**Statement of Robert J. Quint**

**Director of Operations, Bureau of Reclamation**

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

**Before the**

**Subcommittee on Water and Power**

**Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources**

**On**

**S. 177**

**To Authorize the Secretary of the Interior to Convey Title to**

**Certain Lands and Facilities of the McGee Creek Project**

**February 28, 2008**

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am Robert J. Quint,
Director of Operations for the Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased to
appear before this Subcommittee to provide testimony on S. 177,
legislation to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain
lands and facilities of the McGee Creek Project in Oklahoma to the McGee
Creek Authority (Authority). The Administration supports this bill and
we thank the committee for considering it today.

The Department of the Interior has an active title transfer program and
supports transferring ownership of certain Reclamation project
facilities to non-Federal entities. Initial discussions on this transfer
began in 1997, and Reclamation and the McGee Creek Authority have been
working collaboratively to lay the groundwork for this title transfer
since that time. Reclamation and the Authority entered into a Memorandum
of Agreement (MOA) in 1998 for the purpose of defining the activities
and responsibilities necessary to move forward with the proposed
transfer. Before the transfer could be finalized and the necessary
legislation could be proposed, the agreement expired in September 2002.
In 2006, the Authority again expressed interest in the transfer and in
April of that year, a new MOA was executed.

Through cooperative efforts with the Authority, all elements required by
Reclamation for title transfer have been successfully addressed for the
McGee Creek project. The Authority has provided funding for Reclamation
to complete the necessary environmental, legal, and historic
preservation documentation for this transfer, including a Final
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact,
concurrence from the State Historic Preservation Officer, a hazardous
materials clearance, and conveyance documents.

The costs of the lands, buildings and facilities to be transferred have
already been repaid pursuant to the Authority's original repayment
contract. All of the lands to be transferred were acquired by
Reclamation when the project was built and the original repayment
contract incorporated acquisition costs together with the costs
associated with the construction of the project facilities and
associated easements, lands and buildings. There are no ongoing revenue
streams associated with these lands and facilities. As such, no
additional payment for this transfer is required.

In addition, this title transfer protects the financial interest of the
United States. Transferring title to these facilities will reduce a
number of administrative burdens on Reclamation including periodic
facility reviews that are currently required because it is a Reclamation
owned facility, and the processing of paperwork that currently consumes
significant staff time. It will also ensure that long term
responsibility for the operation, maintenance, management, and
regulation, as well as liability, for the transferred lands and
facilities will rest with the Authority.

Again, we support passage of S. 177 and thank the subcommittee for
holding this hearing. It reflects a cooperative and cost effective
process that will provide a benefit to the Authority and Reclamation.

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

**Statement of Robert J. Quint**

**Director of Operations, Bureau of Reclamation**

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

**Before the**

**Subcommittee on Water and Power**

**Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources**

**on**

**S. 1473**

**February 28, 2008**

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am Robert J. Quint,
Director of Operations, Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased to present
the Department of the Interior's views on\
S. 1473, the Madera Water Supply Enhancement Act. While Reclamation has
been an active partner with the Madera Irrigation District and other
entities in studying this project, the Department does not support S.
1473.

Reclamation and the state of California have studied the Madera Water
Supply Enhancement Project. The purpose of this project is to reduce the
overdraft of the area's groundwater aquifer and improve water supply
reliability. In March 2007, Reclamation published an appraisal report
for this project and transmitted it to Congress. Appraisal reports are
based upon existing information to determine whether additional studies
to determine Federal feasibility are warranted.

Reclamation's March 2007 appraisal report identified several
alternatives, including delineation of groundwater recharge areas;
engineered recharge basins on the Madera Ranch; and direct recharge from
the San Joaquin and Fresno Rivers. The cost for the project is estimated
at approximately \$91 million, and section 5(b) of the legislation
commits the Federal government to paying 25 percent of project costs.
The total storage space is 250,000 acre-feet. However, it is important
to note that while a maximum of 55,000 acre-feet can be moved to and
from storage in any given year, the average annual water yield is
estimated to be 20,000 acre-feet per year. Altogether, an appraisal
level estimate is that this project would provide water at a cost of
\$420 per acre-foot.

Although the bill lists eighteen studies that have been completed
relating to this project, none of these studies meet Reclamation's
feasibility study criteria. Because Reclamation has not completed a
feasibility study of the Madera Water Supply Enhancement Project, it is
premature to authorize Federal implementation at this time. Moreover,
this project would directly compete for funding with other currently
authorized projects in the CVP service area, including several storage
studies authorized under the CALFED Program (PL 108-361).   

Reclamation continues to emphasize completion of ongoing projects and
the safe and effective maintenance of its aging infrastructure.
Reclamation must prioritize its program activities to ensure that the
most worthy projects receive funding. In light of these needs,
Reclamation allocates funds to projects and programs based on objective
and performance-based criteria to most effectively implement
Reclamation's programs and its management responsibilities for the water
and power infrastructure in the West. 

The Administration appreciates local efforts to address current and
future water issues.  However, in light of the concerns expressed above,
the Department does not support S. 1473. 

That concludes my prepared remarks.  I would be pleased to answer any
questions.

**Statement of Robert J. Quint**

**Director of Operations, Bureau of Reclamation**

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

**Before the**

**Subcommittee on Water and Power**

**Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources**

**on**

**S. 1474**

**The Riverside-Corona Feeder Water Supply Act of 2007**

**February 28, 2008**

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Robert J. Quint,
Director of Operations, Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased to be here
today to present the views of the Department of the Interior on S. 1474,
a bill to authorize a water supply project in Southern California. For
reasons described below, the Department does not support S. 1474.

This bill would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate
with the Western Municipal Water District in the planning, design, and
construction of a water supply project known as the Riverside-Corona
Feeder. It provides for Federal funding for this project of not more
than 25 percent of the total project cost (including funding for
planning studies), not to exceed \$50 million.

This project would withdraw water from San Bernardino Valley groundwater
aquifers that are replenished during wet years from local runoff,
regulated releases from Seven Oaks Reservoir, and water from the State
Water Project. It would consist of a number of wells and connecting
pipelines, which would deliver up to 40,000 acre-feet of water annually
to communities in western Riverside County. Project benefits include
local drought protection, better groundwater management, and reduced
dependence on imported water.

The economic and efficient use of water is a priority for the Department
of the Interior. The Department strongly encourages local water supply
efforts.

Mr. Chairman, while the Department encourages the type of resourceful
utilization of local water supplies this bill calls for and the
potential for reducing the use of imported supplies from the Colorado
River and the California Bay-Delta we do not support S. 1474. We
understand that feasibility level studies have not yet been completed
for this project. Without a proper analysis that adheres to the
\"Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and
Related Land Resources Implementation Studies,\" and which otherwise
meets appropriate Federal guidelines for consideration of project
authorization, we cannot support Reclamation's participation in design
and construction activities.

Reclamation is currently in consultation with the Western Municipal
Water District on the project and providing them guidance on their
feasibility analysis and the appropriate level of NEPA compliance that
will be needed. In FY 2008 Congress appropriated additional planning
funds beyond Reclamation's FY2008 request for continued involvement with
the Western Municipal Water District as they finalize their feasibility
work. Nevertheless, the Department believes that enactment of this
legislation authorizing a new construction project places an additional
burden on Reclamation, and could delay the completion of other currently
authorized projects. Reclamation must prioritize and allocate funds to
projects and programs based on objective and performance-based criteria
to most effectively implement Reclamation's programs and its management
responsibilities for the water and power infrastructure in the West.

Thank you for the opportunity to convey our concerns on this
legislation, and I would be pleased to answer any questions.

**Statement of Robert J. Quint**

**Director of Operations, Bureau of Reclamation**

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

**Before the**

**Subcommittee on Water and Power**

**Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources**

**S. 1929 & H.R. 3328**

**February 28, 2008**

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Robert J. Quint,
Director of Operations Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased to be here
today to give the Department of the Interior's views on S. 1929 and H.R.
3328, the Sierra Vista Subwatershed Feasibility Act. The Department does
not support the proposed legislation.

The legislation would authorize the Secretary of the Interior, acting
through the Commissioner of Reclamation, to conduct a feasibility study
of water augmentation alternatives in the Sierra Vista Subwatershed,
located in southeastern Arizona, Cochise County, in the upper San Pedro
watershed, near the City of Sierra Vista. It provides for Federal
funding of \$1,260,000, with a local cost share of 55%, for a total
estimated cost of \$2,800,000. In addition to local cost share for the
study, a significant local effort will be required to resolve legal and
institutional challenges in order to complete the study.

The preservation of two important Federal facilities, Fort Huachuca
(Fort) and the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area (SPRNCA),
requires augmentation of the local water supply. Fort activities and
associated development near the City of Sierra Vista have resulted in a
substantial groundwater overdraft that is expected to negatively impact
the San Pedro River (River). A section of the River was protected by
Congress as the SPRNCA. As the area's largest employer, the Fort greatly
benefits southeast Arizona's (and the entire State's) economy. Despite
conservation and recharge measures, groundwater overdraft continues to
grow.

The Upper San Pedro Partnership (Partnership), a consortium of Federal,
state, local and private groups, was established in 1988 to sustain the
viability of the Fort and the River - Reclamation became a member in
2004. Also in 2004, Section 321 of the National Defense Authorization
Act recognized the Partnership and directed it to prepare an annual
report on progress toward the goal to "restore and maintain the
sustainable yield of the regional aquifer by and after September 30,
2011." The 2011 date has motivated the Partnership to aggressively
pursue feasibility authorization which could lead to implementation of
an augmentation project.

The Partnership hired a private consultant to investigate measures to
offset groundwater mining, including conservation, recharge, and
augmentation. Reclamation examined alternatives found in the report and
identified data gaps; then helped the Partnership follow a process that
characterized the augmentation portion of the problem, analyzed
alternatives and screened them to identify viable solutions. Reclamation
documented this process in an appraisal report completed in June 2007. A
total of 14 augmentation alternatives were evaluated, resulting in the
Partnership selecting three alternatives for further analysis: bringing
Central Arizona Project (CAP) water to Sierra Vista, capturing and
recharging stormwater, and reclamation and reuse of impaired mine water.
A feasibility study would be the next logical step for the Partnership
to secure Reclamation assistance with augmentation implementation. The
appraisal report identifies significant legal and institutional issues
that need to be addressed, by local stakeholders, in order to make
progress. Only the CAP to Sierra Vista alternative completely addresses
the Partnership's goal for augmentation.

The Partnership is not a traditional government entity in that its
membership consists of representatives from Federal, state and local
governments, as well as non-profit organizations and local businesses.
It has no legal authority to construct, operate, and repay capital
costs. Because of this, Reclamation cannot legally contract with the
Partnership.

Water management in the area is further complicated by the fact that all
of the local water providers are private entities. Alternatives under
consideration would need to be implemented by an entity other than the
Partnership. In 2007, the State of Arizona passed legislation enabling
the creation of an Upper San Pedro Water District. The legislation
establishes a temporary board, which is subject to a vote by residents
to make it permanent.

Reclamation recognizes issues of Federal concern in the Sierra Vista
Subwatershed, including protected Federal lands in the SPRNCA, species
listed under the Endangered Species Act, and the U.S. Army garrison at
Fort Huachuca. A feasibility level study of water augmentation
alternatives could help evaluate possible ways forward. Reclamation's
appraisal report, however, identified water management challenges facing
the basin, as well as legal issues associated with the alternatives. For
instance, extending the CAP to Sierra Vista would entail not only the
acquisition of a CAP water right, but the extension of the CAP service
area. Extending the service area would require both modifications to
State law and the CAP Master Repayment Contract.

To address these issues and develop an augmentation project in a timely
manner, Reclamation described a two-stage process in the appraisal
report. The first stage would involve development of the appropriate
legal and institutional mechanisms required to implement a project,
while a programmatic feasibility/National Environmental Policy Act study
is conducted in which a preferred alternative or alternatives will be
identified. The completion of the first stage would allow the
Partnership the time to develop the necessary institutions with
repayment ability while providing more detailed design and cost
information needed to make informed decisions. The second stage of the
process involves a detailed specific feasibility design and
environmental impact study for an augmentation project. This process
avoids the expense of performing detailed, and costly, design and
environmental work in the case that a project partner is not created or
if other significant legal issues are not resolved. We note that the
Partnership has worked through the issue of institutional repayment
ability in the past by using either the City of Sierra Vista or Cochise
County as fiscal agents.

If issues could be resolved and a partner identified prior to
feasibility authorization, consideration should be given to conducting a
more detailed feasibility study in a one stage process that could move
immediately to construction. Based on Reclamation's experience, the
expected cost of conducting such a study would range from \$5 to \$10
million and take longer to complete than the programmatic first stage
study. However, if a project is certain to move to construction, the
overall cost and time would be less than the proposed two stage process.

Again, while Reclamation does not support the legislation given
outstanding questions about institutional capacity and has not requested
appropriations for the study this bill would authorize, we understand
the tremendous importance to local stakeholders, the state and the
Federal government of the resources involved. We will continue to work
with the Partnership on ways to deal with the groundwater overdraft that
the Sierra Vista Subwatershed is facing.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. Thank you for the opportunity
to comment on S. 1929 and H.R. 3328. I would be happy to answer any
questions at this time.

**Statement of Robert J. Quint**

**Director of Operations, Bureau of Reclamation**

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

**Before the**

**Subcommittee on Water and Power**

**Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources**

**On S. 2370**

**To Clear Title to Certain Real Property in New Mexico Associated With
the Middle Rio Grande Project, and for Other Purposes**

**February 28, 2008**

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am Robert J. Quint,
Director of Operations, Bureau of Reclamation. Thank you for the
opportunity to appear today to present the Administration's views on S.
2370, which would transfer title to real property in New Mexico
associated with the Middle Rio Grande Project and for other purposes.

The Department is not opposed to the concept of transferring ownership
of the lands described in this legislation to another entity. However,
given current circumstances including ongoing litigation and lack of any
excess-lands determination or appraisal of the lands identified for
transfer, the Department feels that this proposed legislation is
premature.

A history of the ownership of this property will help explain the
circumstances leading to the introduction of this bill. The Bureau of
Reclamation acquired interests in Middle Rio Grande Project works
through a conveyance document granted by the Middle Rio Grande
Conservancy District (MRGCD) on November 24, 1953. The lands involved
with the proposed legislation were included in that conveyance, and the
United States has not relinquished its interest in those specific
parcels. On November 25, 1997, MRGCD and the City of Albuquerque (City)
entered into a real estate sales agreement through which the MRGCD sold
the City approximately 65 acres of land associated with San Gabriel Park
and Tingley Beach for \$3,875,000.

Article 7 of the sales agreement recognizes that the United States holds
an interest in the properties, and MRGCD agreed to obtain a release of
this interest from the United States. The sale was completed but the
United States has never executed any release.

The Department has been a defendant in litigation that sought to quiet
title to properties associated with the Middle Rio Grande Project. While
the litigation did not specifically name the properties associated with
Tingley Beach or San Gabriel Biological Park, the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Mexico found in July 2005 that title to all
Middle Rio Grande project properties is vested in the United States.
This decision is now being considered on appeal to the 10^th^ Circuit.

In light of the litigation and the uncertainty that surrounded the title
question before the District court's recent decision, the City of
Albuquerque initiated improvements on this property under a License
Agreement with Reclamation. The City has developed and improved San
Gabriel Park and has created fishing ponds, a snack bar and other
recreational facilities at Tingley Beach. They have also installed a
small train which runs between the Albuquerque Biological Park (BioPark)
and Tingley Beach. The BioPark has been fully developed by the city into
an aquarium, botanic garden, a small farm and a refugium for the
endangered Rio Grande silvery minnow.

The City of Albuquerque developed the Park and associated properties for
public uses that benefit Albuquerque's citizens. The manner in which the
City of Albuquerque obtained the property from the Middle Rio Grande
Conservancy District was inconsistent with established procedures for
conveying title to federal property to another party. Nevertheless, the
Department does not believe this was the result of carelessness or
neglect on the part of the City of Albuquerque, nor does the Department
believe this was an intentional encumbrance of federal property.

The Department is reluctant to support transfers of title to federal
property when those transfers circumvent existing procedures provided by
generally applicable legislation. Federal policy generally requires that
adequate consideration be paid to the United States before title is
transferred.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks and I would be happy to respond
to any questions the Committee may have.

**Statement for the Record**

**U.S. Geological Survey**

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

**before the**

**Subcommittee on Water and Power**

**Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources**

**on**

**H.R. 2381**

**February 28, 2008**

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, the Department of the
Interior appreciates the opportunity to provide its views on H.R. 2381,
the "Upper Mississippi River Basin Protection Act."

The Department appreciates the efforts of the sponsors of H.R. 2831 to
address this important issue and place emphasis within the bill on the
need for reliance on sound science. However, we have concerns about the
financial resources that would be required for the USGS to carry out
this bill in the context of the availability of resources overall for
Administration programs. In addition, although we support the goals of
H.R. 2831 we note that the activities called for in this bill are
duplicative of existing Department of the Interior authorities.

The bill directs the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the USGS,
to provide a scientific basis for the management of sediment and
nutrient loss in the Upper Mississippi River Basin. This would be
accomplished through establishing a sediment and nutrient monitoring
network that builds on existing monitoring activities; conducting
research and modeling that relates sediment and nutrient losses to
landscape, land use and land management characteristics; providing
technical assistance regarding use of consistent and reliable methods
for data collection; and instituting a program to disseminate new
information to managers, scientists and the public.

The role identified for the Department in this bill is consistent with
USGS's leadership role in monitoring, interpretation, research, and
assessment of the health and status of the water and biological
resources of the Nation. As the Nation\'s largest water, earth, and
biological science, and civilian mapping agency, USGS conducts the
largest single non-regulatory ambient water-quality monitoring activity
in the Nation. The USGS has been active in a number of programs and
investigations that involve the Upper Mississippi River Basin (UMRB)
specifically.

The USGS is a participant in the Mississippi River, Gulf of Mexico
Watershed Nutrient Task Force. This Task Force, which has representation
from federal agencies, and state and tribal governments in the basin, is
charged with fulfilling requirements of The Harmful Algal Bloom and
Hypoxia Research and Control Act of 1998, by preparing a plan for
controlling hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico, and shares a common
goal of improving water-quality conditions in the Mississippi River
Basin.

The USGS also had a lead role in the preparation of a science report
that used available water-quality information to define a recent
baseline condition for nutrient sources and loads in the Mississippi
River Basin \-- a baseline from which future water-quality trends and
improvements will be measured. This report identifies those parts of the
Upper Mississippi River Basin that have the highest nutrient yields.

The USGS has offices in each of the five Upper Mississippi River Basin
states. These offices have a long history of conducting water-quantity
and water-quality monitoring and assessment activities within the basin.
Existing USGS programs include the Hydrologic Networks and Analysis
Program, the National Water-Quality Assessment Program, the National
Stream Quality Accounting Network, the National Streamflow Information
Program, the Toxic Substances Hydrology Program, the Water Resources
Research Act Program, and the Cooperative Water Program, as well as
cooperative efforts such as the Long-Term Resource Monitoring Program
funded by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. These programs currently
provide information on nutrients and sediment within the basin.

For more than 20 years, the USGS Upper Midwest Environmental Sciences
Center (UMESC) in La Crosse, Wisconsin has provided research support in
the Upper Mississippi River Basin to DOI agencies and the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers to address complex issues of navigation,
contaminants, and other natural resource concerns. More recently, this
Center has developed an active partnership with the Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, on sediment and
nutrient concerns of the agencies. For over 15 years, the UMESC has
provided the scientific and management leadership for the Long-term
Resource Monitoring Program component of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers' Upper Mississippi Restoration-Environmental Management
Program. This monitoring program of water quality, fisheries,
vegetation, land use, and other critical indicators of river health is
the largest main stem river assessment program in the Nation. The USGS
conducts monitoring activities in cooperation with many states and local
governments in the Upper Mississippi River Basin. The USGS is also
active in hydrologic and water-quality studies in the Lower Mississippi
River Basin. The continuity of research is important from the standpoint
of developing a complete assessment of the entire Mississippi River
basin. To this end, the USGS has begun a partnership with the Long-term
Estuary Assessment Group, centered at Tulane University.

H.R. 2381 acknowledges the need to use all existing monitoring and
science programs of the USGS and those of other entities while
identifying information needs in the Upper Mississippi River Basin.
Existing monitoring and assessment programs and development of models
are tools for defining how water-quality conditions are affected by
human activities and natural climatic variations and how management
actions may best improve water-quality conditions at a wide range of
scales from small watersheds to the Mississippi River Basin.

The bill would also authorize integration of activities conducted in
cooperation with other federal partners and would emphasize and expand
the existing USGS coordination and assistance to state monitoring
programs. For example, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service\'s (Service)
Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program restores wetland habitat in
watersheds across the country, including the Upper Mississippi River
Basin. The Service can apply its expertise to the reduction of sediment
and nutrient loss in the basin through participation in demonstration
projects, technical assistance, and working groups. We recognize the
need to ensure that future monitoring activities complement and do not
duplicate state monitoring activities.

In summary, while the proposed legislation describes a program
consistent with current USGS activities to support protection of the
UMRB and the Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force
recommendations, these conservation activities are already being
addressed by other on-going programs. Funding for the activities in H.R.
2381 is not included in the fiscal year 2009 President\'s Budget
proposal and would remain subject to available resources.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for providing the Department with the
opportunity to present this statement.