**Statement of Robert W. Johnson, Commissioner**

**Bureau of Reclamation**

**U.S. Department of the Interior**

**Before the**

**Committee on Energy and Natural Resources**

**Subcommittee on Water and Power**

**United States Senate**

**S. 2680**

**April 24, 2008**

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Robert Johnson,
Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased to be here today
to present the Administration's views on S. 2680, the "Leadville Mine
Drainage Tunnel Environmental Improvement Act of 2008." We recognize the
intense public interest in the Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel issues
addressed by this bill, and support the goals of this bill of ensuring
public safety and accomplishing the expeditious and efficient cleanup of
the California Gulch Superfund site. The Administration cannot support
S. 2680 at present because we have not yet determined what further
actions are needed to provide a long-term solution.

That being said, I can report to the Subcommittee that Reclamation and
EPA are aggressively taking action to address any immediate risk.

In view of the recent concerns of rising groundwater and mine pool
levels, EPA and the Bureau of Reclamation, in coordination with the
State of Colorado, are now conducting removal actions. This work
commenced in February 2008 and includes two major activities. First, EPA
installed a pumping system in the Gaw mine shaft and has been pumping at
a rate of 450 gallons per minute since late February. This action may
lower water levels in the mine pool. In addition, it appears to have
diminished seeps and springs that had recently appeared in the lower
California Gulch. Second, EPA is taking steps to drill a relief well
into the LDMT to lower the level of water in the LMDT and mine pool. EPA
plans to have the relief well, pump and pipe to the LMDT installed and
ready to operate in Summer of 2008.

Both the Department of the Interior and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) have a long history in this area. The Leadville
Mine Drainage Tunnel (LMDT) is located in central Colorado, and was
originally constructed by the Bureau of Mines from 1943 to 1952. It was
intended to de-water portions of the Leadville Mining District to
facilitate the extraction of lead and zinc ore for the WWII and Korean
War efforts. Reclamation acquired the LMDT in 1959 with the intention of
using the tunnel as a source of water for the Fryingpan-Arkansas
project, though water rights issues precluded using the tunnel effluent
as a water source. Water that flows out of the tunnel is considered part
of the natural flow of the river.

In 1975, EPA issued a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit to Reclamation because the LMDT effluent contains heavy
metals. In 1991 Reclamation completed construction of a water treatment
facility at the LMDT portal -- the plant treats the effluent flowing
from the LMDT to the standards in the NPDES permit.

EPA listed the California Gulch Site on the National Priority List (NPL)
in 1983. The 18-square-mile area was divided into 12 areas designated
Operable Units (OU). The Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel (LMDT) is
located beneath OU6, which covers approximately 3.4 square miles in the
northeastern quadrant of the Site. The Bureau of Reclamation owns the
LMDT, which is hydrologically connected to OU6. Reclamation does not own
or operate any sources of contamination on the surface of OU6 (i.e.,
waste rock or tailings) or any portion of the surface itself. The
objective of OU6 is to control surface sources of contamination.
Specifically, the objectives are to control erosion of mine waste rock
and deposition into local water courses; control leaching and migration
of metals from mine waste rock into surface water; control leaching of
metals from mine waste rock into groundwater; and prevent direct
unacceptable exposures to elevated concentrations of contaminants in the
soil and waste rock. EPA is the lead agency to address hazardous
substances at the California Gulch NPL Site, including OU6 in
particular.

As part of the implementation of the OU6 remedy, EPA collects surface
runoff from mine waste piles and discharges that surface runoff into the
Marion Shaft, where it moves through the mine workings to the Leadville
Mine Drainage Tunnel. This water is seasonal and totals approximately 3
to 5 million gallons a year. However, the volume of surface water
diverted by EPA to the LMDT is less than 1% of the 550 million to 750
million gallons of water Reclamation treats annually. EPA pays
Reclamation for the treatment of that water at the Reclamation Treatment
Plant. The chemistry of the water draining from the LMDT to the
Reclamation treatment plant is very different from the chemistry of the
water found on the surface of OU6. It has proven to be possible,
however, for the Reclamation plant to treat limited amounts of waters
from OU6 under agreements with EPA.

Currently, groundwater levels have continued to fluctuate near the LMDT.
Reclamation is working to assess the threat level to public safety
through a detailed risk analysis. Reclamation has already increased the
rate at which water from the LMDT is pumped, treated, and discharged
into the Arkansas River. Since February 15, Reclamation has established
capability to increase water treatment at the treatment facility by over
80% and today is able to process water at a rate of nearly 2,100 gallons
per minute (gpm) from the LMDT (or 4.8 cubic feet per second). The
natural rate of drainage from the tunnel is 1,487 gpm, or 3.4 cfs, which
amounts to 2,500 acre feet annually.

Public safety dictates every action Reclamation takes at the LMDT, and
Reclamation has had an Emergency Action Plan for the LMDT and water
treatment facility since 2001. Water level indicators and other warning
systems near the LMDT are tied into the water treatment plant's
auto-dialer for employees, and an audible warning system was installed
in 2002 to alert the Village at East Fork residents in the event of an
emergency. The system plays an alert message in Spanish and English.

Reclamation is making every effort to make a science-based determination
regarding whether there is an elevated public safety risk below the
LMDT. Reclamation's ongoing risk assessment, begun in November 2007, is
aimed at understanding how the complex geology and extensive subsurface
mine passages affect the quantity and quality of drainage water inside.
The results are expected in June of this year.

Interior and EPA, at the highest levels, are committed to the following:

-   EPA will complete the removal action that is underway, including the
    construction of a relief well, the pump and pipeline to transport
    water to Reclamation's treatment plant.

-   Reclamation will operate and maintain the treatment plant, relief
    wells, pump and pipeline, and if necessary based on the risk
    analysis, improve the treatment plant to handle increased flows of
    water as a result of the EPA removal action.

In addition to these actions, Reclamation and EPA are evaluating
long-term solutions and will have a better understanding of long-term
safety requirements once the risk analysis is completed. We are working
to develop a permanent solution to any safety problem and we will submit
proposed legislation if any legislative authority is needed to implement
this solution on a long-term basis.

The Administration cannot support the specific language in S. 2680 at
present because we do not yet know what additional specific safety
measures and funding requirements may be needed. Once the EPA relief
well is completed in June and water can be pumped from the LMDT, any
immediate risk should be alleviated and more information about the needs
for ensuring the safety of the tunnel and long-term water treatment
options can be assessed. It is possible that the particular solutions
referenced in section 4 of S. 2680, which calls on Reclamation to
implement portions of the remedy selected by the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency in 2003, may turn out not to be
necessary. We look forward to working with the Congress and the State of
Colorado to find the best outcome for the citizens of Leadville.

This concludes my written remarks. We would be pleased to answer any
questions from the Subcommittee.

**Statement of Robert W. Johnson, Commissioner**

**Bureau of Reclamation**

**U.S. Department of the Interior**

**Before the**

**Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee**

**Water and Power Subcommittee**

**On S. 2805, Rio Grande Pueblo Irrigation Improvement**

**April 24, 2008**

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Robert W. Johnson,
Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. Thank you for the opportunity
to appear today to present the Department of the Interior's views on S.
2805, a bill to authorize the United States to enter into agreements
with the Rio Grande Pueblos to repair, rehabilitate, or reconstruct
existing irrigation infrastructure. While the Department supports the
goals of this bill, we cannot support this legislation.

The Rio Grande Pueblo Irrigation Infrastructure Improvement Act would
provide an assessment of the irrigation infrastructure of 18 Pueblos in
New Mexico and provide grants to repair, rehabilitate, reconstruct, or
replace existing infrastructure. In 1999 and 2000, Reclamation spent
\$100,000 in cost share with the Bureau of Indian Affairs for an
appraisal level study and cost estimate for irrigation infrastructure
work on the 18 Pueblos.

Diversions of the Rio Grande River and many of its tributaries supply
the water for irrigation. Irrigated agriculture remains the primary
source of Pueblo-grown produce for family consumption and local sales,
while also serving important cultural purposes.

Many factors now make Pueblo farming more difficult. Often, there is not
enough flow available for Pueblo ditches to work properly. Despite the
incorporation of the six Middle Rio Grande Pueblos into the Middle Rio
Grande Conservancy District's water delivery system, poor Pueblo
irrigation facilities have, in some cases, hindered the delivery of
water for efficient production on Pueblo lands.

Installing proper drainage, replacing inefficient ditches with pipes or
concrete lined ditches, and having conveyance facilities capable of
efficiently supplying water at both high and low flows would result in
greater efficiency for the Pueblo. Work done to date between Reclamation
and the Pueblos is primarily done through Public Law 93-638 contracts.
These contracts are the preference of many of the Pueblos. Work done
under this bill would be subject to Public Law 93-638. Section 5(a) of
this bill describes cooperative agreements and grants with the Pueblos.
Reclamation is concerned that it lacks the word "contracts," which could
be problematic with issuing Public Law 93-638 contracts.

The scope of work that would be covered under the bill could vary
significantly depending on the definitions for some key words included
in this bill. Reclamation would request definitions for major
impoundment structures (Sec.5(b)1), on-farm improvements (Sec.5(b)2),
drainage facility (Sec 3(4)), and historically irrigated lands
(Sec.5(b)3). The definitions for each of these could have different
interpretations and could significantly change the boundaries, costs and
workload associated with these projects. Section 4 also does not
describe any cost share requirements for the study, which includes
creation of the list and work with the Pueblos to gain their consent of
the list.

Sections 4(a) and 5(c) direct Reclamation to conduct a study and compile
a list of projects based on priority and with the consent of the
Pueblos. The results of the study, priority list and any other findings
must be reported to Congress within 18 months of the enactment. This
time frame is not reasonable to conduct an adequate feasibility study,
prepare cost estimates, comply with the National Environmental Policy
Act, and perform a value engineering analysis, all of which are required
by Reclamation. The bill would provide DOI with the authority to award
grants to the Rio Grande Pueblos to plan, construct or repair Pueblo
irrigation infrastructure. S. 2805 would authorize the Federal
government to pay up to 75 percent of project construction/repair costs,
and to waive the non-Federal cost share requirement if the Pueblo
demonstrates financial hardship that would prevent the Pueblo from cost
sharing. S. 2805 authorizes an appropriation of \$60 million for the
proposed projects and \$4 million for the study.

The list mentioned in sections 4(a) and 5(c) must have the consent of
the Pueblos. The legislation's wording does not specify whether all
Pueblos must approve the entire list or each Pueblo is required to
approve only its portion of the list. The outcomes could also vary
depending on whether approval of the list would require unanimous
consent of all the Pueblos, or only the consent of a majority of the
Pueblos. Under Public Law 93-638, the Pueblos can request that they
determine the priorities and overall list of projects to be completed.
Reclamation would like clarification on the level of consent required
from the Pueblos, individually and corporately.

Reclamation agrees that this legislation could help improve the
efficiency of the Pueblo irrigation systems and could therefore serve as
a water conservation measure along the Rio Grande. However, as described
above, the bill as presently written contains many unclear provisions
and leaves some important factors open to interpretation. The Department
also can not support the addition of new projects which would result in
the reduction of funding for other ongoing Reclamation projects.

This concludes my testimony. I am happy to answer any questions.

**Statement of Robert W. Johnson, Commissioner**

**Bureau of Reclamation**

**U.S. Department of the Interior**

**Before the**

**Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee**

**Subcommittee on Water and Power**

**On**

**S. 2814**

**April 24, 2008**

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Robert W. Johnson,
and I am Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased to be
here to provide the Department of the Interior's views on S. 2814, the
Eastern New Mexico Rural Water Project Act. The Department cannot
support S. 2814. .

Reclamation has been working with the state of New Mexico and local
parties on developing concepts for the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water
Project since Congress authorized feasibility studies in 1966.
Reclamation has participated in a number of studies on this evolving
project over the years. Since 1998, Congress has provided \$1,763,000
for planning and technical assistance, of which more than \$1.2 million
has been transferred directly to the City of Clovis, acting as the
fiscal agent for the local communities, for work on the project. The FY
2008 omnibus appropriation includes \$246,000 for the Project.

The proposed Eastern New Mexico Rural Water Project would provide a
sustainable water supply for the eastern New Mexico municipalities of
Clovis, Elida, Grady, Melrose, Portales, and Texico, as well as Curry
and Roosevelt counties and Cannon Air Force Base. The area currently
depends entirely on a groundwater source that is diminishing in both
quantity and quality. The currently envisioned project would supply
16,400 acre-feet per year. The water would be delivered through a
pipeline from Ute Reservoir, which was built by the State of New Mexico
in 1963 as a water supply source for eastern New Mexico, and would cost
approximately \$436 million to construct, with \$8.2 million in annual
operations and maintenance costs.

In 2004, Reclamation testified on legislation (HR 4623) to authorize
construction of the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water Supply Project.
During that hearing, Reclamation cited concerns with the adequacy of the
Conceptual Design Report to support authorization and identified some
critical questions that needed to be answered before construction should
proceed, such as whether all economically viable alternatives had been
considered, whether design and construction costs were consistent with
comparable projects, and whether the communities that would be sharing
project costs had an accurate estimate of how much those costs might be.
Reclamation also expressed concerns with the proposed cost sharing
formula, which assumed an 80% federal share for construction of the
project. The federal cost share in the new legislation (S. 2814) is 75%.

In the intervening years, a Reclamation "Oversight Committee" has been
assisting the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water Authority (Authority) and
their consultants in developing a more complete and thorough feasibility
report.

A "Preliminary Engineering Report" prepared for the Authority by their
consultant that was submitted in December 2006 represents significant
progress toward a feasibility-level analysis. Reclamation is continuing
to work with the Authority as they further develop the proposed
project's design, cost estimates, financing plan, and environmental
analysis.

The Authority is working with their consultant to take the design and
associated cost estimate to the feasibility level. Feasibility-level
cost estimates are based on information and data which is sufficient to
permit the preparation of preliminary layouts and designs used to
estimate each kind, type, or class of material, equipment, and labor
necessary to complete a project. A second consultant has been selected
by the Authority to work on National Environmental Policy Act
compliance. A third consultant for the Authority is working on a
detailed plan for financing the project.

As stated above, the most recent cost estimate for construction, as
prepared last year by the Authority's consultant, is \$436 million, with
an estimated annual operation and maintenance cost of \$8.2 million. The
local communities would pay 100% of the operation, maintenance, and
replacement costs.

Reclamation is committed to working with its customers, States, Tribes,
and other stakeholders to find ways to balance and provide for the mix
of water resource needs in the future. The Administration is concerned,
however, about becoming the primary source of funds for these types of
projects. Because of this project's high cost, with a federal cost share
of \$327 million, and because this project would compete with ongoing
work by Reclamation in New Mexico and across the west, the Department
cannot support S. 2814. However, we are working with the Authority and
the State to bring the project to a point where a feasibility
determination is possible.

This concludes my statement, and I am happy to answer any questions the
Subcommittee may have.

**Statement of Robert W. Johnson,**

**Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation**

**U.S. Department of the Interior**

**before the**

**Subcommittee on Water and Power**

**Committee on Energy and Natural Resources**

**United States Senate**

**April 24, 2008**

**H.R. 29**

 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Robert W. Johnson,
Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation.  I am pleased to be here
today to give the Department's views on H.R. 29, to authorize the
Secretary of the Interior to construct facilities to provide water for
irrigation, municipal, domestic, military, and other uses from the Santa
Margarita River, California. 

Engineering and economic feasibility investigations, and environmental
analysis that is currently underway for this project, are not yet
complete. In addition, general stream adjudication for the Santa
Margarita River is ongoing, and the claims of the Pechanga, Cahuilla and
Ramona Indian Bands have yet to be determined, leaving uncertainty as to
ownership of water rights in this river system. Also, this project would
have to compete for funds with ongoing projects. In view of these
factors, the Department cannot support H.R. 29.

H.R. 29 authorizes \$60 million of Federal funding for construction of
this project, as may be adjusted for engineering cost indices,
conditioned upon the following:

 

1.  The Fallbrook Public Utility District (District) and the Department
    of the Navy (Navy) entering into a repayment contract with the
    United States for its allocation of the construction costs, with
    interest, as applicable;

2.  The State of California granting permits to Reclamation for the
    benefit of the Navy and the District to use the water developed by
    the project;

3.  The District agreeing not to assert any prior appropriative right it
    may have to water in excess of the quantity deliverable to it under
    this Act; and

4.  The Secretary of the Interior determining that the project has
    economic, environmental, and engineering feasibility.

 

The project would be located on the lower Santa Margarita River on Camp
Joseph H. Pendleton Marine Corps Base (Marine Corps), the Fallbrook
Annex of the Naval Weapons Station (Weapons Station), and surrounding
lands within the service area of the District.  The project, as proposed
by the Act, would consist of features for the conjunctive use of ground
and surface water, the yield of which would be allocated 60 percent to
the Navy and 40 percent to the District.

In 1974, the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)
assigned four water rights permits to Reclamation held in trust for the
Marines and the District. The permits were originally granted to
construct two dams on the Santa Margarita River as part of a proposed
settlement of United States v. Fallbrook. Since 2003, Reclamation has
been working with the Marine Corps and the District to analyze
alternatives capable of implementing the conjunctive use project under a
feasibility investigation authority. It is anticipated that
implementation could assist in settling the long-standing water rights
claims of the Marine Corps and the District.

Mr. Chairman, the Department understands the importance of reducing the
use of imported supplies from the Colorado River and the Bay-Delta in
the Santa Margarita River basin.  However, for the reasons stated above
we cannot support H.R. 29.

 

This concludes my testimony.  I would be happy to answer any questions.

**Statement of Robert W. Johnson,**

**Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation**

**U.S. Department of the Interior**

**before the**

**Subcommittee on Water and Power**

**Committee on Energy and Natural Resources**

**United States Senate**

**April 24, 2008**

**H.R. 1803**

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Robert W. Johnson,
Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased to be here today
to present the Department's views regarding H.R. 1803, the San Diego
Water Storage and Efficiency Act of 2007. The Department supports the
goals of this bill, and would support the bill if amended as described
in this statement.

H.R. 1803 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a
feasibility study to design and construct a four reservoir intertie
system for the purposes of improving the water storage opportunities,
water supply reliability, and water yield in San Diego County,
California. In cooperation and consultation with the City of San Diego
and the Sweetwater Authority, the investigation would determine whether
a system of pumps and pipelines interconnecting four non-Federal
reservoirs (San Vicente Reservoir, El Capitan Reservoir, Loveland
Reservoir, and Lake Murray) would improve water management
opportunities. The legislation authorizes an appropriation of \$3
million for the investigation.

The Bureau of Reclamation recommends that this bill be amended to
provide that before undertaking a full feasibility study, Reclamation
should first carry out an appraisal investigation to determine the
prudence of a feasibility study for the proposed intertie system. Only
if the appraisal investigation recommends that the proposed intertie
system be studied further should the Secretary undertake a study, as
authorized in this bill, to determine the feasibility of the intertie
system.

As part of the feasibility authorization in this bill, the Federal cost
share will not exceed 50 percent of the total study costs. The proposed
legislation only authorizes a feasibility investigation. The outcome of
the feasibility investigation would be an important factor in whether
the Secretary would recommend that Congress enact further authorization
for construction of the proposed reservoir and intertie project.

The Department is aware of local efforts to study various ways to
increase local water supplies and reliability in southern California. As
Watermaster of the Colorado River, the Department would benefit from
improved efficiency of use of imported water in California. An intertie
system such as the project proposed might allow San Diego County,
located at the end of the Colorado River, and State Water Project
distribution systems, the ability to better manage their imported
supplies, improve reliability and move water more effectively within
several reservoirs to receive the benefits of available storage. This
project, if found to be feasible, could be a valuable tool under the
California 4.4 Plan to improve and better utilize imported water from
the Colorado River.

The Bureau of Reclamation is currently working with the City of San
Diego and the Sweetwater Authority on other unrelated water recycling
projects that help with the future needs for water of the region.

The Department supports the goal of this legislation to authorize a new
feasibility investigation, and requests that the legislation be amended
so that the feasibility investigation will only go forward if, on the
basis of an appraisal investigation, Reclamation determines that the
proposed intertie system should be studied further.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. Thank you for the opportunity
to comment on H.R. 1803. I would be happy to answer any questions at
this time.

**Statement of Robert W. Johnson**

**Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation**

**U.S. Department of the Interior\
Before the\
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee**

**Subcommittee on Water and Power**

**On H.R. 123**

**April 24, 2008**

 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Robert Johnson,
Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation.  I am pleased to be here
today to give the Department's views on H.R. 123, a proposal to increase
the ceiling on funds authorized to be appropriated to the San Gabriel
Basin Restoration Fund. The Administration does not support H.R. 123.

Groundwater contamination was first detected in the San Gabriel Valley
in 1979. Following this discovery, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency designated major portions of the region's groundwater as
Superfund sites. Between 1990 and 1997, EPA identified Potentially
Responsible Parties at the site who then engaged in negotiations with
local water agencies and began initial design work on an EPA-developed
basin-wide plan to set cleanup priorities. After reaching a detailed
agreement with seven local water agencies in March 2002, design work was
completed and construction work began. Construction of the four planned
groundwater extraction and treatment facilities was largely completed in
2006.

As part of this effort to clean up the groundwater contamination in the
San Gabriel Basin and prevent the contamination from spreading into the
adjacent Central Basin, the San Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund (Fund)
was established in 2001 by P.L. 106-554. Originally established as a
Defense Department account and subsequently transferred to the Interior
Department, this interest-bearing account reimburses the San Gabriel
Basin Water Quality Authority (WQA) and the Central Basin Municipal
Water District (District) for designing and constructing facilities that
help with groundwater cleanup efforts in the Basin. The Fund is also
authorized to reimburse the WQA and District for operating and
maintaining these facilities for up to 10 years. A 35 percent
non-Federal share is required for projects. This cost-share can be met
by credits given to the WQA for expenditures used for water quality
projects that have already been built in the San Gabriel Basin, in lieu
of depositing the required 35 percent non-Federal share for these
projects into the Fund. To date, the entire non-Federal share has been
met by credits that have been certified by Reclamation.

In Fiscal Year 2001, Congress appropriated \$23 million for deposit into
the Fund. The Energy and Water Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2002
(P.L. 107-66), transferred administrative responsibility for the fund
from the Secretary of the Army to the Secretary of the Interior, and
appropriated an additional \$12 million. Appropriations in fiscal years
2003-2008 brought the total deposits to the Fund to \$71.71 million. In
addition, the Fund has accumulated over \$2.8 million in interest.

Reclamation has executed six grant agreements under the Restoration Fund
authority. One grant agreement is with the Central Basin Municipal Water
District, covering design, construction, operation, and maintenance of
their facility, up to the \$10 million ceiling established by the
legislation for this component. The other five agreements are with the
WQA. Four cover the design and construction of specific facilities, and
the fifth agreement covers operation and maintenance of those four
facilities.

The total estimated cost of the project authorized by the legislation is
about \$204 million. Based on this cost estimate, about \$69 million
would be allocated for the completion of all five facilities, and about
\$135 million would be allocated to fund the operation and maintenance
of all five facilities for 10 years, as authorized.

The San Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund is and will continue to be used
for important local projects. Reclamation must allocate its scarce
budget toward funding already authorized projects within the agency's
traditional mission of delivering water and power in an environmentally
responsible and cost-efficient manner, with emphasis on the needs of
aging infrastructure, the safety of existing facilities and dams, and
ongoing environmental restoration efforts. The Administration has not
budgeted for the San Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund in any of the
preceding fiscal years. The Administration believes that resources
should be allocated to achieving priorities within Reclamation's
traditional mission area and does not support the \$61.2 million cost
ceiling increase proposed in H.R. 123. Reclamation, however, will
continue to work with the WQA and the District when possible to advance
the goal of groundwater cleanup in the San Gabriel Basin.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. Thank you for the opportunity
to comment on H.R. 123.  I would be happy to answer any questions at
this time.