U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

88–129 PDF 2003

S. HRG. 108–64

FREMONT-MADISON CONVEYANCE; TUALATIN RIVER BASIN;

IRVINE BASIN SURFACE; HAWAII WATER RESOURCES;

AND AMEND RECLAMATION PROJECTS ACT

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

S. 520 S. 960

S. 625 S. 993

S. 649

MAY 13, 2003

(

Printed for the use of the

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

(II)

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, Chairman

DON NICKLES, Oklahoma

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho

BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska

JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri

CONRAD BURNS, Montana

GORDON SMITH, Oregon

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky

JON KYL, Arizona

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota

BOB GRAHAM, Florida

RON WYDEN, Oregon

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana

EVAN BAYH, Indiana

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington

ALEX FLINT, Staff Director

JAMES P. BEIRNE, Chief Counsel

ROBERT M. SIMON, Democratic Staff Director

SAM E. FOWLER, Democratic Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman

BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado, Vice Chairman

GORDON SMITH, Oregon

JON KYL, Arizona

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho

JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota

BOB GRAHAM, Florida

RON WYDEN, Oregon

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington

PETE V. DOMENICI and JEFF BINGAMAN are Ex Officio Members of the Subcommittee

SHELLY RANDEL, Counsel

PATTY BENEKE, Democratic Senior Counsel

(III)

C O N T E N T S

STATEMENTS

Page

Akaka, Hon. Daniel K., U.S. Senator from Hawaii .............................................. 11

Brady, Brian, President, Board of Directors, Irvine Ranch Water District,

accompanied by Paul Jones, General Manager, Irvine Ranch Water District 25

Carlson, Peter, Coordinator, Small Reclamation Program Act Coalition ........... 28

Ching, Chauncey, Professor, University of Hawaii ............................................... 20

Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator from Idaho .................................................... 4

Crapo, Hon. Mike, U.S. Senator from Idaho ......................................................... 3

Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, U.S. Senator from California ......................................... 5

Findaro, Joe, Washington Counsel, Fremont-Madison Irrigation District ......... 17

Keys, John W., III, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation, Department of

the Interior ........................................................................................................... 6

Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator from Alaska ................................................ 1

Raybould, Chairman of the Board of Directors, Fremont-Madison Irrigation

District .................................................................................................................. 19

Smith, Hon. Gordon, U.S. Senator from Oregon ................................................... 12

Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator from Oregon ....................................................... 2

APPENDIXES

APPENDIX I

Responses to additional questions .......................................................................... 37

APPENDIX II

Additional material submitted for the record ........................................................ 41

(1)

FREMONT-MADISON CONVEYANCE; TUALATIN

RIVER BASIN; IRVINE BASIN SURFACE; HAWAII WATER RESOURCES; AND AMEND RECLAMATION PROJECTS ACT

TUESDAY, MAY 13, 2003

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER,

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:32 p.m. in room

SD–366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Lisa Murkowski presiding.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI,

U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA

Senator MURKOWSKI. I am calling to order this meeting of the

Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Energy Committee. I

would like to welcome everyone this afternoon to the subcommittee.

I appreciate your interest in the hearing and, given the critical

challenges facing our country, the work performed by the subcommittee is critical. So I appreciate the attendance this afternoon.

There are five bills before the subcommittee today designed to

address the challenges facing our country. The first is S. 520, the

Fremont-Madison Conveyance Act, introduced by Senators Crapo

and Craig; S. 625, the Tualatin River Water Basin Supply Enhancement Act of 2003, introduced by Senators Smith and Wyden;

S. 649, the Irvine Basin Surface and Groundwater Improvement

Act of 2003, introduced by Senator Feinstein; S. 960, the Water Resources Act of 2003, introduced by Senator Akaka; and S. 993, the

Small Reclamation Water Resources Project Act of 2003, introduced

by Senator Stevens.

I would like to extend a special welcome to you, Senator Crapo.

I understand you will be making a statement in support of your

legislation, S. 520. I would also like to welcome Commissioner John

Keys of the Bureau of Reclamation, who will be testifying on behalf

of the administration on all five of these measures.

Additionally, I am pleased to have the following witnesses on our

second panel. There will be: Joe Findaro, the D.C. counsel for the

Fremont-Madison Irrigation District, who will be testifying in support of S. 520; Brian Brady, president of the Irvine Ranch Water

District Board of Directors, who will be testifying in support of S.

649, the Irvine Basin Surface and Groundwater Improvement Act

of 2003; Chauncey Ching, professor at the University of Hawaii,

2

who will be testifying in support of S. 960; and Peter Carlson, the

coordinator of the Small Reclamation Loan Program Coalition, who

will be testifying in support of S. 993. So I appreciate all those of

you who have taken the time to join us this afternoon.

Rather than outlining the details of the five bills that we have

before us, I will allow those introductions to be made by the Senators introducing the bills. It will I think shorten our time here in

the subcommittee and will keep us from repeating ourselves.

I would like to ask those committee members who can join me

here this afternoon if they would like to make comments as opening statements, and we will go in the order that you have joined

the committee. So with that, Senator Wyden, would you like to

make some opening remarks?

STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, U.S. SENATOR

FROM OREGON

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for

the cooperation that you and your staff have shown Senator Smith

and I. He and I have an extremely important bill for Washington

County, a fast-growing part of our State, and suffice it to say water

agencies in nine cities there have joined to create a strong local

partnership to find new ways to meet the area’s growing water

supply needs.

Suffice it to say all of us as westerners—Alaska, Idaho, and California—have seen again and again the kind of divisive conflicts

that we have had over water, that have occurred not just in our

States but throughout the West. What Senator Smith and I offer

as the model that is being used in Washington County is going to

help the Federal Government join a partnership to avoid these kind

of divisive conflicts and identify new sources of supply to meet our

citizens’ growing demand for water.

The county’s population has doubled since 1990. More people

means more demand for water, and to a great extent what is going

on in this particular county is really a microcosm of the West. Senator Craig and I have talked about this often. This is an area that

has a very significant agricultural component, as Idaho does. It has

a very significant high technology sector which is fast-growing, and

suffice it to say all of these demands come together and there simply is more of a demand than there has been supply.

So we are pleased to have a chance to work with the committee

on an initiative like this that will help us look at a broad range

of alternatives, from increasing existing storage capacity to considering conservation measures as a new way to meet our water

needs.

Madam Chair, the county chairman of the area, Tom Brian,

wanted a statement submitted for the record. Senator Smith and

I would like to have consent to have the chairman’s, Chairman

Brian’s, statement put into the record. If that could be made possible, we would both appreciate it.

Senator MURKOWSKI. We will do that.

Senator WYDEN. Madam Chair, I thank you for your assistance.

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you.

Senators Craig and Feinstein, I am reminded that Senator Crapo

will only be with us for a few minutes. If you would not mind, if

3

he could go ahead and make a comment and then we could go back

to your opening statements.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Fine.

Senator MURKOWSKI. Senator Crapo.

STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE CRAPO, U.S. SENATOR

FROM IDAHO

Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I have to

go preside over the floor in just a few moments and I appreciate

you accommodating my schedule.

I want to thank you and all the members of the committee for

this opportunity to testify on S. 520, the Fremont-Madison Conveyance Act. Senator Craig, my colleague from Idaho, is my joint cosponsor on this measure and I commend his able and strong partnership in working on this bill, and I again thank you for rescheduling this hearing on this issue as the Senate works on critical national energy policy legislation.

I would also like to express my appreciation to Mr. Joe Findaro,

who will be testifying on a later panel on behalf of the FremontMadison Irrigation District. Joe will be providing a fuller account

of the history of FMID’s operations in the development of the conveyance proposal, so I will keep my remarks brief.

I also want to express my appreciation to the Bureau of Reclamation, Commissioner John Keys, an honorary Idahoan and one who

has been instrumental in promoting title transfer legislation such

as this. He and his staff have spent many diligent hours making

this legislation a reality.

As a part of recommendations to reinvent government programs

under the last administration, we had identified title transfer to irrigation facilities for which construction costs have already been

paid out as a good and cost-effective government policy. Congress

has already undertaken several of these proposals, including two in

Idaho, and I commend this committee for its leadership in advancing them.

S. 520 would require the Secretary of the Interior to convey title

to portions of the district currently under ownership of the Bureau,

namely the Cross-Cut Conversion Dam, the Cross-Cut Canal, and

the Teton Exchange Wells, to FMID. The district has managed

these facilities since their creation in 1938 and by all accounts has

done an excellent job of maintaining and operating these facilities.

FMID has also a strong record of working within the community

to manage the facilities in a manner that reflects and complements

the unique ecological surroundings in which they reside.

Over the past few years, representatives of the district have

partnered aggressively with the local community, the Bureau,

irrigators, the Shoshone-Bannock Tribe, and environmentalists to

secure an ecologically sensitive and cost-effective transfer. I commend all the parties for their work on such a delicate and complex

process.

I believe this legislation represents the fruits of that successful

partnership, and I look forward to working with all the parties as

this legislation moves through the legislative process.

Just this past October, this committee passed this FremontMadison Irrigation Conveyance Act and in November it was apVerDate 11-SEP-98 14:58 Jul 09, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 J:\DOCS\88-129 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
4

proved by the full Senate. This compromise bill reflects the hard

work of FMID, local environmental communities and the tribal representatives to address their varying interests. It is my hope that

this committee and Congress will complete the work that was initiated in the previous session. To that end, I look forward to working

with all the parties as this legislation proceeds through the legislative process.

Madam Chair, this measure is important to the people of eastern

Idaho and reflects the spirit pioneered by this committee in partnership with the Bureau to advance previous title transfer proposals. I commend your leadership in calling this hearing and offer my

services as the committee works to enact the Fremont-Madison

Conveyance Act.

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you. We appreciate you taking the

time this afternoon to join us.

With that, Senator Craig.

STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY E. CRAIG, U.S. SENATOR

FROM IDAHO

Senator CRAIG. Well, thank you very much, Chairman Murkowski.

Senator Crapo has in large part expressed our desires and will

with S. 520. Both he and I have worked collectively on it. I want

to thank Joe Findaro and others who have been very much involved in working out the differences for this transfer of title.

Last July, the committee had a hearing on a previous version of

the Fremont-Madison Act. The bill we are discussing today is similar to that. While it retains most of that language from the last

session, there have been some compromises that were necessary

and important to work out amongst the stakeholders involved here,

and I think we have worked those out.

The Shoshone-Bannock Tribe’s concern has I believe been met.

The Henry’s Fork Foundation and Trout Unlimited have withdrawn their opposition due to drought language included in the

bill. So the language, while it is not new, does incorporate the

changes we think are appropriate and necessary after the bill died

in the 107th last year.

We are back and we appreciate the opportunity for this subcommittee to work its will and the full committee to consider it as

we move it out to the floor for the final consideration of the Senate.

These kinds of title transfers in reclamation projects once paid out

were a commitment that we believe is an appropriate way to handle the law, because the law said just that. There has been some

resistance over time, but as we have worked out our differences we

think that these projects now should reside in the private sector,

responsible for the public resource obviously that they manage

along with the entitled resource of water rights, and we think this

bill effectively demonstrates that and reflects that kind of a commitment.

We thank you very much.

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you.

Senator Feinstein.

5

STATEMENT OF HON. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, U.S. SENATOR

FROM CALIFORNIA

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, for

holding the hearing, and I want to thank Chairman Domenici for

calendaring a bill that I have introduced. This bill has been introduced by Representative Cox in the House of Representatives and

I am introducing it on behalf of the Irvine Water District, and I believe Mr. Brady is here and will be testifying about the bill.

The reason I am introducing it as a separate bill from the

CALFED bill, which you all know about, is because of my understanding that the Irvine Ranch has done the early studies and has

the match, the 75 percent of the money, and is ready to go ahead

with it. Because of the water quality concerns and groundwater

concerns, it is my belief that I want to push things to get water

improvements in the State. This bill authorizes up to $19 million in funds to cover 25 percent

of the costs of constructing the water projects in southern California. The first project is called the Natural Treatment System and

it will build a network of wetlands to filter surface water and

urban runoff in the San Diego Creek Watershed and the Upper

Newport Bay. It is based on the performance of a single constructed wetland in the area and we expect the Natural Treatment

System to filter out 126,000 pounds of nitrogen and 21,000 pounds

of phosphorus from the watershed each year and reduce levels of

harmful bacteria by as much as 26 percent.

The second project, the Irvine Desalter, will clean brackish

groundwater and provide drinking water for between 20,000 and

40,000 people. This water district covers 266,000 people by night,

half a million people by day. By allowing the Irvine Basin to access

another water source, the desalter will reduce dependence on imported water and take considerable pressure off of other water resources, including the Colorado River. The Irvine Company has already donated the land necessary to build the desalter.

The final project will construct a regional brine line to dispose of

brine directly into the ocean. Like much of California, the Irvine

Ranch Water District is a leader in water reclamation and recycling efforts. However, buildup of too much salt in the system can

hamper these reclamation efforts. The brine line will allow the district to continue its innovative efforts to ensure that water is used

more than once while increasing use of brackish water resources.

The brine line will allow the water district to maximize conservation and recycling efforts while utilizing a new water source.

Now, these are title 16 projects. The Government’s share cannot

exceed more than 25 percent. As I mentioned, the Irvine Basin

Water District has the other funding. They are ready to move forward with a relatively modest investment. We can make a real difference in water quality and water supply.

There is a problem and I would ask Mr. Brady to address this

up front. It is my understanding that Commissioner Keys may oppose this project and my understanding is that he may oppose it,

I gather, because they have not done all of the studies. But the

President’s fiscal year 2004 budget proposes only $13 million for

this program. That is barely a third of the $36 million funding in

the year 2002. So I am hopeful that the Commissioner will be willVerDate 11-SEP-98 14:58 Jul 09, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 J:\DOCS\88-129 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
6

ing to support title 16 projects like those in S. 649 because they

are small, they are discrete, they make sense, they are cost effective, and they help.

Thank you very much.

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you.

At this time let us go to panel one, the Honorable John Keys, the

Commissioner for the Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the

Interior. Welcome to the subcommittee.

STATEMENT OF JOHN W. KEYS, III, COMMISSIONER,

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Mr. KEYS. Madam Chairman, it is my pleasure to be here today,

my first time to testify before you, and it is certainly a pleasure

to be here.

Is there a certain order that you would like for me to take off

in, or just whichever comes first?

Senator MURKOWSKI. Well, we have been kind of addressing

them just in the order that we have in our packets. So if you need

to go out of that order, you just let us know which one you are referring to.

Mr. KEYS. Very good.

Senator MURKOWSKI. But starting with S. 520, the FremontMadison Conveyance.

Mr. KEYS. Thank you very much.

Madam Chairman, S. 520, to transfer title of the facilities, lands,

and permits on the Fremont-Madison Irrigation District, is a good

bill. Facilities under consideration are the Cross-Cut Diversion

Dam and Canal, the Teton Exchange Wells, and the Idaho Department of Water Resources permit that goes along with those wells.

The facilities under consideration for transfer are used exclusively

for irrigation and they have been operated and maintained by the

district ever since they have been in existence.

While the Cross-Cut Diversion Dam and Canal are paid out by

the district, the legislation provides for the payment for the Teton

Exchange Wells. They are currently evaluated at about $277,000

based on the outstanding balance to be repaid by the district. We

have been working very closely with the district over the past years

in this title transfer effort. We worked very closely with the

Henry’s Fork Foundation, with the tribe, and other sponsors there.

When we testified last year on this bill, there were a few small

concerns with the legislation. Since that time we have worked

closely with the district, with the Henry’s Fork Foundation, and

other people there and those issues have subsequently been addressed, and the administration supports S. 520 as written.

Before I go ahead, I would certainly like to compliment the district board chairman Jeff Raybould and their executive director

Dale Swenson on the yeomen’s work that they have done on this

title transfer program, and certainly Senators Craig and Crapo

have been there all the way with them.

S. 625 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to complete

a study of the feasibility of several methods to meet future water

supplies for agriculture, municipal, and industrial uses in the

Tualatin River Basin in northwestern Oregon. Reclamation has

been working closely with the regional wastewater entity, Clean

7

Water Services, the several municipalities in the basin, the

Tualatin Valley Irrigation District, and other interests there to develop a plan that would increase available storage for local use and

preserve the important environmental benefits so valued by the

local residents.

The merits of the proposed feasibility study are sound and reasonable, and therefore the administration supports S. 625 as it is

written.

Madam Chairman, S. 960 would amend two acts of Reclamation,

the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act, commonly called title 16, and the Hawaii Water Resources

Act of 2000. Under the Hawaii Resources Act of 2000, we are currently working with the Hawaii Department of Agriculture to study

rehabilitation of five irrigation systems on the islands. We are currently working on Oahu, the Hanaku Ditch on Maui, the Kokei

Ditch on Kawaii, Kekaha Ditch on Kawaii, and the East Kawaii Irrigation System, and those studies are due to be completed during

this year.

Because S. 960 was introduced as recently as April 30, we have

had little time to thoroughly analyze the merits of the legislation.

Therefore, until we have had the opportunity to go through it more

carefully, we cannot support S. 960 at this time. I might add that

the tremendous backlog of current projects in title 16 that have already been authorized, because of that we would currently oppose

the addition of any new projects, as based on recent funding levels,

it could take Reclamation more than 15 years to complete those

projects already authorized, of which there are about 27 of them.

Madam Chairman, the next one that I would talk about is S.

649, which would amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study Facilities Act, which is title 16, to authorize the Secretary to participate in projects within the San Diego Creek Watershed in California, and other purposes, commonly called the Irvine

Basin Surface and Groundwater Improvement Act of 2003.

Reclamation has had preliminary discussions with the Irvine

Ranch Water District about proposed surface water treatment,

groundwater treatment, and brine disposal components of the

project. However, S. 649 authorizes the design and construction of

the project before Reclamation or the project sponsors have completed the feasibility study that meets the legal requirements of

title 16. Reclamation prefers that feasibility studies be completed

first to determine whether these particular projects warrant Federal construction authorization. Therefore, we believe the legislation is premature and the Department cannot support S. 649.

I would add here again that the Department also opposes enactment of the legislation because of those currently authorized 27

projects that are ahead of this one and the backlog that would take

us about 15 years to get past and get into it.

The last bill that I would talk about is S. 993, which would

amend the Small Reclamation Projects Act to authorize $1.3 billion

for three new programs: a revised and expanded grant and loan

program within the Bureau of Reclamation, a small reclamation

water resources management partnership program, and a 10-year

loan guarantee program. The Department recognizes the realities

of an aging Federal and non-Federal water infrastructure that will

8

need rehabilitation over the next several decades and understands

the many other future needs involving ecosystem restoration efforts, new water supplies for increasing demands, conservation efforts, and improvements in the quality of our rivers and streams.

It was with this recognition that led Secretary Norton to recently

release the Department’s vision for meeting water needs in the future, ‘‘Water 2025: Preventing Crisis and Conflict in the West.’’

That document is intended to focus attention on the reality that explosive population growth in the western urban areas, the emerging need for water for environmental and recreational uses, and

the national importance of crop production on western farms and

ranches is driving major conflicts between those competing uses of

water.

The thrust of with Water 2025 is to focus existing resources on

areas where scarce Federal dollars can provide the greatest benefits. While some of the programs identified in S. 993 are consistent

with the intent of Water 2025, the overall programs authorized by

this bill would strain Reclamation’s financial and administrative

resources and, if enacted, would make it even more difficult to

meet our current obligations. Therefore, the Department cannot

support S. 993.

Madam Chairman, that concludes my oral remarks. I would certainly stand to answer any questions that you might have on our

statements on any one of those five bills.

[The prepared statements of Mr. Keys on S. 520, S. 625, S. 649,

S. 960, and S. 993 follow:]

PREPARED STATEMENTS OF JOHN W. KEYS, III, COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

S. 520

My name is John Keys. I am Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. I am

pleased to provide the Administration’s views on S. 520, the Fremont-Madison Conveyance Act, which directs the Secretary of the Interior to transfer title of certain

Federal owned facilities, lands and permits to the Fremont-Madison Irrigation District (District).

The facilities under consideration for transfer in S. 520 the Cross Cut Diversion

Dam and Canal, the Teton Exchange Wells and the Idaho Department of Water Resources permit number 22-7022 B are associated with the Upper Snake River Division, Minidoka Project and the Lower Teton Division, Teton Basin Project, respectively, and are located near Rexburg in eastern Idaho. The facilities under consideration for transfer are used exclusively for irrigation purposes and have always been

operated and maintained by the District. While the Cross Cut Diversion Dam and

Canal are paid-out by the District, the legislation provides for a payment for the

Teton Exchange Wells, which are currently valued at $277,961, based upon the outstanding balance to be repaid by the District.

Mr. Chairman, over the last few years, we have been working very closely with

the District and numerous other local organizations including the Henry’s Fork

Foundation, a local conservation and sportsmen’s organization, to work through the

issues on the title transfer for the features, lands and water rights associated with

this project. We have made great progress in narrowing the scope of the transfer

to meet the District’s needs, protect the interests of the other stakeholders, and ensure that the transfer does not negatively impact downstream contractors of the integrated Snake River system. I testified before this Subcommittee last year that we

had a few minor concerns with the legislation. Those issues were subsequently addressed and the Administration supports S. 520 as written.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I have had the opportunity to work with the District

over the last few years to reach the point where we are today. I would like to take

this opportunity to compliment District Board Chairman Jeff Raybould and their

Executive Director, Dale Swenson, for their diligence and commitment in working

with us and the other interested entities of eastern Idaho on the issues surrounding

9

this transfer. I would also like to thank Senator Crapo and Senator Craig and their

staffs for their cooperation.

S. 625

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on S. 625, the Tualatin River Basin

Water Supply Enhancement Act of 2003. The legislation authorizes the Secretary

of the Interior, in cooperation with affected local entities, to complete a study of the

feasibility of various methods to meet future water supplies for agriculture, and for

municipal and industrial uses.

Reclamation has been working closely with the regional wastewater entity Clean

Water Services, several municipalities in Washington County, Oregon, the Tualatin

Valley Water District, and others, to develop a plan that will increase available storage for local use and preserve the important environmental benefits so valued by

the local residents. A tremendous amount of local effort has been expended to develop useful information upon which a feasibility study by Reclamation may be

based. The study partners have also invested considerable effort to begin the planning process at the local level, with the assistance of Reclamation. A full range of

potential approaches to meeting future water supply needs will be considered, including market-based incentives and other economic incentives. As such, the merits

of the proposed feasibility study are sound and reasonable and therefore the Administration can support S.625. However, it is important to note that this project is not

included in the Administration’s Fiscal Year 2004 budget request.

S. 649

I am pleased to appear before this Subcommittee to provide the Department’s

views on S. 649.

S. 649 would amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and

Facilities Act (43 U.S.C. 390h et seq.), commonly called Title XVI, to authorize the

Secretary of Interior to participate in projects within the San Diego Creek Watershed in California and for other purposes.

Reclamation has had some preliminary discussions with the Irvine Ranch Water

District about proposed surface water treatment, groundwater treatment, and brine

disposal components of their project. However, S. 649 authorizes the design and construction of the project before Reclamation or the project sponsors have completed

a feasibility study that meets the legal requirements of title XVI. Reclamation prefers that feasibility studies be completed first to determine whether these particular

projects warrant Federal construction authorization. Therefore, we believe the legislation is premature and the Department cannot support S. 649.

The Department also opposes enactment of this legislation because authorizing

new projects is likely to place an additional burden on Reclamation’s already tight

budget. With the tremendous backlog of existing Title XVI projects, we oppose the

addition of new projects at this time. Based on recent funding levels, it could take

Reclamation more than 15 years to complete funding of the 27 currently authorized

projects. For these reasons, Madame Chairwoman, the Department cannot support

S. 649.

For the record, Madame, Chairwoman, in 1992, Congress adopted, and the President signed, the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act (Public

Law 192-575). Title XVI of this Act, the Wastewater and Groundwater Study and

Facilities Act, authorized the construction of five water reclamation and reuse

projects. The Secretary was also authorized to undertake a program to identify other

water recycling opportunities throughout the 17 western United States, and to conduct appraisal level and feasibility level studies to determine if those opportunities

are worthy of implementation. The Bureau of Reclamation has been administering

a grant program to fund these Title XVI projects since FY 1994.

In 1996, Public Law 104-266, the Reclamation Recycling and Water Conservation

Act was enacted into law. This Act amended Title XVI and authorized the Secretary

to participate in the planning, design, and construction of 18 additional projects, including two desalination research and development projects. Since 1996, Title XVI

has been amended several other times and now there are 27 projects authorized for

construction in eight states, and Reclamation has been granted authority to conduct

planning studies in the State of Hawaii. Thank you for the opportunity to comment

on S. 649.

S. 960

I am pleased to appear before this Subcommittee to provide the Department’s

views on S. 960.

10

S. 960 would amend two Acts the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater

Study and Facilities Act (43 U.S.C. 390h et seq.), commonly called Title XVI, and

the Hawaii Water Resources Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-566, Title I).

Because S. 960 was introduced as recently as April 30, 2003, we have had little

time to thoroughly analyze the merits of the legislation. Therefore, until we have

had that opportunity, we cannot support S. 960. We do note that Section 2 of the

proposed legislation adds three additional projects to Title XVI. Due to the tremendous backlog of current projects already authorized under this program, we currently oppose the addition of any new projects. And, based on recent funding levels,

it could take Reclamation more than 15 years to complete funding of the 27 currently authorized projects.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on S. 960.

S. 993

I am pleased to appear before this Subcommittee to provide the Department’s

views on S. 993.

S. 993 would amend the Small Reclamation Projects Act (SRPA) to authorize $1.3

billion for three new programs: a revised and expanded grant and loan program

within the Bureau of Reclamation; a Small Reclamation Water Resources Management Partnership Program; and a 10-year loan guarantee program.

The Department recognizes the realities of an aging federal and nonfederal water

infrastructure that will need rehabilitation during the next several decades, and understands the many other future needs involving ecosystem restoration efforts, new

water supplies for increasing demands, conservation efforts, and improvements in

the quality of our rivers and streams. It was this recognition that led Secretary Norton to recently release the Department’s vision for meeting water needs in the future. ‘‘Water 2025: Preventing Crises and Conflict in the West,’’ is intended to focus

attention on the reality that explosive population growth in western urban areas,

the emerging need for water for environmental and recreational uses, and the national importance of crop production on western farms and ranches is driving major

conflicts between these competing uses of water. The thrust of Water 2025 is to

focus existing resources on areas where scarce federal dollars can provide the greatest benefits. However, while some of the programs identified in S. 993 are consistent

with the intent of Water 2025, the overall programs authorized by this bill would

strain Reclamation’s financial and administrative resources, and, if enacted would

make it even more difficult to meet our many current obligations. Therefore, the Department cannot support S. 993.

I note that the provisions in S. 993 are nearly identical to the provisions contained in S. 1882 introduced in the 107th Congress, which I testified on last July

before this Subcommittee. The concerns I raised at that time remain true today.

First, it would be a very costly program, requiring new and significant funding

resources to implement. And, as previously mentioned, it also would compete with

other Departmental priorities for funding.

Second, the bill would greatly expand Reclamation’s authority and jurisdiction to

include not only projects in the 17 Western states and Hawaii, but also those located

in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth

of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Virgin Islands, and the Territory of the Pacific

Islands. Given the number of other demands on Reclamation’s budget and the number of already authorized but unfunded projects, we have concerns about adding any

additional projects that would place additional burdens on to Reclamation’s current

workload.

Lastly, establishment of a Loan Guarantee Program would require much lead

time, and also require additional staffing. This program would need to be developed

in a manner that meets the principles and standards set forth in OMB Circular No.

A-129, Policies for Federal Credit Programs and Non-Tax Receivables, and the requirements of the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996. It also

would put Reclamation in the role of a commercial loan officer for developers of

projects, a role Interior’s Inspector General criticized in a 1991 audit report.

The Department supports efforts to provide technical assistance to non-Federal

water user entities in constructing and rehabilitating their water resource projects

and in carrying out restoration efforts. However, the combined financial and administrative burdens imposed by this bill are such that we cannot support this approach. The Department welcomes the opportunity to work with Subcommittee

members to find workable solutions to address Reclamation’s aging water infrastructure and restoration needs.

Thank you again for this opportunity to comment on S. 993. I would be happy

to try and answer any questions you may have.

11

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Commissioner Keys.

Senator Akaka and Senator Smith, I had invited the committee

members to give a brief opening statement if they would like. We

just heard the testimony from Mr. Keys on the five bills before us,

but if you would like to take a moment to make your comments

that would be certainly appropriate.

Senator Akaka.

STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. AKAKA, U.S. SENATOR

FROM HAWAII

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I

thank you for holding this hearing today to consider these water

resource bills, including S. 960, legislation of great importance for

my State of Hawaii.

Madam Chairman, I would like to say a few words about my bill.

This bill, which is supported by the Governor of the State of Hawaii, authorizes three projects and, Mr. Keys, you mentioned them,

which are critical to water planning and delivery systems in the

State of Hawaii. S. 960 would authorize a seawater desalination

project on Oahu and two wastewater reclamation projects on Maui

and the island of Hawaii. These projects are important to the State

of Hawaii.

The Board of Water Supply predicts that, even with improved

conservation methods, the island of Oahu, with a population of over

a million residents, will run out of potable water by 2018. Other

islands face similar scenarios in terms of limited water supplies. S.

960 will help to reduce demand on potable water sources.

Madam Chairman, I would like to submit the testimony of Governor Lingle of Hawaii and the Board of Water Supply for the hearing record.

Senator MURKOWSKI. Yes, you may.

Senator AKAKA. Madam Chairman, it is with great pleasure that

I also welcome Dr. Chauncey Ching, who will be providing testimony on behalf of the city and county of Honolulu, the county of

Maui, and the county of Hawaii during the second panel. Dr. Ching

is a distinguished agricultural economist and professor of agriculture from the University of Hawaii. Prior to that, he was a director of the Hawaii Institute of Tropical Agriculture and Human

Resources.

He works very closely with county and State officials in addressing our agricultural and water supply needs in the State of Hawaii.

Again, I thank you for holding this hearing, Madam Chairman,

and I thank Dr. Ching for coming. I also want to thank Commissioner Keys. I very much appreciate your appearing here today to

provide testimony on these bills, and I realize that you have had

a very short time to review S. 960. I hope to receive the Bureau’s

input as soon as possible and to work with you to incorporate your

comments so that we can quickly move this bill forward.

I appreciate the valuable technical support that the Bureau has

provided to Hawaii on these and on other projects, and I look forward to working with you on this legislation.

Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Senator.

Senator Smith.

12

STATEMENT OF HON. GORDON SMITH, U.S. SENATOR

FROM OREGON

Senator SMITH. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and welcome to

John Keys. Good to see you here, sir, and I appreciate, John, your

support, the administration’s support of S. 625 as it relates to the

Tualatin River watershed.

Madam Chairman, I have a much longer statement if I may include it in the record. I will just state briefly that this is a very

far-sighted piece of legislation that helps to foresee the water needs

of salmon and of a much developed population that has grown substantially over the last decade and will likely continue. This really

gets these communities ahead of the curve in meeting their environmental responsibilities and also their responsibilities to the

economy of that area.

So I thank the administration for supporting these studies. They

need to occur if these projects can be developed and they need to

happen in a timely way, and I thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Senator Smith follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GORDON SMITH, U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON

Madam Chairwoman, I appreciate your convening this legislative hearing today

to receive testimony on several pieces of legislation that are very important to the

affected geographic areas, and to those who receive their water from these existing

Reclamation projects.

S. 520 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain facilities,

used exclusively for irrigation, to the Fremont-Madison Irrigation District in the

State of Idaho.

This bill passed the Senate at the end of the last Congress, and I will support

my colleagues from Idaho in their efforts to move this bill expeditiously in the 108th

Congress.

The second bill, S. 625, which I sponsored and is cosponsored by my colleague

Senator Wyden, would authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to conduct certain feasibility studies in the Tualatin River Basin in Oregon. There is an existing federal

Reclamation project in this rapidly growing area west of Portland.

Developed in 1975, water from Hagg Lake—the impoundment behind Scoggins

Dam—is currently used for river flow restoration, municipal water supply, and agricultural irrigation needs in the Tualatin River watershed. The lake also provides

recreational opportunities, with park and recreational facilities operated by Washington County.

The Tualatin River watershed contains the rapidly growing urban portion of

Washington County, which includes the cities of Beaverton, Banks, Cornelius, Forest Grove, Hillsboro, North Plains, Sherwood, Tigard and Tualatin.

This area, home to approximately 450,000 people, almost doubled its population

in the last 20 years, and this trend is expected to continue.

To better manage the existing resources of the Tualatin River Basin and to meet

future water needs, several cities and districts partnered to develop an Integrated

Water Resources Management Strategy in 1997.

This work identified the following areas of challenge in meeting future water supply needs: municipal and industrial demands that are expected to double by 2050;

maintaining existing irrigated agriculture; water needs for Spring Chinook salmon

and steelhead populations recently listed under the Endangered Species Act; and

additional flows to restore river flow and improve water quality, since the Tualatin

River and its tributaries are considered water quality-limited under the Clean

Water Act.

This bill is an important first step in helping these communities meet future

water supply needs. It would authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to conduct feasibility studies in the basin, in cooperation with the local communities which are

already contributing significant financial resources to addressing these needs.

It is imperative that these studies move forward expeditiously, since water supplies in the basin will be strained within 10 years. The Bureau of Reclamation actually sought funding for this study in its fiscal year 2002 and 2003 budget requests.

13

Since that time, it has determined that it lacks sufficient authority to conduct

these studies, which is why this bill is needed at this time.

One of the other bills to be heard today is S. 993, a bill which I introduced to

amend and update the Small Reclamation Projects Act of 1956. The underlying Act

established Reclamation’s small loan program, and was used successfully for decades by eligible water districts for smaller projects.

During the last Administration, a decision was made not to accept any more loan

applications for this program, despite the remaining funds of over $200 million

under the current authorization ceiling.

This effort to update the program is a recognition that the funding needs for

many irrigation districts and other eligible entities have changed in recent years.

As a result of threatened and endangered species, as well as higher environmental

standards, water users are being called upon to modify their conveyance and distribution systems, to screen diversions, and to mitigate for certain project impacts.

Generally speaking, these are not the types of projects that are attractive to commercial lenders. The small loan program, as updated by this bill, can provide an

important funding source for the types of investments we are requiring water users

to make. This bill provides a mix of loans, grants and loan guarantees that would

be important tools to resolving watershed conflicts and maintaining healthy agricultural economies throughout the rural west.

Madam Chairwoman, I appreciate the opportunity to work with you to move these

bills out of Committee as soon as possible. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses who are going to appear before us today on these and the other bills on the

agenda.

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, and we will make sure your

comments are included in the record.

Commissioner Keys, as far as—I am going to start in reverse just

to keep you on your toes here. This would be S. 993, the Small Reclamation Water Resources Project Act. As I understand, the Small

Reclamation Projects Act program is presently dormant and I am

wondering if the Bureau could restart the program without this

legislation, or whether legislation will be necessary in order to

move forward with it?

Mr. KEYS. Mr. Chairman, it could be started without legislation

now. There have been a number of administrative actions that

have kept it dormant for several administrations now. Certainly a

lot of those would have to be addressed, like the authority and jurisdiction that Reclamation has has been criticized by the Inspector

General in a 1991 audit report. In plain language, they do not like

Reclamation being in the banking business. We are a water resources management organization and when we get into the loans

and having to set interest rates and that sort of thing they get very

uncomfortable, and the Inspector General has been critical of our

role in that process.

Senator MURKOWSKI. Well, recognizing then that they do not like

you to go into the banking business, do you feel that this legislation

perhaps redirects the Bureau from the primary purpose of irrigation and reclamation?

Mr. KEYS. Mr. Chairman, in some way, shape, form, or fashion

there needs to be a provision as this bill provides. The aging infrastructure around the western United States is getting to crisis proportions in some places and the local irrigation entities are looking

for some way to renew facilities.

I am not sure that that is Reclamation’s role in the water management of the West, and we are trying in Water 2025 to define

that role, to see where conservation, where the renewal of facilities

can best accomplish the needs for water over the next 25 years.

14

The Small Reclamation Project Act in its current configuration

does not lend itself to being amenable to that. It has requirements

in there for irrigation pieces. This legislation would expand it much

beyond what we do now, beyond our 17 Western States and Hawaii. It takes it into a lot of the territories and so forth.

It also has loan guarantee materials there that we do not have

authority for, and it would certainly even require a lot of lead time,

and we would have to be in the role of a commercial loan officer

which we have not traditionally done.

Senator MURKOWSKI. Let us skip over to S. 649, the Irvine

project. How does this particular project fit within the overall goals

and objectives of the CALFED initiative, of that project?

Mr. KEYS. Senator, I think it fits within that. It also fits within

our title 16 program. In my testimony I indicated that we have

been working with the Irvine Ranch people. We just have not completed the feasibility study that we feel should be done before the

Irvine Ranch is included in the title 16 program. Completing the

feasibility study lets us know if it has all of the requirements, if

it is financially and engineeringly feasible, and so forth. We would

prefer that the studies be completed before it be included.

Senator MURKOWSKI. Questions of the committee members? Senator Feinstein?

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much. I would like to take

up where you left off, Senator Murkowski.

Mr. Keys, as to a Department feasibility study, is it not true that

the Department has been sitting on numerous staff-completed feasibility studies for title 16 projects for several years?

Mr. KEYS. Madam Chairman, Ms. Feinstein, there are some that

have been completed that we have not acted on.

Senator FEINSTEIN. My understanding is that you have been sitting on the Bay Area recycling study since 1998 and the southern

California recycling study since 2001.

Mr. KEYS. That is correct.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, then the question comes, can you fairly

impose a requirement of a Department-completed feasibility study

when in all honesty the Department has not been completing feasibility studies?

Mr. KEYS. As I said, there are some that have been completed.

The backlog that we have there is certainly at times much beyond

our capability to fund them. If you look at the total authorized

projects, it is almost in the area of $3 billion. We do not have that

kind of funding to put into those projects.

Certainly, the title 16 program was developed as a demonstration

program so that we could demonstrate the reliability, the feasibility, the doability of wastewater recycling and reuse to show how it

could be part of a good water resource management program. We

have been doing that for over 10 years and certainly it has proven

that it is a good one, a good program.

Now, some of those that are not funded we just have not been

able to get to.

Senator FEINSTEIN. So essentially what you are saying, then, is

you are going to oppose any new program for authorization under

title 16?

15

Mr. KEYS. One of the things we are trying to look at under title

16 is to see if it would be valuable for us to refocus that program.

In other words, as a demonstration program it has shown that

wastewater reuse and recycling is very valuable and it has shown

a lot of the different techniques and technologies to go along with

it.

We are hoping that that program can sort of shift and look at

desalination to see if there are opportunities there that we can

work with cities to find new water supplies, either from brackish

groundwater or desalinating ocean water.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Your very Department is trying to wean California off of its Colorado River supply and this is a substantial

problem, and the only way it can be successfully done is to develop

alternatives. As I understand this brackish water desalter, it would

provide an alternative water for over 20,000 people who are now

drawing their water from the Colorado River, and yet the very Department that says, California, you have got to wean your way off

of this water, is saying, we are not going to authorize a project to

enable you to do it.

Mr. KEYS. It boils down to we just do not have enough money

to go around at times. We would prefer that the feasibility study

on this project be done before it be included in the program.

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Thank you, sir.

Senator MURKOWSKI. Senator Akaka.

Senator AKAKA. No.

Senator MURKOWSKI. Senator Smith.

Senator SMITH. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

John, I am interested in the loan program that may or may not

be available to small water users. You spoke in your testimony

about the 2025 program. I believe it has funding of $11 million behind it. Frankly, I am worried that that is wholly inadequate to do,

to even begin to meet the demand that is out there from irrigators

who are now, frankly, under a whole new set of environmental

mandates that are very expensive to meet in terms of infrastructure. They are the kinds of things that give them the ability to stay

in business, but not have, frankly, the ability to make any money

at business. So banks are loath to loan them money for environmental projects.

My understanding is that in the last administration no more applications were accepted for these small loan issues, even though

there was authorization of an additional $200 million available to

them. But now the program the Bush Administration is proposing

under 2025 does not seem to do it.

The bill that we have before the committee today, S. 993, I think

actually does take those Federal dollars and stretch them much

further when it is done under some grants, some loans. And the

updated program, the program we are trying to update, is literally

called the Small Reclamations Project Act of 1956.

Can you comment about this whole issue and what the administration’s thinking is?

Mr. KEYS. Mr. Chairman, Senator Smith, Water 2025 is not a

loan program. Water 2025 is trying to focus on where we stand

with water in the Western United States, take a look 25 years into

16

the future and see where we will potentially encounter future

Klamath-type situations and stay out of that type of situation that

can be caused by expanding and growing population. It can be

caused by administrative problems such as the Endangered Species

Act, growing needs for recreation, for other water-related needs of

our society.

The Western Water Initiative that is part of our 2004 budget has

four main components. The first one is water conservation measures, and of course $11 million is a drop in the bucket when you

look at what we are trying to do across the western United States.

But it is a collaborative effort to try to go to the States and the

local folks and say: Here is where the problems are, here are some

programs that we have that we can demonstrate to you that would

work and where we could start some demonstration type projects

to show the benefits more of conservation type things and prove

that it would work, like lining canals, putting in control facilities,

putting in monitoring facilities, and that sort of thing.

Senator SMITH. So it is more from the Federal Government to

State government?

Mr. KEYS. It would work very closely with the State Governments.

Senator SMITH. How about when it gets right to the ground with

farmers who want to use this old project under the Eisenhower administration of small reclamation projects? Is that still available to

them?

Mr. KEYS. The whole Water 2025 effort is a multi-governmental

effort. We would be working on behalf of Interior from our side

with the programs that we have authorized. The Department of

Agriculture would work very closely with us on those programs

that they have authorized to work directly with the farmers, such

as we are doing in the Klamath Basin now, where they are working

on land treatments and other water conservation programs that

they already have.

Most of the work that you see under Water 2025 is within existing authorizations, ones that we already have to do conservation

work with irrigation districts, ones that the Department of Agriculture has, that the Environmental Protection Agency has, that

the Corps of Engineers has, and that sort of thing.

Senator SMITH. John, I want to tell you how tremendously impressed I was with the work the Bureau has done at Klamath. The

headgates that I helped Ann Veneman and Gale Norton open 18

months ago was an old rusty structure that has now been replaced

with a state of the art system that truly will protect the fish resource that is there and I hope go a long way towards mitigating

the concerns that the tribes have and that the environmentalists

have in terms of our commitment to saving the suckerfish, and it

certainly is a brighter day for the farm community in that area as

well.

Thank you and I hope that we can work with you on S. 993, the

Small Reclamation Projects Act of 1956, and update it so it can still

be utilized, because I think it may be needed in addition to the

2025 program.

Senator MURKOWSKI. Senator Akaka.

17

Senator AKAKA. Yes. May I ask Mr. Keys a question about the

report. I know that we introduced S. 960 in April 2003 and that

you have had little time to thoroughly analyze the merits of the

legislation, and I know, as you pointed out, that you have many

projects, as a matter of fact 15 years to complete funding, 27 currently authorized projects, as an example.

My question to you is, would you have an idea of when we might

be able to hear from you?

Mr. KEYS. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Akaka, there are three main parts

of S. 960. The first part that I know much more about, the Hawaii

Water Resources Act of 2000, we have an existing study under way

with the Department of Agriculture in Hawaii and that is due to

be done this fall, and we would certainly report back. It is on those

five projects that we are working on rehabilitation of facilities.

To expand that into the other 19 or 20 or however many others

we would purport to look at, we could let you know how long that

would take within a month. On the seawater desal and the wastewater project on Maui and Hawaii, we could give you a rough estimate of how long it would take within that same period of time,

realizing that there are those other projects that are authorized

and certainly these new ones would get in line with.

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much. I really appreciate that.

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Keys. I appreciate your testimony this

afternoon. I look forward to working with you on these various bills

that we have before us, the committee staff as well as the sponsors,

to either review those issues that you have not had an opportunity

to do so thoroughly, but we will be looking forward to working with

you on these. So we appreciate your time this afternoon.

Mr. KEYS. Thank you very much.

Senator MURKOWSKI. Let us now call up panel two, and this

afternoon we will have before us: Mr. Joe Findaro, the Washington

counsel for the Fremont-Madison Irrigation District; Mr. Brian

Brady, president, Board of Directors of the Irvine Ranch Water

District; Mr. Chauncey Ching, professor at the University of Hawaii; and Mr. Peter Carlson, coordinator for the Small Reclamation

Loan Program Coalition, Will and Carlson, Incorporated.

Gentlemen, good afternoon and welcome to the committee. We

will start at this end with you, Mr. Findaro, if you would like to

give us your comments this afternoon on the legislation before us.

STATEMENT OF JOE FINDARO, WASHINGTON COUNSEL,

FREMONT-MADISON IRRIGATION DISTRICT

Mr. FINDARO. Madam Chairman, thank you very much for holding this hearing. I appreciate the opportunity to testify. I would

like to submit testimony for the record on behalf of Jeff Raybould,

chairman of the Board of Directors of the Fremont-Madison Irrigation District. Jeff could not be here today because he is chairing a

meeting in Idaho of the Idaho Potato Commission.

Fremont-Madison provides a supplemental water supply to approximately 1,500 water users irrigating approximately 200,000

acres associated with the original Island Park and Grassy Lake

Projects, as well as the failed Teton Dam Project. In 1993, FreVerDate 11-SEP-98 14:58 Jul 09, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\88-129 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
18

mont-Madison and the Henry’s Fork Foundation, a local environmental group, helped form the Henry’s Fork Watershed Council,

which is a grassroots community forum that uses a non-adversarial

consensus-based approach to problem-solving and conflict resolution among citizens, scientists, and agencies with varied perspectives.

Fremont-Madison originally submitted a resolution to the Bureau

requesting transfer of title from Reclamation to FMID of Island

Park Dam, Grassy Lake Dam, the Cross-Cut Dam and Canal, and

the Teton Wells. In the course of this effort, the Watershed Council

held a meeting in June 2000 to discuss this proposal. There was

no opposition to title transfer of the Cross-Cut Dam and Canal and

the Teton Wells from any representatives of the Watershed Council, although some concerns were expressed with respect to Grassy

Lake and Island Park. So they pared back their proposal request

with the Bureau and that is why we have the facilities in this legislation today.

We are here as a partner with the Bureau of Reclamation and

we appreciate the active participation of Commissioner Keys and

his staff, particularly Matt Ames and James Hess. Last year this

legislation passed in both the House and the Senate, but in different forms, and we urge the committee to act as expeditiously as

possible.

I believe it should be viewed as a model. It is the result of extensive outreach on the part of the Irrigation District to include all interested parties not just the Henry’s Fork Foundation, but also

Trout Unlimited and the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes at the Fort Hull

Reservation. We are not aware of any local interest or any national

group that opposes this bill.

I spent about 21 years both in Interior and outside Interior working on water resources matters. In the last 6 years, I have worked

on about 5 title transfers that have been signed into law, and I

want to make a comment with respect to what Commissioner Keys

said. I think these title transfers, and particularly Fremont-Madison, tie in nicely with the Water 2025 initiative. In an era of declining Federal budgets and aging infrastructure, these types of

title transfers allow the locals who have been responsible for operating and maintaining these projects, who have a proven track

record of working with local environmental groups, who have either

paid off the project or are willing to pay any outstanding debt, to

move forward so that the locals can in fact take title and better

maintain and better manage the projects that they are responsible

for.

In closing, I would like to thank Senator Crapo and Ken Flanz

on his staff, Senator Craig and Mark Hilmer from his staff, Congressman Simpson and Brandon Tucker from his staff, and also the

committee staff that have worked on this, particularly Jim Beirne,

Shelley Randall, and Patty Beneke, as well as former staff member,

Colleen Deegan.

I would be pleased to answer questions you might have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Raybould follows:]

19

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JEFF RAYBOULD, CHAIRMAN OF THE

BOARD OF DIRECTORS, FREMONT-MADISON IRRIGATION DISTRICT

Madam Chair, Members of the Subcommittee, I am Jeff Raybould, Chairman of

the Board of Directors of the Fremont-Madison Irrigation District (FMID) in Idaho.

I am here to testify in support of S. 520.

This legislation would require the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain facilities to our District pursuant to the Memorandum of Agreement with the Bureau of

Reclamation. These facilities include: the Cross Cut Diversion Dam, the Cross Cut

Canal and the Teton Exchange Wells.

FMID was created under the laws of the State of Idaho in 1935 to enter into a

repayment contract with the United States Bureau of Reclamation for the construction of Island Park Dam, Grassy Lake Dam and the Cross Cut Diversion Dam and

Canal. The forty year repayment contract was paid out in 1979 by the spaceholders

of FM1D.

FMID provides a supplemental water supply to approximately 1,500 water users

irrigating approximately 200,000 acres associated with the original Island Park and

Grassy Lake projects as well as the failed Teton Dam project. Forty canal companies

existed prior to the creation of FMID. The canal companies supply the natural flow

water (primary water supply) to lands of their stockholders. They also conduct their

own operation and maintenance. Most of the lands served by FMID are also lands

of the canal companies. The FMID uses these canal companies to deliver storage

water.

In 1993, FMID and the Henry’s Fork Foundation, a local environmental group,

helped form the Henry’s Fork Watershed Council which is a grassroots community

forum that uses a non-adversial, consensus-based approach to problem solving and

conflict resolution among citizens, scientists, and agencies with varied perspectives.

FMID originally submitted a resolution to the Bureau of Reclamation, requesting

transfer of title from Reclamation to FMID of Island Park Dam, Grassy Lake Dam,

Cross Cut Dam and Canal and the Teton wells. FMID worked closely with the

Henry’s Fork Foundation to develop a consensus on how title for all these facilities

could be transferred.

In the course of this effort, the Watershed Council held a special meeting in June,

2000 to discuss the transfer of facilities. At this time, there was no opposition expressed to title transfer of the Cross Cut Dam and Canal and the Teton wells from

any representative of the Watershed Council. As a result of these consultative discussions, FMID decided to only go forward with seeking title to the Cross Cut Dam

and Canal and the Teton wells.

The Cross Cut Dam is located on Henry’s Fork of the Snake River which diverts

water into the Last Chance and Cross Cut Canals. It is a concrete gravity weir with

a structural height of 17 feet and a total length of 457 feet. It was completed in

1938. The Cross Cut Canal begins at the Cross Cut Dam. The canal is approximately 7 miles long with a capacity of 600 cubic feet/second (cfs) at the head.

The canal diverts storage water from the Henry’s Fork near Chester and conveys

it to the Teton River. In addition to conveying storage water to users on the Teton

River, the canal also conveys natural flow water to some of the lands within the

Fall River Irrigation Company system. A portion of the Cross Cut Canal was constructed through the already existing Fall River Canal. FMID has operated and

maintained the canal since it was built. FMID and Fall River jointly employ a canal

manager to address operation and maintenance needs.

Five Teton Exchange Wells were constructed by the Bureau of Reclamation in the

early 1970’s as part of the Lower Teton Division. They were designed to provide

groundwater in exchange for water storage in Teton Reservoir. Failure of the Teton

Dam in June, 1976 made the constructed wells the only additional supplemental

water source available to irrigate the lands affected by the Teton Dam failure.

In 1977, FMID and the Bureau entered into a contract to allow the use of the

wells as a backup water supply in drought years. This contract provides for the use

of wells, pumps, motors and appurtenant facilities over a 25 year period.

Water from the five wells is pumped into the lower Henry’s Fork system to augment supplemental irrigation water supply for FMID in dry years. FMID pays for

all operation, maintenance and replacement costs.

FMID has conducted extensive outreach with local entities in response to the proposed title transfer and we will continue to do so as the process moves forward.

Throughout the process we have been willing to make changes to satisfy concerns

that have been raised, including a drought management planning provision. It is

worth noting that the Henry’s Fork Foundation is on record supporting this legislation and that Trout Unlimited is on record not opposing this legislation.

20

This concludes my remarks. Thank you for allowing me to appear before your subcommittee today. I would be pleased to answer any questions you might have.

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you. We appreciate that. It is nice

to know that you got all the bugs worked out of it within the time

period that you have been given, so that is good to hear.

Let us next go to Mr. Chauncey Ching. We will hold questions

until we have heard from everyone in the panel. Mr. Ching.

STATEMENT OF CHAUNCEY CHING, PROFESSOR,

UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII

Mr. CHING. Madam Chairman, other members of the committee:

Good afternoon. My name is Chauncey Ching. I am professor of Agricultural Economics at the University of Hawaii. On behalf of the

counties in the State of Hawaii, I thank you for allowing us to offer

some comments on S. 960, and I also wish to thank Senator Akaka

for his visionary interest in water and in Hawaii’s agriculture.

I have submitted written testimony and, rather than go through

the details of that testimony, I would like to reiterate four points

contained in that testimony. First, in Hawaii water is our most limiting natural resource. Second, the Hawaii water study that is

being conducted is incomplete. Third, there is wide acceptance of

any evolving water resources use and development strategy in Hawaii. And lastly, the three projects proposed for authorization is

consistent with the strategy.

On the first point, water is our most limiting resource. This may

seem like a strange statement to make when we think of Hawaii

as a lush tropical paradise. It is, but on many parts of our islands

we have visual similarities to the high deserts of the Western

United States. We have alarming projections of water use relative

to water recharge rates, where on Oahu, where the main population is, we will run out of fresh water in the year 2023. More recently, the chief engineer of the Honolulu Board of Water Supplies

indicated to me that they have updated their models and we may

run out sooner, perhaps in 2018.

Lastly, I note that Hawaii has been plagued by drought. This is

not a phenomenon limited to Western States, Western U.S. States,

but rather we have had drought over the last 7 or 8 years, some

being very, very severe, and I simply point out to you in the

drought outlook as late as April of this year, April 17 actually, Hawaii is in the second severest category of drought on the big island,

and on the third category on the islands of Oahu, Molokai, and

Maui.

Regarding the second point, the Hawaii water study as conducted

is incomplete, not because of the folks doing the work, but rather

due to funding limitations. The report will be out some time in September of this year, first to the Bureau and then to the Congress.

But the study addresses only 5 of the 14 major irrigation systems

in the State. It addresses only a few reuse and recycling alternatives. It provides only cursory water diversification assessment

and it provides only limited consideration of some of the policy,

legal, and institutional barriers that impact water use in Hawaii.

In other words, much more needs to be done and we would welcome Federal assistance and will continue to work with our State

legislators to seek the matching funds needed for this study, which

21

would provide a blueprint of all our actions in the near to intermediate term.

Regarding point three, there is a wide acceptance of an evolving

water resources use and development strategy in Hawaii. Rather

than focusing on some of the more complicated hydrologic and

other models, we have stepped back and simply looked at simple

supply and demand concepts. On the supply side, we are encouraging and promoting preservation and enhancement of watersheds,

and these are the natural ones that are primarily tropical forests.

We are promoting improved storage reserve surface water. These

are manmade structures. We are pursuing practices to recharge

groundwater aquifers that have been subject to less recharge since

the decline of sugar cane plantations. And we are also expanding

our search for new water sources, the so-called diversification of

water issues.

On the demand side, we have encouraged the adoption of conservation technologies to use less water, to minimize waste by making some of our delivery systems more efficient—these are primarily irrigation systems—and then also to substitute recycled

water for potable water when appropriate.

The three projects proposed for authorization is consistent with

this strategy. All three projects have two characteristics in common: one, they are all located on the dry side of three different islands; and secondly, all areas are expected to be subject to rapid

population growth.

Briefly, the desalination project at Kalaeloa on the island of

Oahu is a seawater desalination project. It will serve the so-called

second city on Oahu, second to Honolulu, called Kapolei, where

population is currently 67,000 people and will increase, projected at

least, to 114,000 in the next 20 years. This results in an increased

demand of about 10 million gallons per day of potable water.

The plant, if realized, will be located on former lands of the military, specifically the Barber’s Point Naval Air Station, and land

has been granted to the city and county, specifically the Board of

Water Supply, at this time.

The second project is a wastewater reuse project on the big island of Hawaii, again on the western, on the dry side of the island.

Here two things are anticipated. One is to increase the treatment

of the effluent waste to the highest level, tertiary treatment; and

then to distribute these waters for irrigation purposes, for environmental purposes, for threatened and endangered species, and for

reducing the risk of coastal water discharges.

The last project is on the island of Maui, on the northwest portion of the island. Here again, the county of Maui has considerable

experience in wastewater reuse and recycling, has demonstrated

this in the southern part of the island, and would like to duplicate

this on the northwest portion of the island. What is needed here

is infrastructure, primarily storage tanks and pipelines.

In the above comments, I have tried to describe four items: the

severity of the water issues in Hawaii; the need to expand the Hawaii water study; the strategy we are implementing to address

these issues; and three projects that are consistent with the strategy. We are excited and supportive of the provisions of S. 960 and

urge your support. Thank you for letting me represent the views

22

and concerns about our most limiting natural resource, water.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Professor Ching follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAUNCEY CHING, PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII

INTRODUCTION

Madame Chairperson and other members of the Committee, on behalf of the counties in the State of Hawaii, I thank you for allowing me to offer testimony on Senate

Bill 960, to amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to authorize certain projects in the State of Hawaii and to amend the Hawaii Water Resources Act of 2000 to modify the water resources study. In particular,

we thank Senator Akaka for his visionary interest in the water issues impacting

Hawaii and for introducing this bill.

My name is Chauncey Ching. I am a professor of Agricultural Economics at the

University of Hawaii. As part of my responsibilities of facilitating the transition of

Hawaii’s agriculture from large scale plantations to smaller scale diversified agriculture, I worked with all members of Hawaii’s Congressional delegation in convening two meetings in 2001 to address the resource that most limits sustainable development in Hawaii—water. While this may sound strange for an island state located

in a tropical/subtropical ecosystem, water is unquestionably our most limiting resource. Perhaps unknown to those who have not visited Hawaii, we have areas on the

leeward sides of all of our islands that have very limited water supplies and have

remarkable similarities to the high deserts in the Western United States. Further,

the U.S. Seasonal Drought Outlook (released by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, on April 17, 2003) shows four categories of drought

in the country. The most severe condition is ‘‘Drought to persist or intensify’’ and

the second most severe is ‘‘Drought ongoing, some improvement.’’ While Hawaii is

not in the most severe category, a large part of the Big Island is in the ‘‘Drought

ongoing, some improvement’’ category; and, other parts of the state are in the

‘‘Drought likely to improve, impacts ease’’ category—less severe but drought conditions nevertheless.

BACKGROUND AND EVENTS CONDITIONING INTEREST IN S. 960

In part, the meetings in 2001 were initiated as preparation for the conduct of the

Hawaii Water Study mandated in the Hawaii Resources Act of 2000. In anticipation

of this study, it was increasingly apparent that the water issues in Hawaii were so

enormous that our only chance of effectively addressing them was to ensure the

highest level of collaboration among federal, state, and local governmental agencies

and the private land owners.

One of the most alarming statistics about our state comes from the Honolulu

Board of Water Supply. About two years ago, leaders of this county agency noted

that we, on Oahu, will run out of fresh water in 2023. While this was very disconcerting, a few months ago I was told that the Board of Water Supply had updated and improved its forecasting models and now we will run out of fresh water

in 2018! [Source: Challenges and Opportunities—A Board of Water Supply Look at

Water for the 21st Century, Water Resources Research Center Conference, January

15, 2003]

Without question, this is a startling projection. It gets my attention and I trust

it gets yours as well. Rather than panic and choose to be overwhelmed, we use this

projected shortfall in freshwater recharge rates relative to freshwater use rates to

guide our thinking and actions and spur our efforts to realize our charge of maintaining and improving quality of life for current and future generations. Clearly, if

we treat this projected shortfall as a self-fulfilling prophecy, we are ignoring and

sacrificing future generations’ rights to a quality of life at least comparable to that

which we enjoy today. We use this statistic, which applies directly to the island of

Oahu but has implications for all islands, as a ‘‘wakeup call’’ signaling the importance of water resources in the Hawaii’s sustainable development plans. This statistic was a clear signal that we needed to devise and implement a plan to address

very limited water resources in Hawaii.

AN EVOLVING WATER RESOURCES USE AND DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY

For many of us, a useful way of thinking about water resources in Hawaii was

in terms of supply and demand. From the supply side, we include preservation and

enhancement of watersheds, improved storage to preserve surface water, practices

23

that recharge ground water aquifers, and exploration of new, supplemental sources.

On the demand side, we include employment of conservation technologies to use less

water, vigilance to minimize wasting water through inefficient delivery systems,

and, substituting the use of recycled water for potable water in those applications

where public health and safety are not compromised. Of course, there are also activities that impact both the supply and demand for water e.g., use of recycled water

for irrigating landscapes and other agricultural activities while concurrently recharging ground water aquifers.

While supply and demand provide a useful context for strategic thinking, there

were those present who constantly reminded us that whatever strategy we devised

needed to serve community interests, those of the state, and the nation. Any water

resources use and development strategy necessarily needed to ensure minimal impact on the natural environment since we are simply stewards of these resources

for current and future generations.

THE HAWAII WATER STUDY

This study, mandated in the Hawaii Resources Act of 2000 is underway and

scheduled for completion in September 2003. The $300,000 appropriated by Congress for this purpose was matched by the Hawaii State Legislature. The Hawaii

Department of Agriculture is the coordinating entity charged with overseeing completion of this work.

Preliminary analyses suggest that the findings to be reported in September only

begins to articulate the issues and corrective actions for a comprehensive set of

problems that impacts practically all residents and visitors, all segments of the

economy including a large military complex, and the natural resources within the

state and in the coastal waters under national and international jurisdictions.

The study to be reported addresses only five of the fourteen major irrigation systems developed by sugarcane plantations over the past 150 years, identifies only a

few alternatives for reuse and recycling of water, barely touches on water diversification strategies, and only mentions the legal, institutional, and public policy

barriers that must be addressed if we are to be responsible and effective stewards

of water resources.

Based on the components of the water resources issues that remain, we are encouraged by the amendment to increase the funding limit for the Hawaii Water

Study. At the same time, we continue our efforts to apprise our state legislators on

the significance of other aspects of the water resources issue not being addressed

by the Hawaii Water Study and the importance of providing matching funds to address them.

THREE SPECIFIC PROJECTS, PART OF THE WATER RESOURCES STRATEGY

The three projects proposed for authorization in S. 960 are consistent with the

evolving strategy for water resource use and development in Hawaii articulated

above. These are priority projects identified at the county level. While a combination

of county and state funds will be a critical part of the financing strategy, the counties are encouraged about the possibility of federal assistance through the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act. For this reason, we

support the provision in S. 960 to separate funding authority for this program for

Hawaii projects from the funding limit set for the Hawaii Water Study.

Kalaeloa Desalination Project (Island of Oahu)

Oahu (Honolulu) is home to about 72 percent of Hawaii’s residents—880,000 people in 2001. It is here that water use rates will exceed water recharge rates in 2018.

While conservation measures have successfully reduced water use rates, new

sources of supplemental water and substitution of recycled water for potable water

are the two main activities being pursued to avoid the mining of water beginning

in 2018.

The Board of Water Supply (BWS), City and County of Honolulu is responsible

for the management, control and operation of Oahu’s municipal water system. As

part of this responsibility, the BWS seeks alternative methods to provide reliable,

high quality potable water for Oahu’s future. The desalination project proposed is

centrally located in the secondary urban center of Kapolei, Ewa, Oahu. Ewa is a

planned community of residential, commercial and industrial developments. Over

the next 20 years the expected increase in population is 70% from 67,000 to 114,000

people resulting in an additional demand of approximately 10 million gallons per

day (mgd).

Realization of the proposed project will help meet Ewa’s projected 2025 demand,

conserve limited groundwater in the area, avoid impacts to the environment,

24

streams, native flora and fauna from wells drilled in forested watersheds, increase

water system reliability through drought mitigation (Oahu experienced a 5-year

drought from 1998-2002, which affected municipal supplies and agriculture), and

maintain consistently high water quality by minimizing seawater intrusion when

water levels drop during drought conditions.

More specifically, the proposed project is a 5 mgd facility of modular construction

that allows the potential for future expansion. Seawater Reverse Osmosis (RO)

Membrane Technology is proposed where approximately 11 mgd of seawater is needed to produce 5 mgd of potable water. Seawater source wells rather than direct

ocean intake will be used to ensure higher water quality. Brine disposal will be

through shallow cap rock wells with temporary brine holding ponds.

The facility will be located on 20 acres of land granted from the U.S. Department

of Health and Human Services through a Public Benefit Conveyance of surplus U.S.

Department of Navy property formally known as Barbers Point Naval Air Station.

Kealakehe Wastewater Treatment Project (Island of Hawaii)

This project is located on the west side of the Big Island of Hawaii, north of the

Kona community. It is on the leeward side, the dry side, of the island, which has

been plagued by drought during the past several years. The entity responsible for

this project is the County of Hawaii, Department of Environmental Management.

Effluent from the Kealakehe Wastewater Treatment Plant is currently being discharged into a temporary disposal sump. The effluent has a high suspended solids

concentration due to an abundance of algae growing in the existing aerated lagoons.

In order to maximize the reuse potential, the effluent should be treated to the highest level (R-1), while minimizing mechanical systems and chemical applications.

Also, there is a need to provide habitat for two endangered bird species, the Hawaiian Stilt and the Hawaiian Coot. The birds have been nesting on land adjacent to

the Keahole International Airport.

This project will utilize subsurface wetlands to reduce the suspended solids prior

to disinfection. Retrofitting an existing lagoon and completing construction of an additional lagoon would create the subsurface wetlands. An open surface wetland

would also be constructed to reduce the effluent disposal, create habitat for the endangered birds, and provide recreational opportunities for the public.

Realization of this project will reduce the risk of contamination to the coastal waters; transform the sewage effluent from a disposal liability to a resource asset;

eliminate the need for expensive mechanical systems and chemical applications

while upgrading the treatment process; protect endangered species; and, provide additional landscaping and recreational opportunities for the public.

Preliminary assessments suggest that the cost to construct and operate conventional tertiary wastewater treatment systems would probably be cost prohibitive for

a facility of this size. Further, discharge of treated wastewater could lead to degradation of coastal water quality and the loss of a valuable resource.

Once the effluent water quality has been upgraded and the maximum amount of

flow diverted for use onsite in the constructed wetlands, a distribution system would

be needed to convey the recycled water to potential users. A Water Reuse Master

Plan and an environmental assessment has been prepared which identifies these

users and describes the necessity for a cost-effective distribution system.

Lahaina Recycled Water Distribution System Expansion Project (Island of Maui)

Maui County, through its Wastewater Reclamation Division, is one of the water

recycling leaders in Hawaii. Over the last ten years, Maui has demonstrated its

commitment to reusing recycled water from its wastewater reclamation facilities by

building a solid foundation for a successful program. Key components of Maui’s

water recycling program include:

• Conducting feasibility studies to determine which areas of the County would

benefit the most from the use of recycled water.

• Upgrading the wastewater reclamation facilities in these areas to tertiary treatment (R-1) capability to allow for a greater number of uses of the recycled

water.

• Passing a mandatory recycled water ordinance, which requires commercial

properties within 100 feet of the County’s distribution system to use recycled

water for irrigation purposes.

• Adopting an innovative recycled water rate structure, which recovers capital

and operation/maintenance costs associated with recycled water distribution

from both recycled water users and sewer users. This approach has resulted in

recycled water rates that are significantly less expensive than alternative water

sources and provides a monetary incentive for new users to hook up to the

County’s recycled water distribution system.

25

• Creating the position of ‘‘Wastewater Reclamation Coordinator’’ within the Department of Public Works. This person is involved in all facets of the recycled

water program and performs the vital function of gaining community support

for recycled water use by administering a public outreach program.

Maui County currently uses approximately 25% or 4 million gallons per day of

the recycled water it produces from its wastewater reclamation facilities. An important aspect that is limiting the increased use of recycled water within Maui County

is the lack of adequate infrastructure to distribute recycled water to commercial

properties. West Maui is a good example of this limiting factor. Recycled water is

used in the area for irrigation of the Kaanapali Golf Courses. Even though the recycled water pipe line passes close to a number of commercial properties, which are

interested in using recycled water, the distribution infrastructure is not adequately

developed to allow these properties to connect to the system. A lack of adequate recycled water storage and associated pipelines are the main constraints to increased

use of recycled water in the area.

West Maui is a good candidate for increased recycled water use primarily because

most of the properties mentioned above use potable water for irrigation. Potable

water sources in the area are scarce. Frequent, prolonged droughts on Maui have

contributed to this situation. If the recycled water is not utilized, it is disposed of

through injection wells. Maui County has been encouraged to reduce the use of injection wells by the EPA and local environmental groups due to concerns that injection wells contribute nutrients to the near shore environment that cause algae

blooms. The increased use of recycled water in West Maui will ease these concerns

by reducing the use of injection wells for effluent disposal.

Maui County ultimately plans to expand the use of recycled water in West Maui

and is currently preparing a recycled water master plan. However, expansion of its

recycled water distribution system will take time and money. Federal assistance will

make it much easier for the County to accomplish its goal of expanding the use of

recycled water in West Maui. Maui County respectfully requests that this project

be authorized for federal assistance.

CONCLUDING COMMENT

In the above comments, I have tried to describe the severity of water resources

issues in Hawaii, the strategy we are implementing to address these issues, and

three projects that are critical components of this strategy. We are excited and supportive of the provisions of S. 960 and urge your support.

Thank you for letting me represent views and concerns about water, our most limiting natural resource in the state of Hawaii.

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Ching.

Mr. Brady.

STATEMENT OF BRIAN BRADY, PRESIDENT, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT, ACCOMPANIED BY

PAUL JONES, GENERAL MANAGER, IRVINE RANCH WATER

DISTRICT

Mr. BRADY. Good afternoon, Madam Chairwoman and Senator

Feinstein, members of the committee. My name is Brian Brady and

I am the president of the Board of Directors of the Irvine Ranch

Water District, and I appreciate the opportunity to testify on S.

649. I would also like to express my sincere gratitude to Senator

Feinstein for introducing not only the legislation, but for her leadership on many water issues in California.

I would also like to mention and thank Christopher Cox, Representative Cox, for introducing identical legislation in the House

of Representatives.

There was an item that came up with Mr. Keys that I would like

to address regarding the feasibility studies and for the record I

would like to point out that the Irvine Ranch Water District has

completed feasibility work on all portions of the project that is before you. In fact, on two of the major components, the natural

treatment system and the Irvine groundwater desalter, we have

26

done work well in advance or well in excess of the feasibility requirements, including design engineering, comprehensive water

quality modeling, cost estimates, and both State and Federal environmental documentation.

Some of this work has already been shared with the Bureau, as

Mr. Keys had mentioned, and we would be happy to work closely

with the Bureau in order to provide any more information on feasibility.

Having said that and having listened to Senator Feinstein’s excellent summary of most of what I was going to present to you, let

me just briefly point out a few other aspects of the project before

you. The San Diego Creek Watershed encompasses over 120 square

miles in central Orange County. The San Diego Creek Watershed

boundaries are approximately the same as the Irvine Water District’s service territory. It includes the city of Irvine and portions

of Lake Forest, Newport Beach, Orange, and Tustin, as well as

some unincorporated areas of the county.

Surface drainage and urban runoff containing fertilizers, pesticides, sediments, and pathogens flow through the San Diego

Creek Watershed and into the Upper Newport Bay, severely impacting the water quality of the watershed and the bay. As a result

of these water quality concerns, EPA has identified the San Diego

Creek and Upper Newport Bay as impaired water bodies, and in

order to protect the water quality of San Diego Creek Watershed

and the Upper Newport Bay, which incidentally is the largest marine estuary in southern California, the Irvine Ranch Water District, in collaboration with the county of Orange and the cities I

have already mentioned, is proposing to develop and maintain a

system of manmade wetlands throughout the area that will utilize

natural processes to remove unwanted sediments, nutrients, and

other contaminants contained within the runoff, helping assure the

dry weather flows reaching the bay meet Federal clean water

standards.

This watershed system of local wetlands—and there will be 31 of

them in total—will be engineered to capture sediment and trash

and what is called the first flush from rains, and using natural

processes to, as I said, to remove nutrients. This approach we believe not only is more environmentally friendly, it can be done for

less money, and it also provides additional habitat.

The other two portions of the project, the Irvine desalter will provide 5,400 acre-feet of new water and, as the Senator mentioned,

between 20,000 and 40,000 people will be provided their drinking

water supplies; and the final component being the brine line. The

problem with reclaiming water is it produces highly concentrated

brines and disposal of that is problematic. Our solution in this

project is to put it back in the ocean, which is where salinity is not

a problem.

Madam Chairwoman, Senator, thank you for having us here

today, for inviting us, and for considering this bill.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Brady follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BRIAN BRADY, PRESIDENT, BOARD OF DIRECTORS,

IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Senator Feinstein, and the other distinguished

Members of this Committee. My name is Brian Brady and I serve as President of

27

the Board of Directors of the Irvine Ranch Water District. I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today on S. 649, the Irvine Basin Groundwater and Surface Water Improvement Act of 2003. Let me also express my sincere gratitude to

Senator Feinstein for introducing this legislation as well as for her outstanding

leadership on a host of California water issues. I would also like to thank Congressman Christopher Cox who has introduced an identical piece of legislation in the

House of Representatives.

If I may, I’d like to briefly describe the role that the Irvine Ranch Water District

plays in our community and the context within which our project is proposed. The

Irvine Ranch Water District provides domestic water service, wastewater collection

and treatment, water reclamation, and urban runoff treatment for the city of Irvine

and portions of four surrounding cities as well as the County of Orange. In total,

the District serves a resident population of over 266,000 with a daytime population

of approximately 500,000. We enjoy approximately 275 well-qualified employees who

are committed to the mission of providing a safe, reliable water supply to our customers without sacrificing the environment. In fact, because of our outstanding

staff, the District has been recognized with numerous regional, statewide and national awards for our leadership in developing innovative ways to provide water

while protecting the environment. The District’s General Manager, Paul Jones, is

with me here today to assist in answering any technical questions that the Members

of the Committee may have about the projects that would be authorized by this legislation.

We are extremely excited about this legislation, as it will allow the Irvine Ranch

Water District to even better serve the community and the environment. The Irvine

Basin Surface and Groundwater Improvement Act would authorize the Bureau of

Reclamation to participate in the design and construction of projects that will enhance the environment of a large portion of Orange County. This partnership would

be a tremendous help to the District as we work to develop new groundwater supply

projects and to protect the San Diego Creek watershed and Upper Newport Bay.

Before I talk about the specifics of our proposed project, it is important to discuss

the regional context and approach used by water and wastewater agencies in San

Bernardino, Riverside, and Orange Counties to address water resource and urban

runoff issues. Contemporary surface and groundwater resource management relies

heavily on addressing issues on a ‘‘watershed-wide’’ basis. The Southern California

coastal plain and its watersheds extend from the mountains to the ocean. One watershed, that of the Santa Ana River, extends 96 miles from the San Bernardino

Mountains to the Pacific, between Huntington and Newport Beaches. In terms of

management, the Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority, or SAWPA as it is

known, provides watershed-wide coordination of water resource management

projects through a joint powers agreement among five regional agencies. These

agencies have worked to develop numerous water reclamation, brackish desalting

and water quality wetland projects in the three-county region.

In the lower portion of the Santa Ana River system in Orange County, Orange

County Water District, one of the five SAWPA members, manages the groundwater

basin, and as discussed later, is a key partner in the groundwater component of the

proposed project.

With respect to coordination of surface drainage, or ‘‘urban runoff’’ issues, the

County of Orange, in collaboration with the cities and agencies within the County,

are developing new, innovative methods to treat contaminated surface runoff, including another component of this proposed project.

All these aforementioned partnerships provide the basis for, and examples of, collaborative water resource management using a comprehensive ‘‘watershed-wide’’ approach.

This brings us to the San Diego Creek watershed, which encompasses over 120

square miles in central Orange County. The San Diego Creek watershed’s boundary

is approximately the same as Irvine Ranch Water District’s and includes the City

of Irvine and portions of the Cities of Lake Forest, Newport Beach, Orange, and

Tustin, as well as unincorporated areas of the County. Surface drainage, or urban

runoff containing fertilizers, pesticides, sediment, and pathogens, flows through the

San Diego Creek watershed and into the Upper Newport Bay, severely impacting

the water quality of the watershed and the Bay. As a result of these water quality

concerns, EPA has identified San Diego Creek and the Upper Newport Bay as ‘‘impaired water bodies.’’

In order to protect the water quality of the San Diego Creek watershed and Upper

Newport Bay, the largest marine estuary in Southern California, Irvine Ranch

Water District, in collaboration with the County of Orange and the aforementioned

cities, is proposing to develop and maintain a system of man-made wetlands

throughout the area that will utilize natural processes to remove unwanted sediVerDate 11-SEP-98 14:58 Jul 09, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\88-129 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
28

ment, nutrients, and other contaminants from the runoff, thus helping to ensure

that the dry weather flows reaching the Bay meet federal clean water standards.

This watershed-wide system of local wetlands, 31 in total, will also use engineered

basins to capture sediment and trash from ‘‘first flush’’ rains and use natural ecosystems to remove nutrients from dry weather runoff. This approach, known as a

Natural Treatment System, will reduce the community’s cost of protecting the water

quality of the Bay, and will also provide additional neighborhood open space and

wildlife habitat.

In addition to completing the San Diego Creek Watershed Natural Treatment System, the proposed legislation would authorize Bureau of Reclamation to provide assistance in developing a related project to treat and reuse impaired groundwater

within the groundwater basin.

This portion of the proposed project will be built in conjunction with Orange

County Water District. This portion of the project will consist of a well system and

water purification plant that will remove salts and nitrates caused by natural geology and past agricultural drainage from a portion of the groundwater basin underlying the San Diego Creek watershed. The project will employ reverse osmosis technology to create a new, highly reliable local drinking water supply at a cost comparable to imported water supplies from the San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary and

the Colorado River. The project will reduce dependence on imported supplies and

is consistent with the Bureau of Reclamation’s objectives of reclaiming impaired

water for beneficial uses.

The final component of this project will be a regional brine line. In Orange County, just as it is throughout Southern California, wastewater reclamation for non-potable reuse is a critical component of the region’s current and future water supply

portfolio. Our region enjoys one of the most advanced systems of wastewater treatment, distribution and reuse in the world. Currently, brines are disposed in the

sewer from industrial sources and existing or proposed impaired groundwater treatment facilities. This method of disposal is problematic as it dramatically increases

the costs of treatment and impairs local water and wastewater agencies’ ability to

implement additional wastewater reclamation. To alleviate this problem, Irvine

Ranch Water District proposes to construct a Regional Brine Line that consists of

a separate system of pipes to segregate brine from sewage and dispose of the brine

directly into the ocean where salinity is not a concern.

The total cost of the projects to be authorized in S. 649 is slightly under $80 million. As you know, the Bureau of Reclamation’s Title XVI program allows the Bureau to contribute up to 25% of the costs of planning, designing, and constructing

projects like the ones that would be authorized by S. 649 up to a limit of $20 million. Our District and other local sponsors will be providing over $60 million toward

the construction of these important projects.

Mr. Chairman, Senator, thank you again for allowing me the opportunity to share

my testimony with you. The Irvine Ranch Water District is committed to serving

its customers in the most efficient, cost-effective and environmentally responsible

manner. I am proud to serve as President of the Board for such an outstanding public agency. We are looking forward to working with the Bureau of Reclamation to

make this project a success.

Again, thank you for your time and consideration of my testimony. I will be glad

to answer any questions you may have at this time.

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Brady.

Mr. Carlson.

STATEMENT OF PETER CARLSON, COORDINATOR,

SMALL RECLAMATION PROGRAM ACT COALITION

Mr. CARLSON. Madam Chairman, members of the subcommittee:

My name is Peter Carlson. I am appearing today as the coordinator

of the Small Reclamation Program Act Coalition, which is made up

of the Natural Urban Agriculture Council, the Western Coalition of

States, the Oregon Water Resources Congress, the Eastern Municipal Water District in Southern California, and the San Bernadino

Valley Water District in California.

I would like to submit for the record a letter of support for this

legislation also from the Association of California Water Agencies.

29

At the outset, let me state our strong support for S. 993, the

Small Reclamation Water Resources Act of 2003, and express our

appreciation to you for holding this hearing and to Senator Gordon

Smith for introducing the legislation. The proposed amendments

represent a 9-year effort to restructure the program and provide

western water users with new options for addressing their water

resource-related needs.

Growth and aging of the infrastructure out West are the driving

forces for this legislation. This westward growth is why enactment

of S. 993 is so vitally important. I have been so impressed by the

discussion of this Water 2025 document from the Department of

the Interior that I would also like to submit it for the record, because I believe that it provides a further justification for the need

for this legislation.

There is presently not in place an active small reclamation loan

program at the Bureau of Reclamation accepting proposals for

projects. As a result, there is a program gap between the larger

reclamation project that is typically before your subcommittee and

the smaller programs that Reclamation offers, such as technical assistance. The Small Reclamation Water Resources Projects Act of

2003 would close that gap.

The amendments contained in S. 993 address these issues in the

following manner. No longer requiring irrigation as a project purpose in the program will allow for the development of projects in

the urban-rural crossover setting that are more economically and

environmentally sound, providing additional definition and expansion of the activities which could be undertaken through the program, especially for rehabilitation and betterment, and in the area

of water quality improvements will help address aging infrastructure problems, as well as developing new opportunities to make

better use of existing supplies without the need to create new

water supply structures.

The streamlining of the proposal process and the establishment

of a definite schedule for proposal processing will give water users

greater program confidence and certainty. The establishment of a

new smaller partnership program under title 2 of the Small Reclamation Program Act Amendments and the activities that can be

carried out under that program will facilitate problem-solving in a

manner that gets the work done sooner, before more problems develop.

Once this program is up and running, we see this as a $40 to

$60 million a year program, but that is probably a couple of years

down the road. We appreciate the decision to increase the cost ceiling in the program from the approximate $359 million that is presently there to $1.3 billion under this legislation. This is one of the

major changes in S. 993 from legislation introduced in the past. S.

993 calls for $900 million to be made available to carry out projects

in title 1 of the amendments, $300 million for title 2, and $100 million for title 3.

These numbers are not without foundation. When the program

was suspended in 1995, there were notices of intent for projects totaling approximately $450 million. Approximately $170 million of

this was for Native American projects. At the end of the 106th Congress, we conducted an electronic survey of a thousand water users

30

in the West. We received responses to our survey from 12 of the

17 States indicating a strong interest in using title 1 and title 2

of the proposed amendments, further justifying in our mind the

need for a ceiling increase.

We have received—we have also received responses to the idea

contained in S. 993 of setting aside 20 percent of the proposed ceiling in the program for Indian tribes and economically disadvantaged communities, an approach the water community strongly

supports.

The continuation of the Bureau of Reclamation’s Small Reclamation Loan Program with the changes made by S. 993 in our mind

is the most important and appropriate course to take at this time.

There is strong interest out there and the belief that the small Reclamation loan program is the best vehicle to accomplish the work,

for helping address the rural, urban, Indian population, and the

water and environmental needs of the West.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Carlson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PETER CARLSON, COORDINATOR, SMALL RECLAMATION PROGRAM ACT COALITION

Madam Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Peter Carlson, I

am President of the firm Will & Carlson, Inc., a Washington, D.C. governmental relations firm specializing in natural resource issues. I am appearing today as the coordinator of the Small Reclamation Program Act Coalition which is made up of the

National Urban Agriculture Council (NUAC), the Western Coalition of Arid States

(WESTCAS), the Oregon Water Resources Congress (OWRC) the Eastern Municipal

Water District in Southern California (EMWD) and the San Bernardino Valley

Water Conservation District in Southern California.

At the outset, let me state our strong support for S. 993, the Small Reclamation

Water Resources Project Act of 2003 and express our appreciation for your holding

this hearing and Senator Gordon Smith for introducing the legislation. The proposed

amendments represent an nine year effort to restructure the program and provide

western water users with new options for addressing their water resource related

needs.

The Small Reclamation Program Act was last amended in 1986, and the amendments were appropriate for that time. The changes proposed by S. 993 build on

what we, the water users, have learned since that time and will make this an even

better program from an environmental, business and socio-economic standpoint.

According to the Western Water Policy Review Commission report from 1998

‘‘Once the outpost of a young nation, today’s West is home to nearly one-third of

the American population. The region has experienced rapid population growth in recent years: western states grew by about 32 percent in the past 25 years, compared

with a 19-percent rate in the rest of the nation. By the year 2025, the West will

add another 28 million residents.’’

A more recent report from the University of Colorado’s Center of the America

West, of 11 Western states (California, New Mexico, Wyoming, Washington, Idaho,

Utah, Arizona, Oregon, Colorado, Montana, Nevada), indicated that the 2000 census

counted 61.4 million people in the Western states—a 21 percent increase from 1990.

By 2050, 109 million people will live in the Western States, the study estimates.

This Westward growth is why S. 993, is so vitally important. There is presently

not in place an active Small Reclamation Loan Program at the Bureau of Reclamation that is accepting proposals for projects. From our perspective, the proposed

amendments would bring a number of important changes to the existing program

that would help address the issues related to growth in the West. This decision,

amending the Small Reclamation Loan Program, is an important step in investing

in the West and putting in place a revitalized program that western water users

can use to address the various needs associated with growth, whether they be water

supply, water conservation, water quality, environmental or social purposes. There

is currently a program gap between the larger Reclamation project that is typically

before your Subcommittee and the smaller programs that Reclamation offers, such

as technical assistance. The Small Reclamation Water Resources Project Act of 2003

will close that gap.

31

The amendments contained in S. 993 address these issues in the following man- ner:

1. No longer requiring irrigation as a project purpose in the program will

allow for the development of projects in the urban-rural crossover setting that

are more economically and environmentally sound. This is precisely the area of

greatest need for support in development of small projects.

2. Providing additional definition and expansion of the activities which can

be undertaken through the program, especially for rehabilitation and betterment and in the area of water quality improvements. This will help address

aging infrastructure problems as well as developing new opportunities to make

better use of existing supplies, without the need to create new water supply

structures.

3. The streamlining of the proposal process, and the establishment of a definite schedule for proposal processing will give water users greater program confidence and certainty. Proposals will no longer languish in the bowels of the bureaucracy only to then have to wait years for an answer on whether there is

a Federal interest in the proposed work.

4. The establishing of a new, smaller partnership program under Title II of

the SRPA amendments, and the activities that can be carried out under the program. This will facilitate problem solving in a manner that gets the work done

sooner before more problems develop, through the work being carried out by the

project sponsor within 18 months and a shortened repayment period.

5. The reduction of the repayment period for Title I projects from 40 years

to 25 years will also bring the program in line with current business practices

in the private sector and lessen the financial exposure to the Federal government.

6. Connecting the proposed work to organizations that have legal authority

and responsibility for such work on their projects, and making sure that work

is consistent with applicable State water law will keep the program focused and

more accountable.

As part of the discussions with the organizations I represent, which helped in the

development of the ideas embodied in S. 993, some have questioned whether the Bureau’s Budget would be able to accommodate this program. Western water user organizations have been working successfully on the Energy and Water Appropriations bill through our ‘‘Invest In the West’’ campaign to increase the allocation for

the Bureau of Reclamation’s Water and Related Resources program. Given the construction schedules associated with the program and the decision-making process

that is built into the legislation, we see this as a $40 to $60 million a year program.

We believe the Bureau of Reclamation should be able to accommodate such a level,

given the changes to the program proposed by these amendments.

We appreciate the decision to increase the cost-ceiling in the program from the

approximate present remaining ceiling of $359 million to $1.3 billion in order to accommodate the interest out in the West for the program. This is one of the major

changes in S. 993 from legislation introduced in past. S. 993 calls for $900 million

to be made available to carry out projects under Title I of the amendments, $300

million for Title II and $100 million for Title III. These numbers are not without

foundation.

When the program was suspended in 1995 there were Notices of Intent for

projects totaling approximately $450 million. Approximately $170 million of this

total was for Native American projects. There were another ten projects that were

in or about to enter the construction phase. Two of the remaining projects are being

completed by this past years appropriations leaving one remaining project to be constructed.

At the end of the 106th Congress we conducted an electronic survey, based on

similar legislation in the prior Congress, to assess the interest in the programs that

would be developed under this legislation. Historically 15 of the 17 Western states

have used this program. We received responses to our survey from water users in

12 of the 17 states indicating a strong interest in using both Title I and Title II

of the proposed amendments.

Since that time I have also received responses to the idea contained in S. 993 of

setting aside up to 20% of the proposed ceiling in the program for Indian Tribes and

economically disadvantaged communities, an approach the water community strongly supports. These amendments also open the program up to Hawaii, Alaska and

the Insular areas so their water needs can be addressed as well, an idea that we

also support.

Another 1998 recommendation of the Western Water Policy Review Commission

was ‘‘Given the declining federal budgets, innovative sources of funding and investVerDate 11-SEP-98 14:58 Jul 09, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\88-129 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
32

ment, including public and private partnerships, must be found for the management

and restoration of western rivers.’’

Part of the reason for including a section in this bill on guaranteed loans is to

explore the initiation of a new loan guarantee section under the Act. The Federal

Government has approximately forty guaranteed loan programs listed in the Federal Budget. The Loan Guarantee section of these amendments is to open the door

for a new, innovative approach to assist in funding projects. We believe that making

available such a new financial tool for the Bureau to explore and make use of (loan

guarantees) could benefit the water users in the West by having projects developed

in a more timely manner while we all continue to work together to increase the financial resources for the Bureau of Reclamation for other projects in the program.

As we stated earlier, we don’t envision this program being a heavy financial burden

on the Bureau of Reclamation’s Water and Related Resources budget, but we are

willing to work with the Bureau to explore new ways, such as this proposal, to see

if there are financial innovations that work in meeting our needs.

I would like to address the issue of whether the Bureau of Reclamation should

or shouldn’t be in the loan business. Why is it that almost every Federal agency

has a loan program, to assist in carrying out their activities, yet in past comments

on the program the Bureau of Reclamation claims ‘‘the current loan process (at Reclamation) suffers from a lack of trained credit officers to monitor loans as well as

assist in determining economic feasibility, repayment terms, maturity dates, and interest rates . . . Reclamation would continue to be in the business of developing

repayment contracts and engaging in loan collection activities, two tasks for which

the private sector is better suited than the Federal Government.’’ The former Administration made great claims about Reinventing Government. Why can’t Reclamation learn from the best of what other Federal agencies do with their loan programs

and in turn benefit the public from a reinvention in their loan program? This is part

of the reason why S. 993 is so important in terms of the prescriptiveness of the process, decision making time frames and the need to rewrite the guidelines for the new

program

Some would like Reclamation just to be in the grant business. We don’t believe

that would be a good idea. From FY91 to FY99 Reclamation provided approximately

4,600 grants worth about $750 million. Unless you tie the grants down like S.993

would do through the amendments to the program, I believe that a grant only program would be a recipe for waste and abuse. If the Bureau has such experience with

grants, which I have been told are more burdensome to administer, and have so few

loans, it would seem like they can figure out how to make a loan program work better from an administrative standpoint.

CONCLUSION

The continuation of the Bureau of Reclamation’s Small Reclamation Loan Program, with the changes made by S. 993, is the most important and appropriate

course to take at this time. Based on the details in the Western Water Policy Review Commission report, our survey and meetings and conversations with water

users in the West, there is a strong interest out there for a program that can help

address the needs of the West, and a belief that the Small Reclamation Loan Program is the best vehicle to accomplish the work. Investing in the West through the

proposed amendments to the program will be the best step forward into the 21st

Century for helping the rural, urban, Indian population and the water and environmental resources of the West.

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you.

Mr. Carlson, let me just ask you, and I apologize for not knowing

a little bit more about the Small Reclamation Loan Program Coalition, but I am trying to—I had asked the question earlier of Commissioner Keys about whether or not this legislation would be necessary if we already have authorized a Small Reclamation Projects

Act Program. So tell me how your coalition fits in with the existing

authorization?

Mr. CARLSON. With the existing authorization, a number of the

members of these associations and this one district in program

have used the program in the past. The changes that are in this

legislation proposed for the program—the program was last amended in 1986. These amendments modernize the program. One of the

33

problems with the existing program is the requirement that you

have an irrigation component to your project. A lot of these notices

of intent that were put on hold had irrigation components that, if

you will, sort of dwarfed the proposal.

What this legislation would do is say you no longer have to have

your irrigation as a project purpose, but priority should be given

to existing reclamation projects where there is a nexus to doing the

work, and then you move forward. So the irrigation component has

been troublesome.

The other thing that this legislation does that if they restarted

the program it could not do is it shortens the repayment period

from 40 years to 25 years. It sets a floor of 25 percent for cost-sharing, so it could go further above, and then it creates this small Reclamation Partnership Program that has a number of expanded purposes, such as watershed planning, that some may question whether there is authority to do or not within the small loan program.

Then it offers up a whole new tool, which is this loan guarantee

component that presently does not exist, that might prove quite

useful in terms of doing future work in the West.

Senator MURKOWSKI. So when I asked the question previously

about whether or not this goes beyond the initial mission, if you

will, of irrigation and reclamation, what I am hearing you say is

that, yes, it probably does, but that is a good thing or a necessary

thing.

Mr. CARLSON. It is a good thing. Because of the changes of environmental laws since 1956 and even since, what you may find in

1986 in terms of new environmental mandates that need to be met,

new water quality changes that have to be met. So I would not consider this mission creep; I would consider it focusing on the work

that needs to be done out West as a result of new things that water

districts are finding that they are having to do that they were not

required to do previously since this program has been around.

Senator MURKOWSKI. Mr. Brady, I want to ask you a question.

You were talking about the desalination effort and the brine line,

as you describe it.

Mr. BRADY. Yes.

Senator MURKOWSKI. And the plan is to essentially put the additional brine or water or whatever is left over after the desalination

just directly into—where does it go, Newport Bay? I am just wondering. Has there been any kind of an analysis of the effects on the

water of this additional salinity? I know that if you take a fish

tank and you pour too much salt in, you will kill the fish. I am assuming you have done more scientific studies than this.

Mr. BRADY. Yes, Madam Chairman, we have. If I might, I have

our general manager, Paul Jones, who is intimately involved with

and familiar with the studies we have done. If I might have him

give a brief answer.

Senator MURKOWSKI. Sure. Welcome Mr. Jones.

Mr. JONES. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Paul Jones, general

manager, Irvine Water District.

Basically, the brine that is rejected from the desalter is concentrated salts and nitrates. There is no bacteria in that brine reject, and our proposal is to build a pipeline from the treatment

plant through the area down to the Orange County Sanitation DisVerDate 11-SEP-98 14:58 Jul 09, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\DOCS\88-129 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
34

trict, and they currently have a 5-mile outfall that we would connect to.

The studies we have shown demonstrate that the salt and the nitrate level are far below the ambient level of that in the ocean

which we would be disposing in.

Senator MURKOWSKI. Let me ask you then, just as a follow-up,

and I will not pretend to know anything about the desalination

process other than that it does take an additional amount of energy

in order to do it. And recognizing that California has had some

issues when it comes to their energy issues, have you factored that

into the equation about how or where we get the energy to do the

desalination?

Mr. BRADY. Yes, we have. In fact, we are locating this proposed

treatment plant next to another treatment plant that is being constructed for a different purpose, and they will share a site and in

fact even share portions of a building. One of the things that we

have looked at is an alternative of self-generation rather than purchased electricity using natural gas. Currently we generate about

half of the electricity for the district using natural gas, and the

other half we use purchased electricity. So we have diversified, in

a sense, to protect us from the energy markets in California. Gas

goes up one year, electricity goes up the next year. There are shortages of electricity and we can rely more on the natural gas.

So we have factored that into our thinking. It also provides some

economies of scale, because we will build a generator for the plant

that will serve both of those treatment plants that are on the site

and that enables us to do it cost-effectively.

Senator MURKOWSKI. I have to put in a plug for Alaska’s natural

gas to help you out here.

Senator Akaka, did you have any questions that you wish to

pose?

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.

I want to thank Dr. Ching for being here, all the way from Hawaii, to testify before this committee on a subject that’s not really

only for Hawaii. It’s really a subject for the entire country, and

that is limitation of water. Lately we have even been talking about

the Columbia River and the water supply issues.

But water supply is a huge problem for our country, and what

I would like to say to you, Dr. Ching, is that I hope Hawaii can

set up a model as to how to take care of water needs.

You also mention, with interest to me, that there were 14 major

irrigation systems in Hawaii that were developed by the sugar

plantations in the last 150 years. These I understand are still in

place. What we are asking with my bill is for studies of only five

of these irrigation systems. So we have many other systems to

work on. But the fact is that there is a possibility of making the

best use of the systems that we have to provide adequate water for

people in Hawaii.

I wanted to ask you, of the water shortages in Hawaii which island would you say has the most critical problem for water?

Mr. CHING. Senator, the island with the greatest demand on

water is where all the people live and that is Oahu currently. But

what is often missed is that even on other islands that do not have

a large population, the population tends to converge on the dry

35

sides of the island. If you look at the development in Hawaii, if you

look at the big island, for example, the growth area is on the west

side, on the Kona side. That is where there is no—there is not a

great abundance of water and water needs to be brought over from

the other side or you need to reuse recycled water.

But Oahu at the current time, because roughly 70 percent of the

population of the State reside on that island, 72 percent I believe

by the last census.

Senator AKAKA. Am I correct to read with alarm that the Board

of Water Supply thinks that by 2018 the island of Oahu will probably not have sufficient water supply?

Mr. CHING. That is exactly correct. They waffle a little bit. Sometimes it is 2018, sometimes it is 2023, but it is very close. It is a

little melodramatic, saying we are going to run out of water. What

it does mean is that we start to mine water. We use more than we

recharge the system with, and that is very critical if we think

about future generations.

Senator AKAKA. Well, this raises the importance of what we are

asking for, the study and help with our technology for recycling, as

well as using the desaltination facility at Barber’s Point in bringing

forth potable water.

Thank you so much for coming, and I appreciate your testimony

and those of the entire panel.

Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.

Senator MURKOWSKI. Mr. Ching, I have a very smart mother-inlaw who spent most of her years in Alaska and now lives on Maui.

She is above Kihei in the area that you describe as being very, very

desert-like, so I know very well from visiting with her some of the

difficulties that you have.

Just a very quick question about the study to assess the statewide water, the water resource issues. You say that it is incomplete

and it is incomplete due to funding limitations. How much has

been appropriated to date? What has the State’s share been? Just

give me some parameters here.

Mr. CHING. The Hawaii Water Resources Act of 2000 authorized

$300,000 in Federal funds, to be matched by the State in like

amount. So to date $600,000 has been made available. The lead

agency is the Hawaii Department of Agriculture and, as you might

expect, the focus has been on these over 150-year-old irrigation systems that took water from the wet side to the dry side of the island. If these systems are not sometimes refurbished or maintained, they are lost forever and you can never replace those systems. You could never—I always say you could never get an environmental impact statement to pass to do that kind of thing. But

it is $600,000 to date.

Senator MURKOWSKI. If you were to do it properly?

Mr. CHING. Well, just on the agricultural side, we have essentially addressed a third of the problem, but we have not addressed

some of the other issues, such as alternative supplies, outreach, use

of recycled water, and just there is a whole bunch of what I would

call institutional-legal issues that have to be addressed.

For example, if we look at some of these irrigation systems, the

land underneath the distribution system is owned privately, but

the water apparently is owned by the State. How do we reconcile

36

these differences that will have to be probably challenged in court

before we are done?

Senator MURKOWSKI. Interesting.

Well, thank you all. Thank you for your time, your testimony this

afternoon. We have had the opportunity to perhaps shine a little

bit of light on some of the challenges that face us over water in

some very different parts of the country. So I appreciate the time

and appreciate the attendance of all this afternoon.

With that, we stand adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 3:54 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

(37)

APPENDIXES

APPENDIX I

Responses to Additional Questions

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION,

Washington, DC, June 9, 2003.

Hon. LISA MURKOWSKI,

Chairperson, Subcommittee on Water and Power, Committee on Energy and Natural

Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

DEAR MADAM CHAIRWOMAN: Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the follow-up questions from the May 13, 2003 hearing before the Senate Subcommittee

on Water and Power on the Bureau of Reclamation’s Small Reclamation Program

and the Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act.

Enclosed are Reclamation’s responses to your questions. I would appreciate your

assistance in inserting these into the hearing record. If you have further questions

or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely, JOHN W. KEYS, III,

Commissioner. [Enclosure]

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BINGAMAN

Question 1. What is the history of the Small Reclamation Loan Program?

Answer. Enactment of the Small Reclamation Projects Act (SR-PA) in 1956 (P.L.

84984) established a loan program within the Bureau of Reclamation to assist nonFederal organizations authorized to contract with the United States with the construction or rehabilitation of their non-Federal water projects. The program is designed to accommodate multipurpose projects, with irrigation being a required

project purpose. Other purposes include municipal and industrial water supplies,

hydroelectric power, flood control, recreation, and fish and wildlife enhancement.

Grants can also be provided for specific project purposes on a cost-share basis. Loan

amounts are limited by statute, whereby in 2002, the maximum allowable total

project cost for a SRPA loan was $62.1 million, with a maximum allowable loan and/

or grant of $41.6 (2/3%) million.

In 1987, Federal agencies were directed by the Congress (P.L. 100-203) to sell

many Federal assets, including Reclamation small project loans, to help reduce the

budget deficit. Reclamation sold 166 loans back to the original borrowers on a prepayment basis. However, a 1991 audit by the Department’s Inspector General severely criticized Reclamation for its handling of the loan sale. Also, it found that

there appeared to be sufficient funds available in the private sector to finance such

small project undertakings, and suggested that Reclamation review its loan programs. This began a series of events that resulted in the suspension of all loan program activities and the initiation of an extensive program review. This suspension

remains in effect to date.

Release of the April 1995, REGO II Report by the National Performance Review

Committee called for the elimination of all Reclamation small loan programs in that

they no longer were essential to Reclamation’s new mission.

Question 1a. Has the program worked well?

Answer. The SRPA Program was another tool to provide financial assistance to

water entities in constructing and/or rehabilitating their non-Federal water supply

systems. It also has the capability of assisting non-irrigation related project functions as well.

38

Question 1b. Are legislative modifications necessary?

Answer. The SRPA Program can be reactivated administratively, provided that

program activities remain unchanged from those in effect prior to the program’s suspension in 1993. However, to include other provisions, such as removal of the irrigation project purpose requirement, repayment of the irrigation repayment obligation

with interest, or expanding the Program authority beyond the 17 Western states

and Hawaii, as are being proposed by S. 993, would require legislative amendment

of the 1956 Act.

Question 1c. Do you think the $1.3 billion cost ceiling is appropriate?

Answer. This will depend on the contents of the program that is eventually enacted into law. The ceiling of the current program is $1.2 billion, of which approximately $375 million remains uncommitted.

Question 2. Under what authority has the report been withheld?

Answer. Prior to submittal to Congress, the Department wants to assure that the

report meets Departmental requirements as well as the needs of the local entities.

Question 3. How would the new authorities included in this bill interact with authority that Reclamation already has?

Answer. The bill would greatly expand Reclamation’s authority and jurisdiction

to include not only projects in the 17 Western states and Hawaii, but also those located in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Virgin Islands, and the Territory of

the Pacific Islands. Given the number of other demands already placed upon Reclamation’s budget, new projects, such as those envisioned in S. 993, would further

strain Reclamation’s existing financial and administrative resources, thereby making it even more difficult to meet its current obligations.

Question 4. Is there a demand for this kind of grant and loan program?

Answer. Reclamation’s SRPA Program has always been the most popular of its

loan programs, given it is designed to accommodate both Federal and non-Federal

projects with multipurpose features. In various meetings with water users, it is apparent that there still remains much interest in and support for Reclamation’s

SRPA Loan Program. Although 10 years has passed since suspension of loan activities, Reclamation staff continues to receive inquiries on obtaining loans and/or

grants. Historically, the SRPA Program provided a financial avenue to assist entities in maintaining and/or upgrading their non-Federal water supply systems.

Question 5. What criteria do you think the Secretary should apply in approving

the grants, loans and guaranteed loans under this legislation?

Answer. The new program would need to be developed in a manner that meets

the principles and standards set forth in the Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-129, ‘‘Policies for Credit Programs and Non-Tax Receivables’’. The circular prescribes the policies and procedures to be followed by Federal agencies when

justifying, designing, and managing credit programs. It sets standards for extending

credit, managing lenders participation in the Government’s guaranteed loan programs, servicing credit and non-tax receivables, and collecting delinquent debt. Also,

the requirements of the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996

will need to be addressed in developing new program criteria.

Question 6. I understand that the Bureau is undertaking a study of water resources in Hawaii. Please describe the status of that study. What do you view as

the most important water resource issues confronting that State?

Answer. This water resources study is being completed by the Hawaii Department

of Agriculture under a grant agreement with Reclamation. The Department of Agriculture has contracted the technical work to Water Resources Associates. Five water

delivery systems have been identified for investigation. Field inspections, inventories, and assessments have been complete and the contractor is well underway

with engineering evaluations. The study appears to be on schedule for completion

by the end of the year.

Based on previous meetings with the Hawaii Department of Agriculture and others, they report that an aging infrastructure and changing agricultural practices are

causing serious problems for the agricultural delivery systems, while increasing

water demand and limitations on new sources of water supply create challenges for

the municipal sector.

RESPONSE TO QUESTION FROM SENATOR FEINSTEIN

The Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act, P.L.

102-575, at Title XVI, Section 1606(c) mandatorily required that ‘‘the Secretary shall

submit the report authorized by this section to the [Congress] not later than six

years after appropriation of funds authorized by this title.’’ The Final Feasibility ReVerDate 11-SEP-98 14:58 Jul 09, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\88-129 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
39

port was completed in April 2001, but was not submitted to Congress as statutorily

required—even though more than six years had already passed since the appropriation of funds.

Question. When will the Department submit this report to Congress?

Answer. The Southern California Comprehensive Wastewater Reclamation and

Reuse Study report published in July 2002 has been under review in the Department of the Interior. Reclamation has completed a draft compendium of that report

and we intend to initiate the submittal of our report to Congress after giving the

local entities opportunity for review and comment.

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR MURKOWSKI

Question 1. S. 960 would authorize the Bureau to participate in three water management projects. What is the current state of development of these projects? Have

feasibility or engineering designs been developed for each?

Answer. Kalaeloa Desalting Plant—An engineering feasibility study was completed in June 2000. This study evaluated sites, desalting technologies, and provided

the basis for design of a reverse osmosis membrane seawater desalting facility. Construction designs and specifications, being done under contract, are about 15 percent

complete. A pilot plant is being constructed to test membrane filters and remote supervisory control and data acquisition. This pilot plant is scheduled to operate from

June to September 2003.

Kealakehe Wetland Treatment Facility—In 2001 the U.S. Geological Survey and

Bureau of Reclamation published a Concept Design Summary that included a subsurface wetland pilot cell, subsurface wetland and lagoon, and free water surface

wetland. Since then the two agencies have completed a design and specification for

the pilot cell and will complete a design for the full wetland by the end of the year.

Alterations of the treatment plant and conveyance facilities are being designed

under contract.

Lahaina Reclaimed Water Distribution System—The County is developing a recycling master plan that will include the feasibility of the Lahaina distribution system. This plan is scheduled for completion by the end of 2003.

Question 2. The authorizing language does not provide estimates of funding. Do

you have estimates of the funding needed for:

a) Developing seawater desalination on Oahu?

Answer. The estimated cost of the Title 16 portion of the Kalaeloa Desalting Plant

is $40 million.

b) Solving the effluent discharge problems at the Kealakehe wastewater treatment plant?

Answer. The cost of this project is estimated at $16 million.

c) Extending the Maui recycled water pipeline to Lahaina?

Answer. The distribution system at Lahaina is estimated to cost $4.5 million.

RESPONSES OF DR. CHING TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR MURKOWSKI

S. 960, THE HAWAII WATER RESOURCES ACT

Question 1. The bill authorizes ‘‘such sums as may be necessary’’ to undertake

these three water projects. What is the estimated price tag for these projects?

Answer:

ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS

KALAELOA

2 Basal & 2 Caprock Exploratory wells .................................................... $1,600,000

Design .......................................................................................................... $3,571,500

EIS $285,000.

Pilot Plant $884,700.

Design, Surveys, Permits $2,401,800.

Construction (5 mgd @ $8/gallon) $40,000,000

Total .................................................................................................. $45,171,500

40

KEALAKEHE

Storage reservoir and distribution main .................................................. $3,000,000

Upgrade to R-1 (tertiary) treatment ......................................................... $3,000,000

Distribution System with hike/bike trails ................................................ $1,000,000

Subsurface Wetland Pilot Cell ................................................................... $610,000

Subsurface Wetlands and Lagoon ............................................................. $5,600,000

Free Water Suface Wetlands ..................................................................... $2,600,000

Total .................................................................................................. $15,810,000

LAHAINA

Booster Station: $1,125,000 ....................................................................... $1,125,000

4.500’ of 15’’ pipe line @ $250/ft ................................................................ $1,125,000

1 MG tank @ $1.25/gallon .......................................................................... $1,125,000

Modify tail outlet @ Kaanapali Golf Course pond ................................... $25,000

Misc. laterals and meters; 7 @ $5,000/lateral .......................................... $35,000

SCADA control system modifications ....................................................... $25,000

Land acquisition ......................................................................................... $1,000,000

Total .................................................................................................. $4,460,000

GRAND TOTAL ............................................................................... $65,441,500

Question 2. Have feasibility or engineering designs been developed for each proposed project?

Answer. Kalaeloa—In June 2000, the Board of Water of Supply conducted an engineering feasibility study; the design construction plans and specifications are approximately 15 percent completed.

Kealakehe—A master reuse plan and environmental assessment have been prepared. Preliminary design of wetlands has also been completed. The Bureau of Reclamation has done all the preliminary engineering and design for the project and

the County has an memorandum of understanding with the Bureau pertaining to

this project.

Lahaina—A recycled water master plan is currently being developed for West

Maui. A feasibility analysis is part of this master plan development.

Question 3. What, if any, environmental impacts will result from the construction

of the three proposed projects?

Answer. Kalaeloa—Realization of the project will diversify and supplement potable water sources and will enable water supplies to be consistent with rapid population growth in this part of Oahu. In short, this project will enable the Board of

Water Supply to maintain water use rates below potable water recharge rates.

Kealakehe—The environmental assessment for the master reuse plan concludes

that there will be no significant impact. An amended environmental assessment

needs to be prepared for the wetlands. It is anticipated, however, that realization

of the wetlands will reduce the risk of coastal water contamination, transform the

recycled water from a disposal liability to a resource asset, capable of irrigating

parks, playgrounds, highway landscaping and agricultural activities. In addition,

the wetlands will postpone the need to develop new potable water sources in the

area and provide additional landscaping and recreational opportunities for the public.

Lahaina—The environmental impacts will be positive. Potable water use will decrease with increased recycled water use. There will be less reliance on the potable

water wells in the area, which will improve water quality (less chlorides), increase

the water table level and extend the life of the wells. In addition, the current use

of injection wells for effluent disposal at the Lahaina facility will decrease. The Environmental Protection Agency has expressed some concern that injection wells may

contribute nutrients to coastal waters, which may result in seaweed blooms. Decreased injection well usage addresses this concern.

Question 4. What is the status of the study to assess statewide water resource

issues? How much federal money has been appropriated to date for this effort? How

much state funds have been appropriated to date?

Answer. This study, mandated in the Hawaii Resources Act of 2000 is underway

and scheduled for completion in September 2003. The Congress appropriated

$300,000 for federal fiscal year 2002 for this purpose. The Hawaii State Legislature

provided $300,000. The Hawaii Department of Agriculture is the coordinating entity

charged with overseeing completion of this work.

(41)

APPENDIX II

Additional Material Submitted for the Record

STATE OF HAWAII,

EXECUTIVE CHAMBERS,

Honolulu, HI, May 8, 2003.

Hon. LISA MURKOWSKI,

Chairperson, Subcommittee on Water and Power, Committee on Energy and Natural

Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

DEAR SENATOR MURKOWSKI: In anticipation of the May 13, 2003 hearing before

your Subcommittee on Water and Power, I am writing to ask for your support of

the Hawaii Water Resources Act of 2003 (S. 960). As you may know, the State of

Hawaii is one of the most isolated landmasses on the planet. We rely entirely on

rainfall to recharge our ground water aquifers and supply our streams. Fresh water

is the most important natural resource in our State and it is imperative that beyond

conservation, we explore other ways of meeting our water needs.

While each of our County Water Departments has implemented water conservation efforts, we are still facing potential water shortages in highly developed areas

of the State. I am very interested in finding alternative means to augment our

water supply to meet our State’s increasing water demands. There are several county projects in the planning stages that will utilize seawater desalination and wastewater recycling technologies as means to augment our limited resources. Successful

passage of S. 960, giving authorization for the Secretary of the Interior to participate in reclamation projects in Hawaii, would be a significant step in helping us

reach our goals.

I would like to briefly remark upon the importance of each of the three reclamation projects included in the language of S. 960: (1) The desalination project in

Kalaeloa, Oahu will help the Honolulu Board of Water Supply meet potable water

demand beyond the year 2020 (current demand projections show the island of Oahu

reaching its water supply limit in 2020); (2) the wastewater-recycling project in

Kealakehe, Hawaii will allow Hawaii County’s Department of Environmental Management utilize recycled wastewater for environmental purposes to provide a wetland habitat on the island of Hawaii; and (3) the recycled water distribution project

in Lahaina, Maui will enable Maui’s Wastewater Division to increase the use and

delivery of recycled water to areas with increasing non-potable water demand.

Hawaii faces many difficult water resource challenges as our demand for water

increases. As Governor of our beautiful state, I strongly believe that every effort

must be made to conserve our water resources for future generations, while seeking

alternatives to meet our current and future water demands. It is with these goals

in mind that I request your support for S. 960. If you have any questions or need

more information, please contact Mr. Ernest Lau, Deputy Director, Hawaii Commission on Water Resource Management at (808) 587-0214.

Sincerely,

LINDA LINGLE,

Governor.

42

BOARD OF WATER SUPPLY,

CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU,

Honolulu, HI, May 8, 2003.

Hon. LISA MURKOWSKI,

Chairperson, Subcommittee on Water and Power, Committee on Energy and Natural

Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Subject: Senate Bill S.960, to Amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater

Study and Facilities Act and the Hawaii Water Resources Act of 2000

DEAR CHAIR MURKOWSKI: Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony in

support of Senate Bill (SB) S. 960, the Hawaii Water Resources Act of 2003.

The Board of Water Supply (BWS), City and County of Honolulu, humbly requests

your assistance in passing S.960 to amend the Reclamation Wastewater and

Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to authorize a seawater desalination and two

wastewater reclamation projects in the State of Hawaii, and to amend the Hawaii

Water Resources Act of 2000 to modify the water resources study.

Through this bill, the BWS is seeking cooperative funding for the construction of

a 5.0 million gallon per day seawater desalination facility for direct potable use

within the Ewa district of Oahu, Hawaii.

The Ewa district is designated as the secondary urban center for Oahu and is a

master planned community of residential, commercial and industrial developments.

The population in Ewa is expected to increase by 70 percent over the next 20 years.

As an island, Oahu’s natural water resources are limited. To provide a truly sustainable supply of safe drinking water and to insure the long-term protection of the

environment, the BWS must leverage innovative technology like desalination. The

future of our State depends on our ability to support Oahu’s growing population and

economy while enhancing the natural beauty of our islands and the quality of life

of our communities.

We are all touched by periods of extended drought, and Oahu is no different. We

have just experienced five years of low rainfall and as an island, we have few alternatives. Importing water from a neighboring state is not an option, and yet, we are

surrounded by a huge resource in the Pacific Ocean. Seawater desalination is our

future, and we urge the support of Congress to help Oahu meet our drinking water

needs for future generations.

Thank you for your consideration and support of Senate Bill S. 960.

Very truly yours,

CLIFFORD S. JAMILE,

Manager and Chief Engineer.

STATEMENT OF TOM BRIAN, CHAIRMAN OF CLEAN WATER SERVICES BOARD OF

DIRECTORS, ON BEHALF OF WATER SUPPLY FEASIBILITY STUDY PARTNERS

Chairwoman Murkowski, thank you for the opportunity to provide you with testimony in support of S. 625, a bill to authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to conduct

certain feasibility studies in the Tualatin River Basin in Washington County, Oregon. My name is Tom Brian, Chairman of the Washington County Board of Commissioners and Chairman of Clean Water Services’ Board of Directors. This testimony is submitted on behalf of Washington County, Clean Water Services, the Cities of Banks, Beaverton, Cornelius, Forest Grove, Hillsboro, North Plains, Sherwood,

Tigard, and Tualatin, as well as the Tualatin Valley Water District. All these are

collectively known as the Tualatin Basin Water Supply Partnership.

I would first like to take this opportunity to thank our Senators, Mr. Gordon

Smith and Mr. Ron Wyden for their leadership in this matter and other matters

of importance to the State of Oregon and its citizens. As the sponsors of S. 625, they

are attempting to help prevent serious water shortages that could become critical

in just a few years. The Tualatin Basin has an increasing demand for Municipal

and Industrial water, Agricultural water and water for Environmental applications.

With their efforts, and your support, we can avoid the unfortunate shortages impacting other basins in the northwest.

Washington County, Oregon has a population exceeding 470,000 people. Since

1987, the number of jobs in the County has doubled to approximately 220,000. Our

population has doubled since 1990. Washington County is truly the economic engine

that drives the rest of the State of Oregon. Washington County is home to the ‘‘Silicon Forest’’ where companies such as Intel, NEC, Tektronix and Lattice have a

major presence. These high tech industries and other businesses need clean, reliable

and plentiful water; that is one of the reasons they came to Oregon and the population growth has followed.

43

Washington County and the Tualatin River Watershed also have a large agriculture industry (approximately 27,000 acres of irrigated farmland) and a rapidly

growing nursery stock business continues to expand in our area. With $214 million

in gross farm sales, Washington County recently moved from being ranked fifth to

third in the State. The nursery industry has become Oregon’s number one agricultural commodity, located in large part in Washington County. This industry, too, is

a large user of water.

Water suppliers will be unable to meet public water supply needs unless additional sources are available by 2012. The Tualatin River, fed by a network of creeks

that drain over 700 square miles, is Washington County’s only river. Nearly 80

miles in length, the Tualatin River begins in the Coast Range and meander through

forest, farm and city to its confluence with the Willamette River at the city of West

Linn, Oregon. The watershed does not have a snow pack to sustain summer river

flows.

Investments in wastewater treatment during the past three decades have resulted

in the Tualatin River being healthier than it has been in generations. However, it

still remains identified as ‘‘water quality limited’’ according to the Clean Water Act.

Efforts must be made now to improve the environmental health of the watershed

to ensure its future economic vitality. Two fish species on the Tualatin River, Spring

Chinook and steelhead are listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act.

Restoration of fish habitat will require more water. Expanding the Westside water

source is critical to the reliability and security of the Portland Metropolitan Region

water supply system.

With all these competing needs for water, it is no wonder that there is not enough

to go around. As municipal, industrial, agricultural and environmental water demands grow, a solution must be found. The parties have developed an Integrated

Water Resources Management strategy as a framework to address water resources

management within the watershed. It is estimated that the demand for water in the

Tualatin Basin will double by the year 2050, which means there is the need for an

additional 50,000 acre feet of water per year.

Hagg Lake, an impoundment, which is created by Scoggins Dam on Scoggins

Creek, a Tualatin River tributary was created in 1975 and is a Bureau of Reclamation facility. Washington County, in partnership with the Bureau of Reclamation operates a County park at the lake. Water from Hagg Lake is currently used for river

flow restoration, municipal water supply, and agricultural irrigation needs in the

Tualatin River watershed.

The water resource agencies in Washington County and the Bureau of Reclamation have been working collaboratively to meet the long-term water resource needs

for all the competing interests. In fact, the partners and the Bureau of Reclamation

signed a Memorandum of Agreement on March 12, 2002, which defined the roles

and commitments of the parties in conducting the Study. The parties have developed an integrated water resource management strategy that has resulted in the

Tualatin Basin Water Supply Feasibility Study (WSFS). The WSFS will study the

impacts and benefits of a range of source options for 50,000 acre feet of needed

water and select a preferred alternative as part of an EIS.

It is estimated that the EIS/Planning Report for the Tualatin Basin Water Supply

Project will cost $6.87 million, of which our local partners are funding the majority,

$3.8 million. We are in need of $2.9 million from the Bureau of Reclamation. The

Bureau has been requesting small amounts of federal funds for the past number of

years, but we need to move the Study along at a quicker pace. What the EIS and

Study will show is yet to be determined, however, a number of alternatives are already being discussed. These include: expansion of Hagg Lake by raising Scoggins

Dam either 40 or 20 feet; transfer of Willamette River water for irrigation; expand

aquifer storage systems; increased conservation; and, expanded reuse of cleaned

wastewater for irrigation. In combination with an extensive public involvement

process, the intent of the Study is to determine the feasibility of these options and

determine which or which combination is best to solve the issues facing the Basin.

It is our plan that we continue on with the timetable set forth by the project partners. We hope to complete the Study by December 2004. Based on the study’s findings, we anticipate beginning the permitting requirements in January 2005, with

final design in January 2006 and construction in January, 2007. We hope to complete construction of the selected alternative in June 2010. This is an ambitious

schedule, we know, but it is one that is necessary to meet the projected water needs

of this diverse and rapidly growing community. To accomplish this timetable, we

need this authorization and federal funding in the amount of $2.9 million in fiscal

year 2004 and we seek your committee’s approval of S. 625.

Thank you again for the opportunity to submit testimony regarding this important matter in the Tualatin Basin, Oregon. We have enjoyed a great working relaVerDate 11-SEP-98 14:58 Jul 09, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\88-129 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
44

tionship with our partners at Scoggins Dam, the Bureau of Reclamation, and we expect this relationship to continue as we move forward. We at Clean Water Services

are available at anytime if you, your staff or committee members would like further

information.

RESOLUTION NO. 2002-14

FREMONT-MADISON IRRIGATION DISTRICT TITLE TRANSFER

WHEREAS, Fremont-Madison Irrigation District (Fremont-Madison) is involved

in a process to obtain the transfer of the legal title of portions of certain physical

facilities used by Fremont-Madison, namely: the Cross Cut Diversion Dam, the

Cross Cut Canal, the five (5) developed wells drilled pursuant to Idaho Water Permit 22-07022 and the assignment of said permit, all of which property rights are

presently held by the United States, Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau); and

WHEREAS, Fremont-Madison is also working with the Bureau to complete the

administrative process for the title transfer and is drafting a bill to convey the said

facilities to Fremont-Madison for introduction in the Congress of the United States;

and

WHEREAS, Fremont-Madison has controlled, managed, operated, and maintained

the said facilities with permission and direction from the Bureau at all times since

they were constructed.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Idaho Water Users Association

supports Fremont-Madison in their effort to acquire legal title from the United

States to the Cross Cut Division Dam, the Cross Cut Canal, the five (5) wells developed under Permit 22-07022, together with the right to further develop wells under

Permit 22-07022, but only pursuant to a plan which mitigates for injury of all irrigation water users and which is approved by the Idaho Department of Water Resources.

ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA WATER AGENCIES,

Sacramento, CA, May 12, 2003.

Hon. GORDON SMITH,

U.S. Senate, Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.

Re: Support of the Small Reclamation Water Resources Project Act of 2003 (S. 993)

DEAR SENATOR SMITH: The Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) supports your Small Reclamation Water Resources Project Act of 2003 (S. 993). As you

know, ACWA represents over 440 water districts throughout the state who collectively deliver over 90 percent of California’s agricultural, residential and industrial

water supplies. Passage of this legislation will greatly aid in the development and

expansion of local water programs in California and the other Reclamation states.

ACWA supports this legislation because the grants and loans it makes available

to agencies allows them to develop projects that promote efficient water use, develop

new water supplies, and enhance the environment within their service areas. This

program promotes state and local participation in small Reclamation projects that

will provide local benefits.

ACWA is pleased to support S. 993 and appreciates your leadership on Western

water issues.

Sincerely,

DAVID L. REYNOLDS,

Director of Federal Relations.

IDAHO WATER USERS ASSOCIATION, INC.,

Boise, ID, May 12, 2003.

Water and Power Subcommittee, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee,

Senate Dirksen Office Building, Washington, DC.

Re: S. 520—Fremont Madison Conveyance Act

DEAR MADAM CHAIRWOMAN: This letter is provided on behalf of the Idaho Water

Users Association (IWUA) in support of S. 520, the Fremont-Madison Conveyance

Act. IWUA represents more than 300 irrigation districts, canal companies, ground

water districts, water districts, municipalities, public water suppliers, hydropower

interests, aquaculture companies, agri-businesses, professional firms and individuals, all dedicated to the wise and efficient development and use of our water reVerDate 11-SEP-98 14:58 Jul 09, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 J:\DOCS\88-129 SENERGY3 PsN: SENERGY3
45

sources. IWUA members deliver water to approximately 2.5 million acres of irrigated land. IWUA is affiliated with the National Water Resources Association and

the Family Farm Alliance. IWUA is proud to count Fremont-Madison Irrigation District among its members.

IWUA has strongly supported title transfer legislation for its members, including

Burley Irrigation District and Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District. Both of these

bills became law. We commend Idaho Senators Larry Craig and Mike Crapo for introducing S. 520 and urge your subcommittee to favorably consider the legislation.

IWUA adopted the attached resolution at is Annual Conference in January 2003,

expressing support for Fremont-Madison Irrigation District’s title transfer. We request that this letter of support and IWUA’s resolution by included in the official

hearing record of the subcommittee. Thank you.

Sincerely,

NORMAN M. SEMANKO,

Executive Director & General Counsel.

Æ