American River water in the same amount, and
at the same rate, as it had prior to such changes. Such assistance
shall include any necessary modification to AGENCY's real property
rights granted pursuant to Article 8 herein above, expeditious design
review of proposed facilities, and assistance in obtaining prompt
environmental review and permits as may be needed to avoid or minimize
disruption in AGENCY's water supply.
(b) In the event that, after completion of the Project, the UNITED
STATES transfers title or possession to its lands within the American
River canyon to a third party it shall either require that the
transferee assume the obligations of the UNITED STATES to the AGENCY
under this Agreement, or the UNITED STATES shall retain such
obligations.
(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 9 (a), in the event
that the UNITED STATES constructs a dam and reservoir in the American
River canyon that inundates or otherwise impairs the operation of the
Project facilities, the UNITED STATES shall have the obligation,
without cost to the AGENCY, to relocate, replace or modify the Project
facilities to assure their continued enjoyment and use by the AGENCY.
If a dam is constructed, the AGENCY may salvage any structures or
equipment from Project Facilities without payment to the UNITED STATES.
The UNITED STATES shall cooperate and assist the AGENCY in AGENCY's
efforts to fully access, divert and utilize its water entitlements
under its water rights,
section d. general provisions
Hazardous Material
11. (a) The AGENCY shall comply with all applicable Federal, State,
and local laws and regulations, and Reclamation policies and
instructions, existing or hereafter enacted or promulgated, concerning
any hazardous material that will be used, produced, transported,
stored, or disposed of on or in lands, waters, or facilities owned by
the UNITED STATES or administered by Reclamation.
(b) ``Hazardous material'' means any substance, pollutant or
contaminant listed as hazardous under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended, 43
U.S.C. 1901, et seq., and the regulations promulgated pursuant to
that Act.
(c) To the extent provided by law, the AGENCY may not allow
contamination of lands, waters or facilities owned by the UNITED STATES
or administered by Reclamation by hazardous materials, thermal
pollution, refuse, garbage, sewage effluent, industrial waste,
petroleum products, mine tailings, mineral salts, pesticides (including
but not limited to, the misuse of pesticides), pesticide containers, or
any other pollutants.
(d) The AGENCY shall report to Reclamation, within 24 hours of
becoming aware of its occurrence, any event which may or does result in
pollution or contamination adversely affecting lands, water or
facilities owned by the UNITED STATES or administered by Reclamation.
(e) Any intentional violation of any of the provisions of this
Article shall constitute grounds for initiation of the procedure for
immediate termination of this contract and shall make the AGENCY liable
for the cost of full and complete remediation and/or restoration of any
Federal resources or facilities that are adversely affected as a result
of the violation.
(f) The AGENCY agrees to include the provision contained in
paragraphs (a) through (e) of this Article in any subcontract or third
party contract it may enter into pursuant to this contract.
(g) The UNITED STATES agrees to provide information necessary for
the AGENCY, using reasonable diligence, to comply with this Article.
Notices
12. Any notice, demand, or request authorized or required by this
contract shall be deemed to have been given, on behalf of the AGENCY,
when mailed, postage prepaid, or delivered to the Area Manager, Central
California Area Office, Bureau of Reclamation, 7794 Folsom Dam Road,
Folsom, California 95630-1799, and on behalf of the UNITED STATES, when
mailed, postage prepaid, or delivered to the Board of Directors of the
Placer County Water Agency, P.O. Box 6570, Auburn, California 95604.
The designation of the addressee or the address may be changed by
notice given in the same manner as provided in this Article for other
notices.
Contingent on Appropriation or Allotment of Funds
13. The expenditure or advance of any money or the performance of
any obligation of the UNITED STATES under this contract shall be
contingent upon appropriation or allotment of funds. Absence of
appropriation or allotment of funds shall not relieve the AGENCY from
any obligations under this contract. No liability shall accrue to the
UNITED STATES in case funds are not appropriated or allotted.
Officials not to Benefit
14. No Member of Congress or official of the AGENCY shall benefit
from this contract other than as a water user or landowner in the same
manner as other water users or landowners.
Assignment Limited--Successors and Assigns Obligated
15. The provisions of this contract shall apply to and bind the
successors and assigns of the parties hereto, but no assignment or
transfer of this contract or any right or interest therein shall be
valid until approved in writing by the Contracting Officer.
Books Records, and Reports
16. The AGENCY shall establish and maintain accounts and other
books and records pertaining to administration of the terms and
conditions of this contract, including the AGENCY's financial
transactions and other matters that the Contracting Officer may
require. Reports thereon shall be furnished to the Contracting Officer
in such form and on such date or dates as the Contracting Officer may
require. Subject to applicable Federal laws and regulations, each party
to this contract shall have the right during office hours to examine
and make copies of the other party's books and records relating to
matters covered by this contract.
Clean Air and Water
17. (a) The AGENCY agrees as follows:
(1) To comply with all the requirements of Section 114 of the
Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1857, et seq., as amended
by Public Law 91-604) and Section 308 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq., as amended by
Public Law 92-500), respectively, relating to inspection,
monitoring, entry, reports, and information, as well as other
requirements specified in Section 114 and Section 308 of the
Air Act and the Water Act, respectively, and all regulations
and guidelines issued thereunder before the execution of this
contract.
(2) That no portion of the work required by this contract
will be performed in a facility listed on the Environmental
Protection Agency List of Violating Facilities on the date when
this contract was executed unless and until the EPA eliminates
the name of such facility or facilities from such listing.
(3) To use its best efforts to comply with clean air
standards and clean water standards at the facility where the
contract work is being performed.
(4) To insert the substance of the provisions of this article
into any nonexempt subcontract, including this paragraph
(a)(4).
(b) The terms used in this article have the following meanings:
(1) The term ``Air Act'' means the Clean Air Act, as amended
(42 U.S.C. 1857 et seq., as amended by Public Law 91-604).
(2) The term ``Water Act'' means Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq., as amended by
Public Law 92-500).
(3) The term ``clean air standards'' means any enforceable
rules, regulations, guidelines, standards, limitations, orders,
controls, prohibitions, or other requirements which are
contained in, issued under, or otherwise adopted pursuant to
the Air Act or Executive Order 11738, an applicable
implementation plan as described in Section 110(d) of the Clean
Air Act (42 U.S.C. 1857c-5(d)), an approved implementation
procedure or plan under Section 111(c) or Section 111(d),
respectively, of the Air Act (42 U.S.C. 1857c-6(c) or (d)), or
an approved implementation procedure under Section 112(d) of
the Air Act (42 U.S.C. 1857c-(d)).
(4) The term ``clean water standards'' means any enforceable
limitation, control, condition, prohibition, standard, or other
requirement which is promulgated pursuant to the Water Act or
contained in a permit issued to a discharger by the
Environmental Protection Agency or by a State under an approved
program, as authorized by Section 402 of the Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1342), or by local government to ensure compliance with
pretreatment regulations as required by Section 307 of the
Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1317).
(5) The term ``comply'' means compliance with clean air or
water standards. Comply shall also mean compliance with a
schedule or plan ordered or approved by a court of competent
jurisdiction, the Environmental Protection Agency or an air or
water pollution control agency in accordance with the
requirements of the Air Act or Water Act and regulations issued
pursuant thereto.
(6) The term ``facility'' means any building, plant,
installation, structure, mine, vessel or other floating craft,
location, or site of operations, owned, leased, or supervised
by a contractor or subcontractor, to be utilized in the
performance of a contract or subcontract. Where a location or
site of operations contains or includes more than one building,
plant, installation, or structure, the entire location or site
shall be deemed to be a facility except where the Director,
Office of Federal Activities, Environmental Protection Agency,
determines that independent facilities are collocated in one
geographical area.
Equal Employment Opportunity
18. During the performance of this contract, the AGENCY agrees as
follows:
(a) The AGENCY will not discriminate against any employee or
applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex,
disability, or national origin. The AGENCY will take
affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and
that employees are treated during employment, without regard to
their race, color, religion, sex, disability, or national
origin. Such action shall include, but not be limited to, the
following: Employment, upgrading, demotion, or transfer;
recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination;
rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for
training, including apprenticeship. The AGENCY agrees to post
in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants
for employment, notices to be provided by the Contracting
Officer setting forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination
clause.
(b) The AGENCY will, in all solicitations or advertisements
for employees placed by or on behalf of the AGENCY, state that
all qualified applicants will receive consideration for
employment without discrimination because of race, color,
religion, sex, disability, or national origin.
(c) The AGENCY will send to each labor union or
representative of workers with which it has a collective
bargaining agreement or other contract or understanding, a
notice to be provided by the Contracting Officer, advising the
said labor union or worker's representative of the AGENCY's
commitments under Section 202 of Executive Order 11246 of
September 24, 1965, and shall post copies of the notice in
conspicuous places available to employees and applicants for
employment.
(d) The AGENCY will comply with all provisions of Executive
Order No. 11246 of September 24, 1965, as amended, and of the
rules, regulations, and relevant orders of the Secretary of
Labor.
(e) The AGENCY will furnish all information and reports
required by said amended Executive Order and by the rules,
regulations, and orders of the Secretary of Labor, or pursuant
thereto, and will permit access to its books, records, and
accounts by the Contracting Officer and the Secretary of Labor
for purposes of investigation to ascertain compliance with such
rules, regulations, and orders.
(f) In the event of the AGENCY's noncompliance with the
nondiscrimination clauses of this contract or with any of such
rules, regulations, or orders, this contract may be canceled,
terminated, or suspended, in whole or in part, and the AGENCY
may be declared ineligible for further Government contracts in
accordance with procedures authorized in said amended Executive
Order, and such other sanctions may be imposed and remedies
invoked as provided in said Executive Order, or by rule,
regulation, or order of the Secretary of Labor, or as otherwise
provided by law.
(g) The AGENCY will include the provisions of paragraphs (a)
through (g) in every subcontract or purchase order unless
exempted by the rules, regulations, or orders of the Secretary
of Labor issued pursuant to Section 204 of said amended
Executive Order, so that such provisions will be binding upon
each subcontractor or vendor. The AGENCY will take such action
with respect to any subcontract or purchase order as may be
directed by the Secretary of Labor as a means of enforcing such
provisions, including sanctions for noncompliance: Provided,
however, That in the event the AGENCY becomes involved in, or
is threatened with, litigation with a subcontractor or vendor
as a result of such direction, the AGENCY may request the
UNITED STATES to enter into such litigation to protect the
interests of the UNITED STATES.
Compliance with Civil Rights Laws and Regulations
19. (a) The AGENCY shall comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973 (P.L. 93-112, as amended), the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (42
U.S.C. 6101, et seq.), Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act
of 1990 if the entity is a State or local government entity [Title III
if the entity is a non-government entity], and any other applicable
civil rights laws, as well as with their respective implementing
regulations and guidelines imposed by the U.S. Department of the
Interior and/or Bureau of Reclamation.
(b) These statutes require that no person in the UNITED STATES
shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, disability, or
age, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or
be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity
receiving financial assistance from the Bureau of Reclamation. By
executing this contract, the AGENCY agrees to immediately take any
measures necessary to implement this obligation, including permitting
officials of the UNITED STATES to inspect premises, programs, and
documents.
(c) The AGENCY makes this agreement in consideration of and for the
purpose of obtaining any and all Federal grants, loans, contracts,
property discounts, or other Federal financial assistance extended
after the date hereof to the AGENCY by the Bureau of Reclamation,
including installment payments after such date on account of
arrangements for Federal financial assistance which were approved
before such date. The AGENCY recognizes and agrees that such Federal
assistance will be extended in reliance on the representations and
agreements made in this article and that the UNITED STATES reserves the
right to seek judicial enforcement thereof.
(d) Complaints of discrimination against the AGENCY shall be
investigated by the Contracting Officer' s Office of Civil Rights.
Certification of Nonsegregated Facilities
20. The AGENCY hereby certifies that it does not maintain or
provide for its employees any segregated facilities at any of its
establishments, and that it does not permit its employees to perform
their services at any location under its control, where segregated
facilities are maintained. It certifies further that it will not
maintain or provide for its employees any segregated facilities at any
of its establishments, and that it will not permit its employees to
perform their services at any location under its control, where
segregated facilities are maintained. The AGENCY agrees that a breach
of this certification is a violation of the Equal Employment
Opportunity clause in this contract. As used in this certification, the
term ``segregated facilities'' means any waiting rooms, work areas,
rest rooms and wash rooms, restaurants and other eating areas, time
clocks, locker rooms and other storage or dressing areas, parking lots,
drinking fountains, recreation or entertainment areas, transportation,
and housing facilities provided for employees which are segregated by
explicit directive or are in fact segregated on the basis of race,
creed, color, or national origin, because of habit, local custom,
disability, or otherwise. The AGENCY further agrees that (except where
it has obtained identical certifications from proposed subcontractors
for specific time periods) it will obtain identical certifications from
proposed subcontractors prior to the award of subcontracts exceeding
$10,000 which are not exempt from the provisions of the Equal
Employment Opportunity clause; that it will retain such certifications
in its files; and that it will forward the following notice to such
proposed subcontractors (except where the proposed subcontractors have
submitted identical certifications for specific time periods):
notice to prospective subcontractors of requirement for
certifications of nonsegregated facilities
A Certification of Nonsegregated Facilities must be submitted prior
to the award of a subcontract exceeding $10,000 which is not exempt
from the provisions of the Equal Employment Opportunity clause. The
certification may be submitted either for each subcontract or for all
subcontracts during a period (i.e., quarterly, semiannually, or
annually). Note: The penalty for making false statements in offers is
prescribed in U.S.C. 1001.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this contract
as of the day and year first above written.
______
RESOLUTION NO. 02-25 OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE PLACER COUNTY
WATER AGENCY MAKING FINDINGS CONCERNING THE AMERICAN RIVER PUMP STATION
PROJECT, ADOPTING THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM, AND APPROVING
CONTRACT 02-LC-20-7790 WITH THE UNITED STATES BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
WHEREAS, the Final Environmental Impact Statement/ Final
Environmental Impact Report (``FEIS/FEIR'') for the American River Pump
Station Project has been presented to, reviewed and considered by the
Board of Directors of the Placer County Water Agency; and
WHEREAS, this Board has certified the Final Environmental Impact
Report and Environmental Impact Statement prepared for the American
River Pump Station Project to be in compliance with the requirements of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and
WHEREAS, this Board, in reviewing the FEIS/FEIR and taking tile
action set forth in this Resolution is hereby exercising its
independent judgment and analysis; and
WHEREAS, this Board has considered all written and oral comments
presented to it at its meeting held July 11, 2002 and at this August 1,
2002 meeting;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
PLACER COUNTY WATER AGENCY that:
1. The Board hereby makes and adopts each of the Findings set forth
in the document entitled ``CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding
Considerations of Placer County Water Agency for American River Pump
Station, July 2002'' (``Findings'') attached hereto as Exhibit A;
2. The commitments set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring Plan to
be implemented by, the Placer County Water Agency, including the
Conservation Measures described therein, are hereby accepted as binding
on the Agency;
3. The Board finds that in light of the mitigation measures that
the Agency will undertake, all significant environmental effects that
can feasibly be mitigated by Agency action will be mitigated;
4. Some significant environmental impacts identified and described
in the FEIS/FEIR, cannot be mitigated by action of the Agency, but
rather must be and are expected to be mitigated by actions of the
United States Bureau of Reclamation and California Department of Parks
and Recreation, or other public agencies, in implementing the American
River Pump Station Project;
5. The Board finds that each of the overriding considerations set
forth in Section XII of the Findings justifies the decision to approve
Contract No. 02-LC-20-7790 and authorize its execution despite the
significant impacts identified in the FEIS/FEIR. Those overriding
considerations are set forth in the Findings attached hereto and
explain why the benefit of the American River Pump Station Project
outweighs the potential for significant environmental effects;
6. Contract No. 02-LC-20-7790, attached hereto as Exhibit B, is
hereby approved.
The foregoing resolution was duly passed at a regular meeting of
the Board of Directors of the Placer County Water Agency held on August
1, 2002, by the following vote on roll call:
AYES: DIRECTORS Ferreira, Lee, Roccucci, Wollan, and Chair Jarvis.
NOES: DIRECTORS None.
ABSENT: DIRECTORS None.
Signed and approved by me after its passage this 1st day of
August 2002.
Lowell M. Jarvis,
Chair, Board of Directors, Placer County Water Agency
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Maisch.
Just a couple questions for you this afternoon, gentlemen.
Mr. Dieker, when you mentioned the area that we're talking
about the transfer, you mentioned 9 acres and the buildings and
offices that would be included with this transfer. Does the
Yakima-Tieton Irrigation District currently perform the upkeep
of these buildings at this time?
Mr. Maisch. Yes, they do.
Senator Murkowski. OK. So you've already factored in the
cost of operation and maintenance. How much cost savings do you
anticipate realizing with this transfer to the district?
Mr. Maisch. [Inaudible.]
Senator Murkowski. But really it's more savings in terms of
the administrative efficiency that would be gained?
Mr. Maisch. Possibly. I think it's possibly more----
Senator Murkowski. Thank you. Mr. Maisch, you had stated in
your written testimony that the Placer County Water Agency is
responsible for any construction costs for a pump capacity that
exceeds 100 cfs. Is the agency constructing a facility that
provides for more than that, more than a 100 cfs? And then, if
they are, how do you pay for this cost?
You mentioned a little bit about the cost sharing, but if
you could just explain it a little bit more.
Mr. Maisch. [Inaudible.]
Senator Murkowski. What about the annual operation and
maintenance costs of the new pump station; is the agency able
to take those on?
And you had also stated in your written testimony that
Placer County is one of the fastest growing counties in
California. How do you anticipate that this new pumping
facility--pumping station will help to meet this area's
watering?
Mr. Maisch. [Inaudible.]
Senator Johnson. Mr. Maisch, your testimony summarizes the
construction costs associated with the pump project, and I
understand that your agency is paying for capacity in excess of
100 cfs, which is $12.8 million. But there also appears to be a
contribution of $17 million, and I'll ask for a little
elaboration of your response to Mr. Sherman's questions.
Is it correct that the PCWA is contributing then $29.8
million in total? And if that's the case, could you explain to
me then the additional $17 million, and what that's for?
Mr. Maisch. [Inaudible.]
Senator Johnson. OK. Mr. Dieker, the panel's transfer
process that you've worked on with Reclamation sounds like a
successful one. Are you currently interested in or already
pursuing the transfer of title to any other facilities that
serve your District?
Mr. Dieker. No. We're not interested in any.
Senator Johnson. OK. Very good.
Madam Chairman, that's all that I have.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you for completing your questions
and I appreciate the testimony of you gentlemen. Again, thank
you for traveling the distance to come and present before the
subcommittee.
With that, we stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:30 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
Statement of Alex White Plume, Vice Chairman, on behalf of the Oglala
Sioux Tribe, on S. 3404
By resolution dated June 12, 2006, the Oglala Sioux Tribe fully
supports the Reauthorization of the Mni Wiconi Rural Water Supply
Project as proposed by S. 3404, which extends the completion date for
construction from FY 2008 through FY 2012.
The Oglala Sioux Tribe supports the extension recognizing that the
history of appropriation levels for the project will not provide
sufficient funding to complete the project in FY 2008 and that an
additional four years of appropriations will be needed to provide the
necessary funding. The need for extension of time is driven entirely by
appropriations and not the capability of the Oglala Sioux Tribe or
other sponsors to complete the project in FY 2008 if adequate funding
were available.
The concerns of the Oglala Sioux Tribe with respect to the
additional four years necessary to fund the project are as follows:
1. Human health benefits on the Pine: Ridge Indian
Reservation will be delayed. The Pine Ridge Indian Reservation
has not yet received Missouri River. water to replace unsafe
supplies, and the Oglala Sioux Tribe will be last to build its
distribution system.
2. Overhead costs of the project will increase due solely to
the extension of the number of years required to complete
construction and cause the project costs to exceed the
currently authorized construction funding ceiling.
3. Inflation will cause the remaining authorized construction
funding needs to increase and create a moving target for future
appropriation committees.
Delay in Human Health Benefits
The Oglala Sioux Tribe has deep concerns that the project has not
yet. delivered Missouri River water to the pine Ridge Indian
Reservation after 12 years of construction. Residents in the No Flesh
area and across much of the central and eastern areas of the
reservation are waiting for a transition from groundwater to Missouri
River water to relieve them of arsenic concentrations well above the
EPA drinking water standard adopted this year. The arsenic. standards
are taken seriously by the Tribal Council due to the connection between
arsenic and the risk of lung and bladder cancer.
The inability to deliver the Missouri River water to the Pine.
Ridge. Indian Reservation after years of constructing the water
treatment plant and Oglala off-Reservation core pipelines is due, in
part, to the policy of the Bureau of Reclamation that required
sequential construction of the pipelines. It has long been the policy
of the Tribe to build pipelines from Pine Ridge toward the Missouri
River while building concurrently from the Missouri River toward Pine
Ridge. Had the Tribe been able to build pipelines as it proposed, all
sponsors would have benefited from project water at the same time.
Currently all sponsors are receiving Missouri River water except
the Oglala Sioux Tribe. We are still waiting. Other sponsors have
either finished their distribution systems or have completed most of
their . . . system. The Oglala Sioux Tribe, however, has only been able
to build 40% of the necessary pipelines, only those pipelines that
deliver safe and adequate groundwater from our wells in the Arickaree
formation of the Ogallala Aquifer. We will build the balance of our
distribution system (60%) after Missouri River water reaches the
Reservation near Wanblee. Because we are the last sponsor to be served
and find ourselves largely alone to justify future appropriations,
anxiety remains high that project support will diminish and that the
distribution system on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation will never be
built as expected by the Tribe and as foreseen by the congressional
delegation in the early years.
The arsenic problem is not to be taken lightly. Maximum contaminant
level (MCL) for arsenic was reviewed by EPA and lowered, from 50 to 10
micrograms per liter (mg/l) on October 31, 2001.\1\ Water systems were
to Comply by January 2006. The revision for arsenic followed a request
for comment by EPA on 3 mg/l (feasibility level), 5 mg/l (proposed June
2000), 10 mg/l (January 2001 rule) and 20 mg/l.\2\ The National
Research Institute concluded that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Letter of October 31, 2001, from EPA Administrator, Christine
Todd Whitman, to The Honorable C. W. Young, Chairman, Committee on
Appropriations, House on Representatives.
\2\ Federal Register, Vol. 66, No. 194, Oct. 5, 2001, p. 50761.
. . . The results of this subcommittee's assessment are
consistent with the results presented in the NRC's 1999 Arsenic
in Drinking Water Report and suggest that the risks for bladder
and lung cancer incidence are greater than the risk on which
the EPA based its January 2001 pending rule . . .\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Subcommittee to Update the 1999 Arsenic in Drinking Water
Report, September 2000, Prepublication Copy, Arsenic and Drinking
Water: 2001 Update, Committee on Toxicology, National Research
Institute, p. 12.
Earlier concerns with arsenic that influenced the adoption of the
older standard at 50 mg per liter were related to a risk assessment for
skin cancer based on Taiwanese studies involving a low-income
population with poor diets and low quality of medical care exposed to
high concentrations of arsenic. More recently, studies have been
conducted on the same Taiwanese population in combination with evidence
from Chile and Argentina related to the risk of bladder and lung
cancers. On the basis of a cost and benefit analysis, as reproduced in
Table 1, EPA concluded that the feasible level for arsenic regulation
was 3 mg per liter, but EPA proposed an arsenic MCL of 5 mg per liter.
At the 3 mg per liter level (Table 1), total national costs to
community water systems to remove arsenic were estimated by EPA to
range between $643 and $753 million.\4\ Bladder cancer benefits
(reduced incidence and associated costs) were estimated to range
between $43.6 and $104.2 million, and lung cancer benefits were
estimated to range between $47.2 and $448 million.\5\ If the upper
level of costs were used ($753 million) and the upper level of benefits
in reduction of the cost of cancer incidence were used ($552.2
million), the benefit to cost ratio of removing arsenic would be
calculated at .73 or the equivalent of $0.73 in benefits for each $1.00
in cost to remove arsenic. As shown in Table 1, the benefit to cost
ratio increases for decreasing levels of arsenic removal. The EPA
conclusion of feasibility at the 3 mg per liter level was based on a
calculation of benefit to cost ratio using the upper limit of benefits
and the lower limit of costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Federal Register, October 20, 2000, National Primary Drinking
Water Regulations; Arsenic and Clarifications to Compliance and New
Source Contaminants Monitoring, Vol. 65, No. 204, p. 63031, et seq.
\5\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2 also presents the risk of lifetime incidence of bladder and
lung cancer per 100,000. members of the population for each of the
arsenic MCL levels under consideration. There are numerous analyses
presented by EPA of risk factors based on a variety of assumptions and
methods, and only a single set of conclusions is presented in Table 2,
The conclusions are illustrative of the benefits of lowering the
arsenic MCL from 20 micrograms (mg) per liter with 84 lifetime
incidences. per 100,000 persons to 3mg per liter with 24 lifetime
incidences per 100,000 persons.\6\ Note that the estimates of lung
cancer incidence are comparable to those of bladder cancer, leading EPA
to conclude that ``. . . based upon this most recent risk information .
. . the combined risk of excess cases of lung and bladder cancer
attributable to arsenic in drinking water could be at least twice that
of bladder cancer alone . . .'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Ibid, p. 63032
\7\ Ibid.
Table 1.--ESTIMATED COSTS AND BENEFITS FROM REDUCING ARSENIC IN DRINKING WATER
[1999 $ in millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Total
National Bladder ``What If'' Cost Benefit Benefit to
Arsenic Level (mg/l) Costs to Cancer Lung Cancer Upper Upper Cost Ratio
CWSs Benefits Benefits Limit Limit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3........................................ $643.1-753 $43.6-104.2 $47.2-448 753.0 552.2 0.73
5........................................ 377.3-441.8 31.7-89.9 35.0-384 441.8 473.9 1.07
10....................................... 163.3-191.8 17.9-52.1 19.6-224 191.8 276.1 1.07
20....................................... 61.6-72.9 7.9-29.8 8.8-128 72.9 102.7 1.44
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on EPA in Federal Register; October 20, 2000
Table 2.--LIFETIME INCIDENCE, RISKS PER 100,000 POPULATION, 90TH
PERCENTILE
[1999 $ in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morales Risk Upper Limit
Arsenic Level (mg/l) Bladder Morales Risk Combined
Cancer Lung Cancer Risk
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3............................. 10-12 10-12 24
5............................. 18-20 17-21 41
10............................ 26-31 27-31 62
20............................ 35-41 34-43 84
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on EPA in Federal Register, October 20, 2000
Arsenic in groundwater in many parts of the Pine Ridge Indian
Reservation is at concentrations between 20 and 50 mg per liter, and
Missouri River water will reduce concentrations below 3 mg per liter.
Therefore, the Tribal Council and membership are anxiously awaiting
Missouri River water to lower cancer risks from arsenic alone by well
over 60 lifetime incidences per 100,000 persons or 6 lifetime
incidences per 10,000 members of our population. Our future generations
will benefit greatly by the improvement in arsenic concentrations
stemming from the delivery of Missouri River water.
A similar analysis can be presented to demonstrate the human health
impacts from uranium concentrations in our groundwater. Both uranium
and arsenic are naturally occurring elements in our groundwater and are
unavoidable absent delivery of water from the Missouri River as
intended by the Mni Wiconi project.
There are additional human health benefits to be derived from
improvements in the quality of our drinking water and an adequate
supply for economic development brought by the Mni Wiconi Project. The
Mni Wiconi Project and the industry that will follow will raise our
income levels, which, in turn, will lower the extraordinary rates of
mortality among the Indian population of our Reservation. Information
has been compiled in the Great Plains to show that high mortality rates
are related to low income and that the present value of Indian health-
care costs in our region over the next 50 years will be as much as $0.8
to $1.6 billion higher than non-Indian health care costs for heart
disease, cancer and diabetes in each 24,000 members of the Indian
population. Improvement in the economy of the Pine Ridge Indian
Reservation, coming from the Mni Wiconi Project, will lower these
extraordinary costs.
The Mni Wiconi Project has success stories on the Pine Ridge Indian
Reservation. Before the project was authorized, for example, high
nitrate contamination. and the risk to newborns was a concern of the
Women of All Red Nations. Dr. Thomas Welty wrote extensively about
water borne diseases and hepatitis-C on the Reservation. Upon project
authorization, the (Vida Sioux Tribe immediately built the emergency
pipeline from wells with good water quality to the community of Oglala.
This was followed additional well development and pipelines to the
areas around Slim Buttes, along American Horse Creek, north of Kyle,
from Kyle to Sharp's Corner, from Sharp's Corner to Rocky Ford and Red
Shirt, and to the communities of Manderson and Porcupine. This brought
high-quality groundwater where it could be developed to many rural
households and to several small communities. Since implementation of
these projects, waterborne diseases have diminished or been eliminated,
hepatitis-C has not occurred, and infants have not been lost to
nitrogen contamination.
There is much more to be done, but these steps have been effective.
The delivery of Missouri River water as soon as possible to the Pine
Ridge Indian Reservation will alleviate other extreme health conditions
and greatly improve the quality of life of our members, actions which
are within the original goals of the Act.
An Additional Four Years of Direct and Overhead Costs
While we are fully supportive of the extension of the construction
schedule from FY 2008 through FY 2012, each year of additional
extension results in new costs for necessary activities that cannot be
eliminated. These activities will be continued with minimal staff in
numbers only adequate to continue necessary functions. Costs will
include the following:
1) Salaries and fringes for personnel to:
a) administer design and construction. contracts
b) inspect construction
c) acquire easements
d) prepare as-built drawings for operation, maintenance and
replacement
e) coordinate with other sponsors, the Bureau of Reclamation,
public and other federal agencies
2) Non-salary costs for administrative functions
a) utilities and communications
b) travel and vehicles
c) office costs (photocopy, mail, other normal office
expenses)
d) establish permanent record system consisting of electronic
filing systems and project portfolios
3) Reclamation Oversight Costs
4) Indefinite quantities for interconnecting new homes to the
Project distribution system after FY 2008. (The population on the Pine
Ridge Indian Reservation is increasing at a rate of 27% per decade,
which is equivalent to about 1,650 persons in the period between 2008
and 2012. The new population during the period of construction
extension will require connections to the Mni Wiconi Project for
household uses).
The costs during an extended construction schedule-are real costs.
Funds are necessary to retain staff and functions to carry on design
and construction. The additional costs for the additional construction
extension can only be estimated at this time at about $12 million.
Actual costs will become more clear and definable by 2009 and 2010.
Without an amendment of the construction ceiling to include these
costs, it will be necessary to reduce the miles of pipeline built to
cover the unavoidable costs. There is a need to coordinate and
implement strategic planning to ensure overall project activities are
completed in a satisfactory manner. The Oglala Sioux Tribe will seek a
future adjustment of the construction ceiling to ensure that the
original intent of the Mni Wiconi Project Act and the Final Engineering
Report, approved by the Secretary of interior, is realized and that the
distribution system within the PiAe Ridge Indian Reservation is not
left incomplete.
Appropriation Levels after FY 2006 Must Increase to Complete the
Project in FY 2012
A matter of serious concern to the Oglala Sioux Tribe, last sponsor
to be served with water from the Missouri. River to replace toxic
groundwater, is the need for an increased level of appropriations to
complete the project by FY 2012. Irrespective of the degree of future
inflation, the level of appropriations needs significant increase above
the $23 million level in recent years if the project is to be completed
by FY 2012.
Table 3 presents construction cost indices compiled by the Bureau
of Reclamation for several tracking items since 1992 (pumping plants,
drains and laterals and a composite construction trend).\8\ Average
construction cost increases for pumping stations for naming 5-years
ranged from 1.81% (5-years ending in 2000) to 4.20% (5 years ending in
2005). Average construction cost increases for pipelines in rural water
systems (Bureau of Reclamation uses laterals-and drains to measure
pipeline cost trends) ranged from 2.99% to 7.37%. The average annual
rate of increase was lowest for the 5-year period ending in 2000 and
2001 and highest for the 5-year period ending in 2005 for all
categories. Figure 1* displays the 5-year running cost trends from
Table 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Bureau of Reclamation Construction Cost Trends, http://
www.usbr,gov/pmts/estimate/cost_trend.html.
* Figure 1 has been retained in committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Oglala Sioux Tribe is extremely concerned about the
construction cost trend in 2004 and 2005 with pipeline construction
costs increasing at 5.65% and 6.60%, respectively. Bidding experience
in 2006 is confirming a significant upward trend. Therefore, looking
forward, construction cost increases trending above 7%, particularly
for pipelines, the largest component in the project, may be reasonably
likely. Table 4 presents the impact of 7% inflation on levels of
appropriation needed to complete the project by FY 2012, and
demonstrates that an average annual appropriation of $29.8 million
would be required. Table 5 summarizes the levels of appropriation,
ranging from $280 miliion to $37.5 million on the average, needed to
overcome inflation ranging from 5% to 15% respectively.
Table 3.--AVERAGE ANNUAL CONSTRUCTION COST INDEXING BASED ON RECLAMATION TRENDS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Index Annual Increase, % Previous 5-Year Average, %
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pumping Laterals Pumping Laterals Pumping Laterals
Plants & Drains Composite Plants & Drains Composite Plants & Drains Composite
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1992.......................................................... 188 169 188
1993.......................................................... 192 176 194 2.13% 4.14% 3.19%
1994.......................................................... 197 182 199 2.60% 3.41% 2.58%
1995.......................................................... 206 190 207 4.57% 4.40% 4.02%
1996.......................................................... 215 202 212 4.37% 6.32% 2.42% 3.41% 4.56% 3.05%
1997.......................................................... 218 216 218 1.40% 6.93% 2.83% 3.23% 5.25% 2.96%
1998.......................................................... 222 220 221 1.83% 1.85% 1.38% 3.03% 4.85% 2.66%
1999.......................................................... 226 226 227 1.80% 2.73% 2.71% 2.34% 4.43% 2.33%
2000.......................................................... 231 238 233 2.21% 5.31% 2.64% 1.81% 4.19% 2.39%
2001.......................................................... 235 243 236 1.73% 2.10% 1.29% 1.89% 2.99% 2.00%
2002.......................................................... 241 251 242 2.55% 3.29% 2.54% 2.07% 3.35% 2.30%
2003.......................................................... 247 262 250 2.49% 4.38% 3.31% 2.25% 3.76% 2.44%
2004.......................................................... 263 303 274 6.48% 15.65% 9.60% 3.30% 6.22% 4.14%
2005.......................................................... 277 323 288 5.32% 6.60% 5.11% 4.20% 7.37% 5.10%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4.--APPROPRIATION LEVEL NEEDED TO COMPLETE THE MNI WICONI PROJECT
IN FY 2012, 7% INFLATION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remaining Costs after FY 2006......................... $130,000,000
Added Direct and Overhead Costs after FY 2008, 2005 12,000,000
Dollars..............................................
-----------------
Total Costs....................................... 142,000,000
Historic Rate of Appropriations....................... 22,900,000
Authorized Completion Date............................ 2,008
Appropriations Schedule............................... 6
Assumed Cost Indexing (inflation)..................... 7%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations
Fiscal --------------------------------------------------------
Year Remaining Amount Complete 2012 Uniform
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................................ 2007 $151,040,000 $24,987,943 $29,791,004
2............................................ 2008 130,699,426 26,737,099 29,791,004
3............................................ 2009 107,972,012 28,608,606 29,791,004
4............................................ 2010 83,653,679 30,611,305 29,791,004
5............................................ 2011 57,633,063 32,754,096 29,791,004
6............................................ 2012 29,791,004 35,046,883 29,791,004
7............................................ 2013 0
------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.................................... 178,746,021 178,746,021
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 5.--ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS AND TOTAL COSTS TO COMPLETE MNI WICONI
PROJECT BY FY 2012 FOR RANGE OF INFLATION RATES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Sunset Date................................... 2008
October 2006 Remaining Federal Cost................... $142,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations Needed thru 2012
Annual Cost Indexing (Inflation) -------------------------------------
Rate Total Average Annual
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5................................. $167,859,000 $27,976,000
7................................. 178,746;000 29,791,000
10................................ 195,625,000 32,604,000
15................................ 225,130,000 37,522,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additonal Concerns
The declining performance of the Bureau: of Indian Affairs in the
processing of easements is a concern to the Oglala Sioux Tribe and
affects our ability to complete the project within the Pine Ridge
Indian Reservation. In the early years of the project the enthusiasm of
the Bureau of Indian Affairs was high, and the processing of our
easements had a priority. Today the processing of easements is
extremely tedious and slow. The Tribe is currently waiting for Bureau
of Indian Affairs to process easements for the Wanblee North powerline
upgrade, the Wanblee to Hisle function pipeline and the Hisle Junction
to Kyle pipeline. Construction will be delayed until these easements
are processed. Designs have been approved. Bidding and award of
construction projects should be ongoing, but our cooperative agreement
with the Bureau of Reclamation requires that easements must be acquired
throughout the construction area before bidding.
Our Sincere Appreciation
The South Dakota delegation has been highly supportive of the
Oglala Sioux Tribe and other sponsors during the course of this-
project, and their efforts are sincerely appreciated. We understand
that the delegation supports (1) the formation of a task force to
investigate the high rates of mortality and morbidity associated with.
heart, cancer, diabetes and other prominent diseases on the Pine Ridge
Indian Reservation and (2) a congressional hearing to report the task
force findings. The task force can hopefully be comprised of
individuals from the National Institute of Health, Center for Disease
Control or comparable organizations that have credentials and
background to compare and correlate-the level of poverty, incidence of
disease, human costs and costs to the United States Treasury for health
care of populations on and off the Indian Reservations in the Great
Plains. The Oglala Sioux Tribe intends to be heavily engaged in the
implementation of the task force and preparation for the heating.
The subcommittee's action to extend the project from FY 2008
through FY 2012, the highest priority for successful completion of this
project, is greatly appreciated by the 0glala Sioux Tribe. We are
hopeful that the subcommittee Will examine our testimony carefully and
can take cognizance of the additional steps needed to complete the
project and realize the benefits intended and expected by Congress and
the Tribe.
______
Statement of Don Christiansen, General Manager, Central Utah Water
Conservancy District, on S. 1812
My name is Don Christiansen and as the General Manager of the
Central Utah Water Conservancy District, I appreciate the opportunity
to express my support for S. 1812 before this Subcommittee. The Central
Utah Water Conservancy District, as a subdivision of the state of Utah,
was designated in 1964 to be the local entity to manage the
construction, operation and the financing for the Central Utah Project
(CUP). The purpose of the CUP is to be sure that the state of Utah
maximizes the use of water allotted from the Colorado River based on
the Colorado River Compact. In addition, the District serves as a
wholesaler of water to other cities and agencies.
The Central Utah Project includes five specific units. Each unit
consists of a series of dams, pipelines, reservoirs, tunnels, and
aqueducts designed to assist in meeting the water needs of ten
counties. The Bonneville Unit of the CUP was planned to develop and
export water from the High Uinta Mountains in the eastern part of the
state and bring it through a series of reservoirs, tunnels and
pipelines to the populated Wasatch Front. Early on water was planned to
be delivered as far south as the Sevier River Drainage through an
Irrigation and Drainage delivery system. Under that early plan Juab
County would have received a large amount of project water.
However, the original planning requirements for the Bonneville Unit
water have been altered over time. Millard and Sevier counties in
central Utah have withdrawn from the Central Utah Water Conservancy
District and now virtually all of the water is planned to remain along
the Wasatch Front for use in Wasatch, Utah and Salt Lake Counties to
meet the water needs of the increasing population growth in those
areas. Utah, as a whole, grew nearly 30 percent in the last decade and
some urban areas within those counties are growing at a rate of double
digits per year. Juab County has remained part of the Central Utah
Water Conservancy District and has paid about $3,000,000 in property
taxes into the District and continues to pay property taxes each year
with the expectation of receiving benefits from maintaining membership
in the District.
The Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992
(Public Law 102-575), which included the authorization of the Central
Utah Project construction, has been a huge success in Utah. Completed
projects include the Wasatch County Water Efficiency Project,
Completion of the Diamond Fork System, thirty five water conservation
projects which last year conserved over 90,000 acre-feet of water, a
conjunctive use project in Salt Lake County, and the eleven million
dollar East Juab Water Efficiency Project in Juab County. Projects
currently under construction include' the Uinta Basin Replacement
Project, five additional water conservation projects, and ten local
development projects under section 206 of P.L. 102-575. A Record of
Decision has been signed for the Utah Lake System which when completed
will deliver an additional 60,000 acre-feet per year of municipal water
to the rapid growing parts of Utah in Salt Lake and Utah Counties.
Passage of S. 1812 will give Juab County an additional opportunity
to benefit from P.L. 102-575 by making Juab County eligible for
participation in conjunctive use funding to enable the county to study
and construct conjunctive use projects. This process of ``conjunctive
use'' will allow Juab County to maximize surface water flows and
groundwater sources in a coordinated manner by storing surplus surface
flows in existing groundwater aquifers, which results in increasing the
benefit of both their respective water resources. Currently, this
program is limited to the Wasatch Front counties of Salt Lake, Utah,
Davis, Wasatch, and Weber. Juab County should be made eligible to
receive funds for projects to develop comprehensive conjunctive use
water management in their county.
In conclusion, as the second driest state in the nation, Utah faces
unique challenges with inadequate existing water supplies compounded
with high growth rates and widely varying annual precipitation. In
light of these circumstances, the Central Utah Water Conservancy
District fully supports the addition of Juab County to the conjunctive
use program. The coordination of water resources is vital to developing
an efficient system that will better utilize and maximize existing
water resources. This bill will only enhance Juab County's ability to
meet the water needs of its citizens.
Thank you.
______
Statement of Bill Jones & the C.W. ``Bill'' Jones Family, on H.R. 2383
Senators:
Thank you for taking time to consider this recognition of a great
leader that helped build California's water infrastructure. As many of
you are aware, the area of California water is a very difficult and
often time's contentious place to develop solutions. Yet our father was
instrumental in bringing people together to generate consensus for all
of California's benefit. He had a great gift of always being able to
put himself in the other parties' position to try and understand
problems when they occurred. We saw him many times sacrifice his own
position for the good of California as a whole.
He was a pioneer in the area of California Water and development in
the San Joaquin Valley as well as the State for over 25 years. Our
father was the President of the San Luis and Delta-Mendota Water
Association/Authority for over 20 yrs. While serving as President of
the San Luis and Delta-Mendota Water Authority, he was directly
involved with the Central Valley Project as well as the State Water
Project in numerous capacities. He was also President of the Firebaugh
Resource Conservation District, the Las Deltas Mutual Water Company,
the Silver Creek Drainage District and also Vice President of the
Firebaugh Canal Water District. He was also appointed by Gov. Ronald
Reagan to the California State Water Commission. In recognition of the
years of dedicated and hard work performed by C.W. ``Bill'' Jones, he
was presented with California State Senate Resolution No. 1198 on
August 22, 1997
We would appreciate Senator Domenici & the Committee's support for
this measure, which redesignates the facility of the Bureau of
Reclamation located at 19550 Kelso Road in Byron, California known as
the Tracy Pumping Plant to be known as the ``C.W. `Bill' Jones Pumping
Plant.''
Thank You.