**Statement of Robert Johnson, Commissioner**

**Bureau of Reclamation**

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

**Before the**

**Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee**

**Subcommittee on Water and Power**

**H.R. 235**

**April 25, 2007**

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am Robert W. Johnson,
Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. For the reasons discussed
below, the Department does not support H.R. 235.

Reclamation has worked with the Redwood Valley County Water District
(District) for over 30 years to fund and build a water distribution
system to provide over 1,100 residents and farmers of Redwood Valley,
California with a reliable municipal and industrial water supply.
Although we recognize the need to develop a workable strategy for
ensuring the District is able to repay its loan obligation to
Reclamation, because H.R. 235 could provide the District legislative
loan forgiveness, Reclamation cannot support the bill.

Over 25 years ago, Reclamation executed two 35-year repayment contracts
with the District (contract numbers 14-06-200-8423A and 14-06-200-8423A
Amendatory) for two Small Reclamation Projects Act (P.L. 94-984) loans
totaling \$7.3 million. Combining those loans with funding from other
sources, the District built an \$8.5 million water system project that
is still in use today. By 1982, the District's water rate for its
customers were above the state average, yet still inadequate to generate
revenues for facilities operation and maintenance and repayment of a
projected debt of \$200,000 per year. That same year the District
informed Reclamation of possible repayment problems.

Beginning in the late 1980s, the District, congressional
representatives, and Reclamation engaged in numerous discussions over
the District's inability to make the scheduled loan payments. Subsequent
legislation resulted in a postponement of loan interest, but did not
produce any positive outcome on the repayment issue.

Compounding its fiscal problems, the District does not have a firm and
reliable water supply and is currently under a court-ordered moratorium
preventing new service connections. This moratorium has greatly hampered
the District's ability to repay its two loans.

Reclamation cannot support H.R. 235 because the legislation's repayment
provision does not establish a date certain for either repayment to
begin or to be concluded. The proposed legislation does not provide any
assurance that the United States will ever receive payment on the two
loans, and essentially could provide loan forgiveness. The renegotiated
payment arrangement could further postpone repayment of money owed
Reclamation.

Reclamation recognizes that a firm and reliable water supply is likely
necessary to resolve the District's current financial dilemma, which
prevents the District from being able to complete repayment of these two
loans. Also, any deferment legislation should include language to ensure
that the District first uses proceeds from the sales of such a supply to
repay the new obligation used to secure the water supply and second to
satisfy the District's repayment obligations to Reclamation.
Furthermore, such legislation should include a date certain for
repayment of Reclamation loans to begin or to be completed. We support
efforts by the District to recover financially and find a solution that
will enable it to pay its debts. Any such solution must ensure that the
loans made by Reclamation will be wholly repaid.

While the Department cannot support H.R. 235, we look forward to working
with the District to address the repayment issue. This concludes my
prepared remarks. I am pleased to answer any questions.

**S. 175**

**April 25, 2007**

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am Robert Johnson,
Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased to present the
views of the Department of the Interior on S. 175 concerning the Central
Oklahoma Master Conservancy District (District) Feasibility Study.

S. 175 would authorize Reclamation to conduct a Feasibility Study of
alternatives to augment the water supplies of the District and cities
served by the District. S.175 would also require the study to be
conducted within one year of the date of enactment, and authorize
\$300,000 to be spent in conducting the study. The Department does not
support S. 175.

The one-year timeframe for the study described in S. 175 is insufficient
for a thorough evaluation of alternatives to meet future water needs of
surrounding communities not presently served by the District and would
be a very aggressive schedule. This timeframe would also make completion
of the Feasibility Study, including preparation of the appropriate
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance document, extremely
problematic and may prove difficult to achieve with any degree of
accuracy.

The Department recognizes that a water need exists for the District.
Reclamation is currently preparing a scope of work in coordination with
the District, which focuses the plan of study to be completed. However,
the Department does not support authorization of a Feasibility Study at
this time.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on S. 175. This concludes my
statement and I am happy to answer any questions.

**S. 542**

**April 25, 2007**

I am Robert Johnson, Commissioner for the Bureau of Reclamation. I am
pleased to be here today to provide the Department of the Interior's
views on S. 542, legislation to authorize the Secretary to conduct
feasibility studies to address water shortages within the Snake, Boise,
and Payette River systems in Idaho.

Reclamation previously provided testimony on September 21, 2006,
regarding the Administration's views on H.R. 2563 as referred to the
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, a bill equivalent to S.
542 introduced this Congress. Consistent with our testimony in the last
Congress, we support S. 542.

The State of Idaho continues to experience the effects of a prolonged
drought as well as tremendous growth and urbanization in the Boise and
Payette River basins. Projected population growth will eventually
over-extend existing ground water supplies for these rapidly growing
areas. In light of this and other water resource issues elsewhere in the
state, the Idaho State House of Representatives issued Joint Memorial
No. 24 in 2004, which "recognizes the need for additional water to meet
Idaho's emerging needs and encourages Federal and State agencies to
cooperate with Idaho in identifying and developing such water supply
projects."

Under existing authorities, Reclamation initiated an assessment level
water supply study specifically in the Boise and Payette basins.
Stakeholders with wide representation from the State, Federal,
agricultural, environmental and municipal sectors participated in that
study. The Final Boise/Payette Water Storage Assessment Report was
completed in July 2006 and was distributed to local State, Federal,
agricultural, environmental and municipal parties.

S. 542 would go the next step by authorizing Reclamation to conduct
feasibility studies within the Snake, Boise, and Payette River systems.
However, while the legislation provides authority for feasibility
studies in the Snake River system, Reclamation's assessment report
referenced in the legislation solely evaluated and identified projects
for further consideration in the Boise and Payette river systems, thus
limiting the scope of the bill's authorization.

Reclamation supports focused, basin-by-basin water resource studies with
input and local involvement from the State and the stakeholder
communities. We recognize the need to address projected water supply
shortages in the Boise and Payette River systems, and look forward to
doing so in partnership with future beneficiaries. We would welcome the
opportunity to be an active partner in addressing these water supply
issues with the State of Idaho and its water users. However, any studies
conducted under this new authority would still need to compete with
other needs within the Reclamation program for funding priority in the
President's Budget.

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

**S. 752**

**April 25, 2007**

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am Robert Johnson,
Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. I appreciate the opportunity
to appear before you today to discuss

S. 752, the Platte River Recovery Implementation Program and the
Pathfinder Modification Authorization Act. The Department supports
passage of S. 752.

The Platte River originates in the mountains of Wyoming and Colorado
and, as it flows through Nebraska, provides important habitat for the
whooping crane, piping plover, interior least tern, and pallid sturgeon
(target species) that are listed as threatened or endangered under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA). In 1997, the States of Colorado, Nebraska,
and Wyoming and the Department of the Interior signed a Cooperative
Agreement to develop a basin-wide program that would provide measures to
assist in the recovery of these four target species in the Platte River
in Nebraska. In late 2006, the Platte River Recovery Implementation
Program (Program) Agreement was signed by the Governors of the three
States and the Secretary of the Interior, allowing for Program
implementation to begin January 1, 2007. The Program assists in the
conservation and recovery of the target species in the Platte River
basin and implements aspects of the recovery plans for these species,
thereby providing compliance under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for
existing water related activities and certain new water-related
activities in the Platte River Basin in Colorado, Wyoming, and Nebraska.

Title I of S. 752 provides authorization for the Secretary of the
Interior, through the Bureau of Reclamation, to fully implement the
Program. It also provides Reclamation with authority to appropriate
non-reimbursable funds for the Program. Reclamation, in cooperation with
the Governance Committee, will implement the Program in incremental
stages with the first increment being a period of 13 years. Pursuant to
the Program Agreement, the Federal cost share for the first increment is
\$157 million (2005 dollars), plus indexing. The State cost-share is the
same amount, to be provided from the three State Parties to the Program
Agreement.

Pre-implementation activities, such as forming the new Governance
Committee, initiating the selection of the Executive Director, and
various administrative functions have already begun. Federal activities
up to this point have been authorized under existing law encouraging the
Department of the Interior to work with States to promote habitat
protection and the protection of species. Under the ESA, the Program can
initiate monitoring and research activities; however, actual water and
land acquisitions cannot be initiated using Federal funds prior to
enactment of this legislation. Upon enactment of this authorizing
legislation, Program land and water acquisitions will begin. It is
critical that acquisitions begin early in the Program to allow
sufficient time to evaluate the biological response and effectiveness of
the Program's recovery measures.

Title II authorizes the Secretary, through the Bureau of Reclamation, to
modify Pathfinder Dam and Reservoir and enter into agreements with the
State of Wyoming to implement this modification. No Federal funds are
required for this activity.

In accordance with our commitment to cooperative conservation, the
Department of the Interior seeks to encourage the efforts of States and
local communities to play active roles in managing the resources they
depend on for their livelihoods. The Platte River Recovery
Implementation Program that would be authorized under this Act is an
example of a partnership combining Federal and Non-Federal funding in an
ongoing effort to recover endangered species while also meeting the
water needs of local communities, irrigators, power generation, and the
environment. Enactment of this legislation provides an opportunity not
only to meet ESA requirements using a basin-wide, cooperative, and
scientific approach, but to do so in a manner that protects existing
water uses and allows for future water uses in the Platte River Basin.
For these reasons, the Administration supports S. 752.

Mr. Chairman, this completes my statement. I am happy to answer any
questions the Subcommittee may have.

**S. 1037**

**April 25, 2007**

I am Robert Johnson, Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation.  I
appreciate the opportunity to provide the Department's views on S. 1037,
legislation to authorize the Secretary to participate in the planning,
design, and construction of the Tumalo Irrigation District Water
Conservation Project in Deschutes County, Oregon. The Department cannot
support S. 1037.

The Tumalo Irrigation District (District) and the facilities in question
are not part of a Reclamation project. During the 1990's the District
did have a repayment contract for rehabilitation of Crescent Lake Dam.
The District satisfied its repayment obligation to the United States in
1998, and holds title to all project facilities.

The Tumalo Irrigation District Water Conservation Project (Project)
would convert approximately 6 miles of open canal in the District into a
pipeline. It is Reclamation's understanding that the Project, known
locally as the Tumalo Feed Canal pipeline, would conserve up to 20 cubic
feet per second (cfs) of water for instream use. The Administration
supports the objective of the District to conserve water and to improve
instream flows while not diminishing the amount of water available for
agricultural uses. Furthermore, we recognize the improvements made in S.
1037 over legislation introduced in the previous Congress.

S. 1037 authorizes the Secretary to participate in the planning, design,
and construction of the Project and provides authorization for \$4.0
million to be appropriated for the Federal share of the Project. Project
sponsors anticipate the Federal share of the Project would be made in
the form of a grant, however, the language in Section 3(a)(1) does not
clearly give the Secretary such authority.

Most importantly, the Department is concerned that use of Reclamation
funds on non-Reclamation projects would adversely impact water projects
which Congress has charged Reclamation with operating and maintaining. 
Reclamation activities are targeted to perform essential functions at
Federal projects, such as security, operations and maintenance (O&M),
resource management, dam safety, and construction.

As conceived, the District's water conservation project may be ideally
suited to compete for funds within the Department of Interior's existing
water conservation programs like the Water 2025 Program. Through such
conservation programs, local entities develop innovative on-the-ground
solutions to water supply problems with financial assistance from
Reclamation. However, because of the reasons stated above, the
Department cannot support the legislation.

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