TESTIMONY OF

MARC THALACKER

MANAGER, THREE SISTERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT

ON BEHALF OF

OREGON WATER RESOURCES CONGRESS

BEFORE THE

U.S. SENATE

**COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND**

**NATURAL RESOURCES SUBCOMMITTEE**

**ON WATER AND POWER**

ON

S. 1522

THE FISHERIES RESTORATION AND IRRIGATION

MITIGATION ACT OF 2007

**July 26, 2007**

1201 COURT ST. N.E., SUITE 303, SALEM, OREGON 97301-4188

\(503\) -363-0121

Mister Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Marc
Thalacker and I am the manager of the Three Sisters Irrigation District
in Oregon and am here on behalf of the Oregon Water Resources Congress
(OWRC). The OWRC is a statewide association founded in 1912 to represent
local governments that supply water for irrigation, primarily irrigation
districts and water control districts, and including member ports, other
special districts and local governments. The association represents the
entities that operate water management systems, including water supply
reservoirs, canals, pipelines, and hydropower production.

OWRC strongly supports the reauthorization of the Fisheries Restoration
and Irrigation Mitigation Act along with the amendments embodied in S.
1522. The co-sponsorship of this legislation by all eight Senators of
the states in the Pacific Northwest serves as evidence of the importance
of this program to those states represents the success of this vital
program for fish screening and passage. We are joined in this support by
our sister organizations in Idaho and Washington: the Idaho Water Users
Association and the Washington State Water Resources Association, the
four states and local governments in those states.

As one of the lead organizations with Congress to help create the Fish
Restoration Irrigation Mitigation Act (FRIMA) in 2000, and with five
years of experience of active involvement in the implementation of the
program, OWRC strongly believes this has been one of the most successful
programs for our members and for similar water supply entities in Idaho,
Washington and Montana.

FRIMA created a new Federal partnership fish screening and passage
program in the Pacific Ocean Drainage areas of Oregon, Idaho, Washington
and western Montana. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service administer the
program in partnership with state fishery agencies.

Fish passage and fish screens have become critical to fishery
protection. There are over 200 irrigation and water control districts in
Oregon that provide water supplies to over one million acres of cropland
in the state. Almost all of these districts are affected by either state
or Federal Endangered Species Act lists of salmon and steelhead, bull
trout, or other sensitive threatened or endangered species. This
program, which is cost-shared on a 65% Federal/ 35% non-Federal basis,
has been overwhelmingly supported by all involved. From a water user
standpoint, it has been a success because: 1) it keeps protected fish
species out of water canals and delivery systems and power generation
facilities; 2) allows fish to be safely bypassed around reservoirs and
facility structures; and 3) provides funding to local governments for
construction of facilities to protect fish.

The FRIMA program was authorized to receive \$25 million a year, divided
among the four states. We have been disappointed that the
Administration, through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, has not
requested funding for the FRIMA program in any of the five years since
it was authorized. Our members appreciate the limited funding Congress
has written into the annual Interior Appropriations bills these several
past years for the program. As you can see from the attachment to my
testimony, projects in Oregon have provided a much larger non-Federal
match than required and as a result have been able to maximize the
limited FRIMA resources. Further, much of FRIMA's success comes from the
large proportion of the Federal appropriations that is used for projects
rather than for Federal or state administrative costs.

SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON S. 1522

[Project Eligibility]{.underline}

Our members' experience in defining the type of projects that provide
the most cost-effective solution to needs has demonstrated that we no
longer need to be concerned with the likelihood of very expensive
solutions to problems. Reducing the cap on the size of the project, from
\$5 million to \$2.5 million, is appropriate at this time.

As we understand the history of the original authorizing legislation,
this program was intended for local governmental entities to carry out
the work to mitigate the impacts of irrigation diversions on fish rather
than face loss of their water if their facilities were not screened.
With that in mind, we also believe the original intent was to have the
funding passed through to the states that would, in turn, provide the
funding to the local governments.

[Cost Sharing]{.underline}

We greatly appreciate codifying what is already in practice with respect
to the use of Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) funding in the
Pacific Northwest part, but not all of the time. There is a lack of
consistency among Federal programs with some allowing the use of BPA
funding as local share to address fish and wildlife recovery, but not
for FRIMA. This legislation makes clear that BPA funds, coming from
ratepayers, should be considered non-Federal share money.

[Administrative Expenses]{.underline}

We believe that S. 1522 takes an appropriate step in addressing
administrative expenses at the Federal and state level. One of the
strengths of the FRIMA program is the return on the Federal investment.
Part of this success can be attributed to the limited draw of the
funding for administrative costs in order to ensure that most of the
funding is used to build projects to protect fish.

We appreciate the changes made to this program as a result of
consultations with the state and Federal agencies responsible for
administering the program. Sharing the administrative funding with the
states recognizes the important role the states have played working with
local government project sponsors over the five years of the program.
The states do a tremendous amount of work as their part of the
partnership including project review, ranking, and selection. Their
participation has been key to the success of the program. Dividing the
funding evenly with the states helps ensure the collective effort is
never put at risk because of unforeseen circumstances at the state level
and recognizes the role the states play in the FRIMA partnership.

[Reauthorization of the FRIMA Program]{.underline}

While the report prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 2005
covers only the first three years of FRIMA, it provides an excellent
overview to the projects built using FRIMA funding. It also shows the
success of leveraged local match that exceeds the amount called for in
the legislation, another reason for the success of this program. We
encourage the Committee Members to look at this report with regard to
the accomplishments of the program in the four respective states.

The importance of the legislation before you today is the need to
reauthorize the Fisheries Restoration and Irrigation Act so that local
government can complete the projects identified in the states'
inventories.

We strongly believe that the success of the FRIMA program as evidenced
by projects that have been built and the partnerships that have
developed provide the justification for the continuation of this program
through year 2014.

CONCLUSION

OWRC is asking Congress to continue to improve conditions for threatened
and endangered fish species in Oregon and the rest of the Pacific
Northwest by passing this legislation into law and reauthorizing the
FRIMA program. We strongly support the improvements to the program as
contained in S. 1522.

Oregon\'s FRIMA Project Benefits

The following are examples of how Oregon has used some of its FRIMA
money:

**Santiam Water Control District Project**: fishscreen project on a
large 1050 cfs multipurpose water diversion project on the Santiam River
(Willamette Basin) near Stayton, Oregon.

> Partners are the SantiamWater Control District, Oregon Department of
> Fish and Wildlife, Marion Soil and Water Conservation District, and
> the City of Stayton
>
> Approved **FRIMA** funding of \$400,000 **leveraged** a \$1,200,000
> project.
>
> Species benefited include winter steelhead, spring Chinook, rainbow
> trout, and cutthroat trout.

**South Fork Little Butte Creek**: fishscreen and fish passage project
on a 65 cfs irrigation water diversion in the Rogue River Basin near
Medford, Oregon.

> Partners are the Medford Irrigation District and Oregon Department of
> Fish and Wildlife.
>
> Approved **FRIMA** funding is \$372,000 and **leveraged** a \$580,000
> total project cost.
>
> Species benefited include listed summer and winter steelhead, Coho
> salmon, and cutthroat trout.

**Running Y (Geary Diversion) Project**: fishscreen project on a 60 cfs
irrigation water diversion in the upper Klamath Basin near Klamath
Falls, Oregon.

> Partners are the Wocus Drainage District, Oregon Department of Fish
> and Wildlife, and Jeld-Wen Ranches.
>
> Approved **FRIMA** funding of \$44,727 **leveraged** a total project
> cost of \$149,000.
>
> Species benefited included listed red-band trout and short-nosed
> sucker.

**Lakeshore Gardens Project**: fishscreen project on a 2 cfs irrigation
water diversion in the upper

Klamath Basin near Klamath Falls, Oregon.

> Partners are the Lakeshore Gardens Drainage District and Oregon
> Department of Fish and Wildlife.
>
> Approved **FRIMA** funding is \$5,691, **leveraged** a total project
> cost of \$18,970.
>
> Species benefited include red-band trout, short-nosed sucker and Lost
> River sucker.

**Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Inventory Project**: an
inventory to be conducted by

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife to identify FRIMA-eligible
passage and screening

projects within the Rogue and Klamath basins of southwestern Oregon.

> **Approved** FRIMA funding is \$76,000, **leveraged** an estimated
> total project cost is \$125,000.