<DOC>
[109 Senate Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:32519.wais]
S. Hrg. 109-767
ALLRED AND JOHNSON NOMINATIONS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
on
THE NOMINATIONS OF C. STEPHEN ALLRED TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR LAND
AND MINERALS MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND ROBERT W.
JOHNSON TO BE COMMISSIONER OF RECLAMATION, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
__________
SEPTEMBER 14, 2006
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
32-519 PDF WASHINGTON : 2007
------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by 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 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
Frank J. Macchiarola, Staff Director
Judith K. Pensabene, Chief Counsel
Robert M. Simon, Democratic Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Allred, C. Stephen, nominee to be Assistant Secretary for Land
and Minerals Management, Department of the Interior............ 7
Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from New Mexico................ 2
Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator from Idaho.................... 1
Crapo, Hon. Mike, U.S. Senator from Idaho........................ 3
Ensign, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from Nevada...................... 5
Johnson, Robert W., nominee to be Commissioner of Reclamation,
Bureau of Reclamation.......................................... 9
Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator from Nevada....................... 2
Salazar, Hon. Ken, U.S. Senator from Colorado.................... 5
Thomas, Hon. Craig, U.S. Senator from Wyoming.................... 5
APPENDIX
Responses to additional questions................................ 25
ALLRED AND JOHNSON NOMINATIONS
----------
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2006
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in
room SD-628, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Larry E.
Craig presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY E. CRAIG, U.S. SENATOR FROM
IDAHO
Senator Craig. Good morning, everyone. The committee will
come to order. We are here this morning to consider the
following nominations for positions within the Department of
the Interior. C. Stephen Allred to be Assistant Secretary for
Land and Minerals Management and Robert W. Johnson to be
Commissioner of Reclamation. I welcome both of you before the
committee.
At this time, if either of you, Bob or Steve, have brought
family with you, I would ask you to introduce them to the
committee and to those in attendance. Steve, do you have family
with you?
Mr. Allred. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have my wife of 43
years, in fact of today, 43 years, with me and I also have a
nephew who lives here in Washington, D.C., Michael Peterson.
Michael.
Senator Craig. Wonderful. Well, thank you and welcome to
the committee.
Bob.
Mr. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have my wife,
Mary, with me here today. We can't state quite that many years.
We've been married 32 years. I wouldn't be here without her.
Senator Craig. Thank you very much. Well, welcome to all of
you. We are pleased to have you before the committee. We will
now proceed with the hearing.
Before we begin the testimony, I want to thank both of you
for agreeing to undertake these responsibilities. I have known
Steve for a good number of years and Bob, just this morning,
reminded me that as a national vice president of the FFA, I met
him on a mountaintop in Nevada at a leadership camp in the
summer of 1966, I believe. So your memory was better than mine,
Bob, but anyway, it is a pleasure for me to renew that
acquaintance.
I found Steve and certainly my experience with him to be a
direct, decisive and knowledgeable when it comes to energy and
natural resource issues. I have no doubt that he will bring new
ideas to the Department and will ensure successes at all
levels.
Of course, Bob, I want to welcome you to the committee.
This spring, I toured Hoover Dam, which was one of the projects
that you've had with your last post. As we all know, Hoover Dam
is an amazing project and its management issues are as complex
as the dam is itself and as a Commissioner, I expect you, Bob,
will use that fine-turned problem solving skill to deal with
Water 2025 and continue its process forward. I would hope, as
your predecessor started it. So I very much appreciate both of
you gentlemen's willingness to serve our country and serve in
these positions.
Before I continue, let me turn to the ranking member of the
full committee, Senator Bingaman of New Mexico, for any opening
comments he would like to make.
STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM NEW MEXICO
Senator Bingaman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know we have
our colleagues here waiting to testify. Let me just briefly say
I welcome both of the nominees. I had the good fortune to meet
with Steve Allred yesterday and enjoyed that opportunity. I
know of the record of competent leadership he has provided in
Idaho. I also have received very good reports on Bob Johnson
and am looking forward to supporting his nomination as well. I
do have some questions I want to address to both witnesses when
the opportunity arises.
Senator Craig. Thank you very much, Jeff. Now let me turn
to other of our colleagues who are here to support these
nominees. A minority leader of the U.S. Senate, Senator Harry
Reid of Nevada. Senator, welcome to the Committee. Please
proceed.
STATEMENT OF HON. HARRY REID, U.S. SENATOR
FROM NEVADA
Senator Reid. Thank you, Senator Craig, Senator Bingaman,
for your kind comments. This is an oft-used term, but----
Senator Craig. Harry, is your mic on?
Senator Reid. I think the mic is on but my voice must not
be.
Senator Craig. Okay. Thank you.
Senator Reid. My notes here say it is a distinct pleasure
to speak on behalf of Bob Johnson and that really is true. I
underscore and underline that. He is a native Nevadan, from a
place called Lovelock, Pershing County and if that weren't
reason enough to give him my emphatic endorsement, his wife,
Mary, is from Hawthorne, Nevada. These two places, with the
State of Nevada being as large as it is, are hundreds of miles
apart but they are small and very, very important communities
to make the State of Nevada the unique State that it is. So I
welcome Bob and Mary to this committee, to Washington, and to
this job that will be Bob Johnson's. He has been Director of
the Bureau's Lower Collateral Region Office for more than 10
years. During that time, he has been a real asset to me, my
staff, the State of Nevada and the Federal Government. He is a
man of his word and he will provide leadership as Commissioner.
We've had another Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation in
years past. During the early eighties, we had a wonderful man
who recently died, Bob Broadbent, who did such outstanding
things like he was visionary in looking forward to the fact
that we needed a new bridge across the Colorado River to ease
the burden on Hoover Dam. He, not realizing at the time, the
terrorists threats that would come about and the terrific
population growth that would take place, but he saw it was
necessary and Commissioner Broadbent proceeded on that basis.
Bob Johnson will be every bit as good a Commissioner that
Broadbent was.
Bob Johnson earned and maintained the respect of everyone,
the admiration of everyone while working with issues dealing
with the Colorado River, quite possibly the most litigated
river system in the entire--I think this is a tribute to his
honesty, integrity, determination and fairness. During the 8
years that Bruce Babbitt was the Secretary of the Interior
under President Bill Clinton, he was the Secretary's principle
negotiator on the interim surplus criteria and I say here and
I've said this to Commissioner Acura and to Secretary
Babbitt's--in his presence. He was really bad for Nevada on a
number of issues, especially as it related to mining. But as
far as water, Secretary Babbitt was really tremendous and one
reason that he was good, was his son, Bob Johnson, to do a lot
of the negotiating with the surplus criteria and it worked out
very well.
Under President Bush, Bob has remained a key part of this
Reclamation team. As a Senator, from what I believe is the
driest State in the union and the home of Hoover Dam, I know
what the Bureau of Reclamation can achieve. The first ever
project of the Bureau of Reclamation was a project we have in
the northern part of the State, near Fallon, Nevada, so we know
that the Bureau in the past, has helped the desert blossom like
a rose and cities and towns, not only in Nevada but all across
the West are thriving and growing because of the work done by
Bob Johnson and his predecessors. So I commend the committee
for acting quickly on this nomination. I look forward to
working with each of you to move Mr. Johnson through the
process.
Senator Craig. Senator Reid, thank you very much. Now, let
me turn to my colleague from Idaho, Senator Mike Crapo.
STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE CRAPO, U.S. SENATOR
FROM IDAHO
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Senator Craig, Senator
Bingaman, Senator Thomas. It is truly an honor for me to have
been invited to introduce to you today, Steve Allred, who is
the President's nominee for Assistant Secretary of the Interior
for Land and Minerals Management. Senator Craig and my
colleague from Idaho, who joins me in recommending this
exceptional individual for this position knows him very well,
just as I do. I appreciate the chance to share a few comments
on Steve's qualities and his qualifications.
As you well know from reviewing his credentials, Steve
brings a distinguished background in public service,
environmental protection and private sector know-how to this
post. His long experience shows a commitment to the principle
of collaboration in solving environmental challenges, a skill
that is unfortunately all too rare. From January 1999 until
June 2004, Steve served as the director of Idaho's
environmental regulatory agency known as the Idaho Department
of Environmental Quality. In that capacity, Steve was entrusted
with enforcing State and Federal laws protecting our
environment. In any circumstance, this would be challenging as
a major endeavor. But Steve wanted to do more than be the one
who told people no. He charged himself and his staff with
finding solutions to problems, opportunities for shared
interests and results, and a process that sought collaboration
over discord. I had the chance to work closely with Steve on a
number of pressing environmental problems in Idaho and each
time, he consistently worked to promote solutions in which each
stakeholder and affected person could feel comfortable and
invested in the outcome.
In north Idaho, Steve took leadership in developing and
chartering a community-based panel to evaluate environmental
hot spots and make recommendations for cleanup. When
overlapping Federal, State and local officials clashed with
each other and business leaders in resource-dependent economic
areas of Idaho, Steve tirelessly managed diverging views and
put together a plan for environmental protection and
remediation, with which all could be comfortable.
He helped resolve a legal battle between an environmental
group and a local transportation planning authority that
threatened to stop all highway maintenance work and planning in
one of the fastest growing regions of our country. Each of
these examples helps to illustrate the collaborative approach
that Steve applies to conflict resolution. While it is hardly
the easiest or quickest means for resource management and
regulation, it is one that ensures the greatest number of
people have confidence in and comfort with the decisions that
are made. I believe Steve understands this because during his
career, he has been on both sides of the table. He worked for
17 years with Morrison-Knudsen, where he served as president of
the company's environmental services group, overseeing the
environmental compliance of engineering projects. While at
Morrison-Knudsen, Steve had the responsibility for
understanding applicable laws and ensuring that company
projects met those standards.
Presently, Steve owns a consulting firm that provides this
same advice to some of our largest resource-based operations in
Idaho, including CH2M Hill and CWI and as well, he is serving
as a member of the U.S. Department of Energy's Environmental
Management Advisory Board.
Joint stewardship of our natural resources should be
characterized by partnership, not conflict. I commend Steve
Allred to you because he understands and embraces this
philosophy. He comes with the highest endorsement from members
of the business community and across the political spectrum in
Idaho. Steve will be a tremendous addition to this
administration as Assistant Secretary of the Interior and I
personally thank him for his willingness to serve the public
again. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Craig. Mike, thank you very much for being here on
behalf of Steve. Now, let me turn to another one of our
colleagues from the State of Nevada, Senator John Ensign, for
comments I'm sure he would like to make on behalf of Bob
Johnson.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN ENSIGN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM NEVADA
Senator Ensign. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you for
holding this nomination hearing today. I join with my
colleague, Senator Reid, to introduce one of our constituents,
Mr. Robert Johnson. Everybody knows him around our parts as
Bob. Mr. Chairman, President Bush nominated Mr. Johnson to be
the Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation and I commend the
President for selecting such an outstanding nominee who has the
expertise and demeanor to oversee the Bureau of Reclamation's
important mandate of managing water in rest. Mr. Johnson has
ably served as the Bureau's Lower Colorado River Regional
Director since 1995 and in this role, among many
responsibilities, he oversees three major Federal assets: The
Hoover Dam, Davis Dam and Parker Dam. These critical assets
have been kept secure after the terrorist attacks of September
11.
Mr. Johnson has a deep understanding of the Colorado River.
The Colorado River provides water to millions of Americans in
the arid West, generates electricity and is home to diverse
plants and wildlife. The Las Vegas Valley receives 90 percent
of its water supplies from the Colorado River through Lake
Mead. So the proper management of the Colorado River really is
a life or death issue for Nevadans and our economic well-being.
Mr. Johnson, I believe, will do an excellent job balancing the
competing needs among different users of scare water and urging
cooperation throughout the West, as he has demonstrated with
the Lower Colorado River. Mr. Chairman, Bob Johnson is a man of
tremendous character and ability. He brings a Nevada can-do
attitude to this position. Like me, I know you will find him to
be well qualified for the job as Commissioner of the Bureau of
Reclamation and I urge the committee to send his nomination to
the full Senate and I look forward to his speedy confirmation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Craig. Senator, thank you very much for being here.
Now let me turn to other colleagues who have joined us. Senator
Craig Thomas, Wyoming. Senator, do you have any comments you
would like to make before we start?
STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS, U.S. SENATOR
FROM WYOMING
Senator Thomas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just welcome Mr.
Allred and Mr. Johnson. Congratulations on the nomination. Both
of these jobs are enormously important to my State of Wyoming
and of course, the management of natural resources, water and
minerals, is a difficult task. We need to protect them for the
future and meet the needs of today. So I look forward to
working with you and thank you very much for your willingness
to serve.
Senator Craig. Craig, thank you very much. Now let me turn
to Senator Ken Salazar of Colorado. Ken, any opening comments
you would like to make?
STATEMENT OF HON. KEN SALAZAR, U.S. SENATOR
FROM COLORADO
Senator Salazar. Congratulations, Mr. Allred and Mr.
Johnson, for your nominations. I look forward to working with
you and I look forward to the hearing this morning.
Congratulations to your families as well. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Craig. Ken, thank you. Gentlemen, the rules of the
committee, which apply to all nominees, require that they be
sworn in, in connection with their testimony. So would you
please rise en route to the table and raise your right hands?
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to
give to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Mr. Allred. I do.
Mr. Johnson. I do.
Senator Craig. Please be seated. Before you begin your
statements, I will ask three questions that are addressed to
each nominee before this committee. Each of you, please respond
separately to each question.
Will you be available to appear before the committee and
other congressional committees to represent departmental
positions and respond to issues of concern to the Congress?
Steve?
Mr. Allred. I will, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Craig. Bob?
Mr. Johnson. I will, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Craig. Thank you. Are you aware of any personal
holdings, investments or interests that could constitute a
conflict or create the appearance of such a conflict, should
you be confirmed and assume the office to which you have been
nominated by the President?
Steve?
Mr. Allred. Mr. Chairman, my investments, personal holdings
and other interests have been reviewed both by myself and the
appropriate ethics counselors within the Federal Government. I
have taken appropriate action to avoid any conflicts of
interest. There are no conflicts of interest or appearances
thereof, to my knowledge.
Senator Craig. Thank you.
Bob?
Mr. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, I similarly have made my
financial holdings available for review and I personally
reviewed them. The Office of Government Ethics has reviewed
them. I don't have any conflicts but in the event there was any
question, I would consult with the Government ethics officers
to ensure that is the case.
Senator Craig. Thank you. Are you involved with or do you
have any assets held in blind trust?
Steve?
Mr. Allred. Mr. Chairman, I have none.
Mr. Johnson. I have none.
Senator Craig. Thank you. Each of you now may make a brief
statement. I encourage you to summarize your statements. Your
entire statements will be included in the record. Following
that, we will ask you to respond to some questions.
Mr. Allred, please proceed.
TESTIMONY OF C. STEPHEN ALLRED, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT
SECRETARY FOR LAND AND MINERALS MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR
Mr. Allred. Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the
committee, it is a real pleasure to be here and to have you
consider me as Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals. As I
introduced a short time ago, my wife, Sally, is here and we
have the pleasure of celebrating our 43rd wedding anniversary
today.
Senator Craig. Congratulations.
Mr. Allred. We have two grown children and two
grandchildren that we enjoy very much. My background is such,
really is shaped by growing up on a farm and ranch in eastern
Idaho. I had a father who taught all of--I and my three
siblings--that it was very important that we protect the land
that we lived on and the land that we used to raise our cattle
on because that was our future.
I graduated from Rigby High School in 1960 and then
attended the University of Idaho where I received a degree in
engineering in 1964 and a Master's Degree in Engineering in
1967. I have 42 years of experience, almost equally divided
between government and private sector activities. I served in
the cabinets for three different Governors. First, early in my
career, where I became director of the Idaho Department of
Water Resources. I served there until I left State government
in 1981. In 1981, I joined Morrison-Knudsen Corporation, who
helped build the West, and worked on many of the projects that
it was involved in. That company is now known as Washington
Group International. I retired from there in 1998. As you can
tell, I haven't done very well in retirement.
During that period of time, I worked extensively with then
Senator Dirk Kempthorne. I had known him previously in State
government but I had the opportunity to work with him, as the
company I was with undertook very important work in removing
strategic weapons from the former Soviet Union countries.
Senator Kempthorne was part of that in that he was on Armed
Services and of course, was responsible for a lot of work that
we did.
I also, though, in that career, worked on many projects to
develop energy resources and coal, oil shale, tar sands, and
geothermal and I have a great appreciation that an important
mix of our future energy resources will involve those kinds of
activities.
In January 1999, after being retired for a few months, I
got a call from then-Governor Kempthorne, asking me to become a
member of his cabinet and an important goal that he gave me was
to create a Department of Environmental Quality. That had been
attempted in Idaho for a number of years and had not been
successful. In the year 2000, we created that agency, one of
the strongest in the United States, and we did it with no
negative votes out of the legislature, so I count that as quite
an achievement for him and for me.
I again retired in 2004 and have been involved in some
part-time consulting since then. I think that my experience and
capabilities give me a lot of background that I think will be
valuable in resource management. I certainly appreciate the
importance of the stewardship of those resources, but I also
recognize that it is important that we have a secure energy
future. I think there is great opportunity to meld those two
responsibilities together. As you've heard, I am a consensus
builder. I believe that the best time to deal with challenges
is before decisions are made and to try to come up with
decisions that are win-win for both sides. Mr. Chairman, if I
am confirmed, I will dedicate my efforts to work with this
committee and with Congress to solve the issues that we have
before us. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Allred follows:]
Statement of C. Stephen Allred, Nominee to be Assistant Secretary for
Land and Minerals Management, Department of the Interior
Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the Committee, it is an
honor to come before you today to seek your consent as the President's
nominee for the position of Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals
Management at the Department of the Interior.
I would like to introduce my wife, Sally, who is here with me
today. We have a daughter, Stephanie, and a son, Sean, as well as two
wonderful granddaughters, of whom we are very proud!
Let me begin by telling you a bit about myself. I grew up on a
potato farm in eastern Idaho, where the values of integrity and hard
work were the bedrock of our family. From an early age, I learned that
it is both an honor and a responsibility to serve others. My values in
life were ingrained in me by a school teacher mother and a farmer/
rancher father. They taught me to protect the earth, respect nature,
and to always try to leave things better than I found them.
I graduated in 1960 from Rigby High School in eastern Idaho. My
family and ranching background led me to degrees in engineering--
initially a Bachelor of Science degree in agricultural engineering,
followed by a Master of Science degree in water resource engineering
both from the University of Idaho.
I became involved in resource management issues early in my career.
My first off-the-farm job was with the U.S. Department of Agriculture
during summer breaks. After graduating from the University of Idaho, I
worked in State government, first in California on the California Water
Project, and then in Idaho, where within ten years I became the
Director of the Department of Water Resources. I was one of the
youngest people ever appointed to that position. During my tenure as
Director, I lead the effort in Idaho to develop a State Water Plan,
including in-stream flows. I also was responsible during that time for
several water rights adjudication cases, which involved many Federal
agencies and private parties. The skills I have developed during my
career in building consensus and fostering agreement among multiple
parties have served me well. They have helped me to reach successful
resolution on a number of complex environmental and land management
issues, such as the Coeur d'Alene Superfund remedy, which involved a
variety of stakeholders with diverse interests, including the State of
Idaho, the Federal Government, an Indian tribe, and local citizens.
They were also instrumental in my efforts to establish a cabinet-level
department in the State of Idaho dedicated to protecting our
environment, which I will discuss in greater detail later in this
statement.
In 1981, I joined Morrison-Knudsen Corporation (M-K). M-K, now
known as Washington Group, International, is one of the largest
engineering and construction companies in the United States. As a Group
President with worldwide operations, I was responsible for managing a
work force of over 2500 professional personnel and administering a
budget for a company group (M-K Environmental Group) with revenues in
excess of $600 million.
While working at M-K, I was also involved in the evaluation,
design, and construction of oil shale projects in Colorado; coal
projects in Wyoming, Montana, Texas and the international arena; and
geothermal power projects in the United States and Central America. My
responsibilities have also included the cleanup and restoration of some
of the largest environmentally impacted sites in the nation, both for
industry and government, including mining, chemical, and nuclear
issues. While at M-K, I experienced the challenge of undertaking large-
scale, new development projects in a manner that was compatible with
the environment and cultural issues. My awareness of the huge economic
and social costs of correcting the mistakes of the past has convinced
me that as we develop our own energy resources in order to assure our
economic security, we must exhibit good stewardship with appropriately
defined responsibilities and environmental safeguards.
In 1999, the year after I retired from M-K, I was asked by the then
newly elected Governor of Idaho, Dirk Kempthorne, to become a member of
his cabinet. I had known and worked with Secretary Kempthorne when we
both served in Idaho State government, and I became better acquainted
with him when he was a Member of the U.S. Senate. My position with M-K
brought us together as we worked to remove strategic weapons from the
former Soviet Union under the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program.
While I found working in the corporate world both interesting and
rewarding, as I look upon my career, I find that serving our citizens
has brought me the greatest satisfaction. When Governor Kempthorne
asked me to join him in 1999, he had a special vision about how to
protect environmental values in Idaho while at the same time
encouraging responsible business development.and expansion. He asked me
to assist him in establishing a cabinet-level Department of
Environmental Quality, which required the passage of special
legislation, an effort that for over 20 years had been attempted
unsuccessfully in the Idaho legislature.
I am pleased to tell you that during the 2000 session of the Idaho
legislature, we were successful in establishing one of the most
comprehensive environmental management organizations in the United
States. Moreover, we were able to gain passage of this important
legislation with no negative votes--an almost unprecedented event in
Idaho. It was during this period that, in 2001, I had the honor of
being selected as one of Governing Magazine's Public Officials of the
Year, in part because of that collaboration.
The approach we used in establishing the Idaho Department of
Environmental Quality illustrates the importance that I place on
transparency and collaboration to resolve issues and build consensus.
If confirmed, I will approach the issues and challenges confronting
the Assistant Secretary of Land and Minerals Management in a manner
that enables a wide variety of interests and stakeholders to
participate in the discussions, while achieving results efficiently. If
confirmed, I look forward to learning more about the wide array of
responsibilities and the many challenges faced by the Bureau of Land
Management, Minerals Management Service, and the Office of Surface
Mining Reclamation and Enforcement.
My approach to leadership is firm, but responsive to the needs of
employees and stakeholders. I believe that if people understand
expectations, they generally behave responsibly. I expect to be
accountable to you and to the public, and I expect accountability from
others. I believe it is important for government to have clear laws and
rules, and to be responsive to the needs of its citizens and clients.
Experience has taught me that results count, and clear processes ensure
quality and transparency.
I manage through leadership, and I lead by being involved. If
confirmed, I will be involved in day-to-day issues, and I will be
responsive.
My experiences in both the public and private sectors have shaped
my attitude and philosophy concerning the responsible stewardship of
our lands and resources while also meeting our Nation's growing needs
for energy, minerals, and recreation. We share that responsibility with
stakeholders at all levels of government, Federal, State, and local, as
well as with private citizens.
If confirmed, I will strive to carry out my responsibilities
through collaboration, cooperation, and transparency.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I appreciate the
opportunity to appear before you as you consider my nomination. I would
be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.
Senator Craig. Steve, thank you very much.
Now Bob, let's turn to you.
TESTIMONY OF ROBERT W. JOHNSON, NOMINEE TO BE COMMISSIONER OF
RECLAMATION, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Craig. Please proceed.
Mr. Johnson. It is a pleasure to be here and to address
this committee and offer my testimony regarding my
qualifications to serve as Commissioner of the Bureau of
Reclamation. President Bush has honored me by his nomination
and I am grateful for Secretary Kempthorne's and Assistant
Secretary Limbaugh's support. I am also appreciative of the
encouragement of my family. Without that, I wouldn't be here
today.
At the outset, I would like to make clear my steadfast
commitment to the highest ethical standards and conduct
throughout the Bureau of Reclamation. I fully recognize and
appreciate the enormous trust the public places in each of us
to carry out our duties with honor and integrity and I intend
to honor that trust. I also have high expectations that all
Reclamation employees will know, understand and follow ethics
rules and regulations.
I believe that my life experiences have prepared me to be
here today and make me qualified to be Commissioner of
Reclamation. I was born in Lovelock, Nevada, a small town in
the northwest part of the State. My father was a farmer,
growing alfalfa hay and grain and raising beef cattle. The
water that irrigated our crops came from a Reclamation project.
My mother still lives on the farm and my brother also lives
there with his family, continuing the family tradition of
farming.
After high school, I attended the University of Nevada at
Reno. I earned a Bachelor's and Master Degrees in Agricultural
and Resource Economics. Upon completion of my Master's Degree,
the Bureau of Reclamation hired me and I've been there for the
past 31 years. I worked in the Sacramento Office of
Reclamation, the Washington, D.C. office, and the office in
Boulder City, Nevada. By far, the longest part of my career has
been in Boulder City, most notably, the last 11 years as
Regional Director.
During my tenure as Regional Director, we've made great
progress in the management of the Colorado River but Senators,
I cannot take credit for all the things that have occurred
there. There is a great community of people on the Colorado
River system, the Reclamation staff, the staff of other Federal
agencies, the Basin States, the water users, environmental
interests and all of these interests deserve credit for what
has happened on the Colorado River over the past 10 or 12 or 15
years. It has been absolutely an honor to be part of that
progress and the successes that have occurred. The Lower
Colorado Region is not the only region of Reclamation to have
successes. Other regions have had similar success in a
multitude of areas. The can-do attitude of Reclamation
employees is second to none and I am truly honored to be asked
to provide leadership.
Of course, as good as an organization as Reclamation is,
there is always room for improvement. No organization can rest
on its laurels. As you and members of the committee know,
approximately 6 months ago, Reclamation embarked on a self-
assessment of its operations and interaction with stakeholders.
This effort, called Management for Excellence, builds upon a
review of Reclamation by the National Academy of Sciences and
is intended to position Reclamation to be a performance-driven
organization. If confirmed as Commissioner, completing and
implementing the Management for Excellence program will be my
top priority.
Reclamation is carrying out this self-assessment as we
speak, in consultation with stakeholders. It is too early or
inappropriate for me to speculate on the outcomes but if
confirmed as Commissioner, I intend that there will be two
hallmarks of the program and that will be transparency and
efficiency.
Mr. Chairman, I believe my background and experience make
me well qualified to lead Reclamation to solve these difficult
problems that exist in Western water. Growing up on a farm
gives me a perspective of the views of irrigation districts and
rural communities when conflicts occur. Working in the
Southwest for the past 20 years, where urban growth has been
greater than any other part of the Western United States gave
me a sense of the difficulties that urban areas face in meeting
water challenges and managing a major river system has also
given me an understanding of the complicated interaction
between our projects and the environment and the need to comply
with Federal laws and regulations and State laws and
regulations related to the environment.
I believe I can provide positive leadership to the
organization. I seek your support in confirming me as the
President's nominee to serve as Reclamation's next
Commissioner. I pledge that I will do my absolute best to serve
the public interest in the management and development of
western water supplies.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert W. Johnson, Nominee to be Commissioner of
Reclamation, Department of the Interior
Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the Committee, I am
pleased to be here today to offer testimony regarding my qualifications
to serve as Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. President Bush
has honored me by his nomination, and I am grateful for Secretary
Kempthorne's and Assistant Secretary Limbaugh's support. I am also
appreciative of the encouragement of my family, especially my wife Mary
and my two children, Gabe and Carly. My wife Mary and son Gabe are here
with me today.
I believe that my life experiences have prepared me to be here
today and make me qualified to serve as Reclamation's Commissioner. I
was born in Lovelock, Nevada, a small town located in northwestern
Nevada. My father was a farmer, growing alfalfa hay and grain as well
as raising beef cattle. The water that irrigated our crops came from a
Reclamation project. My mother still lives on the farm, and my brother
Dale also lives there with his family, continuing the family tradition
of farming.
After high school I attended the University of Nevada in Reno. I
earned bachelors and masters degrees in Agricultural and Resource
Economics. As I was completing my masters degree in 1975, the Bureau of
Reclamation offered me a job as an agricultural economist in
Sacramento, California. I accepted and have been with the Bureau of
Reclamation since that time. During my 31 year career I have worked in
3 locations and held 7 different job titles. In addition to working in
Sacramento, I have served in the Commissioner's office in Washington,
D.C., and the Lower Colorado Regional Office in Boulder City, Nevada.
Most of my career has been in Boulder City, the most notable period of
which has been the last 11 years serving as Regional Director.
During my tenure as Regional Director of the Lower Colorado Region,
much has been accomplished. I have had a leadership role in developing
and implementing the following significant changes in the management
and operation of the Colorado River and the Reclamation projects in the
Lower Basin:
<bullet> Established customer oversight committees to review and
develop operation and maintenance programs at Hoover Dam. These
committees established complete transparency in project
operations and resolved longstanding concerns of power
customers.
<bullet> Implemented benchmarking programs at all Lower Colorado
River hydroelectric facilities, resulting in significant
improvement in cost and efficiency of operations. All three
facilities have attained ``best in class'' status among all the
North American hydroelectric facilities participating in the
benchmarking program.
<bullet> Negotiated and implemented advance funding agreements with
power customers at Parker and Davis dams. The funding
agreements eliminated the need for Federal appropriations and
established transparency through customer oversight committees.
<bullet> Implemented interstate water banking regulations that allow
off stream storage and exchange of Colorado River water in the
Lower Basin on an interstate basis. These regulations enhanced
interstate cooperation in meeting current and future water
needs in all three lower Colorado River Basin States.
<bullet> Negotiated settlement of Central Arizona Project repayment
litigation, providing a framework for the settlement of Indian
water right claims in Arizona. The settlement was subsequently
incorporated in the Arizona Water Settlements Act passed by
Congress in 2004.
<bullet> Implemented five Indian water right settlements passed by
Congress.
<bullet> Developed and implemented Lower Colorado River Surplus
Guidelines to define when water operations can provide surplus
water to water users in the Lower Colorado River Basin in
accordance with a Supreme Court Decree.
<bullet> Oversaw the negotiation and implementation of the California
Quantification Settlement Agreement. This agreement provides
quantified entitlements for Colorado River water users in
California and facilitated the reduction of Colorado River
water use by California to its basic apportionment of 4.4
million acre-feet. This agreement provided certainty to all
seven Colorado River Basin States by reducing long-term uses of
the river by approximately 800,000 acre-feet.
<bullet> Developed and began implementation of the Lower Colorado
River Multispecies Conservation Plan. This $600 million plus
plan provides 50 years of ESA compliance for Reclamation, the
Lower Basin States, and water and power customers on the Lower
Colorado River. The plan is the first of its kind and is being
used as a model in other river basins.
<bullet> In conjunction with the Upper Colorado Region, we are in the
process of implementing shortage and coordinated management
guidelines for operation of the Colorado River system. When
completed next year, these guidelines will provide certainty
for Colorado River water users in all seven basin States and
avoid interstate litigation of long standing issues between the
Upper and Lower Basins of the Colorado River system. These
guidelines will also include innovative management tools for
water users in the Lower Basin, allowing water exchanges,
storage credits, and encouraging extraordinary conservation
during periods of drought.
While I have had direct involvement in each of these successes,
credit for accomplishment must be shared with all of the Reclamation
staff, other Federal agencies, the Colorado River Basin States, Indian
tribes, and the water and power users on the Colorado River system.
This community of people is truly exceptional and has collectively
accomplished much.
But the Lower Colorado Region of Reclamation is not the only place
where difficulties have been surmounted with ingenuity and effective,
collaborative approaches. Other regions of Reclamation have also
accomplished much in conjunction with the water and power communities
that they serve. The ``can do'' attitude of Reclamation employees is
second to none; employees take pride in helping to meet the water and
power needs of the West. Reclamation is committed to doing the job
right, and I am enthusiastic about providing leadership to the agency.
Of course, as good an organization as Reclamation is, there is
always room for improvement. No organization can rest on its laurels.
As you and Members of the Committee know, approximately six months ago
Reclamation embarked on a self assessment of its operations and
interaction with its stakeholders. This effort, called Managing for
Excellence, builds upon a review of Reclamation by the National Academy
of Sciences and is intended to position Reclamation to be a
performance-driven organization. If confirmed as Commissioner of
Reclamation, completing and implementing the Managing for Excellence
program will be my top priority.
Reclamation is carrying out this self assessment in full
consultation with its stakeholders. It is too early and inappropriate
for me to speculate on the outcomes of the review. However, if
confirmed as Commissioner, I will ensure that the two important
hallmarks of the program will be transparency and efficiency. Many of
Reclamation's costs are paid by its water and power customers.
Reclamation must fully account for all of its spending and demonstrate
that its operations are carried out efficiently.
Other important concepts and priorities that would be part of my
focus if confirmed as Commissioner include:
<bullet> Respecting the basic tenet of the Reclamation Act that State
law controls in the allocation and management of western water
supplies.
<bullet> Continuing the focus of the Reclamation mission on
delivering water and power to Reclamation customers and
maintaining adequate funding for project operations and
maintenance.
<bullet> Focusing on collaborative approaches to resolving water
issues with a focus on avoiding crises.
<bullet> Continuing a management philosophy that water problems are
best solved at the local level.
<bullet> Continuing to maintain a balance between centralized policy
and decentralized operations and encouraging decisionmaking by
field managers while maintaining accountability and appropriate
oversight.
<bullet> Maintaining appropriate consistency among Reclamation
projects and regions, but respecting the unique circumstances
that surround individual projects. One size does not
necessarily fit all.
<bullet> Focusing on the human capital of Reclamation, attracting and
keeping highly qualified people and developing appropriate
succession plans to provide long-term continuity.
Water will continue to be one of the most important issues facing
the western United States. Population and economic growth in the
western States has been rapid and is projected to continue with
commensurate increases in the demand for water. Water needs for the
environment and recreation will likely continue to grow also. Conflict
over limited water supplies will be the norm.
Mr. Chairman, there are no easy answers to these problems. I am,
however, confident that solutions can be found, and I believe that the
Bureau of Reclamation can play a role in finding such solutions. The
role of the Bureau in promoting collaboration between stakeholders in
situations where water supplies are limited is more important than ever
before, and we must work to make sure that the organization is properly
positioned to assist with solutions to tomorrow's challenges.
In meeting this challenge, Reclamation must first respect its past.
Irrigated agriculture was the cornerstone of the Reclamation program.
Reclamation cannot abandon its agricultural water users and must ensure
that the rights and obligations of all water users are respected.
Second, Reclamation and the West must prepare for the future. The
changing urban structure of the West and associated changes in the
economy and public environmental values dictate the need for creative
solutions in meeting new demands for limited water supplies.
Mr. Chairman, my background and experience make me well qualified
to help lead Reclamation in finding the proper balance to solve these
problems. Growing up on a farm using water from a Reclamation project
has given me an appreciation of the perspective that irrigation
districts and rural communities bring to the table when water conflicts
occur. Similarly, living and working for the past 20 years in the
desert southwest, where urban growth rates have outpaced all other
parts of the country, has given me an appreciation of the difficulties
that urban water managers face in meeting growing water demands.
Managing a major river system has also given me an understanding of the
complicated interaction between our projects and the environment, and
the need to comply with the many aspects of Federal and State
environmental laws and regulations.
I believe that I can provide leadership to Reclamation in
positioning the agency to be a positive force in solving western water
problems in the 21st century. I seek your support in confirming me as
the President's nominee to serve as Reclamation's next Commissioner. I
pledge that I will do my absolute best to serve the public interest in
the management and development of western water supplies.
I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Senator Craig. Bob, thank you very much. Well, gentlemen,
both of your statements were timed perfectly. Your time has
expired. So let us proceed with questions and there may be some
that we might not choose to ask today, for the sake of time,
that will be submitted in writing to you, that we would
appreciate your prompt response to.
Steve, the members of this committee devoted many hours
last year getting an Energy Policy Act enacted. Chairman
Domenici, Jeff Bingaman, myself and Craig Thomas, literally
worked 5 or 6 years ultimately, putting this package together.
The statute has numerous provisions intended to promote
responsible development of our Nation's oil and gas, coal and
other resources to enhance energy security. Will you commit to
implementing the provisions of that Act?
Mr. Allred. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee,
certainly I will.
Senator Craig. In your opening comments, you made some
reference to us. Can you give us your views, generally, on
encouraging development of the Nation's resources in face of
conflicting priorities?
Mr. Allred. Senator Craig, as we look at the environmental
laws that we have, particularly the impacts on local people,
there are going to be those kinds of conflicts. To me, the goal
is going to be to bring those interests and those stakeholders
in very early, whether they are national or local, and to make
sure we understand their views and can use the information we
gain from them to find ways to implement energy projects that
will protect those other resources and considerations that are
so important to us.
Senator Craig. When the President asked Governor, now
Secretary Kempthorne, to serve as Secretary of the Interior,
Dirk called me and said, ``What are going to be some of the
priorities that I should be looking at?'' I said, ``In the 2-
plus years that you will serve under this President, it is
possible that you will produce more energy for the country than
the Secretary of Energy.'' And I was referencing all of these
assets that clearly are there, including obviously the one that
we're working collectively on, OCS, Lease Sale 181 and now,
this phenomenal deep-water find that Chevron talks about well
out in the gulf. I believe that statement I made to the now
Secretary is valid, that literally, the Department of the
Interior and its ability to facilitate in light of all of these
conflicting priorities, can and will produce more energy for
this country than the Secretary of Energy in the next 2 to 3
year timeframe. Your reaction to that.
Mr. Allred. Mr. Chairman, I don't think there is any
question that we have the opportunity to do that. The challenge
will be finding a way to do it in a manner that people will
accept and feel that their interests are protected. We can do
that. I think there are also lots of opportunities, not only to
develop the oil and gas resources but there are other
resources--and I am particularly aware of the oil shale and tar
sands we have. Of course, I think wind will be important too,
although it is probably a smaller resource than the others will
be. But my interest is making sure that we use a combined set
of objectives, which will maximize our ability to get those
energy resources on as quickly as possible and I think
certainly within 2 years, we should see some of those resources
coming online and be able to rely upon them.
Senator Craig. Thank you. Bob, your predecessor, John
Keys--of course, I had the privilege of working with him when
he served in Idaho and of course, he served us very, very well
in now the capacity that we trust you will assume soon. When he
was before this committee, I asked him this question and he
answered it forthrightly and then proceeded to fulfill it and
in fact, accomplished it during his tenure. The question was
this: Will you allow another Klamath to happen?
Mr. Johnson. Senator, I will do everything that I have in
my power and in my ability to stop that from happening. That
was actually a very, very difficult situation and that will be
one of my top priorities, is to make sure that we don't have
those kind of circumstances arise again.
Senator Craig. You mentioned in your opening comments, the
National Research Council's rather far-reaching report on
Reclamation. You did talk to it to some extent. How are the
Managing for Excellence meetings proceeding and what progress
have you made in these meetings?
Mr. Johnson. We've now had, I believe, two meetings, with
interested publics, mostly Reclamation's water and power
customers, seeking their input, giving them progress reports on
the status of where we are and what we are doing, getting their
feedback on the activities that we're looking at. We have 41
teams that are looking at the various recommendations that the
National Academy made. We've made significant progress on some
of those. In fact, we've actually completed a couple of items
related to developing our policy and putting some new policies
in place and making those policies transparent. We have another
meeting scheduled with our constituents for next week and we
are committed to move along in that process, get it completed
by the end of 2007, with the schedule that we initially put out
for everybody's review.
Senator Craig. Thank you. My last question to you, Bob. Do
you feel that the stakeholders are being adequately included in
the process and what complaints, if any, have you heard from
the stakeholders regarding their involvement in the process?
Mr. Johnson. I certainly hope that they feel like they are
getting the proper involvement and if they're not, I would take
steps to make sure that is occurring. I have not heard any of
them express any concerns to me directly, that they are not
getting the input that they feel like they need. So, my sense
is, that is happening. If it is not, we'll take action to make
sure that it is.
Senator Craig. Okay, thank you.
Senator Bingaman.
Senator Bingaman. Thank you both again for being here. Let
me start and ask you, Mr. Allred, a couple of questions about
this testimony that was made yesterday in the House. This is
testimony by the Inspector General for the Department of the
Interior, Earl Devaney, before the House Government Reform
Subcommittee on Energy. He said, simply stated, ``short of a
crime, anything goes at the highest levels of the Department of
the Interior.'' And then he went on to say, ``I have observed
one instance after another when the good work of my office''--
that is the Inspector General's Office--``has been disregarded
by the Department. Ethics failures on the part of senior
Department officials taking the form of appearances of
impropriety, favoritism and bias have been routinely dismissed
with a promise `not to do it again.' '' Are you informed about
this? I mean, this sounds like a very unfortunate circumstance,
when you have the Inspector General of a Federal department
making those kinds of charges against the department that he
has been Inspector General of for many years. Do you have any
reaction to that?
Mr. Allred. Senator Bingaman, first of all, let me say I
really appreciated the opportunity to meet with you. I have not
been privy to these matters. As you can imagine, I am not a
Federal employee, so as such, those kinds of discussions have
not taken place with me. I have to say, though, that I know the
Secretary very well. I know what his ethical standard is and I
know that he would not put up with this sort of thing, if in
fact, it occurred. My own personal attitude comes from my
father, who taught me that the most important thing you have in
life is your name and your reputation and through my business
career and government career, I have absolutely no tolerance
for impropriety or the appearance of improprieties. So I can
assure you that over those things which I have control, you
will find a heavy emphasis on doing the right thing and making
sure that we protect the interests of our citizens and our
government.
Senator Bingaman. Well, I appreciate that assurance and I
don't question it. I look forward to following up with you once
we get this full report, which I guess the Inspector General is
completing his work on. One of the areas you are going to be
responsible for is the negotiations with regard to these
royalties in the Outer Continental Shelf. There are some leases
that were signed in the previous administration that did not
require payment of royalties, as I understand it, in deep water
drilling and there are negotiations going on to go ahead and
see what can be resolved with regard to those. It has been my
position that the taxpayers of the country are entitled to the
same kind of royalty from development of public resources that
private landowners or resource owners are entitled to with
regard to development of resources on private land. Are you
generally in agreement with that? Is that what we ought to be
aiming for in the discussions with these private companies?
Mr. Allred. Senator Bingaman, I don't know exactly what the
situation is with those leases. I think it is very unfortunate
that they are not structured such that they did not require the
same things as are required now or had been previously
required. I think it is important for the people of the United
States to realize the benefit from the resources that are being
used by private companies. I don't know what the numbers should
be. I'm not smart enough yet but I certainly will become so, as
to what the royalties ought to be. But it ought to be
appropriate for the resources that are being used and the
people in the United States ought to benefit from those
resources.
Senator Bingaman. Okay. Let me switch and ask about NPRA,
National Petroleum Reserve Alaska. One of the issues that has
been raised there, 18 of my colleagues joined me in writing to
Secretary Kempthorne just in June, asking him to reconsider the
decision to open the lands around the Teshekpuk Lake area.
These are lands that were put off limits by Secretary Watt over
20 years ago and last week, the Federal District Court in
Alaska, made a preliminary ruling that the lease sale should
not go forward until there has been an environmental analysis
of the cumulative impacts, and that has been completed. Could
you assure us that you are going to look at that Federal court
decision carefully and take into account those cumulative
impacts in deciding what course to follow with regard to this
area?
Mr. Allred. Senator Bingaman, I think it is important that
we understand all of the resources we have available to us,
including the environmental and cultural resources as well as
oil and gas. I don't believe we can make decisions, equitable
decisions that are going to benefit our citizens down the road
unless we do know those. So I certainly will do my best to
understand in any decision that I am responsible for, what the
impacts of what we are doing or propose to do, are. I also,
though, want to say that one of my greatest frustrations--this
is my first entry into being a Federal employee--that one of my
greatest frustrations in being on the outside, working with the
Federal Government, is the seeming inability to get decisions
made. So I also have a great interest in making sure as we go
forward, that we use all that information but that we also make
decisions, whether they be to do something or not do something,
so that people know and have that guidance.
Senator Bingaman. Thank you. I gather my time is up, Mr.
Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Craig. Jeff, thank you very much. Let's now turn to
Senator Craig Thomas.
Senator Thomas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Johnson, you
of course, indicated that you've had a good deal of experience
on the Colorado River and the lower part of the Colorado River,
primarily. Are you prepared, I hope, to get familiar and
represent the interests of the upper seven States in the
Colorado River? There is often a little confusion there.
Mr. Johnson. Senator, I work with all seven States on the
Colorado River system and I have a very good rapport with all
four Upper Basin States. I understand the sensitivities of both
basins and I will work very hard to be fair to both basins and
try to balance those interests and move towards consensus among
all seven States, absolutely.
Senator Thomas. Good. I understand the Secretary has the
authority and the discretion to conduct a mid-year review of
the Colorado River's annual operating plan to determine the
volume of water to be released and so on. Is this the case and
are you familiar with that?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, I am and yes, it is the case. The
Secretary does have that authority.
Senator Thomas. Good. Mr. Allred, as you know, one of the
issues that is before us often, with BLM, is the delay of
permits for drilling and mining. The Department has recently
established a couple of pilot programs, seven pilot programs, I
guess. What other opportunities do you see to increase the
efficiency? I don't suggest they reduce their responsibility
but how can it be done in a more efficient way? Do you have any
thoughts on that?
Mr. Allred. Senator Thomas, it was a pleasure to meet with
you the other day as well. As I indicated to Senator Bingaman,
one of my frustrations has been in the past, in getting those
kinds of decisions. I had that experience as well in State
government where it was taking forever to get permits out the
door. Sometimes it was a desire not to issue the permits but
that still meant that people didn't know what the situation was
and that was very frustrating to me. So I don't know what the
opportunities are but I can assure you that I will look for
opportunities to speed that process up, taking proper
consideration of all the things that we need to consider. But I
want decisions, I want them as rapidly as they possibly can be
made, so that people know what to do and can take whatever
measures they then need to take for their lives and their
livelihood.
Senator Thomas. The internal assessment written in May by
BLM indicated a failure to monitor and limit harm to wildlife
and air quality from natural gas drilling. The assessment
contends there is often, ``no evaluation analysis or compiling
of data, tracking these consequences.'' Have you heard of that
and what would be your reaction to that?
Mr. Allred. Senator, I am aware of that. I've just been
briefed on it as I've been briefed on many other things. I come
from, again, as you learned from my resume, from an
environmental regulation background, at least recently, where
most of the decisions you made had to be made on that kind of
data. I think it is the responsibility of the applicant or the
operator to provide that data to us but we should have that
data and it should be in a form that we prescribe and we should
audit that data to make sure that we have that information and
it is correct and can rely upon it. So I agree, we need the
data. I think it should be the responsibility of the operator
to provide it to us, just like they do if it is EPA or some of
the other regulatory agencies.
Senator Thomas. Mr. Johnson, what limitations are imposed
by the 1970 coordinating long range operating criteria for the
Colorado River, relative to the Secretary's authorities to
release water?
Mr. Johnson. Those criteria lay out some broad guidelines
that the Secretary uses to manage the Colorado River system.
Part of that is to define the release of water from the Upper
Basin to the Lower Basin as required under the Colorado River
Compact with the seven States. Those criteria provide for what
is called a minimum objective release of 8.23 million acre feet
from the Colorado River system, from the Upper Basin to the
Lower Basin on an annual basis. Part of what we're doing right
now, in conjunction with all seven basin States, is taking a
look at that particular piece of the long range operating
criteria and looking at how those releases from the Upper and
the Lower Basin should be made.
Senator Thomas. Good.
Mr. Johnson. So that's something that is being looked at
right now. In fact, I think the Basin States have worked very
well trying to find some careful compromises.
Senator Thomas. Good. All right, thank you.
Senator Craig. Craig, thank you very much. Now let me turn
to Senator Salazar from Colorado.
Senator Salazar. Thank you very much, Senator Craig. First,
my question is to Mr. Allred. I, along with my colleagues on
this committee, helped in putting together the bipartisan
effort on the National Energy Policy Act, which we passed last
year and I'm proud of the effort of this committee and of the
Senate in that regard. One of my areas of interest in that
legislation has to do with oil shale. My view is, we put
together a bill that had the right balance in terms of moving
forward with the right kind of deliberation. There are some who
feel that we ought to expedite that to move much more quickly
in terms of trying to develop oil shale in Colorado, Utah and
Wyoming. Can you quickly share what your views are in terms of
the speed with which we ought to move forward on oil shale
exploration and development?
Mr. Allred. Senator Salazar, my background, as I indicated,
in the early 1980's, Morrison-Knudsen as certainly involved in
oil shale development, including the Union Oil Project that was
producing oil. At that time, it was not economical to proceed
after the Federal Subsidies went away but I think it is a
valuable resource that we need to develop. It is as any other
time that we extract resources. We need to understand what the
environmental and what the social impacts are of what we do. I
don't know how fast that can proceed. I'm very much interested
in going forward with oil shale but I do also understand and
believe that we have to understand what we're impacting when we
do it. But there is a tremendous resource there.
Senator Salazar. You'd be supportive, then, of making sure
that both the Federal and the local communities have the
benefit of the environmental impact statement that is required
by the law so that we can understand what those impacts are
going to be on those communities from oil shale development?
Mr. Allred. Mr. Chairman, Senator Salazar, I mean to--I
don't know the process so I want to be careful that I don't
promise something that is not--that I'm not familiar with but I
can assure you that I will, to the best of my ability, make
sure the local people are involved in those decisions and have
the necessary information to provide input.
Senator Salazar. I appreciate that and I will just ask you
here on the record to make sure that you are working both with
me as well as with my colleague, Senator Allard, because oil
shale development will very much affect our Western Slope in
Colorado and we need to make sure that as we move forward, that
it is developed in the appropriate way.
Second question, in regard to the BLM and the pace of oil
and gas development, I know many members of the Senate and
Governors on both the Republican and Democratic side, Senators
like Senator Burns, Senator Thomas, Senator Bingaman and
myself, have questioned the pace in which BLM is moving forward
with the development of energy in my State. Some people have
said that we've become the sacrificial zone for energy
development as you see thousands upon thousands of oil and
natural gas loads being developed. My question to you is, what
is your view with respect to--in a general way, with the pace
of development that is taking place in the Rocky Mountain West
concerning oil and gas development and what is the respective
role and relationship between the Bureau of Land Management and
the affected communities? How should the BLM move forward in
terms of making sure that affected communities are supportive
of decisions that the BLM is making?
Mr. Allred. Senator, perhaps I could answer the last
question first and then build to the other one. My whole
background in government has been to make sure that local
people had, first of all the information to provide input, but
second, the opportunity to provide input as to what decisions
should be. Many times, those decisions may not please them but
it is important that they have the opportunity to provide that
input and to feel that they were listened to. I can pledge to
you that anything that I have to do with these decisions will
be such that they have that opportunity and feel that they have
been given the opportunity to do so.
With regard to the pace, I don't think I'm smart enough at
this point in time and have enough information to say whether
the existing pace is adequate or not adequate or too fast. I
think it needs to be such that it is deliberative but we have
to make decisions. Again, I want to make sure that when someone
asks us to do something, we give them a decision after adequate
information is available to us.
Senator Salazar. One more question to Mr. Allred. With
respect to our best management practices, I'm a supporter of
oil and gas development in my State but I also have seen the
concerns of many communities are grave with respect to the pay
stub of development and different companies have different
kinds of reputations. There are some companies in my State that
have very good reputations in terms of best management
practices that they are using on a whole host of fronts. Other
companies, frankly, do not. And as the Assistant Secretary,
would you be willing to push the oil and gas industry, as
powerful as they are, to make sure that as they explore and
develop or use natural resources, that they are using the very
best management practices that have been developed by industry?
Mr. Allred. Senator, I have little tolerance for people who
do not use the best management practices and so I think you
will see my attitude is such that if they are going to use the
natural resource, then they need to use those best management
practices, which will protect that public resource, whether it
be environmental or oil resources.
Senator Salazar. Thank you, Mr. Allred.
Mr. Chairman, will we have another round?
Senator Craig. [Answers off-mic.]
Senator Salazar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. To Mr.
Johnson, congratulations and it is indeed, I think, a fortunate
circumstance that we're in where we have someone who really
understands the Colorado River system, to run the Bureau of
Reclamation. So I congratulate you and we'll move forward into
the complexities that challenge all of us on the Colorado
River. Let me ask, first just a general question. Your Agency
has huge projects in my State, from the Big Thompson Project to
the Arkansas Frying Pan/Arkansas Project and huge issues that
are very difficult and complex that we're working on. I want
your pledge, sir, that before I give you my vote of
confirmation, that you will work closely with me as we try to
address some of these very complex and conflicting issues.
Mr. Johnson. Certainly, Senator, I would be pleased to do
that.
Senator Salazar. Thank you. Let me turn to a very general
question on the Colorado River. I remember back in the 1990's,
the California Drought of 1990, when we got involved in a whole
set of seven States' discussions about the future of the
Colorado River and whether the Upper Basin States were going to
share water with California to deal with that particular issue.
Do you have any sense as to whether or not the way that we are
organized to manage the issues on the Colorado River is the
best way or should there be other things that we ought to be
doing from an organizational point of view? I'm not talking
about the issues such as the shortage criteria on the Colorado
River, but essentially, how we manage it there. For example,
there is no organization that currently deals with all seven
States on the Colorado River. You have the Upper Basin, you
have the Lower Basin and then you have the Big Master, the
Secretary of the Interior that manages the river. Are there
better ways of managing this watershed that supplies the water
supply to so many, many people in our country?
Mr. Johnson. You're talking about the Bureau's organization
with the two regions that manage the two basins?
Senator Salazar. I'm talking the whole management.
Mr. Johnson. The whole management.
Senator Salazar. Does it make sense to have a Colorado
River Commission that would have a representative from each of
the seven States to identify the issues on the Colorado River
and try to work through them as opposed to the very ad hoc,
informal consultation that seems to drag on and on?
Mr. Johnson. That is a question that has been talked about
for a long time. In fact, if the States could get together and
come up with some sort of a mechanism on how that would work, I
think that could be a good thing. I think it might be difficult
to do that because--it would be very difficult to define
exactly how decisions would get made and my guess is, there
would be a struggle there to come together on some sort of an
agreement on how that would occur. I mean, if that was
something that could be worked out, I don't know that I would
oppose that. I think the model that we have on the Colorado
River system has served us pretty well. I think that having the
Secretary of the Interior with some authority to make decisions
allows a consensus process to occur. Many times, there are
significant differences among the States and among the water
users over various issues. It has been my experience that the
Secretary, by having that authority, can actually bring the
States and the various interests together and actually have
some success in getting agreement on how issues ought to be
resolved. I think the Secretary has to be very careful how that
authority is used and the collaboration is absolutely essential
and getting consensus with the Basin States is absolutely
essential. But I think the Secretary can play a significant
role in the way that it is currently set up. I mean, that said,
I wouldn't--you know, I think that if there was a way for the
seven States to get together, I think that would be--I don't
know that I would be opposed to that.
Senator Salazar. I'm not advocating a specific proposal but
I do think that it is something that is worthwhile to at least
have a dialogue on. There is a study that has been proposed for
Frying Pan, Arkansas called the Preferred Storage Option Plan.
It's looking at the expansion of Pueblo Reservoir and perhaps
another reservoir on the Arkansas River system. Very
contentious within my State because of conflicts between Pueblo
and Colorado Springs and the Lower Arkansas Valley. I'm not
asking you for a response other than just to pledge to me that
you will work with me in the year or two ahead, to try to get
the issues resolved on that proposed legislation.
Mr. Johnson. Certainly.
Senator Salazar. And I would do the same with respect to
another conflict up in the northern part of the State, on the
Big Thompson Project, where the Northern Water Conservancy
District and the Colorado River District have been battling
with respect to who ought to be in the management position of
that project. I would ask you again, to work with us as we move
forward on that issue.
Mr. Johnson. Yes, of course.
Senator Salazar. Again, I'm delighted that we have somebody
that really understands the Colorado River at the helm of the
Bureau of Reclamation.
Mr. Johnson. I thank you.
Senator Craig. Ken, thank you very much. Let me come right
off from your line of questioning with a couple of
observations, Bob and maybe your reaction to them. I know a
little bit about the Colorado River but I also understand the
magic it must take to bring seven States together in a
watershed as complicated as the Colorado. But there is
something happening in the West that may be, in fact, an
opportunity to rejuvenate the Bureau of Reclamation back to a
point in time when it was once a very--a greater resource to a
changing West than it currently is today where it is just a
management of existing systems. The State of Colorado, the
State of New Mexico, the State of Idaho, your home State of
Nevada, are growing at an unprecedented rate. We are populating
at a rate that none of us every imagined would happen because
the West is a marvelous place to live and a lifestyle that many
people are seeking today. It also happens to be an area of the
Nation that has the least amount of water and conflicts, I have
to believe, into the future, are inevitable and resolution is
going to be critical. I'm not sure that continuing to divide a
finite resource is a way to solve a problem in an increasingly
populating area. It is one way of doing it but I'm not sure it
will solve all of our needs in the long term. I and others, for
some time, have been suggesting that there may need to be a
time when we re-evaluate the potential for additional off main
stem storage of additional water supplies, beyond just our
ability to manage existing water. We also know that we've gone
through prolonged periods of drought. We know what the storage
system in the Colorado looks like today. It's much lower than
we would prefer it to be and I guess I'm in search of your
philosophy more than I am a specific answer because I think we
have some challenges in front of us in the West. If we're smart
enough, we can get out in front of and start building consensus
to do some things that, right now or a year or two or three
ago, would have been viewed by most as being an impossible task
but under today's pressures, I think it is moving us in a
direction where we're going to have to make some decisions.
Your reaction?
Mr. Johnson. I certainly think that there are--making the
pie bigger is always the better solution. If you can develop
additional water supplies, that can be a very good way to solve
these problems and I think that there are probably areas where
that's a good option for dealing with water problems. There are
other areas where there just isn't any good opportunity--I
mean, all the water that is there has been developed so it's
really a matter of trying to figure out how you adjust to the
changing economy and the changing water needs. But certainly, I
don't preclude any options when it comes to trying to solve the
water problems. In some areas, building more storage certainly
makes sense with additional water funds, if you can.
I think the perennial concern for the Bureau is--for any
Federal agency, is budget. That's really a very limiting
factor. We do have projects that we're working on. The Animas
major effort for Reclamation that is currently going on. There
are other areas where we're actually helping develop additional
water supplies, The Rural Water Program, the Title XVI Program,
are all programs that are actually creating additional water.
So using both approaches is the right way to go.
Senator Craig. I came to Congress in 1980. In 1982, I began
to work with Colorado Senators and representatives in a program
called Animas La Plata--1982! My guess is that if the pressures
of today were then, it might already be completed but that was
not the case.
A comment to you, Steve, and it comes off from in part,
what Ken has mentioned in their concern in the over thrust and
along the front as it relates to gas development and of course,
it has to be done right and it must meet the standards of the
communities and the interests involved. At the same time, we
are dealing with, in part, some land use plans that were easy
to make when gas was a dollar a trillion at the wellhead or
less--I don't know what the price was at the time. When it was
easy to say, well if we have a conflict, let's just stop or
let's terminate drilling for periods of months while the
conflict exists and then we'll move on. Many of those decisions
were made at a time when we were not losing a chemical
industry, we were not as dependent on offshore--we had an
abundance and we never dreamed gas would be $10 or $12 a
million cubic feet. That day has changed and probably changed
forever. The over thrust, all of that region of the West, we
believe, houses, three, four maybe five trillion cubic feet of
gas. Relatively easy to gain access to, in a general sense.
So I believe your sensitivity toward all of that in making
sure that we do it right so that we don't leave a lasting
impact in an environment that is--because it is high desert
environment in most instances, is extremely more fragile than
other types of environments. I say that as an observation
because I think it is a reality that we have to review again
and certainly the BLM is caught in the middle of that right
now. But it is not unlike the reality that is just in the line
of sight of your birthplace and that is those ridges out back
of Rigby that are now becoming wind farms. I must tell you, I
dislike the destruction of that vista, to the whop, whop, whop
of a wind farm. But I guess that's the reality of where we are
today.
So, due caution and at the same time, your comments about
making decisions based on the facts that are available are also
critical. This is a time when our country needs decision. It
needs decisiveness as it relates to these key issues. Our
dependence on foreign resources has put this country in a
compromised position it should not tolerate and that's part of
why I think we collectively came together in the Energy Policy
Act of last year.
Let me turn to Senator Bingaman for additional comments he
would wish to make and I'll be submitting some questions for
the record.
Senator Bingaman. Thank you again for that, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Johnson, let me just ask one or two questions and then
I'll stop. One issue that I have been greatly concerned about
is getting the Environmental Impact Statement completed for the
Navajo Gallup Project. In early July, I sent a letter to
Secretary Kempthorne requesting the Department release the
draft EIS on the Navajo Gallup Pipeline. That letter was a
follow-up to one that we did in April 2003, to Commissioner
Keyes, urging Reclamation to complete that. I was told then
that we could expect release in February 2004. Obviously
February 2004 has passed, so this thing has been in the works
for something approaching 8 years. I would just ask you to
review this situation, once you are in this position, and
report back to us, if you could, for the record, as to the
status of the Environmental Impact Statement and what is a
realistic expectation for us on getting this done. It seems to
me that it has become an embarrassment to anybody watching the
process.
Let me ask also and I'll get a chance to visit with you
tomorrow, I believe, separate from this hearing but I also am
anxious to get a clearer notion as to where the Bureau of
Reclamation is with regard to the Eastern New Mexico Rural
Water Project, which is something that I've been very
supportive of and of course, one of the main issues before you.
I don't call on you to really respond to this right now, but I
think a main issue is how the Bureau of Reclamation is changing
its planning process in light of global warming. I would think,
as the largest water manager in the West, that the Bureau of
Reclamation would be taking the lead in trying to understand
the effects of global warming and factoring those into their
management plans. I'd be anxious to know, as we go forward,
what you are able to do in that regard. I would hate for this
to be an instance where the Federal Government is the last one
to wake up to the seriousness of this issue. I think the Bureau
of Reclamation can provide some useful leadership on this and I
hope you'll see it that way, too.
Mr. Chairman, I'll stop with that and again, I appreciate
the nominees being here and for the hearing being scheduled.
Senator Craig. Senator Bingaman, thank you very much.
Gentlemen, thank you very much for again, your presence and
your willingness to serve our country in these critical areas
at this particular time in our Nation's history. I think, as
most of us have expressed, we sense concern to the issues and
the importance of the roles you will play for the Nation and in
the West, where much of your authority rests. So we thank you
much for being with us today.
The hearing will stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:15 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Responses of C. Stephen Allred to Questions From Senator Domenici
Question 1. At a hearing yesterday in the House, the Department of
the Interior IG gave a rather scathing report on the ethics culture
within the Department that specifically addressed certain areas that
would be within your purview if you are confirmed. I realize that you
are probably not aware of specific problems, but could you tell us
generally what management techniques you plan to use to promote
integrity and ethical conduct within your areas of responsibility?
Answer. As I stated at my confirmation hearing yesterday, the most
important character trait any individual possesses is integrity.
Ethical conduct, integrity, and responsibility do not occur simply
because management requires it. We have to create and reinforce that
behavior by being clear, making sure our expectations are understood,
and by setting the example ourselves. If I am confirmed, you can be
assured I will set that example, and I will make clear my expectation
to our employees regarding their conduct. I will also make sure our
customers understand our standards of conduct.
Question 2. Please explain the steps that you plan to take to
ensure that alternative energy forms advanced in Section 388 of the
Energy Policy Act of 2005 are given appropriate attention with the
Department of the Interior.
Answer. I understand the Department has already begun the process
for developing rulemaking and has been conducting public meetings to
gather information and input from potentially affected stakeholders. If
confirmed, I will work with the MMS toward the development of a program
for alternative energy on the OCS under Section 388 of the EPAct.
Question 3. As I am sure that you are aware, there has been a great
deal of controversy this year surrounding the failure of the Clinton
Interior Department to include price thresholds in deepwater OCS oil
and gas leases issued in 1998 and 1999. Earlier this year, I supported
an amendment in the Interior Appropriations subcommittee that gives the
Secretary clear authority and parameters to renegotiate these leases.
It is my understanding that certain parties to these agreements have
begun negotiations.
If confirmed, will you make the success of these discussions a top
priority and will you be committed to making these negotiations
successful to the best of your ability?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work to ensure the negotiations are
fair to all concerned, including the American taxpayers.
Question 4. Can you also assure me that if confirmed you will be
committed to doing a thorough examination of OCS oil and gas leasing
policies to ensure that the failures with respect to the 1998 and 1999
leases are not a systemic problem in the Department?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review procedures to make sure that
similar failures will not occur in future lease contracts.
Question 5. On August 1, the Senate passed S. 3711, a bipartisan
energy bill that provides for oil and gas leasing areas in the 181 Area
and south of the 181 on the Outer Continental Shelf. Furthermore, this
bill provides important revenues to the coastal producing states and to
the stateside Land and Water Conservation Fund.
Are you supportive of the concept of additional oil and natural gas
production on the OCS beyond what is permissible under current law?
And, do you support enactment of an OCS bill this year?
If confirmed, will you work in your capacity to ensure that the
areas identified in S. 3711 area leased by their statutory deadline if
such legislation is enacted into law?
Answer. I support the Administration's position to work with
Congress on greater access to OCS resources. If legislation is enacted,
and if I am confirmed, I will work to meet the requirements of the Act.
Question 6. Will you commit to actively support the OCS areas
covered under S. 3711 from future moratoria in Interior Appropriations
bills if S. 3711 is enacted?
Answer. I support the Administration's position to work with
Congress on greater access to OCS resources. If legislation is enacted,
and if I am confirmed, I will work to meet the requirements of the Act.
Question 7. The bulk of America's oil shale resource is on Federal
Land. This may represent our best chance to eliminate our dependence on
Mideast oil. In the Energy Bill we took steps to initiate an Oil Shale
Program at BLM and they seem to be making good progress.
Can I get a commitment that the Department will continue to
aggressively implement such a program under your watch?
Answer. If confirmed, you have my commitment that I will continue
the work begun by the Department in implementing the Energy Policy Act
of 2005 provisions relating to Oil Shale development. I agree this is
an important resource that can contribute to our energy security, and
we need to understand the environmental and social impacts of what we
do so we can responsibly develop this important resource.
Question 8. The Energy Bill included a significant rewrite of the
Geothermal Steam Act. Geothermal Energy has the potential for playing
an important role as a clean source for renewable energy.
What can we expect from BLM in finalizing its rulemaking and
implementing this program in the next few months?
Answer. I have a keen interest in responsible development of
geothermal resources, but I have not had the opportunity for a full
briefing on the BLM's efforts in finalizing the rulemaking and
implementing the geothermal program. However, if confirmed, you have my
commitment to become well-informed on this issue, and see to it the BLM
continues to expeditiously complete the rulemaking and implement the
program.
Responses of C. Stephen Allred to Questions From Senator Thomas
Question 9. BLM offices in Wyoming are having a very difficult time
retaining staff because they leave to work for energy companies. I
would like to work with you on solutions to this problem. Is there an
effort underway at the Department to address this issue and what do you
bring to that effort?
Answer. While I am not familiar with the problems you describe with
employee retention in the BLM's Wyoming offices, I have experienced
this same issue elsewhere. If confirmed, I will look into this issue to
determine what steps need to be taken to improve the situation. I look
forward to working with you to find creative solutions to this issue
and welcome your ideas.
Question 10. Many of the decisions made by the Department in my
state are appropriately reviewed on a case-by-case basis in state
offices. I believe that the environmental community, the energy
industry and DOI employees would benefit from more consistency,
however. Do you believe there is a way to provide more predictability
between the different offices on permits and environmental work?
Answer. Although I have not had the opportunity to discuss this
issue in detail with the BLM, I am aware that environmental conditions
can vary geographically from one area to another. However, if
confirmed, I will look into this issue and work with you to identify
the right balance in decision-making on resource uses across all BLM
field offices.
Responses of C. Stephen Allred to Questions From Senator Bingaman
Question 11. NPR-A--In June, eighteen of my colleagues joined me in
writing to Secretary Kempthorne asking him to reconsider the decision
to open protected lands in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska in the
vicinity of Teshekpuk Lake. These lands were put off limits by
Secretary Watt over 20 years ago. Last week, the Federal District Court
in Alaska preliminarily ruled that the lease sale should not go forward
until further environmental analysis of cumulative impacts is
completed.
Will you ensure that cumulative impacts are considered?
Answer. As I stated at my confirmation hearing, I believe it is
always important that we consider the impacts of development on our
resources. If confirmed, I will work with the BLM to address the
concerns raised by the District Court.
Question 11a. Do you think the BP pipeline failure teaches us
lessons and provides new information that should be considered as we
proceed with oil and gas leasing on the North Slope?
Answer. While I am not intimately familiar with the details
surrounding the BP pipeline failure, I think any time an incident such
as this occurs it is incumbent upon all citizens to be responsible
stewards of the public lands and to take the necessary steps to ensure
best practices are utilized so that similar incidents do not recur.
Question 11b. Do I have your commitment that you will review this
decision and keep us informed as to the status of this lease sale?
Answer. Yes
Question 12. NPR-A--I understand that the lease sale for Northeast
NPR-A has been scheduled to occur prior to issuance of the regulations
implementing the Energy Policy Act provisions relating to the NPR-A.
Why has this lease sale been scheduled before the regulations are
issued? When will the regulations be issued?
Answer. I have not had the opportunity to review the decision-
making process about the Northeast NPR-A lease sale. If I am confirmed,
I will work with the BLM and the Office of the Solicitor to review both
the leasing procedures and any potential legal issues surrounding the
NPR-A regulations and leasing schedules.
Question 13. NPR-A--Section 347 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005
amends the law applicable to leasing in the NPR-A with respect to lease
renewal and unitization.
Does the Department interpret these provisions to allow a lessee to
hold a lease for longer than 30 years without production if the lease
is part of a producing unit? If so, how long can a lease be held
without production?
Does the Department interpret this provision to place any limits on
the size of a unit? Has any legal analysis been undertaken with respect
to the interpretation of section 347? If so, can you please provide a
copy?
Answer. I have not been briefed on the Department's interpretation
of how Section 347 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 affects NPR-A
leasing decisions. If confirmed, I would be happy to confer with you on
this issue once I have had the opportunity to become informed of the
details.
Question 14. BLM Inspection and Enforcement--The document entitled
``Bureau of Land Management Pinedale Field Office--Commitments Made in
Decision Document not yet Achieved'' presents a summary of commitments
made by BLM when it issued oil and gas leases and indicates that many
of these commitments have not been kept.
Do I have commitment that you will ensure that there are adequate
resources within BLM dedicated to oil and gas inspection, enforcement,
and monitoring, so that the agency can keep its commitments in
understanding the oil and gas leasing program? Have similar summaries
setting forth the status of implementation of leasing commitments been
prepared for other areas? If so, please provide a copy.
Answer. I have seen the articles in the press on this issue.
However, I have not yet spoken with any of the Department of the
Interior or BLM program staff on this complex issue. If confirmed, I
will ensure that the proper emphasis is placed on oil and gas
inspection, enforcement, and monitoring activities.
Question 15. Diligent Development--I am advised that there are over
26 million acres of Federal onshore lands that are under oil and gas
lease but not producing and 33 million acres of the Federal OCS are
under lease but not producing. At a time of high prices and when we are
in need of additional domestic oil supplies, I find this hard to
understand. I have asked GAO to look into the reasons for this and to
review the requirements for diligent development of federal leases.
Will you ensure that agency personnel cooperate fully with the GAO
in their efforts to review this matter?
Answer. Yes
Question 16. Deep Water Royalty Relief--A discovery of up to 15
billion barrels of oil in Federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico was
announced last week.
How many leases in this geologic formation were issued in 1998 and
1999 without price thresholds, so that a specified amount of oil and
gas can be produced without paying royalties even though prices are at
record highs?
Answer. I have not yet had an opportunity to hear the full details
of the exciting new frontier in the Gulf of Mexico. If confirmed, I
would be pleased to visit with you more about this issue and supply
this information when it becomes available.
Question 17. Revenue Sharing--The new discovery in the Gulf of
Mexico (of up to 1 5 billion barrels of oil) underscores the high cost
to the Treasury of the revenue sharing provisions of the OCS bills
pending before Congress.
How much revenue would be forgone to the Treasury under the House-
passed bill if the discovery is in fact 15 billion barrels of oil?
Under the Senate bill?
Answer. I have read the press accounts of this new frontier, which
is very exciting. I am not familiar with the details of either piece of
legislation. However, if confirmed, I will work with the Minerals
Management Service to provide an analysis to the Committee.
Question 18. Royalty Audits--MMS is authorized to enter into
memoranda of understanding with States and Indian tribes to undertake
audit work for royalties generated on Federal lands. There has been
concern among some states that MMS is not adequately funding this work
by the states and tribes.
What steps will you take to ensure that States and Tribes receive
adequate funding to undertake this important work?
Answer. The Minerals Management Service informed me they have
developed a plan to reallocate funds to best ensure the activities and
needs of the compliance and audit program are met. If confirmed, I
would be pleased to discuss the issue further with you.
Question 19. Tribal Trust Responsibility--Please comment on what
steps you plan to take as a Federal official to carry out the Federal
government's tribal trust responsibility.
Answer. I am very respectful of the Government's tribal trust
responsibilities. If confirmed, I will familiarize myself more with
these issues to determine the obligations of this office and commit
that I will carry out these responsibilities diligently.
Question 20. Multiple Use Mission--Please comment on your
understanding of BLM's multiple use mission for management of our
public lands.
Answer. It is my understanding that the multiple-use mission of the
BLM is at the heart of what that agency does in managing our public
lands. However, multiple use does not mean that every acre of public
land is available for every use. Rather, multiple use means balancing
the various uses the BLM is charged with providing to the American
public, including recreation, grazing, forestry, access to mineral
development, watershed and wildlife habitat protection, and the
management of BLM's special places, such as wilderness, national
monuments, national conservation areas, and national historic trails.
Question 21. Coalbed Methane Report--Please comment on the status
of this report required by section 1811 of the Energy Policy Act of
2005. Will you ensure that adequate resources are made available for
this important report on water and coalbed methane production?
Answer. I have not had the opportunity for a briefing on the
Coalbed Methane Report requirements of Section 1811 of the Energy
Policy Act of 2005. However, if confirmed, I will become informed on
the issue and would be pleased to visit with you about it.
Question 22. Deepwater Royalty Relief--Has the Department
undertaken a legal analysis of (1) whether the doctrine of mistake
applies to the 1998 and 1999 contracts that did not include price
thresholds; or (2) the authority of the Department to limit royalty
relief even in the absence of a specific term to that effect in the
lease? If so, please provide a copy of the analysis.
Answer. Because I am not employed by the Department, I am not privy
to any legal analysis or advice the Department's lawyers may have given
on these questions. If confirmed, it will be a high priority for me to
become fully informed on these issues.
Responses of C. Stephen Allred to Questions From Senator Wyden
Question 23. During the late 1990's the Department of Interior
negotiated more than 1,000 leases to develop oil resources without the
price triggers that would require lessors to pay royalties to the
federal government. Several energy companies have now agreed to
renegotiate these leases with the Department's Minerals Management
Service that will be under your supervision.
If confirmed as Assistant Secretary, what will be your timetable
for completing renegotiation of these leases?
When will you expect that these companies will start paying
royalties?
Answer. The Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that
renegotiation of these leases could increase Federal revenues by $2
billion over five years and $9 billion over 10 years.
Question 23a. How much of this royalty revenue will you seek to
collect as part of the lease renegotiations?
And, do you support using these revenues to make county payments
under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act?
Answer. If confirmed, it would be my intention to complete the
negotiations as soon as possible to help ensure a fair resolution of
this issue.
While I am not aware of the status of the negotiations on the
leases, I have been informed that the Administration is continuing to
work with your office on finding funding solutions for the Secure Rural
Schools and Community Self Determination Act, and I support that
effort.
______
Responses of Robert W. Johnson to Questions From Senator Domenici
title transfers
Question 1. Mr. Johnson, Reclamation currently has an
administrative process for the transfer of uncomplicated projects. It
is my belief that the process is not as aggressive or comprehensive as
it should be. I introduced legislation (S. 3832) that would direct the
Secretary of the Interior to promulgate criteria for the transfer of
title to Reclamation facilities and lands, including multi-purpose and
multi-beneficiary projects. The bill also directs the Secretary of the
Interior to undertake a study to identify which Reclamation facilities
may be appropriate for transfer.
Do you believe that there are opportunities to transfer title to
Reclamation facilities for which an administrative process does not
currently exist?
Answer. Yes, I believe we can and should improve Reclamation's
approach to Title transfers. While Reclamation has had success with
title transfer of projects and facilities over the past 10 years, I am
concerned that the current process for title transfer takes too long,
is potentially too costly and the number of new title transfers being
proposed is declining. I believe that there are opportunities for
mutual benefit to Reclamation, water users and other stakeholders with
transferring title that we may be missing. Through the Managing for
Excellence (M4E) initiative, a team was established to develop
recommendations on how Reclamation might reinvigorate its title
transfer effort, and in particular, look at ways to reduce the barriers
that exist and identify incentives that may encourage more entities to
pursue title transfer. If confirmed, I would appreciate the opportunity
to work with you and the Committee to reinvigorate Reclamation's title
transfer effort.
Question 2. Do you believe that title transfers would make more
resources available to Reclamation to fulfill its current mission?
Answer. I believe there may be potential opportunities to make
resources available to Reclamation to fulfill its current mission
through title transfer. However, it is my understanding that the 18
transfers that have been completed to date have resulted in very
limited budgetary savings. In most cases, the facilities that are being
considered for transfer are already being operated and maintained by
non-Federal entities. This has meant that neither Reclamation employees
nor Reclamation-appropriated funds were being used to operate and
maintain the facilities. Additionally, Reclamation's administration of
these facilities prior to transfer involved relatively few Reclamation
employees and limited appropriated funds. In those cases where some
staff time may have been freed up, those resources have been redirected
to other ongoing issues faced by that office. The transfers that have
occurred to date have been relatively small and were scattered across
Reclamation's jurisdictional areas--thereby diluting any potential
Reclamation-wide, regional or area office impact. In other words, there
has not been a concentration of title transfers which would result in
significant savings. There are, however, other programmatic and
operational objectives that can be accomplished through title
transfers.
Question 3. Please describe some instances in which title transfers
are not appropriate.
Answer. There are a number of types of cases where title transfer
does not seem appropriate. For instance, projects which deliver water
between states and to other countries, such as some of those on the
Colorado River or the Columbia River would not, in my view, be good
candidates for title transfer. In other cases, there are some projects
which have multiple purposes and there are competing needs and demands
for the water. While it is possible that an agreement could be reached,
doing so would be so controversial that it is unlikely that the
benefits to a potential transfer would outweigh the costs of reaching
agreement between the diverse and competing demands. Where we have seen
efforts to convey projects with multiple stakeholders who have
competing demands for the resources, an area of extreme difficulty is
in developing post-transfer governance arrangements--in other words,
determining who fills the management role that Reclamation or the
Secretary played when it was a Federal project. In addition, title
transfers would be inappropriate where the project beneficiaries prefer
not to accept title to the project. Title transfers should be
voluntary.
Question 4. What changes, if any, would you make to S. 3832?
Answer. While I have not had an opportunity to closely study the
details of S. 3832, from my understanding of the legislation, its goals
are consistent with my views and is consistent with the effort underway
through Reclamation's Managing for Excellence initiative related to
title transfer. I think that effort will be tremendously valuable in
furthering the goals articulated by S. 3832. I hope that we can work
together to use the work you have done and the results of the Managing
for Excellence effort to develop a comprehensive approach to title
transfer.
title transfer--middle rio grande legislation
Question 5. I have been working with the state of New Mexico, the
Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District and the six Middle Rio Grande
Pueblos to draft legislation that would transfer title to some works
and real property interests associated with the Middle Rio Grande
Project.
Do I have your commitment that, if confirmed, you will work with my
office to produce a legal description of the works and real property
interests that we would be transferred by the legislation?
Answer. Yes. Reclamation has worked constructively with the
committee staff this year to provide copies of all available contracts,
contract amendments, easements and correspondence specific to the works
proposed for transfer. I would continue to prioritize that work.
Question 6. What other works and real property interests associated
with the Middle Rio Grande Project, if any, do you believe are
appropriate for transfer from the Federal government to the Middle Rio
Grande Conservancy District?
Answer. I am advised that the real property interests associated
with the Middle Rio Grande Project distribution facilities and drains
are appropriate for transfer if those interests are within the District
boundaries and not on Indian land.
middle rio grande pueblo water delivery
Question 7. Pursuant to a 1981 agreement, Reclamation is
responsible for releasing water to meet the Pueblos ``prior and
paramount'' rights. Pursuant to the 1981 agreement, the Bureau of
Indian Affairs is required to ensure that these obligations are met.
The Pueblos have raised concerns regarding the arrangement created by
the 1981 agreement.
If confirmed, how would you improve the relationship between
Reclamation, the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Pueblos regarding
Pueblo water delivery under the 1981 agreement?
Answer. The prioritization of communication and understanding by
all parties is essential. Early in 2006, the Bureau of Indian Affairs
(BIA) and Reclamation began holding regular meetings of technical
representatives from the agencies and the Pueblos to work through
technical issues related to storage and release of water for the Six
Middle Rio Grande Pueblos for the 2006 irrigation season. These
meetings resulted in agreement on a storage volume for the 2006
irrigation season and have facilitated a more cooperative approach to
releases throughout the season. In addition, Reclamation managers
regularly meet with the Six Middle Rio Grande Pueblos' Governors at
their Water Coalition meetings. I would support continuation of the
meetings, which have strengthened the relationship and would actively
seek other methods and forums to enhance communications with the BIA
and the Pueblos.
animas-la plata project
Question 8. Despite past claims of mismanagement and poor planning
and oversight, the A-LP project is now proceeding at an acceptable
rate. The President's budget calls for $57 million for the project in
FY 2007. However, some project beneficiaries claim that the project
requires $75 million in FY 2007 to keep it on schedule. This project is
of great importance to the communities of northern New Mexico and
southern Colorado.
Do you believe that the $57 million requested by the administration
is adequate to keep the project on schedule?
Answer. Yes, I believe that the administration's request of $57.4
million is adequate to maintain the current schedule as published in
February 2006.
Question 9. If confirmed, how would you ensure that there are not
further cost overruns with the project?
Answer. If confirmed, I would make sure that the processes
implemented in 2004 are continued. The construction office continually
evaluates ways to save costs and still maintain the project features.
Cost tracking procedures that have been implemented relate incurred
project costs to the current cost estimate (indexed for inflation)
allowing for early detection of problems. This cost information is
shared with the project sponsors on a regular basis.
Question 10. What approaches has the USBR taken its communications
with stakeholders regarding the A-LP project that may be applicable to
other projects?
Answer. I believe several project management techniques being
employed at A-LP may be applicable to other projects. A ``business
plan'' has been jointly developed which provides for a means for
consultation on all important issues related to schedule and costs. The
intent is to control spending, avoid surprises, and to allow for input
by stakeholders on key project decisions. Some of these include: cost
tracking procedures that relate incurred project costs to the current
cost estimate (indexed for inflation) allowing for early detection of
problems, bimonthly detailed briefings for project sponsors, schedule
control techniques, identification of significant risk items and
contingency planning. A project issue notification system has also been
implemented. This system allows detailed information on issues and
decisions that need to be made prior to the next scheduled coordination
meeting to be shared between Reclamation and stakeholders.
Question 11. If current funding levels are maintained, when do you
anticipate that Project will be completed?
Answer. I am advised that the schedule reflects an estimated
construction completion of features in the winter of 2011-12 (FY 2012)
with project closeout in 2013.
r&d in water science and technology
Question 12. Drought and population growth in the western U.S.
requires that we make more efficient use of water and develop
technologies to make use of previously impaired or unusable water.
During the 1960s and 1970s, the federal government funded extensive
research in water technology which resulted in reverse osmosis--the
desalination technique most widely used today.
I believe the federal government should renew its investment in
water treatment technology. Toward this end, I have funded construction
of a Tularosa Basin Desalination Research and Development Center in New
Mexico.
What role do you believe the Tularosa Facility plays in the overall
strategy of the Bureau of Reclamation to address western water
challenges?
Answer. The Tularosa facility will serve as a key national resource
for R&D on brackish groundwater. While Reclamation is still in the
process of developing a business plan for the facility, and a
desalination strategy, I expect that, in future years, Reclamation will
draw heavily on the information and experience obtained at the Tularosa
facility.
Question 13. As you are aware, the authority for Reclamation's
Water Desalination Research and Development Act of 1996 was extended
through FY 2006. Do you support a greater extension of this authority?
If so, what changes to the authority do you believe are necessary?
Answer. I support the extension of this authority and would
appreciate the opportunity to work with you and your staff on this
issue.
Question 14. What is the status of the construction activities at
the Tularosa Basin Desalination Research and Development Center in New
Mexico? When will the facility be completed? Will additional federal
money be required to complete the Facility? If so, how much?
Answer. As discussed with the Senate Appropriations Committee this
year, construction is scheduled for completion in March 2007.
Reclamation has been provided sufficient financial resources to
complete construction.
Question 15. As Commissioner, what steps would you take to prepare
for the transition of the Tularosa facility to New Mexico State
University?
Answer. The present authority calls for Reclamation to issue an
advertisement for a competition to enter into a cooperative agreement
to operate the facility. This would allow NMSU and any other qualified
entity to submit proposals for consideration. I am aware, however, that
there is some effort as part of the Senate version of the FY 2007
Energy and Water Development Act to transition this facility to NMSU. I
would welcome the opportunity to work with you on the appropriate next
steps for the Tularosa facility.
eastern new mexico pipeline
Question 16. In 1966, Congress authorized the Bureau of Reclamation
to study the feasibility of a project that would utilize water from Ute
Reservoir to supply water to communities in eastern New Mexico.
Feasibility assessments have been underway for 40 years, resulting in
numerous reports and feasibility studies. Lack of clear Reclamation
guidelines for feasibility assessments and turnover of Reclamation
staff has resulted in confusion among project proponents on how best to
proceed.
If confirmed, how would you bring consistency to the technical,
financial and management assessment processes associated with this type
of project?
Answer. Reclamation established an ``Oversight Committee'' to
assist the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water Authority and other
communities in developing acceptable feasibility reports for submission
to Reclamation. If confirmed, I also plan to implement best practices
that are being identified as a result of Reclamation's Managing for
Excellence initiative that will rigorously track and monitor programs
from inception through completion.
Question 17. When do you anticipate Reclamation will prepare a
formal review of the most recent design for the Eastern New Mexico
pipeline? Do you believe that additional appropriations are necessary
for this purpose?
Answer. Senate Report 109-274 would allocate $500,000 in fiscal
year 2007. I am advised that amount is sufficient to complete the
review if sustained in final conference on the FY 2007 Energy and Water
Appropriations bill. Reclamation doesn't believe additional funds are
needed for this purpose. The ``Oversight Committee'' which was
established to assist the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water Authority is
currently reviewing draft technical memoranda from the Authority's
consultant, relating to a number of planning and preliminary design
issues. Reclamation is awaiting an economic analysis and a financial
plan from the Authority, and once received, it is expected that
Reclamation would be able to provide comments on a complete draft
report within approximately 30 days.
gila river settlement
Question 18. The Arizona Water Settlement Act was passed by
Congress during the end of 2004. The Act contemplates the construction
of a water project on the Gila River in New Mexico. The New Mexico
Interstate Stream Commission is investigating potential projects.
If confirmed, do I have your assurance that you will carry out all
activities needed to address the environmental and engineering
requirements for a New Mexico project on the Gila River?
Answer. If confirmed, I will continue to carry out all of the
responsibilities assigned to Reclamation under the Arizona Water
Settlements Act, including those related to the New Mexico Project.
Reclamation, through the Gila-San Francisco Coordinating Committee, is
coordinating with the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission,
Southwest New Mexico Water Planning Group, and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service to evaluate the environmental effects of potential
water withdrawals from a New Mexico Unit as outlined in Section 212(c)
of the Arizona Water Settlements Act.
Question 19. Will you advocate with OMB the need to fund the
preliminary and final NEPA and engineering activities required for the
project?
Answer. Under the Arizona Water Settlements Act (Act), the State of
New Mexico must provide written notice to the Secretary of the Interior
by December 31, 2014, of whether it intends to build the New Mexico
Unit. Reclamation intends to continue to seek funding, as needed, to
work with the Gila-San Francisco Coordinating Committee and support New
Mexico's decision-making process. The Act provides that Colorado River
Basin Project Act (CRBPA) funds be available to make deposits totaling
$66 million into the New Mexico Unit Fund in 10 equal payments
beginning in 2012. If New Mexico decides to construct a New Mexico
Unit, the Act provides that additional federal funding from the CRBPA
be made available, up to a maximum of an additional $62 million. I have
and will continue to be an advocate for obtaining appropriate funding
for all authorized activities associated with this project.
rio grande coordination
Question 20. The Rio Grande, like many other rivers in the West, is
managed by various Federal and non-Federal agencies, each with its own
management plans. Frequently, these plans are not well integrated and
conflict. In the Senate version of the FY2007 Energy and Water
Development Appropriations bill, I provide funding for the Corps of
Engineers and Reclamation to work jointly to undertake an Integrated
Management Plan.
Do you recognize the value of integrated resources management and
watershed based planning?
Answer. I believe that integrated resources management and
watershed-based planning are a necessity throughout Reclamation, and
the Rio Grande is no exception. There are currently numerous efforts in
the Rio Grande along those lines. They include regular, often daily,
conference calls amongst numerous water management entities. These
calls are used as a forum for all stakeholders to present their
projected water demands and to allow discussion of river conditions,
weather forecasts, Endangered Species Act compliance issues, and
reservoir storage and release issues. The information exchanged during
the calls is then used by water management entities, including
Reclamation and the Corps of Engineers, to improve and optimize
management of the Upper Rio Grande.
Question 21. What examples of integrated watershed planning
currently undertaken by Reclamation serve as a model for this activity
in the Rio Grande in New Mexico?
Answer. I believe a prime example is the Upper Rio Grande Water
Operations Review and EIS in which the Corps of Engineers, Reclamation,
and the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission evaluated respective
operations and evaluated opportunities to optimize those operations.
Not only did the three Joint Lead Agencies mentioned above devote
numerous resources, but many other entities within the basin also
contributed significant resources. Technical information gathered and
evaluations done utilizing tools such as the Upper Rio Grande Water
Operations Model will be the foundation for future water management
decisions in the basin.
While each river basin is unique, there are other river basins
where I believe that integrated management and planning are
successfully being implemented. Various forms of integrated management
and planning are ongoing in basins including the Colorado, Platte,
Sacramento, San Joaquin, Yakima, and others. All involve collaborative
processes that bring stakeholders, governmental agencies, environmental
groups, and others together to work toward balanced and hopefully
consensus-driven solutions to management of resources.
chimayo and espanola water systems
Question 22. Two small communities in the Pojoaque basin north of
Santa Fe, New Mexico have contaminated and unreliable groundwater
resources. In 2004, legislation was enacted to help these two
communities with their water resources needs. In FY 2005 and 2006,
appropriations were provided to Reclamation for this purpose.
If confirmed, will you continue to help these two communities
resolve their water resources problems? If so, how?
Answer. If confirmed, I would continue Reclamation's efforts in
providing help to those communities including NEPA assistance,
engineering design, cost estimation and construction management as
appropriate from the funds allocated to the projects by Congress.
esa collaborative program
Question 23. In order to address endangered species issues in the
Middle Rio Grande Valley, I established the Middle Rio Grande
Endangered Species Act Collaborative Program. The Program provides a
forum for over 20 Federal, State, local and non-governmental entities
to discuss ways to address endangered species issues along the Rio
Grande. However, many of the organizations involved in the program have
concerns over the Bureau of Reclamation's administrative efficiency. In
the FY 2007 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill, I
included a provision that directs Reclamation to undertake a study of
the administrative costs associated with the Bureau of Reclamation's
administration of the program and identify opportunities to increase
the percentage of funds that are spent to comply with the 2003
Biological Opinion.
How is compliance with the 2003 Biological Opinion proceeding? Do
you feel that adequate funds for this purpose are included in the
President's Fiscal Year 2007 budget request?
Answer. Reclamation and the Corps of Engineers remain in compliance
with the 2003 Middle Rio Grande Biological Opinion (BiOp), and
Reclamation anticipates being able to comply in fiscal year 2007.
Adequate funds are provided in the budget request for activities
necessary to remain in compliance and to contribute to the recovery of
the listed species and the development of the Collaborative Program.
Question 24. What construction activities required by the 2003
Biological Opinion do you anticipate will be completed by the end of
this calendar year?
Answer. I am advised that construction activities that are expected
to be completed by the end of the year include: additional streamgages,
gates and check structures; at least seven habitat restoration projects
between Ohkay Owingeh (San Juan Pueblo) and Elephant Butte Reservoir;
the silvery minnow refugium in Albuquerque; and sandbar destabilization
in the Rio Grande.
Question 25. If confirmed, how will you ensure that administrative
costs associate with the program are kept to a minimum?
Answer. Reclamation is working through the Executive Committee of
the Collaborative Program to identify areas where we can reduce
administrative costs and still protect the integrity of the
collaborative process. If confirmed, I would work with the Executive
Committee to continue with this effort.
water 2025
Question 26. One area in the USBR budget request where the
President is proposing an increase is in the Water 2025 program. The
budget requests $14.5 million for Water 2025, a $9.6 million increase
from the FY06 enacted level. This is nearly a 300 percent increase over
last year's enacted level. As you know, I introduced legislation
authorizing the Water 2025 program.
What are some of the major accomplishments of Water 2025?
Specifically, how have funds that have been appropriated for the
program reduced conflict among water users?
Answer. In just three years since the inception of the program, the
Water 2025 Challenge Grant program is thriving, and a number of other
Water 2025 efforts are underway to develop technology that can be used
by water managers to stretch scarce water supplies, thereby reducing
the likelihood of conflicts over water.
In fiscal year (FY) 2004 and FY 2005, the Challenge Grant Program
funded 68 projects to carry out approximately $58 million in water
system and water management improvements across the West (approximately
$15 million in Federal investment and $44 million in non-Federal cost-
share). Despite limited funding in FY 2006, Reclamation received more
than 100 proposals for Challenge Grant funding for the third straight
year, representing a combined request for over $19 million in Federal
funding to complete more than $63 million in improvements across the
West. The 10 projects selected for FY 2006 funding leverage $1.3
million in Federal funding into more than $5.6 million in water system
and water management improvements.
Reclamation will begin collecting data regarding the benefits of
the Water 2025 Challenge Grant projects funded to date in the coming
fiscal year. Recipients are required to complete their projects within
two years from the date of award; therefore, the first projects funded
under this program in 2004 are expected to be completed in October.
Based on estimates in the project proposals, the 68 projects funded in
FY 2004 and FY 2005, along with the 10 projects selected for FY 2006
funding, could save up to 296,000 acre feet per year, collectively,
once fully implemented.
Additionally, the funded Challenge Grant projects have already
helped to form collaborative alliances that will help to prevent future
water conflicts. For example, the Central Oregon Irrigation District,
an FY 2004 Challenge Grant recipient, is working on the establishment
of a pilot water bank in the Deschutes Basin through an alliance of
seven irrigation districts, six cities, three tribes and the Deschutes
Resource Conservancy (the ``Deschutes Water Alliance'' or the
``Alliance''). In Utah, the Sevier River Water Users Association--a
partnership of canal companies and river commissioners--is using their
FY 2005 Challenge Grant to enlarge the existing Supervisory Control and
Data Acquisition (SCADA) system to allow for expansion of real-time
monitoring and control systems in a five-county area.
The projects selected for award through the Challenge Grant program
in FY 2004, FY 2005, and FY 2006 incorporate the following improvements
(assuming that all 10 projects selected for funding in FY 2006 receive
awards):
<bullet> 27 projects, collectively, will convert 86 miles of dirt
canals to pipeline.
<bullet> 48 projects include installation of water measurement
devices, SCADA systems and automated water delivery systems.
<bullet> 14 projects include water marketing plans.
Water 2025 has also helped to fund water efficiency improvements
apart from the Challenge Grant Program. For example, Reclamation and
the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District in New Mexico are 50-50 cost
share partners on projects to implement water efficiency measures
inside the district, including installation of flow measurement
devices, lining canals, automating weather stations, and diversion dams
throughout the District boundaries. To date, $4.5 million in Water 2025
funding has been allocated to the project.
Additionally, Water 2025 has provided funding for cost-shared
grants for the improvement of desalination technology. In FY 2005, $1.7
million in Water 2025 funding was applied to such grants through
Reclamation's Desalination and Water Purification Program (DWPR) grant
program. With this funding, 16 projects were awarded, including 11
research studies, 1 research pilot, one demonstration project, and 3
continuing pilot projects.
Past successes of Water 2025 also include Reclamation's
collaborative efforts to improve water management technology. Through
the Challenge Grant Program, for example, Reclamation has provided
funding to the Mancos Water Conservancy District in Colorado to test
the effectiveness of different canal lining materials. Also through
Water 2025, Reclamation has formed a strategic alliance with the
International Center for Water Resources Management at Central State
University in Ohio, the Ohio View Consortium, and Colorado State
University to develop advanced remote sensing technologies to allow for
more efficient water management decisions. Likewise, Reclamation is
collaborating with the Desert Research Institute in Nevada on projects
including the development of protocols for the application of
polyacrylamide (PAM) as a low cost, effective option to significantly
reduce irrigation canal seepage.
Question 27. The Science and Technology Program and the Title XVI
program have some similarities. Do you believe that activities
authorized by both programs should be combined into one authority? Is
there unnecessary duplication among the two programs?
Answer. The primary focus of the Title XVI Water Reclamation and
Reuse Program is to provide technical and financial assistance to local
water agencies to plan, design and construct congressionally authorized
water recycling projects. These projects are typically very large scale
and many cost in excess of $100 million to implement. The Title XVI
Program is only minimally involved in research and demonstration
projects, which is one of the principle focus areas for Reclamation's
Science and Technology Program within the Office of Research and
Development. Therefore, there is very little, if any, duplication of
effort between these programs and I believe it would make sense that
they continue to be managed and operated under separate authorities.
rural water
Question 28. Senator Bingaman and I worked very closely with the
Department to develop a rural water bill which, in November of last
year, passed the full Senate. The House Resources Committee recently
held a hearing on this bill. The President's budget proposes a $14
million, 17 percent decrease for currently-authorized rural water
projects.
What is your opinion on the loan guarantee program contained in S.
895? Do you believe it will benefit stakeholders who are responsible
for extraordinary operations, maintenance and rehabilitation costs? If
so, how?
Answer. As our infrastructure ages, it seems to be increasingly
difficult for water districts to absorb in any single year the costs of
some of the significant, non-routine operation, maintenance and
rehabilitation costs. This is a tough challenge, particularly since
these water districts sometimes have difficulty securing 1 financing on
affordable terms. (They cannot pledge the federal project works as
collateral because they do not own them.) I believe loan guarantee
authority may be a highly useful tool in helping water districts meet
this need. As you know, the Administration has been exploring the idea
of a loan guarantee program within Reclamation in order to help meet
this challenge. If I am confirmed as Commissioner, I would look forward
to working with you on how to meet these challenges, including through
the possible use of new loan guarantee authority.
colorado river management
Question 29. As you know, the seven basin states reached agreement
on a draft management plan for the Colorado River in order to minimize
shortages in the Lower Basin and reduce the risk of curtailment in the
Upper Basin. It is my understanding that this plan will require further
refinement but is a good step towards addressing this often contentious
issue.
When do you anticipate that the Department of the Interior will
complete the implementation of a final plan?
Answer. Reclamation anticipates issuing a Record of Decision (ROD)
in December 2007. Leading up to the issuance of the ROD, Reclamation is
currently analyzing the impacts of a range of proposed project
alternatives in a draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that we
anticipate will be published in February 2007. We anticipate that a
final EIS will be issued in September 2007. The EIS process is
providing an opportunity to consider the tradeoffs between the
frequency and magnitude of shortages and the benefits of water storage
in Lakes Powell and Mead, including water storage, power production,
recreation, and environmental benefits.
Question 30. What is the status of the implementation of the
Colorado surplus plan developed several years ago?
Answer. Water transfers have been occurring between California's
agricultural and municipal and industrial users and California is
living within its 4.4 million acre-foot (mat) apportionment of Colorado
River water. Current drought conditions in the Colorado River Basin
have limited the opportunities for California and others to obtain
surplus water under the Colorado River Interim Surplus Guidelines
(ISG).
The ISG, adopted in January 2001 and effective through 2015, are
applied each year as part of the Annual Operation Plan to determine the
conditions under which the Secretary may declare the availability of
surplus Colorado River water for the states of Arizona, California, and
Nevada. The ISG were adopted to provide California with a ``soft
landing'' to gradually reduce its use to 4.4 mall The Colorado River
Water Delivery Agreement, signed on October 10, 2003, implemented the
``California 4.4 Plan'' by quantifying the water entitlements of key
California water agencies and also providing for the transfer of water
among the California agencies. As part of the development of Lower
Colorado River Basin shortage guidelines and coordinated management
strategies for Lake Mead and Lake Powell, Reclamation is considering
the extension and/or modification of the terms of ISG through 2025 to
provide a consistent interim period under which to gain valuable
experience to advise future operations of the reservoirs.
Question 31. How do you plan to implement the recommendations of
the shortage management plan, particularly the suggestions for
increasing water available in the Colorado River?
Answer. Reclamation anticipates issuing a Record of Decision in
December 2007 that will establish guidelines for the coordinated
operations of Lake Powell and Lake Mead. These guidelines will then be
implemented each year through the development of the Annual Operating
Plan for the Colorado River. I expect that the guidelines will include
provisions allowing for the storage and delivery of conserved and
developed water. Most importantly, our implementation will be guided by
constant and effective communication with the Basin states and the
stakeholders with ongoing interest in the management of the Colorado
River.
Additionally, there are many specific proposals for projects and
measures that will help augment water supplies of the Colorado River.
The specific projects will be considered on a case-by-case basis and
implemented consistent with appropriate environmental compliance and
agreements among the parties involved.
2003 biological opinion flow requirements
Question 32. Mr. Johnson, in 2008, the City of Albuquerque will
begin diverting its allocation of San Juan Chama Project water. As a
result, Reclamation will no longer be able to lease this water in order
to comply with the flow requirements contained in the 2003 Biological
Opinion for the Rio Grande Silvery Minnow. I understand that
Reclamation initiated a series of meetings in order to address this
problem.
How do you propose that we address the shortfall of water for the
Silvery Minnow when the City of Albuquerque's allocation of San Juan
Chama Project water is no longer available?
Answer. In recent years, there have been other willing sellers of
San Juan-Chama Project water. In the future, Reclamation recognizes
that the municipalities will be developing the capability to divert and
use their contract water. Reclamation is working with the Fish &
Wildlife Service, the Corps of Engineers, the State of New Mexico, and
other stakeholders through the Middle Rio Grande Collaborative Program
to look at opportunities to more efficiently meet all water users'
needs and also to secure water. If confirmed, I would encourage
Reclamation to pursue a long-term strategy for meeting the needs of the
silvery minnow through involvement of key agencies, entities, and
stakeholders.
Question 33. Please explain to the Committee the progress
Reclamation has made in meetings to address this problem.
Answer. Reclamation, with the help of the Middle Rio Grande
Collaborative Program, has initiated discussions with the key agencies,
entities, and stakeholders on addressing this problem. A facilitated
workshop, sponsored by the Collaborative Program, was held, and a
formal dialogue was started which will lead to follow up actions
anticipated over the coming months. If confirmed, I would support the
continuation of this dialogue which I hope will lead to additional
progress in meeting the long-term goals of the Collaborative Program.
indian water rights settlements
Question 34. Mr. Johnson, un-adjudicated Indian water rights claims
in New Mexico are a source of great uncertainty and must be resolved.
Reclamation has a significant role in advancing these settlements. The
proposed Navajo settlement would require the construction of the
Navajo-Gallup Pipeline for which an Environmental Impact Statement
would be required. The Aamodt and Abeyta settlements require the
acquisition of water in the Rio Grande Basin. Several months ago,
Reclamation produced a document that identifies an additional 1,010
acre feet of water per year that is available in the Rio Grande Basin.
If confirmed, would you undertake technical analyses to ensure that
the 1,010 acre feet of additional water is available for the Aamodt and
Abeyta settlements? When would you complete these analyses?
Answer. I am advised that, using computer modeling runs, the Corps
of Engineers and Reclamation are cooperatively assessing the
availability of the estimated 1,010 acre feet of additional water. We
anticipate that these analyses would be completed within six months.
Question 35. When do you anticipate Reclamation will complete the
draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Navajo-Gallup Pipeline?
Answer. I understand that Reclamation and the Department are
currently revising the Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project Preliminary
Planning Report/Draft Environmental Impact Statement to address
comments received from an initial departmental review. The revised
document should be available for cooperating agency review within 30
days.
Question 36. If confirmed, what other technical assistance can
Reclamation provide to advance the New Mexico Indian water rights
settlements?
Answer. Reclamation is prepared to provide technical assistance
needed in analyzing water rights, evaluating proposed water delivery
systems, or modeling the effects of moving water rights to different
locations. There are a significant number of appurtenant contracts,
State diversion permits, applications, and cooperative agreements
associated with the proposed settlements that Reclamation could assist
in developing. If confirmed, I would be happy to work with you in
providing technical assistance.
Question 37. If confirmed, what action would you take on the
hydrologic determination required for the Navajo Settlement?
Answer. The hydrologic determination of the availability of water
from Navajo Reservoir was transmitted from the Acting Commissioner of
Reclamation to the Secretary of the Interior's Water Rights Office on
July 3, 2006. This determination must be approved by the Secretary
prior to completion of Indian Water Rights Negotiations. The Secretary
must then approve a settlement contract. The hydrologic determination
and the contract must then be transmitted to the Congress for approval.
managing for excellence
Question 38. Reclamation's Action Plan, identifies 41 ``action
items'' that, according to Reclamation, require thorough analysis and
decision making.
What do you believe is a reasonable timeframe for Reclamation to
complete implementation of the Action Plan?
Answer. Employee teams have been formed for all 41 action items.
Those teams have begun to analyze the issues and will be obtaining
input from stakeholders and employees, conducting in-depth studies, and
developing alternatives and recommendations. Many of the action items
will be completed in 2006, and all action items will be completed by
December 2007. As teams complete their action items, Reclamation
leadership will make decisions for implementing recommended changes and
improvements. However, the involvement of stakeholders is vital to the
success of the effort. For example, roughly half of the action items
cannot be credibly addressed without direct input from water and power
customers. Other action items depend on the wisdom of rank-and-file
employees, changes to legislation, or expert guidance from government
management experts inside and outside of the Department of the
Interior. We will seek help and support from all these sources.
aging infrastructure
Question 39. I am concerned about Reclamation's ability to maintain
its existing infrastructure. The average Reclamation project is over 50
years-old and some projects are over 100 years-old. In many instances,
projects have exceeded their design life. This has resulted in a great
increase in operational, maintenance, and rehabilitation obligations
for both Reclamation and stakeholders. However, as these facilities
age, many communities can no longer afford the costs of operations,
maintenance and rehabilitation associated with Reclamation facilities.
How do you propose we address increasing operational, maintenance
and rehabilitation obligations for both Reclamation and stakeholders?
Do you believe that loan guarantees to Bureau customers provide a good
tool to address this problem?
Answer. Reclamation will continue to advocate a preventive
maintenance philosophy (condition assessments, equipment testing, and
related evaluations) to identify deficiencies at an early stage so that
more costly breakdown maintenance and service interruptions are avoided
or minimized. This philosophy will also help to lengthen the service
lives of related infrastructure facilities, thereby reducing the need
for costly major rehabilitation and replacement activities.
Additionally, these early identification and communication of
operation, maintenance, and replacement (OM&R) needs will assist
Reclamation and stakeholders to plan accordingly through the
accumulation of adequate reserve funds and/or budgetary resources.
Where these strategies are insufficient to meet the costs of
extraordinary OM&R, I believe a loan guarantee program may be a highly
useful tool in helping water districts meet this need.
Question 40. Noting the average age of USBR infrastructure, are you
concerned with the possibility of catastrophic failure of Reclamation
facilities? If confirmed, how would you address this problem?
Answer. Reclamation actively monitors facilities for safety and
integrity, and does not have indications where there may be a
catastrophic failure of any of its facilities due specifically to
aging. Through established monitoring, assessment, and evaluation
programs and procedures at these facilities, Reclamation continues to
take the necessary steps, in concert with involved stakeholders, to
avoid and prevent any catastrophic failures. However, regardless of the
impact of aging, there is always the possibility of concerns or issues
beyond the control of Reclamation that may contribute to any such
failure. Reclamation continues to address these situations with
proactive efforts and diligence to help ensure the structural integrity
and operational reliability of these facilities. Maintaining an active
and vigorous dam and facility safety program will continue to be a high
priority for Reclamation if I am confirmed as Commissioner.
Question 41. Do you believe that OMB appreciates the increasing
budgetary burden that OM&R obligations will impose on Reclamation? If
not, do you plan to advocate this need for additional funding for this
purpose with OMB?
Answer. Yes. I believe that the challenges of meeting OM&R
obligations in a time of limited budgets is well understood and
appreciated within the Department of the Interior and OMB. While I
expect that we will continue to operate with limited budget constraints
in the near future, as Commissioner, I would work closely with the
Department, OMB and Congress to ensure that our obligations are well
understood, our work is properly prioritized, and that adequate funding
is available.
outsourcing
Question 42. The FY2003 Omnibus Appropriations Act contained a
provision requiring Reclamation to use the private sector for 10
percent of its planning, engineering and design work in fiscal year
2003, and 10 percent in each subsequent year until the level of work is
at least 40 percent.
Were you aware of this requirement, and do you know if Reclamation
has complied with this statutory mandate?
Answer. Yes, Reclamation has complied with this fiscal mandate.
According to the most recent data available as of July 2004,
Reclamation identified approximately 43% of this type of work as being
outsourced in fiscal year (FY) 2003, and 45% in FY 2004.
Question 45. According to OMB Circular A-76, ``commercial
activities should be subject to the forces of competition.'' The
Circular also states that ``the government shall perform inherently
governmental activities.''
How would you define ``inherently governmental'' ?
Answer. I would apply the definition of ``inherently governmental''
that appears in Attachment A of OMB Circular A-76 at pages A-1 and A-2,
which emphasizes that inherently governmental activities are those that
are ``intimately related to the public interest.''
Question 44. Former Assistant Secretary for Water and Science,
Bennett Raley, who requested the NRC report, found ``construction
functions can almost always be performed cheaper and more efficiently
by districts or private companies.'' I have heard similar complaints
from Reclamation customers as well.
Is it your experience that Reclamation costs are higher than those
found in the private sector for similar services? If so, to what do you
attribute these higher costs?
Answer. I have heard both positive and negative comments from
customers and Reclamation field staff regarding the cost of its
engineering services. Reclamation has studied this issue, and found
that its costs are very similar to those found in the private sector.
Our Technical Service Center in Denver has continuously benchmarked its
products and services with those of the private sector.
In any case, it is critical that Reclamation accomplishes its
engineering activities in the most cost efficient manner possible,
consistent with sound engineering principles. Reclamation is conducting
a comprehensive evaluation of its Engineering and Design Services so
that we are able to determine what level of core capability is needed
to fulfill our mission with appropriate quality and efficiency in the
future. This activity is now underway as part of the Managing for
Excellence process, and will be complete by December 2007.
Question 45. Do you believe that greater outsourcing by Reclamation
would result in cost savings to Reclamation customers?
Answer. At this time, I cannot say conclusively whether this
practice would reduce or increase costs to Reclamation customers. As we
intend to determine through the Managing for Excellence process, the
key question is exactly what activities and to what extent can further
outsourcing be accomplished without compromising our ability to
accomplish the Reclamation mission. We must also be sensitive to the
interests of the taxpayers, our rate payers, and the long-term
capability of our organization.
Responses of Robert W. Johnson to Questions From Senator Thomas
Question 46. As you know, the seven Colorado River Basin States are
developing a basin-wide water supply augmentation plan for the Colorado
River Basin. Assuming that the provisions of this augmentation plan are
workable, what are your views on the appropriate role for the Bureau of
Reclamation in assisting the seven Basin States in that plans
implementation?
Answer. I fully support the efforts of the Basin States to develop
an augmentation plan for the Colorado River Basin. Reclamation is
focusing its efforts on working with the states to develop a dependable
water supply that will carry the basin through good times and bad. To
that end, we are engaged in a number of strategies to stretch water
supplies, including conservation efforts, water banking, technological
improvements to infrastructure, and hydrology studies. If confirmed, I
would continue this constructive arrangement with the states.
Question 47. What water management options do you think the Bureau
of Reclamation will employ to facilitate the implementation of water
supply augmentation measures to be proposed in the States' plan?
Answer. In the Colorado River Basin, we anticipate establishing
guidelines in December 2007 for the coordinated operations of Lake
Powell and Lake Mead as well as guidelines for determining and
implementing shortages in the lower basin. In addition, we anticipate
that these guidelines will include administrative provisions that will
facilitate the storage and delivery of certain water supply
augmentation measures in the lower basin. The proposed guidelines will
then be implemented each year through the development of the Annual
Operating Plan for the Colorado River.
We are currently engaged with the Basin States as they advance
their augmentation studies and pilot projects for consideration and
implementation. Some projects will be implemented independently by the
states, both individually and collectively, and others will require
both federal and state implementation. For example, cloud seeding
activities would likely be a state activity, while others, such as the
Drop 2 Regulatory Storage Project in the lower basin, would involve
joint efforts by multiple entities, including Reclamation.
Question 48. Aging infrastructure is a huge issue facing the Bureau
of Reclamation across the western United States. Many Reclamation
structures, such as the Pathfinder Dam in Wyoming, are close to 100
years old and need significant rehabilitation. Our national dependence
on this critically important water infrastructure, due to ongoing
drought, increasing water demands and the need for hydropower
generation, is only growing.
What, in your view, is the best approach for Reclamation to take in
addressing the fiscal impacts that infrastructure rehabilitation will
create for the American people?
Answer. Reclamation is keenly aware of the fiscal issues associated
with infrastructure rehabilitation. As part of Managing for Excellence,
an aggressive effort is underway to develop a response to this
challenge. Reclamation is conducting an assessment of the need and is
gathering data from districts in an effort to fully understand this
challenge.
The Administration has been exploring the idea of a loan guarantee
program within Reclamation in order to help meet this challenge.
Additionally, as you know, a provision authorizing a loan guarantee
program is included in S. 895, introduced by Senators Domenici and
Bingaman. I believe loan guarantee authority could be a highly useful
tool in helping water districts meet this need. If I am confirmed as
Commissioner, I would look forward to working with you on how to meet
these challenges, including through the possible use of new loan
guarantee authority.
Responses of Robert W. Johnson to Questions From Senator Smith
Question 49. What is the status of the Chiloquin Dam removal effort
in the Upper Klamath Basin?
Answer. Reclamation continues to work closely with Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA) and Modoc Point Irrigation District to secure agreements
to allow the removal of Chiloquin Dam to proceed. When such agreements
are executed, Reclamation will work closely with BIA to achieve the
removal in an expeditious and cost effective manner, with as little
environmental disruption as possible.
Question 50. What is the Bureau doing to lower reimbursable
operations and maintenance costs (i.e. power costs) for the Klamath
Project, in light of the pending electricity rate increases?
Answer. Reclamation continues to work with the water users to
attempt to limit the expected increases in power rates. Reclamation has
provided testimony in rate increase hearings in both the Oregon and
California Public Utility Commissions, and has provided a Section 4(e)
requirement to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in the
Project No. 2082 re-licensing process to limit the power cost to the
cost of service. Reclamation will continue to make this issue a
priority in any venue that may yield lower rates for Project use as
well as water user rates.
Question 51. How is the Bureau preparing for the reintroduction of
salmon about the Pelton-Round Butte Dam in the Deschutes Basin?
Answer. According to the NOAA Fisheries February 1, 2005,
Biological Opinion to FERC, the reintroduction of anadromous fish above
Pelton-Round Butte dam is ``a sizeable and complex undertaking'' with
``major uncertainties.'' Additionally, Reclamation is unaware how NOAA
Fisheries will treat these fish for purposes of Endangered Species Act
protection. We are monitoring the progress of the program and are
prepared to respond appropriately as this experimental effort
continues.
Responses of Robert W. Johnson to Questions From Senator Bingaman
navajo-gallup project delays
Question 52. In early July, I sent a letter to Secretary Kempthorne
requesting that the Department release the draft EIS on the Navajo-
Gallup Pipeline Project. This letter was a follow-up to an April 2003
letter I sent to Commissioner Keys urging Reclamation to complete the
draft EIS. At that time, I was told to expect a public release by
February 2004. Here we are two and a half years later and still no EIS.
Yet Congress has appropriated almost $3 million over the last 8 years
to complete a feasibility study of the project.
Doesn't this strike you as an unusually long time to complete a
feasibility study and EIS? As Regional Director of Reclamation's Lower
Colorado River region, did you have any studies or environmental
reviews take this long and cost this much money? Will you review this
situation and report back on the record, the status of the EIS and when
I can expect it to be released to the public?
Answer. The length of time taken to develop, review, and release
the Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project Preliminary Planning Report/
Draft Environmental Impact Statement is certainly more lengthy than
usual and is longer than Reclamation originally anticipated. The
Department and Reclamation are currently revising the Navajo-Gallup
Water Supply Project Preliminary Planning Report/Draft Environmental
Impact Statement to address comments received from an initial
departmental review. The revised document should be available for
cooperating agency review within 30 days. If confirmed, I would be
prepared to encourage the release of the document as quickly as
possible and would be willing to report back to you on its progress.
managing for excellence
Question 53. Last year, the National Academy reviewed and expressed
concern about Reclamation's approach to a number of issues, including
project planning and development. Reclamation's own self assessment
seems to validate that concern in the ``Managing for Excellence'' plan,
where it states there exists a lack of guidance on developing projects,
as well as a lack of consistency.
Is the lengthy process and the delays in developing the Navajo-
Gallup EIS representative of problems with Reclamation's planning
process or has the process been delayed by other actors within the
Department of the Interior? What can you do as the Commissioner of
Reclamation to increase the organization's efficiency in project
planning? Is this a priority in the Managing for Excellence effort?
Answer. The Navajo-Gallup DEIS is currently being reviewed within
the Department and as you know this project has been included as part
of a larger Navajo Nation water rights settlement on the San Juan River
in New Mexico. This issue is complex and we recognize that the process
thus far has been lengthy.
Reclamation is addressing project planning as part of our Managing
for Excellence effort. If confirmed, as Commissioner I will ensure that
processes are developed to increase efficiency and transparency in our
project planning efforts.
eastern new mexico rural water project
Question 54. The Navajo-Gallup EIS is not the sole example of
problems with Reclamation's planning process. In Eastern New Mexico, a
number of communities have been working together for almost 10 years to
develop an Eastern New Mexico Rural Water System. Reclamation has been
long involved in this effort but never raised substantial issues with
the project until I introduced legislation in 2004 to try and force a
dialogue on the project. The issues Reclamation raised have to do with
the project's feasibility and seem to represent a moving target that is
very frustrating for the communities involved.
Are you in favor of Reclamation creating clear feasibility criteria
so that the project proponents have realistic expectations of the types
of analysis that need to be undertaken in evaluating projects? Is the
development of such criteria part of the Managing for Excellence
effort?
Answer. Reclamation recognizes that through our Managing for
Excellence effort we have a timely opportunity to review and enhance
our feasibility study criteria. If confirmed, as Commissioner I am
committed to clearly communicating the results of our team activities
to our stakeholders.
reclamation fund
Question 55. Whether it be Indian water rights settlements, rural
water projects, Water re-use projects; conservation programs; or
endangered species recovery programs, there is a huge unmet need out
there in Reclamation's service areas for federal resources to help
States address pressing water needs. Recognizing the budget cuts made
in all federal water resource programs, the Western Governors
Association, in a recent report entitled ``Water Needs and Strategies
for a Sustainable Future'', suggest increasing appropriations from the
Reclamation Fund to support authorized Reclamation projects and
purposes. As I understand it, the Reclamation Fund, which includes
several different revenue sources to support authorized Reclamation
activities, currently has an unappropriated balance of approximately $6
billion. This surplus exists because revenues have greatly exceeded
appropriations from the Fund over the last several years.
Do you agree with the Western Governors that it makes sense to tap
into the Reclamation Fund surplus to help address some of the urgent
water needs that exist in the arid West? If not for general use, would
it make sense to tap into that surplus for a specific and defined
purpose, such as the implementation of Indian Water Rights settlements?
Answer. I am aware of the position of the Western Governors
Association on the use of the Reclamation Fund to meet western water
needs. It is an interesting idea. However, it is not one that has been
vetted within the Administration or with stakeholders. If confirmed, I
would be willing to have an appropriate dialogue about this idea along
with other proposals regarding what might be done in a time of limited
budgets to meet important needs.
climate change and water
Question 56. The Climate Change debate now seems to be shifting
from whether or not Climate Change is occurring, to a discussion of how
to respond. With respect to water, we're already experiencing
significant effects. Average temperatures in the West have increased
between 1 & 2 degrees F over the last 100 years and as a result,
precipitation patterns are changing with an observed trend of less snow
pack and more rain. Snow melt and peak runoff times are also occurring
earlier. These changes can have significant implications for water
managers. Increasing temperatures can increase the demand for water as
well as reservoir evaporation. Less snow pack and more rain can also
significantly affect reservoir storage.
What is Reclamation doing--or what should it be doing--to assess
the temperature changes being experienced in the West and determine how
it might need to modify its current approach to water management? As
the largest supplier and manager of water in the 17 western States,
does Reclamation have a responsibility to lead an effort to help the
water management community address ongoing impacts of climate change?
Answer. Reclamation has a long history of dealing with climate
variability. Since its inception, Reclamation's water managers and
stakeholders have had to cope with the highly variable climate of the
western U.S. As historical observations and pre-historical records
show, climate in the West is characterized by variability over a range
of timescales. Through the mission of providing water and power to the
West, Reclamation water managers and stakeholders have developed a wide
array of tools and methods for dealing with climate variability.
Although Reclamation does not directly research potential future
changes in climate variability, Reclamation engineers and scientists
strive to keep abreast of the voluminous literature on the topic. As a
matter of practice, operational plans and hydrology data are constantly
updated, thereby taking into account short term climate variability.
Reclamation is currently working with other state and federal
agencies to address potential vulnerabilities to climate change and
develop appropriate response strategies. Through the Research and
Development program, Reclamation is testing the application of
innovative tools for water supply forecasting, and looking at methods
of assessing risk to water delivery from climate change. To the degree
that there is scientifically reliable information available,
Reclamation should make use of that data in decision making. There are
a number of examples where climate change is being actively considered
by Reclamation in the resources planning process, including the Salton
Sea alternative studies and the Colorado River Coordinated Management
and Shortage Guidelines EIS.
aamodt & taos water settlements
Question 57. In May of this year, Reclamation staff put together a
concept paper describing a potential opportunity to provide additional
San Juan-Chama project water for New Mexico Indian water rights
settlements. The proposal appeared promising but it is unclear how it
is now being evaluated to determine whether or not an additional supply
of water is in fact available.
Would you please check into this matter and report back on the
status of the analysis that was described in the concept paper? How
might you further this effort as Commissioner?
Answer. Reclamation is currently undertaking an analysis with the
Corps of Engineers, using modeling tools to determine what water is
available for use in Indian water right settlements. We anticipate that
these analyses will be completed within six months. If confirmed as
Commissioner, I would support this and other efforts to think
creatively about potential sources of water.
colorado river
Question 58. There are a number of ongoing initiatives involving
the use of water from the Colorado River system.
Please describe in detail the process and schedule for developing
Lower Basin Shortage Guidelines and Coordinated Management Strategies
for Lake Mead and Lake Powell. What is the overall goal for this
effort?
Answer. The overall goal of this effort is to improve the Interior
Department's annual management and operation of key Colorado River
reservoirs, providing a greater degree of certainty to water users with
regard to future water supplies. In addition, these actions will be
designed to delay the onset and magnitude of shortages and maximize the
protection afforded to water supply, hydropower production, recreation,
and environmental benefits by water storage in Lakes Powell and Mead.
The proposed guidelines and coordinated operations strategies are a
major federal action for which Reclamation is preparing an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The EIS process is providing an
opportunity to consider the tradeoffs between the frequency and
magnitude of shortages and the benefits of water storage in Lakes
Powell and Mead, including water storage, power production, recreation,
and environmental benefits. Reclamation is engaging the public,
stakeholders, and other interested parties in the study process.
Reclamation has issued a Summary Scoping Report encompassing the
comments received during the public scoping process. Draft project
alternatives were published in June of this year that provide a means
for us to consider a broad range of potential impacts to be evaluated
in the draft EIS. Currently, we are considering the potential
hydrologic effects of each draft alternative and will analyze the
potential impacts to environmental resources. The results of the
hydrologic and resource analyses will be documented in a draft EIS,
targeted for public release in February 2007. Reclamation anticipates
that a final EIS will be completed in September 2007, and a Record of
Decision will be issued in December 2007.
Question 59. In May 2006, the Upper Colorado River Region developed
a draft hydrologic determination regarding the water available from
Navajo Reservoir and the Upper Colorado River Basin for use in New
Mexico. It's my understanding that the hydrologic determination is now
awaiting Secretarial approval. Unfortunately, it now appears that the
Lower Basin states have raised issues in with the hydrologic
determination.
What is the process right now for getting Secretarial approval of
the hydrologic determination? If confirmed as Commissioner, what will
be your role in resolving any outstanding issues and getting the
hydrologic determination approved as quickly as possible? If confirmed,
will you make this a priority for you and your staff?
Answer. Certainly the hydrologic determination is an important and
critical step in the process of settling the water rights claims of the
Navajo Nation in the San Juan River Basin. The requirement for a
determination is triggered when a proposed contract for water from the
San Juan River Basin or Navajo Reservoir is forwarded to the Secretary.
The Navajo San Juan Settlement includes such a contract as part of the
settlement, but I have been informed that the Navajo Settlement is not
sufficiently developed at this time and that some changes to the
contract could occur through the legislative and environmental review
processes. The Lower Division States of California, Nevada, and Arizona
have recently submitted comments to the Department regarding the
hydrologic determination. The Department is reviewing these comments
but does not expect that this review will result in any delay to a
hydrologic determination.
middle rio grande
Question 60. Congress has provided significant funding over the
last several years to Reclamation to work with the Middle Rio Grande
Conservancy District on conservation projects and improved water
operations. This program has been successful in helping to reduce the
District's water diversions thereby preserving storage to help protect
against drought and providing potential flexibility in water management
to address environmental needs.
What do you think can be done to ensure that improved efficiencies
in the Middle Rio Grande project contribute to a long-term strategy to
address the potential water use conflicts that exist in the Middle Rio
Grande? Would you support the use of Reclamation resources to help make
similar water infrastructure improvements for the benefit of the Middle
Rio Grande Pueblos?
Answer. I believe that, with improved water efficiencies, the
Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District would be better able to modify
operations to assist in meeting biological opinion requirements without
affecting their ability to meet the needs of individual farmers.
Through this increased flexibility, there will be opportunities to
formulate the long-term strategy that will reduce conflict. Similar
water infrastructure improvements for the benefit of the Middle Rio
Grande Pueblos would also be of significant value. If confirmed, I
would support the use of Reclamation resources to the extent possible
to assist the Middle Rio Grande Pueblos in making similar water
infrastructure improvements.
site security
Question 61. There appears to be some frustration with
Reclamation's customers as to how Reclamation is attempting to allocate
the costs of site security.
Are you working with the power and water-user communities to
address these issues? From your perspective, what are the key issues
that need to be addressed to determine how to fairly allocate these
site security costs?
Answer. Yes, Reclamation is working regularly with the water and
power community, as well as the appropriate House and Senate
committees, to provide information on the allocation of site security
costs. Reclamation's regional and area offices have consistently
provided relevant information to customers at the local level on this
subject. There have also been numerous presentations to customer
organizations in 2005 and 2006. Briefings have been held with the
National Water Resources Association, the Family Farm Alliance, the
Sacramento Municipal Utility District, Central Valley Project Water
Association and the Colorado River Energy Distributors Association. The
Office of Inspector General has twice reviewed Reclamation's site
security program (June 2002, and December 2005) and found that sensible
budget and accounting practices as well as appropriate financial
oversight for security measures are in place. The 2005 report found
that Reclamation has properly accounted for security and law
enforcement expenditures. Two key issues for Reclamation are: 1)
Assuring transparency and accountability to customers, while
maintaining appropriate safeguards for secure facility information; and
2) Continuing to distribute security costs consistent with project O&M
allocations. If confirmed, I will continue to work with water and power
customers to ensure transparency, efficiency, and fairness in the
payment of security costs for Reclamation facilities.
tularosa basin desalination research facility
Question 62. Reclamation's budget indicates that it will complete
construction of the Tularosa Basin desalination facility in FY 2007.
Has Reclamation developed an estimate of costs beyond FY 2007, for
what it will take to operate and maintain that facility? Are you
committed to providing Reclamation's full support to ensure that the
facility is a premier research center? What do you think are the long-
term possibilities for desalination to provide a substantial amount of
water to meet future needs in the West? Will desalination help address
long-term Colorado River water allocation issues?
Answer. Yes, construction of the Tularosa facility is slated for
completion in early 2007. Reclamation is using estimated costs beyond
FY 2007 in the preparation of the competitive solicitation for the
operation and maintenance of the facility. We have described how we
propose to make this a premier research center in the draft Business
Plan that is undergoing Administration review. Desalination is one of
the tools that will add to the existing quantity and reliability of
water supplies in the West. Among Colorado River water users, ocean
desalination as a new additional supply is viewed as among the more
promising alternative for addressing future water needs, both for
coastal communities and for inland communities through exchanges.
Responses of Robert W. Johnson to Questions From Senator Cantwell
yakima basin storage study
Question 63. Since 2003, the Bureau of Reclamation has been engaged
in the Yakima Basin Storage Study to identify potential water storage
options in the Yakima Basin Watershed. I think this study is critical
to identify additional water storage solutions along the Yakima River.
Can you commit to me that as Commissioner of the Bureau of
Reclamation you will ensure that the study is completed in a way that
does not prejudice one alternative over another?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I will ensure that Reclamation continues
to perform the study in an objective and unprejudiced manner.
Question 64. It is clear that Congress and the State of Washington
support completing the study. Multiple years of Congressional additions
to appropriations legislation coupled with significant financial
support from the State have funded the study's progress thus far. Can
you commit to me that you will recommend that the funding needed to
complete the study be included in future budget requests from the
administration?
Answer. If confirmed, I am prepared to continue the study in an
objective and unprejudiced manner. However, I cannot make any firm
commitments regarding future budget requests. I can commit to giving
full consideration to the needs of the study as we formulate the
Reclamation budget.
odessa subarea special study
Question 65. The Odessa Subarea Special Study is investigating the
possibility of continuing development of the Columbia Basin Project to
deliver project water to lands currently using groundwater in the
Odessa Subarea in and near the authorized development of the Project.
Can you commit to me that as Commissioner of the Bureau of
Reclamation you will ensure that the Odessa Subarea study is completed
in a way that does not prejudice one alternative over another?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I would ensure that Reclamation
continues to perform the study in an objective and unprejudiced manner.
security costs
Question 66. Many irrigators in my State have been concerned about
the issue of security costs at Bureau Reclamation facilities like Grand
Coulee Dam. Irrigators and the ratepayers of the Bonneville Power
Administration feel the burden of increased security costs as they are
passed to them by the Bureau of Reclamation.
Obviously, I am supportive of providing the appropriate level of
security at critical pieces of federal infrastructure. However, these
projects and their continued security represent a national interest. I
believe security costs should be distributed equitably and not just by
irrigators and ratepayers who represent just part of the benefit reaped
from multipurpose projects like Grand Coulee Dam and other Bureau of
Reclamation facilities.
Given your experience in dealing with these issues, what is your
philosophy on the distribution of funding security costs at Bureau of
Reclamation facilities?
Answer. I support the present policy that provides that appropriate
costs of guards and patrols be treated as project O&M costs subject to
reimbursement based on project cost allocations, although I do hope to
continue the dialogue with stakeholders about transparency and
reliability regarding these costs.
Question 67. Would you be willing to examine the funding of
security costs during your term as Commissioner?
Answer. This issue has been the subject of rigorous debate over the
past couple of years. I think it is unlikely that there will be a
significant change in the Administration's position. However, I am
always open to dialogue and to creative approaches to solving problems.
I would be willing to continue an appropriate dialogue with our
customers regarding security costs.