**Statement of Kris Polly**

**Deputy 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**

**H.R. 813**

**April 8, 2008**

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am Kris Polly, Deputy
Commissioner at the Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased to be here today
to give the Department's views on HR 813, the Santa Ana River Water
Supply Enhancement Act of 2007. The Department does not support this
bill.

HR 813 would amend Title XVI, the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater
Study and Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
participate in several projects.

Section 2 of the bill authorizes the Secretary of the Interior, in
cooperation with the Orange County Water District, to participate in the
planning, design, and construction of the natural treatment systems and
wetlands for the flows of the Santa Ana River, California, and its
tributaries into the Prado Basin. Section 2 of the bill authorizes an
appropriation of \$20 million to carry out this function. With regard to
this project, on March 18, 2007, Reclamation approved the feasibility
study and deemed two of the four component treatment systems feasible.
The remaining two systems will be addressed upon completion of ongoing
studies.

Section 3 of the bill authorizes the Secretary of the Interior, under
Federal reclamation law and in cooperation with units of local
government, to assist agencies in projects to construct regional brine
lines to export the salinity imported from the Colorado River to the
Pacific Ocean.

Section 4 of the bill authorizes the Secretary of the Interior, in
cooperation with the Chino Basin Watermaster, the Inland Empire
Utilities Agency, and the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority, acting
under Federal Reclamation laws, to participate in the design, planning,
and construction of the Lower Chino Dairy Area desalination
demonstration and reclamation project. With regard to this project,
Reclamation approved the feasibility study on November 28, 2006 and
deemed this project feasible.

These three projects would have to compete with other needs within the
Reclamation program for funding priority in the President's Budget.

In addition to the proposed three projects, the Department is also
concerned that under section 4, the legislation proposes a cost sharing
of 25 percent, not to exceed \$50.0 million. The Department does not
believe there is justification to support assigning a cap higher than
\$20.0 million, the cap for Title XVI projects enacted after 1996, and
strongly opposes this provision.

While the Department supports efforts to increase local water supplies
and increase recycled water use in California, the Department does not
support HR 813. The Department continues to believe it is not prudent to
authorize new Title XVI projects in light of the Federal cost share
already authorized for Title XVI projects now being actively pursued.

Of the 35 Title XVI projects specifically authorized and 2 demonstration
projects undertaken through the general authority, 21 projects are
actively being pursued and 4 are complete. The remaining authorized
Federal cost share for the active projects, after FY 2008, is nearly
\$400 million. The authorized Federal cost share for the 12 projects
currently not being pursued is estimated at \$220 million.

While Reclamation is not supporting new project authorizations at this
time, we understand that the projects established by Title XVI are
important to many water users in the West. To that end, Reclamation has
revised and improved its Directives and Standards that govern reviews of
Title XVI projects. By doing so, we believe that Reclamation can play a
more constructive role with local sponsors in weighing the merits and
ultimate feasibility of proposed water recycling projects.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. Thank you for the opportunity
to comment on HR 813. I would be happy to answer any questions at this
time.

**Statement of Kris Polly**

**Deputy 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 8, 2008**

**HR 31**

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Kris Polly, Deputy
Commissioner at the Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased to be here today
to give the Department of the Interior's views on HR 31, the Elsinore
Valley Municipal Water District Wastewater and Recycled Water Facilities
Act. Although the Wildomar portion of this project has been deemed
technically feasible, the Department does not support HR 31.

HR 31 would amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and
Facilities Act (Public Law 102-575, 43 U.S.C. 390h *et seq.*), to
authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the design,
planning, and construction of facilities needed to treat wastewater and
distribute recycled water within the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water
District's service area. It provides for Federal funding of 25 percent
of the total project cost or \$12.5 million, whichever is less.

The Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District is located in southwestern
Riverside County, which has been experiencing rapid growth. The District
is heavily dependent on imported water provided by the Metropolitan
Water District of Southern California. In order to lessen this
dependence and to provide for additional future growth, the District is
developing plans for recycled water systems in the Alberhill and
Wildomar areas.

The Alberhill system consists of a wastewater treatment facility and
distribution system, which includes pumps, pipelines, and storage
facilities. A preliminary construction cost estimate of the Alberhill
system is \$38.5 million. The Wildomar system consists of a distribution
system which includes pumps, pipelines, and storage facilities. Total
estimated cost of the Wildomar system is about \$19 million.

Reclamation has determined the Wildomar project to be feasible on
November 15, 2007. The Alberhill system has not been reviewed.

While the Department supports efforts to increase local water supplies
and increase recycled water use, we do not support HR 31. These projects
would have to compete with other needs within the Reclamation program
for funding priority in the President's Budget. The Department continues
to believe it is not prudent to authorize new Title XVI projects in
light of the Federal cost share already authorized for Title XVI
projects now being actively pursued.

Of the 35 Title XVI projects specifically authorized and 2 demonstration
projects undertaken through the general authority, 21 projects are
actively being pursued and 4 are complete. The Federal cost share for
the active projects, after FY 2008, is nearly \$400 million. The Federal
cost share for the 12 projects currently not being pursued is estimated
at \$220 million.

While Reclamation is not supporting new project authorizations at this
time, we understand that the projects established by Title XVI are
important to many water users in the West. To that end, Reclamation has
revised and improved its Directives and Standards that govern reviews of
Title XVI projects. By doing so, we believe that Reclamation can play a
more constructive role with local sponsors in weighing the merits and
ultimate feasibility of proposed water recycling projects.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. Thank you for the opportunity
to comment on HR 31. I would be happy to answer any questions at this
time.

**Statement of Kris Polly**

**Deputy Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation**

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

**before the**

**Subcommittee on Water and Power**

**Committee on Energy and Natural Resources**

**Unites States Senate**

**H.R. 716**

**April 8, 2008**

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am Kris Polly, Deputy
Commissioner at the Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased to provide the
Department of the Interior's views on HR 716, a bill to authorize
Reclamation to participate in the design, planning, and construction of
the Santa Rosa Urban Water Reuse Plan. The Department does not support
HR 716.

HR 716 would amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and
Facilities Act (Public Law 102-575, Title XVI) to include the City of
Santa Rosa, California, Urban Water Reuse Plan. Under the proposed
legislation, costs incurred by the City of Santa Rosa prior to the date
of enactment would be credited by the Secretary toward the total cost of
the Santa Rosa Urban Water Reuse Plan.

Reclamation is working with the City of Santa Rosa to develop a
feasibility study, but Reclamation has not yet determined the
feasibility of this project. I would like note that the Department does
support efforts to increase local water supplies and increase recycled
water use in the West; however, Title XVI provisions require that these
technical studies be completed and reviewed to determine the feasibility
and cost effectiveness. The Department believes this legislation should
not be enacted without a proper analysis to ensure this project is
feasible.

Further, H.R. 716 authorizes the appropriation of up to \$20 million or
a maximum of 25 percent of total project costs, whichever is less. This
project would have to compete with other needs within the Reclamation
program for funding priority in the President's Budget. The Department
continues to believe it is not prudent to authorize new Title XVI
projects in light of the Federal cost share already authorized for Title
XVI projects now being actively pursued.

Of the 35 Title XVI projects specifically authorized and 2 demonstration
projects undertaken through the general authority, 21 projects are
actively being pursued and 4 are complete. The Federal cost share for
the active projects, after FY 2008, is nearly \$400 million. The Federal
cost share for the 12 projects currently not being pursued is estimated
at \$220 million.

While Reclamation is not supporting new project authorizations at this
time, we understand that the projects established by Title XVI are
important to many water users in the West. To that end, Reclamation has
developed Directives and Standards that govern reviews of Title XVI
projects. By doing so, we believe that Reclamation can play a more
constructive role with local sponsors in weighing the merits and
ultimate feasibility of proposed water recycling projects.

For the reasons noted above, the Department does not support HR 716. Mr.
Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I would be pleased to answer any
questions.

**Statement of Kris Polly**

**Deputy 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 8, 2008**

**H.R. 786**

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Kris Polly, Deputy
Commissioner at the Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased to be here today
to give the Department's views on HR 786, the Los Angeles County Water
Supply Augmentation Demonstration Project. The Department does not
support this legislation. It is not necessary to specifically authorize
a demonstration project under Title XVI of P.L. 102-575, as amended,
since Section 1605 already provides authority to participate in
demonstration projects. We are already implementing this proposed
project using funds appropriated in FY 2008.

The project that HR 786 would involve infiltration of storm water runoff
to recharge the groundwater basin in the Los Angeles and San Gabriel
Watersheds. The project consists of a neighborhood demonstration project
that would demonstrate the potential for infiltration of storm water
runoff to recharge groundwater by retrofitting one or more sites in the
Los Angeles Area with state-of-the-art best management practices and
perform pre-development and post-development monitoring to assess the
resulting potential new water supply.

This project was jointly developed by the Los Angeles and San Gabriel
Rivers Watershed Council, City of Los Angeles Department of Water and
Power, Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, Los Angeles
Regional Water Quality Control Board, Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California, Water Replenishment District of Southern
California, City of Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation, and the City of
Santa Monica Environmental Programs Division, with technical input from
Reclamation. Project benefits include local drought protection, water
quality improvements and reduced dependence on imported water.

HR 786 would authorize Reclamation to participate in planning, design,
construction and assessment of a demonstration project. The legislation
does not specify an authorization of appropriations amount, but provides
that the Federal share should not exceed 25 percent of project costs.
However, since Section 1605 of Title XVI already authorizes the
Secretary to construct, operate, and maintain demonstration projects,
and since Congress has appropriated \$492,000 for this demonstration
project in Fiscal Year 2008, Reclamation has already initiated
participation in this project. Because of other priorities in the
President's Budget, we have not included funding for this project in our
FY 2009 budget.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. Thank you for the opportunity
to comment on HR 786. I would be happy to answer any questions at this
time.

**Statement of Kris Polly**

**Deputy 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 8, 2008**

**H.R. 1140**

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am Kris Polly, Deputy
Commissioner at the Bureau of Reclamation. I am here today to present
the views of the Department of the Interior on HR 1140, a bill to
authorize water recycling projects in Southern California. HR 1140 would
amend Title XVI, the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and
Facilities Act (P.L. 102-575) to include design, planning, and
construction authority for two local projects. For reasons described
below, the Department does not support HR 1140.

HR 1140, as written, would amend Title XVI to authorize the Secretary of
the Interior to participate in the design, planning, and construction of
two water recycling projects in south Orange County in the State of
California.

Section 2 of the bill would authorize the San Juan Capistrano Recycled
Water System, with a Federal cost share not to exceed 25 percent, and a
funding authorization of appropriation of \$18.5 million. Reclamation
reviewed this project as part of the CALFED/TitleXVI review and found
the information submitted for this project lacked 6 of the 9
requirements needed to determine feasibility. Absent these items,
Reclamation could not determine the feasibility of the project. This
does not mean the project is not feasible, but rather that until the six
remaining items are completed, Reclamation cannot provide a feasibility
determination.

Section 2 of the bill would also authorize the San Clemente Reclaimed
Water Project. The local district has not been in consultation with
Reclamation nor has Reclamation received any copies of a feasibility
study to support the authorization of this project. Without a proper
analysis to ensure this project meets appropriate federal guidelines for
consideration of construction authorization, we cannot support
Reclamation's participation in the planning, design and construction
activities.

While the Department supports efforts to increase local water supplies
and increase recycled water use, we do not support H.R. 1140. This
project would have to compete with other needs within the Reclamation
program for funding priority in the President's Budget. The Department
continues to believe it is not prudent to authorize new Title XVI
projects in light of the Federal cost share already authorized for Title
XVI projects now being actively pursued.

Of the 35 Title XVI projects specifically authorized and 2 demonstration
projects undertaken through the general authority, 21 projects are
actively being pursued and 4 are complete. The Federal cost share for
the active projects, after FY 2008, is nearly \$400 million. The Federal
cost share for the 12 projects currently not being pursued is estimated
at \$220 million.

While Reclamation is not supporting new project authorizations at this
time, we understand that the projects established by Title XVI are
important to many water users in the West. To that end, Reclamation
revised and improved its Directives and Standards that govern reviews of
Title XVI projects. By doing so, we believe that Reclamation can play a
more constructive role with local sponsors in weighing the merits and
ultimate feasibility of proposed water recycling projects.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes by testimony. Thank you for the opportunity
to comment on HR 1140. I would be happy to answer any questions at this
time.

**Statement of Kris Polly**

**Deputy 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 8, 2008**

**H.R. 1503**

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Kris Polly, Deputy
Commissioner at the Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased to be here today
to give the Department of the Interior's views on HR 1503, the
Avra/Black Wash Reclamation and Riparian Restoration Project Act. The
Department does not support HR 1503.

H.R. 1503 would amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study
and Facilities Act (43 U.S.C. 390h *et seq.*), to authorize the
Secretary of the Interior to participate in the design, planning, and
construction of water recycling facilities to enhance and restore
riparian habitat in the Black Wash Sonoran Desert ecosystem in Avra
Valley, west of the metropolitan Pima County area in Arizona. It
provides for Federal funding of 25 percent of the total project cost or
\$14 million, whichever is less.

Pima County intends to expand the 1.5 million gallon per day wastewater
treatment facility to a capacity of 5 mgd. Currently, treated effluent
is not reused. The proposed project would provide tertiary treatment and
establish procedures to recharge the reclaimed water in ponds and the
Black Wash. The treated effluent that was previously evaporated would
instead recharge the aquifer, and state law would allow this recharge to
be measured and stored as credits to be pumped at a later date. By
recharging the water in the channel of Black Wash, riparian and wildlife
habitat will be created, preserved and protected. The project includes
plans to provide baseline ecological reconnaissance for monitoring of
diversity and ecological health of the site.

The Department supports efforts to increase reclaimed water use in
southern Arizona. Reclamation has been working with Pima County to
review the technical, regulatory and contractual issues involved in the
project but discussions have been preliminary. To date, the steps
necessary to prepare a feasibility report that meet the requirements for
feasibility of Title XVI projects have not been discussed. Because the
technical studies are not complete, the feasibility and cost
effectiveness of this project cannot be determined.

In addition, while the Department supports efforts to increase local
water supplies and increase recycled water use, we do not support H.R.
1503. The Department continues to believe it is not prudent to authorize
new Title XVI projects in light of the Federal cost share already
authorized for Title XVI projects now being actively pursued. This
project would have to compete with other needs within the Reclamation
program for funding priority in the President's Budget.

Of the 35 Title XVI projects specifically authorized and 2 demonstration
projects undertaken through the general authority, 21 projects are
actively being pursued and 4 are complete. The Federal cost share for
the active projects, after FY 2008, is nearly \$400 million. The Federal
cost share for the 12 projects currently not being pursued is estimated
at \$220 million.

While Reclamation is not supporting new project authorizations at this
time, we understand that the projects established by Title XVI are
important to many water users in the West. To that end, Reclamation
revised and improved its Directives and Standards that govern reviews of
Title XVI projects. By doing so, we believe that Reclamation can play a
more constructive role with local sponsors in weighing the merits and
ultimate feasibility of proposed water recycling projects.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. Thank you for the opportunity
to comment on H.R. 1503. I would be happy to answer any questions at
this time.

**Statement of Kris Polly**

**Deputy 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 8, 2008**

**HR 1725**

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Kris Polly, Deputy
Commissioner at the Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased to be here today
to give the Department of the Interior's views on HR 1725, the Rancho
California Water District Recycled Water Treatment and Reclamation
Facility Act. Although the project has been deemed technically feasible,
the Department does not support HR 1725.

HR 1725 would amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and
Facilities Act (43 U.S.C. 390h *et seq.*), to authorize the Secretary of
the Interior to participate in the design, planning, and construction of
the Rancho California Water District's facilities for water recycling,
demineralization, desalination, and distribution of non-potable water
supplies in Riverside County, California.

The Rancho California Water District is located in southwestern
Riverside County, which has been experiencing explosive growth. The
District is heavily dependent on imported water provided by the
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. In order to lessen
this dependence the District has developed a Regional Integrated
Resources Plan that includes three components. Together, the component
projects will expand local water resources by increasing conjunctive use
by about 13,000 acre-feet per year, expanding the use of recycled water
by about 16,000 acre-feet per year, and substituting untreated water for
the treated water that is currently being used for agricultural
irrigation. Implementation of the Regional Integrated Resources Plan
would require the construction of pipelines, pumping plants, an advanced
water treatment facility, and brine disposal facilities. The total
estimated cost is about \$350 million.

Reclamation, in collaboration with the District, recently completed work
on a feasibility study and, on November 15, 2007, deemed this project
feasible. In Fiscal Year 2008, Congress appropriated \$123,000 for this
project. Using these funds, Reclamation is working with the Rancho
California Water District to complete compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for this project.

H.R. 1725 authorizes the appropriation of up to \$20 million or a
maximum of 25 percent of total project costs, whichever is less. The
Department supports efforts to increase local water supplies and
increase recycled water use in southern California. However, this
project would have to compete with other needs within the Reclamation
program for funding priority in the President's Budget. While we are
committed to working with the District to address its water supply
needs, the Department continues to believe it is not prudent to
authorize new Title XVI projects in light of the Federal cost share
already authorized for Title XVI projects now being actively pursued.

Of the 35 Title XVI projects specifically authorized and 2 demonstration
projects undertaken through the general authority, 21 projects are
actively being pursued and 4 are complete. The Federal cost share for
the active projects, after FY 2008, is nearly \$400 million. The Federal
cost share for the 12 projects currently not being pursued is estimated
at \$220 million.

While Reclamation is not supporting new project authorizations at this
time, we understand that the projects established by Title XVI are
important to many water users in the West. To that end, Reclamation has
revised and improved its Directives and Standards that govern reviews of
Title XVI projects. By doing so, we believe that Reclamation can play a
more constructive role with local sponsors in weighing the merits and
ultimate feasibility of proposed water recycling projects.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. Thank you for the opportunity
to comment on HR 1725. I would be happy to answer any questions at this
time.

**Statement of Kris Polly**

**Deputy 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 8, 2008**

**H.R. 1737**

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Kris Polly, Deputy
Commissioner at the Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased to be here today
to give the Department's views on\
HR 1737, the City of Oxnard Water Recycling and Desalination Act of
2007. Due to the reasons outlined below, the Department cannot support
this legislation.

HR 1737 would amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and
Facilities Act (43 U.S.C. 390h *et seq.*) to authorize the Secretary to
participate in the design, planning, and construction of permanent
facilities for the Groundwater Recovery Enhancement and Treatment
(GREAT) project, which would reclaim impaired water in the area of
Oxnard, located in Ventura County, California. It provides for Federal
funding of 25 percent of the total project cost or \$20 million,
whichever is less.

The City of Oxnard, Port Hueneme Water Agency, United Water Conservation
District, and Calleguas Municipal Water District have jointly developed
the GREAT project, which consists of three parts: (1) a regional
groundwater desalination facility; (2) a recycled water system to serve
agricultural water users and to protect groundwater sources from
seawater intrusion; and (3) a brine line that will convey desalination
concentrates to an enhanced saltwater wetland. Project benefits include
local drought protection and reduced dependence on imported water.

Mr. Chairman, the Department supports efforts to increase local water
supplies, including brackish groundwater desalination and reclaimed
water use, in southern California. However, HR 1737 would authorize the
design and construction of the project before the feasibility study is
completed. Reclamation prefers that feasibility studies be completed
first to determine whether a particular project warrants Federal
construction authorization.

With regard to this specific project, Reclamation currently is reviewing
the feasibility study submitted by the City of Oxnard for this project.
Therefore, the Department believes the legislation to be premature and
cannot support HR 1737 at this time. This project would have to compete
with other needs within the Reclamation program for funding priority in
the President's budget. The Department continues to believe it is not
prudent to authorize new Title XVI projects in light of the Federal cost
share already authorized for Title XVI projects now being actively
pursued.

Of the 35 Title XVI projects specifically authorized and 2 demonstration
projects undertaken through the general authority, 21 projects are
actively being pursued and 4 are complete. The Federal cost share for
the active projects, after FY 2008, is nearly \$400 million. The Federal
cost share for the 12 projects currently not being pursued is estimated
at \$220 million.

While Reclamation is not supporting new project authorizations at this
time, we understand that the projects established by Title XVI are
important to many water users in the West. To that end, Reclamation has
revised and improved its Directives and Standards that govern reviews of
Title XVI projects. By doing so, we believe that Reclamation can play a
more constructive role with local sponsors in weighing the merits and
ultimate feasibility of proposed water recycling projects.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. Thank you for the opportunity
to comment on HR 1737. I would be happy to answer any questions at this
time.

**Statement of Kris Polly**

**Deputy 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 8, 2008**

**H.R. 2614**

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am Kris Polly, Deputy
Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. I am here today to present
the views of the Department of the Interior on HR 2614, a bill to
authorize water supply, reclamation reuse and recycling, and
desalination projects in Southern California. HR 2614 would amend Title
XVI, the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act
(P.L. 102-575) to include design, planning, and construction authority
for two specific projects. For reasons described below, the Department
does not support HR 2614.

HR 2614, as written, would authorize the design, planning, and
construction of projects to treat impaired surface water, reclaim and
reuse impaired groundwater and wastewater, and provide brine disposal in
the State of California.

Specifically, this bill would authorize the Yucaipa Valley Regional
Water Supply Renewal Project. Reclamation has reviewed the feasibility
study submitted by the Yucaipa Valley Water District. Based on the
technical information provided, Reclamation could not determine the
feasibility of the project, and additional information was requested.
The District recently submitted the additional information, and
Reclamation's final analysis of the project's feasibility is expected
soon.

HR 2614 would also authorize the City of Corona Water Utility,
California Water Recycling and Reuse Project. Reclamation has reviewed
the feasibility study submitted by the City of Corona. Based on the
technical information provided, Reclamation could not determine the
feasibility of the project, and additional information has been
requested from the City. This does not mean the project is not feasible,
but rather that until the remaining information is reviewed, Reclamation
cannot provide a feasibility determination.

Mr. Chairman, the Department supports efforts to increase local water
supplies and increase recycled water use in southern California.
However, HR 2614 would authorize the design and construction of these
projects before the feasibility study is completed. Reclamation prefers
that feasibility studies be completed first to determine whether these
particular projects warrant Federal construction authorization. The
Department believes this legislation is premature and does not support
HR 2614.

In addition, H.R. 2614 authorizes the appropriation of up to \$20
million or a maximum of 25 percent of total project costs, whichever is
less, for each of these two projects. These projects would have to
compete with other needs within the Reclamation program for funding
priority in the President's Budget.

Moreover, the Department continues to believe it is not prudent to
authorize new Title XVI projects in light of the Federal cost share
already authorized for Title XVI projects now being actively pursued.

Of the 35 Title XVI projects specifically authorized and 2 demonstration
projects undertaken through the general authority, 21 projects are
actively being pursued and 4 are complete. The Federal cost share for
the active projects, after FY 2008, is nearly \$400 million. The Federal
cost share for the 12 projects currently not being pursued is estimated
at \$220 million.

While Reclamation is not supporting new project authorizations at this
time, we understand that the projects established by Title XVI are
important to many water users in the West. To that end, Reclamation has
revised and improved its Directives and Standards that govern reviews of
Title XVI projects. By doing so, we believe that Reclamation can play a
more constructive role with local sponsors in weighing the merits and
ultimate feasibility of proposed water recycling projects.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. Thank you for the opportunity
to comment on HR 2614. I would be happy to answer any questions at this
time.