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

86-198 PS 2003

H.R. 135, H.R. 495, H.R. 901 and

H.R. 1284

LEGISLATIVE HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

Tuesday, April 1, 2003

Serial No. 108-12

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house

or

Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov

(II)

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

RICHARD W. POMBO, California, Chairman

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member

Don Young, Alaska

W.J. ‘‘Billy’’ Tauzin, Louisiana

Jim Saxton, New Jersey

Elton Gallegly, California

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee

Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland

Ken Calvert, California

Scott McInnis, Colorado

Barbara Cubin, Wyoming

George Radanovich, California

Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Carolina

Chris Cannon, Utah

John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania

Jim Gibbons, Nevada,

Vice Chairman

Mark E. Souder, Indiana

Greg Walden, Oregon

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado

J.D. Hayworth, Arizona

Tom Osborne, Nebraska

Jeff Flake, Arizona

Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana

Rick Renzi, Arizona

Tom Cole, Oklahoma

Stevan Pearce, New Mexico

Rob Bishop, Utah

Devin Nunes, California

VACANCY

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey

Calvin M. Dooley, California

Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands

Ron Kind, Wisconsin

Jay Inslee, Washington

Grace F. Napolitano, California

Tom Udall, New Mexico

Mark Udall, Colorado

Anı ́bal Acevedo-Vila ́, Puerto Rico

Brad Carson, Oklahoma

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona

Dennis A. Cardoza, California

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam

George Miller, California

Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts

Rube ́n Hinojosa, Texas

Ciro D. Rodriguez, Texas

Joe Baca, California

Betty McCollum, Minnesota

Steven J. Ding, Chief of Staff

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel

James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director

Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER

KEN CALVERT, California, Chairman

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California, Ranking Democrat Member

George Radanovich, California

Greg Walden, Oregon

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado

J.D. Hayworth, Arizona

Tom Osborne, Nebraska

Rick Renzi, Arizona

Stevan Pearce, New Mexico

Devin Nunes, California

Richard W. Pombo, California, ex officio

Calvin M. Dooley, California

Jay Inslee, Washington

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona

Dennis A. Cardoza, California

George Miller, California

Ciro D. Rodriguez, Texas

Joe Baca, California

Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia, ex officio

(III)

CONTENTS

Page

Hearing held on April 1, 2003 ................................................................................ 1

Statement of Members:

Calvert, Hon. Ken, a Representative in Congress from the State of

California ....................................................................................................... 2

Prepared statement on H.R. 135, H.R. 495, H.R. 901, and

H.R. 1284 ............................................................................................... 2

Doolittle, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the State of

California ....................................................................................................... 8

Prepared statement on H.R. 901 ............................................................. 9

Hayworth, Hon. J.D., a Representative in Congress from the State of

Arizona, Prepared statement on H.R. 495 ................................................. 108

Linder, Hon. John, a Representative in Congress from the State of

Georgia ........................................................................................................... 3

Prepared statement on H.R. 135 ............................................................. 5

Napolitano, Hon. Grace F., a Representative in Congress from the State

of California ................................................................................................... 13

Ose, Hon. Doug, a Representative in Congress from the State of

California ....................................................................................................... 7

Prepared statement on H.R. 901 ............................................................. 8

Sacramento Bee letter submitted for the record ..................................... 72

Renzi, Hon. Rick, a Representative in Congress from the State of Arizona 14

Prepared statement on H.R. 495 ............................................................. 14

Solis, Hon. Hilda L., a Representative in Congress from the State of

California ....................................................................................................... 11

Prepared statement on H.R. 1284 ........................................................... 12

Statement of Witnesses:

Eriacho, Wilfred, Sr., Chairperson, Zuni Indian Tribe Water Rights

Negotiation Team .......................................................................................... 87

Prepared statement on H.R. 495 ............................................................. 89

Gleick, Dr. Peter H., President, Pacific Institute .......................................... 76

Prepared statement on H.R. 135 ............................................................. 78

Keys, Hon. John W., III, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S.

Department of the Interior ........................................................................... 21

Prepared statement on H.R. 135 ............................................................. 27

Prepared statement on H.R. 901 ............................................................. 22

Prepared statement on H.R. 1284 ........................................................... 25

Lujan, George, South El Monte, California .................................................... 96

Prepared statement on H.R. 1284 ........................................................... 101

Lynch, Robert S., Attorney at Law, Robert S. Lynch & Associates,

Phoenix, Arizona ........................................................................................... 84

Prepared statement on H.R. 135 ............................................................. 85

Niello, Roger, Sacramento County Supervisor ............................................... 64

Prepared statement on H.R. 901 ............................................................. 66

Roder, Aileen, Program Director, Taxpayers for Common Sense ................. 58

Prepared statement on H.R. 901 ............................................................. 59

Rosier, Theresa, Counselor to the Assistant Secretary, Indian Affairs,

U.S. Department of the Interior .................................................................. 29

Prepared statement on H.R. 495 ............................................................. 30

Starsky, Jeffrey, Councilman, City of Folsom, California ............................. 52

Prepared statement on H.R. 901 ............................................................. 54

Whitehead, Michael, Director, San Gabriel Basin Water Quality

Authority ....................................................................................................... 94

Prepared statement on H.R. 1284 ........................................................... 95

Page

IV

Additional materials supplied:

Association of California Water Agencies, Statement submitted for the

record on H.R. 135 ....................................................................................... 108

Donnelly, Thomas F., Executive Vice President, National Water

Resources Association, Statement submitted for the record on

H.R. 135 ........................................................................................................ 3

Felix, Lawrence C., Vice President, Cardinal Industrial Finishes, Letter

submitted for the record on H.R. 1284 ....................................................... 98

Figueroa, Blanca, Mayor, City of South El Monte, California, Letter

submitted for the record on H.R. 1284 ....................................................... 39

Iriarte, Philip L., City Manager, City of Industry, California, Letter

submitted for the record on H.R. 1284 ....................................................... 35

Miklos, Hon. Steve, Mayor, City of Folsom, California, Statement

submitted for the record on H.R. 901 ......................................................... 50

Wallach, Patricia A., Councilwoman, City of El Monte, California, Letter

submitted for the record on H.R. 1284 ....................................................... 37

(1)

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 135, TO

ESTABLISH THE ‘‘TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY

WATER COMMISSION’’ TO STUDY AND

DEVELOP RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A COMPREHENSIVE WATER STRATEGY TO

ADDRESS FUTURE WATER NEEDS; H.R. 495,

TO APPROVE THE SETTLEMENT OF THE

WATER RIGHTS CLAIM OF THE ZUNI

INDIAN TRIBE IN APACHE COUNTY,

ARIZONA, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES;

H.R. 901, TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY

OF THE INTERIOR TO CONSTRUCT A

BRIDGE ON FEDERAL LAND WEST AND ADJACENT TO FOLSOM DAM IN CALIFORNIA,

AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; AND H.R. 1284,

TO AMEND THE RECLAMATION PROJECTS

AUTHORIZATION AND ADJUSTMENT ACT OF

1992 TO INCREASE THE FEDERAL SHARE OF

THE COSTS OF THE SAN GABRIEL BASIN

DEMONSTRATION PROJECT.

Tuesday, April 1, 2003

U.S. House of Representatives

Subcommittee on Water and Power

Committee on Resources

Washington, DC

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:04 p.m., in room

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Ken Calvert [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

Present: Representatives Calvert, Tancredo, Hayworth, Osborne,

Renzi, Pearce, Nunes, Napolitano, Inslee, Grijalva, Rodriguez and

Baca.

Also Present: Representative Ose.

Mr. CALVERT. The Subcommittee on Water and Power will come

to order.

2

The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on

H.R. 135, H.R. 495, H.R. 901, and H.R. 1284. Under Committee

Rule 4(g), the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member can make

opening statements.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. KEN CALVERT, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. CALVERT. Our Subcommittee continues to pursue balanced

and integrated water management approaches for growing and

competing water uses. Today, we will focus our attention on four

bills that make existing water supplies go further, improve the dependability and security of the water infrastructure for long-term

use, and promote cooperative efforts to implement best water management practices.

H.R. 1284, introduced by the distinguished Ranking Member,

Mrs. Napolitano, increases the Federal share of the cost of the San

Gabriel Basin Demonstration Project in California. H.R. 495, authored by our distinguished Arizona colleague, Mr. Renzi, approves

the settlement of longstanding water rights claims of the Zuni Indian Tribe, the State of Arizona, and local water and power users.

In response to a Federal decision to close a road over a Federal

facility that has severely impacted local communities and thousands of commuters, H.R. 901 authorizes the Secretary of Interior

to construct a bridge on Federal land near Folsom Dam in California to enhance the security of the dam and the reservoir. And

H.R. 135 establishes a commission to develop recommendations for

a comprehensive, long-term national water strategy.

These bills attempt to find common sense solutions to the many

problems facing our communities. I thank our witnesses for coming

here today, and look forward to hearing from them on these important bills.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Calvert follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Ken Calvert, Chairman, Subcommittee on

Water and Power, on H.R. 135, H.R. 495, H.R. 901, and H.R. 1284

Our Subcommittee continues to pursue balanced and integrated water management approaches for growing and competing water uses. Today, we will focus our

attention on four bills that make existing water supplies go further, improve the dependability and security of the water infrastructure for long-term use, and promote

cooperative efforts to implement best water management practices.

H.R. 1284, introduced by the distinguished Ranking Member, Mrs. Napolitano,

increases the Federal share of the costs of the San Gabriel Basin demonstration

project in California.

H.R. 495, authored by our distinguished Arizona colleague, Mr. Renzi, approves

the settlement of longstanding water rights claims of the Zuni Indian Tribe, the

State of Arizona, and local water and power users.

In response to a Federal decision to close a road over a Federal facility that has

severely impacted local communities and thousands of commuters, H.R. 901 authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to construct a bridge on Federal land near Folsom

Dam in California to enhance the security of the dam and the reservoir.

And H.R. 135 establishes a commission to develop recommendations for a comprehensive, long term national water strategy.

These bills attempt to find common sense solutions to the many problems facing

our communities. I thank our witnesses for coming here today, and look forward to

hearing from them on these important bills.

Mr. CALVERT. Mrs. Napolitano is going to be here shortly. In the

meantime, are there other members who have an opening

3

statement? With that, we will start the opening statements with

the Members who are here today, and when Mrs. Napolitano arrives, we will take time for her opening statement.

I will recognize Mr. Linder for your opening statement.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. JOHN LINDER, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA

Mr. LINDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank the

Committee and the staff for putting H.R. 135, the ‘‘21st Century

Water Commission Act of 2003’’ on the agenda of today’s hearing.

I appreciate the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee

about the value of creating a water commission to ensure the future of our Nation’s water supply well into the 21st century.

Last May, I testified before this Subcommittee on behalf of my

initial water commission bill, H.R. 3561 Since that time, my staff

and I have worked with the Chairman, his staff, and other interested parties, to create a new and improved version of this water

bill, H.R. 135.

In particular, I would like to mention two individuals who

worked closely with us on H.R. 135, Mr. Bob Lynch and Mr. Tom

Donnelly. Mr. Lynch is an attorney with extensive expertise on

water rights issues in Arizona, as well as Mr. Donnelly and the National Water Resources Council.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Donnelly follows:]

Statement of Thomas F. Donnelly, Executive Vice President,

National Water Resources Association

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, my name is Thomas F. Donnelly and

I am the Executive Vice President of the National Water Resources Association. On

behalf of the membership of the Association, it is my privilege to present testimony

on H.R. 135, a bill to establish the Twenty–First Century Water Policy Commission.

The National Water Resources Association (NWRA) is a nonprofit federation of associations and individuals dedicated to the conservation, enhancement, and efficient

management of our Nation’s most precious natural resource, WATER. The NWRA

is the oldest and most active national association concerned with water resources

policy and development. Its strength is a reflection of the tremendous ‘‘grassroots’’

participation it has generated on virtually every national issue affecting western

water conservation, management, and development.

During the last Congress, the National Water Resources Association presented

testimony in opposition to the legislation. Since that time, Mr. Lynch and I have

had the privilege of working with Congressman Linder and his staff on the proposed

mission of the Commission and its makeup. We have both been impressed with Congressman Linder’s dedication to improving the manner in which we manage our nation’s water resources and his flexibility in drafting H.R. 135. We applaud his dedication to improving the manner in which we manage our nation’s water resources

and improved Federal agency coordination.

We are pleased to announce our support of H.R. 135 and look forward to working

with Congressman Linder and the Committee on this legislation. We trust that the

Commission will keep in mind the unique hydrologic characteristics and related

needs of the arid and semi-arid West. We hope that the Commission will address

water quality and quantity problems on a regional basis.

In the West, water infrastructure is every bit as important as transportation infrastructure. It is essential to the continued economic growth and development.of

the region. Water infrastructure needs continue to exist, particularly rural water

supply. However, on the whole, the approach to meeting these needs will be quite

different from those of the past. No one envisions a future infrastructure development program and financing arrangements like the original Reclamation program,

which facilitated the development and unprecedented economic growth of the West

during much of this century. Future projects are more likely to include non-structural features, environmental enhancement, proven best management practices,

4

innovative approaches to water quality/quantity concerns and greater levels of nonFederal financing.

Following are a few of the issues we would recommend that the Commission include in its mission:

Today, many of our existing projects are beginning to show their age. It is essential that we rehabilitate these projects in a timely and cost effective manner. Currently, rehabilitation costs are handled like operation and maintenance expenses

and are required to be repaid within one year. Major rehabilitation projects can run

into the tens of millions of dollars, making them beyond the ability to repay in one

year. Reclamation’s customers are not looking for a Federal handout, simply repayment terms that allow these much needed rehabilitation projects to go forward.

An essential element, which is currently missing from the Federal planning equation, is a basin-by-basin infrastructure and programmatic needs assessment. Such

an assessment cannot be developed without the active involvement and, perhaps,

leadership of the nation’s governors, water resources professionals, and state and

local officials. We would strongly recommend that this be a primary mission of the

Commission.

Several water development projects have been authorized by the Congress but remain unfunded. These projects should be reviewed to determine if they still meet

the needs they were authorized to address. These projects should be prioritized on

a state and regional (watershed) basis and Congress should determine what project

benefits are in the Federal interest for funding purposes.

In closing, I wish to express NWRA’s appreciation for Congressman Linder’s willingness to address the concerns raised by our members and I thank the Chairman

and the Committee for this opportunity to present NWRA’s thoughts and recommendations regarding this legislation.

Mr. LINDER. These two folks made huge constructive contributions in changes in our bill, and I understand they are testifying

on behalf of the bill.

With these revisions to the bill, H.R. 135 also has support from

the Association of California Water Agencies and other water

groups.

Some of the more notable revisions included in H.R. 135 are as

follows:

A ‘‘Findings Section’’ listed in the beginning of the bill has been

added to express the sense of the Congress that the Nation’s water

resources must be utilized to their fullest capacity. This section

also states that the Congress finds a comprehensive strategy to increase our water supply vital to the economic and environmental

future of our Nation.

Another revision is that the commission will be composed of

seven members named by the President, who are of recognized

standing and distinction on water issues. The previous commission

was composed of 17 members. This smaller number will allow for

the commission to function more effectively, we think, thus increasing the likelihood that the commission’s recommendations will be

enacted.

In addition, the powers and duties of the commission have been

modified and clarified. It will now be required to submit an interim

report within 6 months of when it starts its activities, ongoing reports after that for every 6 months while it is conducting its work,

and a final report within 3 years of its inception. The commission

will also be required to hold at least ten hearings, with one hearing

being in Washington, D.C., to take testimony from Federal officials,

and other hearings in distinct geographical regions of the U.S.

seeking a diversity of views, comments and input.

The future of our Nation’s water supply is a serious and critical

issue. Many states across the Nation are currently facing a water

5

crisis, or have in the last several years. Once thought to be a problem only in the arid West, severe droughts last summer have

caused water shortages up and down the East Coast. States once

accustomed to an unlimited access to water are now experiencing

problems the West has had for decades.

I have read countless articles chronicling these crises, as no

doubt has every member of the Subcommittee. Newspaper articles

have described not only how rivers and wells are drying up all over

the country,. but also that aquifers are being challenged by salt

water intrusion, and now fish, wildlife and crops are being threatened, also. Meanwhile, projected population growth for the United

States means that water demand will continue to increase in coming years. We must develop a water strategy to meet future demands now, before full-blown water shortages hit.

Let me be clear. My bill does not give the Federal Government

more control over water. Rather, this commission will coordinate

water management efforts on all levels so that localities, states and

the Federal Government can work together to enact a comprehensive water policy to avoid future water shortages, without encroaching on state and local governments’ traditional authority

over water policy.

The 21st Century Water Commission will work to ensure an adequate supply of fresh water for U.S. citizens over the next 50 years.

It will not place increased mandates on state and local governments, and it will seek to eliminate conflict and duplication among

governmental agencies. Most importantly, it will reduce the

bureaucratic red tape many local communities face when trying to

build water reservoirs and other infrastructure needs.

The bill will also consider all available technologies for increasing water supply efficiently while safeguarding the environment,

recommending means of capturing excess water for future

droughts, suggesting financing options for public works projects,

and will fully respect the primary role of states in adjudicating, administering, and regulating water rights and uses.

The United States and its resources have changed dramatically

over the past three decades. We simply cannot afford to maintain

the status quo with something as critical as our Nation’s fresh

water supply. It is time to get ahead of this issue, rather than stay

‘‘behind the curve’’ as Congress does far too often.

Providing all Americans with fresh water is a matter of life and

death, and I hope that the Committee will support my objective of

ensuring an adequate and dependable water supply of fresh water

for all Americans throughout the 21st century.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be happy to take any questions,

should you have some.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Linder follows:]

Statement of The Honorable John Linder, a Representative in Congress

from the State of Georgia

I wish to thank Chairman Calvert, Ranking Member Napolitano, and the other

distinguished members of the Subcommittee on Water and Power for putting

H.R. 135, the ‘‘21st Century Water Commission Act of 2003,’’ on the agenda of today’s hearing. I appreciate having the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee about the value of creating a water commission to ensure the future of

our nation’s water supply well into the 21st century.

6

Last May, I testified before this Subcommittee on behalf of my initial water commission bill, H.R. 3561. Since that time, my staff and I have worked with Chairman

Calvert, his staff, and other interested parties, to create a new and improved

version of this water bill, H.R. 135.

In particular, two individuals I have worked closely with on H.R. 135 are Mr. Bob

Lynch and Mr. Tom Donnelly. Mr. Lynch, an attorney with extensive expertise on

water rights issues in Arizona, as well as Mr. Donnelly and the National Water Resources Council, are two notable authorities on water issues who testified on

H.R. 3561 last year, and offered constructive suggestions on ways to improve the

bill. I understand that today they will testify in support of H.R. 135.

With these revisions to the bill, H.R. 135, also has support from the Association

of California Water Agencies (ACWA), and other water groups.

Some of the more notable revisions included in H.R. 135 are as follows:

• A ‘‘Findings Section’’ listed in the beginning of the bill, has been added to express the sense of the Congress that the nation’s water resources must be utilized to their fullest capacity. This section also states that the Congress finds

a comprehensive strategy to increase our water supply vital to the economic and

environmental future of our nation.

• Another revision is that the commission will now be composed of seven members named by the President, who are of recognized standing and distinction on

water issues. The previous commission was composed of 17 members. This

smaller number will allow for the commission to function more effectively, thus

increasing the likelihood that the commission’s recommendations will be enacted.

• In addition, the powers and duties of the commission have been modified and

clarified. It will now be required to submit an interim report within six months

of when it starts its activities, ongoing reports after that for every six months

while it is conducting its work, and a final report within three years of its inception. The commission will also be required to hold at least 10 hearings, with

one hearing in Washington, D.C., to take testimony from Federal officials, and

other hearings in distinct geographical regions of the U.S. seeking a diversity

of views, comments, and input.

The future of our nation’s water supply is a serious and critical issue. Many states

across the nation are currently facing a water crisis, or have in the last few years.

Once thought to be a problem only in the arid West, severe droughts last summer

have caused water shortages up and down the East Coast. States once accustomed

to an unlimited access to water are now experiencing problems the West has had

for decades.

I have read countless articles chronicling these crises, as, no doubt has every

Member of the Subcommittee. Newspaper articles have described not only how rivers and wells are drying up all over the country, but also that aquifers are being

challenged by salt water intrusion. And, now fish, wildlife, and crops are being

threatened, too. Meanwhile, projected population growth for the United States

means that water demand will continue to increase in coming years. We must develop a water strategy to meet future demands now, before full-blown water shortages hit.

Let me be clear. My bill does not give the Federal Government more control over

water. Rather, this commission will coordinate water management efforts on all levels so that localities, states and the Federal Government can work together to enact

a comprehensive water policy to avoid future water shortages—without encroaching

on state and local governments’ traditional authority over water policy.

The 21st Century Water Commission will work to ensure an adequate supply of

fresh water for U.S. citizens over the next 50 years. It will not place increased mandates on state and local governments, and it will seek to eliminate conflict and duplication among governmental agencies. Most importantly, it will reduce the bureaucratic red tape many local communities face when trying to build water reservoirs

and other infrastructure needs.

The bill will also consider all available technologies for increasing water supply

efficiently while safeguarding the environment, recommending means of capturing

excess water for future droughts, suggesting financing options for public works

projects, and will fully respect the primary role of States in adjudicating, administering, and regulating water rights and uses.

The United States and its resources have changed dramatically over the past

three decades. We simply cannot afford to maintain the status quo with something

as critical as our nation’s fresh water supply. It is time to get ahead of this issue,

rather than stay ‘‘behind the curve’’ as Congress does far too often.

7

Providing all Americans with fresh water is a matter of life and death, and I hope

that the Committee will support my objective of ensuring an adequate and dependable water supply of fresh water for all Americans throughout the 21st Century.

Thank you. I’ll be happy to answer any questions Subcommittee Members may

have.

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman.

Why don’t we go ahead and get the opening statements of all the

Members who are here present, and then we’ll ask questions. That

way we will be able to free all of you up to go about doing your

business.

With that, Mr. Doolittle, you’re recognized.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, could I request that the primary

sponsor of this bill go first?

Mr. CALVERT. Without objection.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DOUG OSE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. OSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the Member from

the district next door.

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee,

thank you for providing this opportunity to testify today and provide the Committee another opportunity to consider a new American River crossing downstream from the Folsom Dam. Today I ask

that you support H.R. 901, authorizing the Bureau of Reclamation

to construct a new bridge on Federal land west of and adjacent to

the Folsom Dam.

It gives me little satisfaction to appear before you on this matter.

As you may recall, Congressman Doolittle and I proposed in June,

2001, that the Bureau of Reclamation be authorized to commence

with the construction of a replacement arterial carrying traffic from

one side of Folsom Dam to the other. Since then, our concerns

about the security of the dam itself have been recognized by various bodies. The most recent of which is the Defense Threat Reduction Agency and the Bureau of Reclamation, which has moved unilaterally to close the road. I share the concern that priority must

be given to issues of homeland security.

The consequence of the closure has been that up to 18,000 cars

per day that were using the road atop Folsom Dam are now impacting the streets and neighborhoods of the surrounding community. The city of Folsom is incurring significant unanticipated expenses in handling the traffic safety issues because of the actions

of the Bureau in closing the Road. These added costs are directly

related to the homeland security issue identified by the Defense

Threat Reduction Agency and acted upon by the Bureau, to wit, the

closure of the road.

It is noteworthy to mention that in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, on page A-12, White House Office of Management and Budget

Director Mitch Daniels is quoted as saying that relieving air carriers of their increased security costs ‘‘could have a certain logic to

it.’’ I think you will see that in the supplemental we’re going to

look at at the end of this week.

You may hear today the same arguments that were put forth last

time around that the Bureau doesn’t build bridges. I have in my

pocket a list of at least 17 bridges that the Bureau has built since

8

1970. Having come from a construction background, it would seem

that if you estimate construction time for a bridge at about 2 years,

start to finish, then the Bureau has, in fact, been in the bridge construction business since I entered high school.

Mr. Chairman, this is an issue of homeland security that is adversely affecting a number of communities across multiple congressional districts. Given these facts and the history of the Bureau, I

urge that the Committee favorably report H.R. 901 to the full

Committee.

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to testify today. I

would be happy to answer any questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ose follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Doug Ose, a Representative in Congress from

the State of California, on H.R. 901

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, thank you for

providing this opportunity to testify today and provide the Committee another opportunity to consider a new American River crossing downstream from the Folsom

Dam. Today, I ask that you support H.R. 901, authorizing the Bureau of Reclamation to construct a new bridge on Federal land west of and adjacent to the Folsom

Dam.

If gives me little satisfaction to appear before you on this matter. As you will recall, Congressman Doolittle and I proposed in June, 2001, that the Bureau of Reclamation be authorized to commence with the construction of a replacement arterial

carrying traffic from one side of the Folsom Dam to the other. Since then, our concerns about the security of the dam itself have been recognized by various bodies.

The most recent of which is the Defense Threat Reduction Agency and the Bureau

of Reclamation has moved unilaterally to close the road. I share the concern that

priority must be given to issues of homeland security.

The consequence of the closure has been that up to 18,000 cars per day that were

using the road atop Folsom Dam are now impacting the streets and neighborhoods

of the surrounding community. The City of Folsom is incurring significant unanticipated expenses in handling the traffic safety issues because of the actions of the Bureau in closing the road. These added costs are directly related to the homeland security issue identified by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency and acted upon by

the Bureau. It is noteworthy to mention that in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, on

Page A–12, White House Office of Management and Budget Director Mitch Daniels

is quoted as saying that relieving air carriers of their increases security costs ‘‘could

have a certain logic to it.’’

You may hear today the same arguments that were put forth last around that

the Bureau doesn’t build bridges. I have in my pocket a list of at least seventeen

bridges that the Bureau has built since 1970. Having come from a construction

background, it would seem that if you estimate construction time for a bridge at

about two years, start to finish, then the Bureau has in fact been in the bridge construction business since I entered high school.

Mr. Chairman, this is an issue of homeland security that is adversely affecting

a number of communities across multiple congressional districts. Given these facts

and the history of the Bureau, I urge that the Committee favorably report H.R. 901

to the full Committee.

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to testify today.

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Doolittle.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman and members, thank you very

much. It’s just about a year ago that we were here, as Mr. Ose

pointed out, seeking essentially the same relief that we seek today.

9

This Subcommittee at that time was gracious enough to grant it to

us.

All that has changed now, Mr. Chairman, since a year ago is

that, in a rather precipitous decision, with basically 1 week’s notice, the Bureau of Reclamation announced that it was closing permanently access across Folsom Dam, access which had been relied

upon for nearly 50 years by the city of Folsom. The city of Folsom

straddles both sides of the American River. Until 3 years ago, there

were only two bridge crossings that ran through there. One was,

of course, the Folsom Dam, which we talked about, and the other

was the Rainbow Bridge.

Because of the concerns the city had for the amount of growth

and making sure that, since occasionally the road over the dam

could be closed for maintenance and so forth, they felt that in order

to ensure appropriate access for emergency vehicles, et cetera, that

serve both sides of the community, that a new bridge was needed.

I think it’s very significant that this community, which is not all

that large—it’s a city of about 50,000—funded entirely with no cost

sharing of any kind the construction of a brand new bridge at a

cost of $75 million. So there were then three crossings over the

American River that linked the two halves of the city of Folsom.

Since the 1995 bombing in Oklahoma City, the Federal Government has been concerned about certain key structures, and Folsom

Dam has been one of those. That is why Mr. Ose and I introduced

legislation last year to address this problem. We knew that with

the change in circumstances, circumstances that really didn’t exist

back in the 1950’s when the dam was built, that it was now to be

considered a terrorist target. And since this dam is the main source

of flood protection for the city of Sacramento downstream, and

since that dam and reservoir are a vital part of the California Central Valley project, which provides water for families, fish and

farmers, which provides water to assist with the Sacramento San

Joaquin Delta situation, and the power plant of the dam generates

a huge amount of power for the local region, this has become a

very, very sensitive area.

The Bureau of Reclamation decided to close the road out of safety

concerns for the dam as a target. We wish we would have had more

notice over that because this has caused a real congestion nightmare for Folsom and for the people of this region. My district adjoins Mr. Ose’s, and until the road was closed, there were 18,000

trips a day over this road. These people are now having to find

other ways to cross the river. That means there is a tremendous

amount of congestion on the two remaining bridges.

For that reason, we seek passage of this bill and your approval

for authorization of a new bridge and connecting structures to be

borne at Federal expense over the American River.

I thank you for your attention. You have the complete statement

before you that I have submitted for the record.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Doolittle follows:]

Statement of The Honorable John T. Doolittle, a Representative in

Congress from the State of California, on H.R. 901

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, today I ask for your support of

H.R. 901. This bill would authorize the Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau) to

10

construct a new bridge and related connecting structures on Federal land west of

and adjacent to the Folsom Dam, which is located next to my district.

You may remember that last year, I testified before this Committee regarding this

same issue. At that time, I explained that the immediate construction of a new

bridge to replace the current road that runs over the top of Folsom Dam was essential to the people of Northern California for two reasons: First, and foremost, it

would greatly improve the safety and security of the entire region. Second, it would

enhance the efficiency of the region’s transportation system. I concluded my remarks

last year by explaining that should the Bureau make the decision to close the existing Folsom Dam Road before a new, alternative bridge was built, the district I represented would suffer a significant economic, environmental and transportation

impact.

Today, nearly a year later, I come before you to report that the very situation I

feared has occurred. On February 28, 2003, with almost no notice, the Bureau permanently closed Folsom Dam Road to both motorized and pedestrian traffic. As I

sit before you, the communities that Congressman Ose and I currently represent are

bearing the brunt of that decision and Congress’ inability to act. As such, I come

before you with one clear, simple message: Congress can wait no longer to build this

bridge. We must act now.

As way of background, let me briefly explain the history of this issue: Following

its completion in 1956, the Folsom Dam included a two-lane maintenance road on

its top intended for the use of the Bureau. Over the years, as a service to local drivers, the Bureau has allowed restricted use of the Folsom Dam Road to the public.

In the decades since its construction, however, the growing communities both north

and south of the crossing have come to depend on the dam road as an important

transportation route. Over the years, this has created numerous problems for both

the Bureau and the public. As I mentioned, these problems came to a head on February 28, 2003, when the Bureau permanently closed the dam road to both motorized and pedestrian traffic.

THREAT TO SECURITY

Recently, I received a security briefing that revealed that Folsom Dam could be

a potential terrorist target and that the public’s access to the road running on top

of the dam was of particular concern. These concerns were not new, however. In

fact, in the aftermath of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, the Federal Government

expressed increased concern for the security of important structures such as dams,

bridges, and power plants. Since that time, the Bureau has been particularly wary

of Folsom Dam’s appeal as a potential terrorist target. As you may know, the dam

is the Sacramento area’s primary defense against the intense flooding that the

American River has historically generated. Furthermore, the Folsom Dam and Reservoir serve as a vital part of the Central Valley Project. They control the flow of

water that is critical to farmers, families, and fish not only in the Sacramento Region, but also in the Bay–Delta and Southern California. Finally, Folsom’s hydroelectric plant provides a significant amount of the energy consumed in the area.

Given how crucial this facility is to the safety and vitality of California’s capital,

it is critical that it remains secure from the efforts of those who seek to harm our

well-being.

IMPACTS ON THE COMMUNITY

Beyond the public safety factor, the current situation also causes numerous other

problems. The eastern portion of the Sacramento suburban region, which I represent, is the fastest growing area in California. Traffic congestion is a growing concern for the City of Folsom and the neighboring communities that I represent. The

demands placed on the Folsom Dam Road by the thriving commercial centers and

neighborhoods that have developed nearby exceeded the structure’s capacity. This

road, which was originally designed to only accommodate maintenance crews, was

handling 18,000 cars per day when it was recently closed. Now, most of those cars

are traveling through already congested streets in the City of Folsom and other surrounding areas. Just a few years ago, the City of Folsom self-funded a $75 million

bridge downstream from the dam to improve the flow of traffic. Nevertheless, a

crossing at Folsom Dam remains one of the area’s most important traffic needs and

is the most convenient link between South Placer County, Folsom, and Western El

Dorado County. Furthermore, it is a key route for workers commuting to and from

the major job centers in the vicinity. Besides commuters, it also serves local

shoppers, students, and visitors enjoying Folsom Lake’s popular recreational

opportunities.

11

THE SOLUTION

The solution to these traffic problems, as well as the severe security concerns, is

the same—to replace reliance on the Folsom Dam Road by building a new bridge.

H.R. 901 would authorize the construction of a four-lane structure just downstream

of the dam. It also calls for the construction of necessary linkages from the bridge

to existing roadways. Upon completion, the Bureau would transfer ownership of the

facilities to the City of Folsom.

Many of this bill’s opponents continue to ask the question, ‘‘Why should the

Federal Government be responsible for building this bridge?’’ The answers are clear

and compelling. First, Folsom Dam, the reservoir, and surrounding land are owned

and operated by the Bureau. As such, the Bureau should take responsibility for closing a major transportation artery on its property by providing an alternative crossing. Second, the Federal Government has primary responsibility for the security of

Federal facilities. Consequently, it should provide an alternative to the Folsom Dam

Road that is going to protect Folsom Dam and downstream communities. Third,

when the dam was first built, the reservoir inundated three existing two-lane river

crossings. The Bureau compensated for that loss by allowing public access to Folsom

Dam Road. Because the Bureau has now closed that road, proper mitigation should

be expected for that action. Finally, the City of Folsom has already done its part

to address both the security and transportation needs of the area. Since September

11th, its police department has cooperated with the Bureau to improve security

measures at Folsom Dam and, as I stated earlier, the city recently built a $75 million bridge further downstream without any Federal assistance.

H.R. 901 has the endorsement and support of local governments, the business

community, and local transportation advocates. In fact, today you will hear favorable testimony from the City of Folsom and the County of Sacramento. They will

explain in greater detail the precariousness of the current situation and the great

need for this bill.

I would like to remind my colleagues once again that one year ago I was seated

before you with a similar piece of legislation, H.R. 2301, which the Committee reported out. Since that time, the need to protect Folsom Dam has increased, the local

transportation needs of the region have grown, and the Federal Government has

done nothing to resolve the problem. I therefore request your favorable support of

H.R. 901 and ask that you allow for a markup of this needed legislation as soon

as possible.

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman.

Mrs. Solis.

STATEMENT OF HON. HILDA L. SOLIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Ms. SOLIS. Thank you, Chairman Calvert, and also Ranking

Member Napolitano, for holding this important hearing today.

I am here to testify in support of H.R. 1284, which amends the

Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992.

The bill would increase the Federal cost share for the San Gabriel

Basin groundwater clean-up project.

During the project’s onset back in 1992, the Federal Government

was authorized to pay 25 percent of the cost of projects to clean up

local water supplies. In 1996, the funding level for the program

was capped at $38 million, funding only a portion of the projects

that had been designed. As a result of the cap, projects in the

southern portion of the basin were not funded. Those included two

of my cities that I currently represent, the El Monte operable unit

and the South El Monte operable unit in my district.

Since the cap was put in place, the southern operable units have

been working with EPA to develop groundwater clean-up plans.

Now we need money to make the clean up happen. Clean up literally means the difference between healthy and unhealthy families. This area is contaminated with perchlorate and other

12

chlorinated solvents known as volatile organic compounds, or

VOCs.

Each of these contaminants can cause serious health complications. Perchlorate increases chances of cancer and can induce thyroid problems. We’ve had several of our wells, I know, in the basin

that have already been closed because of the traces that we found

there. VOCs are also harmful to the central nervous system, the

kidneys and the liver, and can cause a higher risk of cancer, especially leukemia.

The pollution that these communities have sustained has not

only impacted their health and environment, but also their economy. Unemployment in the area is about 9.3 percent. According to

the U.S. Census, 26 percent of the residents there are found to be

below the poverty line. It has been difficult to attract businesses

there because it’s known as somewhat of a blighted area. One of

the factors preventing those businesses and jobs from coming to the

area is the pollution.

When the cap was put in place, these areas lost the chance to

access Federal funds to clean up the environment and protect the

health and safety of our economy there. Now we have the opportunity to make a difference in this region by helping them accomplish these much-needed goals.

Once again, I would like to thank the Chairman and the Ranking

Member for holding this very important hearing. I know this is

something that the members of our local delegation that represent

that area are very much interested in seeing cleaned up.

I know in the past Congressman David Drier has also lent his

name and support for this effort. So I would like to thank the Committee for sponsoring this hearing today.

Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Solis follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Hilda L. Solis, a Representative in Congress

from the State of California

Thank you, Chairman Calvert and Ranking Democrat Napolitano for holding this

important hearing today. I am here to testify in support of H.R. 1284, which

amends the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992. This

bill will increase the Federal cost share for the San Gabriel Basin groundwater

cleanup project.

During the project’s onset in 1992, the Federal Government was authorized to pay

25% of the cost of projects to cleanup local water supplies. In 1996 the funding level

for the program was capped at $38 million, funding only a portion of the projects

that had been designed. As a result of the cap, projects in the southern portion of

the basin were not funded, including the El Monte Operable Unit and the South

El Monte Operable Unit in my district. Since the cap was put in place, the Southern

Operable Units have been working with EPA to develop groundwater cleanup plans.

Now, we need money to make the cleanup happen.

Cleanup literally means the difference between healthy and unhealthy families.

This area is contaminated with perchlorate, trichloroethene and other chlorinated

solvents known as ‘‘volatile organic compounds’’ or VOCs. Each of these contaminants can cause serious health complications. Perchlorate increases chances of cancer and can induce thyroid problems. Trichloroethene has been shown to make people more susceptible to lung and liver tumors. VOCs are harmful to the central

nervous system, the kidneys and the liver and can cause a higher risk of cancer,

especially leukemia.

The pollution that these communities have sustained has not only impacted the

their health and environment, but also their economy. Unemployment in the area

is 9.3%. According to the U.S. Census, 26% of the residents live in poverty. It has

been difficult to attract businesses and jobs to the area. One of the factors preVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:15 Aug 21, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 86198.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
13

venting those businesses and jobs from coming to the area is the pollution. When

the cap was put in place, these areas lost the chance to access Federal funds to

clean up their environment, protect their health and help their economy. Now we

have the opportunity to make a difference in this region by helping them accomplish

these much-needed goals.

Once again, I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for holding this hearing.

I urge the Subcommittee to favorably report this legislation and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentlelady.

Before we get to questions, Mrs. Napolitano has an opening

statement, and Mr. Renzi wants to speak to his bill, H.R. 495.

With that, Mrs. Napolitano.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for my

not being here on time. It won’t happen again.

I certainly want to thank you for allowing me to talk out of turn,

so to speak, on the four bills that we have before the Subcommittee

that represent and give a snapshot of the many pressing water

issues facing our Nation.

Mr. Linder’s H.R. 135 will establish the ‘‘21st Century Water

Commission’’, which I feel is long overdue, in addressing our Nation’s need to take a more proactive role in crafting a long-term

water management plan with the participation of all States and coordination between the regions that they serve.

Congressman Renzi’s H.R. 495 would approve a consensus plan

negotiating between the State of Arizona and the Zuni Indian

Tribe, local water agencies and the local power company. This can

very well be the successful model to help settle long-standing water

rights claims and might prove successful enough to be able to help

other communities with water problems to be able to deal with the

issue.

My own H.R. 1284 would raise the existing cap, as was just explained by my colleague, Congresswoman Solis, of the San Gabriel

Basin demonstration project that was unfortunately capped before

some of the other areas with water problems were able to get their

request for funding and actually their programming up. This is a

Superfund list that can also be used to help other urban areas deal

with contaminated aquifers.

Finally, Congressman Ose’s and Doolittle’s 901, it’s a dilemma

that faces many of our communities after 9/11, with the increased

costs for security that should be borne, I would hope, by homeland

security, but is now on the Bureau of Reclamation’s lap. I have spoken to the representatives of the city of Folsom early in March and

they assured me they would work to achieve bipartisan support.

But I am concerned, in that I have learned that this does not enjoy

the support of the local area Democratic members and that an alternative bill, 892, has been introduced in the House with a companion bill by Senator Feinstein. But I do look forward to hearing

all the testimony so that we may have further clarification on what

can be an agreeable and win-win situation for everybody.

14

Mr. Chair, I thank you for holding the hearing. I want to thank

the panelists, including my colleagues who took time out to come

and present us with their thoughts and what their needs are for

their areas.

Thank you.

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentlelady.

Mr. Renzi is recognized for an opening statement in regards to

H.R. 495, water rights for the Zuni Indian Tribe.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. RICK RENZI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA

Mr. RENZI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Zuni Indian Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act of 2003 will

codify the settlement of the Zuni Indian Tribe water rights for its

religious lands in northeastern Arizona. Congress first recognized

the importance of these lands in 1984 when it created Zuni Heaven

Reservation.

The small communities upstream from this reservation have

been fully appropriated and, knowing this, the prospect of dividing

this limited water with other users has created an uncertainty.

To resolve that uncertainty, and to avoid costly litigation, the

Zuni Tribe, the United States on behalf of the Zuni Tribe, the State

of Arizona, including the Arizona Game and Fish Commission, the

Arizona State Land Department, and the Arizona State Parks

Board, as well as the major water users in the area, negotiated for

many years to produce an acceptable settlement to all parties.

I would like to commend the work of Senator John Kyl of Arizona on this important legislation. His leadership and perseverance

has brought us to this point of a good settlement.

Mr. Chairman, I would also like to commend the work of the

rural communities of the First District of Arizona, including the

city of St. Johns, the town of Eagar, the town of Springerville, and

the State of Arizona. in addition, the Salt River Project, Tucson

Electric Power Company, St. Johns Irrigation and Ditch Company,

the Lyman Water Company, and the Round Valley Water Users’

Association, as well as those I mentioned earlier.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask that you allow my full remarks and

testimony to be submitted for the Committee.

Mr. CALVERT. Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. RENZI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Renzi follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Rick Renzi, a Representative in Congress from

the State of Arizona, on H.R. 495

Chairman Calvert and members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify on H.R. 495, the Zuni Indian Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act

of 2003. The Senate companion, S. 222, introduced by Senator Kyl, passed the Senate on March 13, 2003. I would like to commend the work of Senator Kyl on this

important legislation.

The Zuni Indian Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act of 2003 would codify the settlement of the Zuni Indian Tribe’s water rights for its religious lands in northeastern Arizona. Congress first recognized the importance of these lands in 1984

when it created the Zuni Heaven Reservation (Pub. L. No. 98–498, as amended by

Pub. L. No. 101–486 (1990)).

The small communities upstream from this Reservation have been fully-appropriated. Knowing this, the prospect of dividing this limited water with another user

created uncertainty. To resolve that uncertainty and to avoid costly litigation, the

15

Zuni Tribe, the United States on behalf of the Zuni Tribe, the State of Arizona, including the Arizona Game and Fish Commission, the Arizona State Land Department, and the Arizona State Parks Board, as well as the major water users in this

area, negotiated for many years to produce an acceptable settlement to all parties.

This legislation would provide the Zuni Tribe with the resources and protections

necessary to acquire water rights from willing sellers. In addition, this legislation

will restore and protect the wetland environment that previously existed on the Reservation. In return, the Zuni Tribe would waive its claims in the Little Colorado

River Adjudication. The Zuni Tribe will grandfather existing water uses and waive

claims against many future water uses in the Little Colorado River Basin. This legislation exemplifies that the Zuni Tribe can achieve its needs for the Zuni Heaven

Reservation and avoid a disruption to local water users and industry. In addition,

the United States can avoid costly litigation and satisfy its trust responsibilities to

the Zuni Tribe.

I would like to commend the work of the parties to the Zuni Settlement. The parties consist of rural communities in the First District of Arizona, including the City

of St. Johns, the Town of Eagar and the Town of Springerville. In addition, the

State of Arizona, specifically, the Arizona Game and Fish Department, the State

Land Department and the Arizona State Parks Board, Salt River Project, Tucson

Electric Power Company, St Johns Irrigation and Ditch Company, the Lyman Water

Company and the Round Valley Water Users’ Association.

I urge members of the Subcommittee and Full Committee to support the Zuni Indian Water Rights Settlement Act.

Mr. CALVERT. I want to thank all the members for attending this

afternoon and for offering your testimony on good legislation.

First, Mr. Linder, I want to congratulate you on what I know has

been a long-term effort. We have talked over the years about this

and I think it’s very timely for you to bring this legislation forward.

As you well know, fresh water is not just an issue in the West,

though it seems to many of us up here that we spend most of our

time talking about water issues in the arid West. But as you well

know, and as we in this country are now learning, water issues are

shared by virtually every corner in every State in this country. So

I look forward to working with you to make this H.R. 135 law and

that we can work toward coming together with a water strategy for

the 21st century.

A question I have for you. What progress do you believe the

States, in general, are having in developing their own water strategies to meet these demands?

Mr. LINDER. We have a significant problem in Georgia, where we

have three States suing each other—Georgia, Florida and

Alabama—over access to water from two watersheds that originate

in Georgia. The most valuable resources we have in Georgia are

huge aquifers, and they have declined to such a level that salt

water is seeping back into them, which will make them worthless.

We have had in the last several months a significant amount of

water to fill up our lakes again and to recharge the aquifers. But

there is no question that we’ve been working for four or 5 years

now with neighboring States to try and find ways to sort out the

rights to this water that does come from two watersheds.

The Corps that is dealing with the lakes we have in Georgia is

trying to move toward regional water planning, watershed planning for the whole 32 counties. There is one watershed, for

example, instead of just the counties that touch on access to the

water. There is a significant amount of money being spent.

There are 90,000 people in the Federal Government that do nothing but water. There are 270,000 people in State and local

16

governments, and none of them are talking to each other. This

whole idea is to get them to coordinate it and talk to each other.

Mr. CALVERT. On to the Folsom Bridge issue, of course—and

we’re going to be hearing from Commissioner Keys later, but I

wanted to hear from Mr. Doolittle and Mr. Ose regarding this. We

are revisiting this issue. From your perspective—and you said this

in your opening statement, and I want to hear it again—do you believe that access over the Folsom Dam was closed because of the

issues regarding homeland security? Mr. Ose.

Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, that’s an excellent question. I was in

Sacramento the week of the 21st of February. I received a call from

the Bureau of Reclamation person at the time, a fellow named

Larry Todd, who was in Sacramento to brief the regional director

of the Bureau of Reclamation on this issue, having just received an

analysis from the Defense Threat Reduction Agency as to the exposures that Folsom Dam, for lack of a better word, enjoys for a terrorist act.

I was given a classified briefing by Mr. Todd. It was completely

surrounded by the issue of homeland security and terrorist acts

that would otherwise undermine homeland security. That was the

only subject on the table. It was the only subject broached.

Mr. CALVERT. Just for the record, are there any estimates of

damage to property and loss of life that would occur if, in fact, the

Folsom Dam was to be destroyed?

Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I’m a little bit unclear on what I can

put in the public domain and what I can’t. I have that information

and I would be happy to share it with you privately.

Mr. CALVERT. It is certainly significant, huge?

Mr. DOOLITTLE. May I volunteer an answer, because mine is not

based on the terrorism threat.

There is $40 billion worth of assessed valuation property in the

American River flood plain. In one study that I saw, of what would

happen if there were a flood—which obviously would happen if the

dam were blown up—it’s hard to conjecture. But the study I saw,

which was done by the Corps of Engineers, I believe projected a

property loss from $6-20 billion, and a loss of life of about 100 lives.

You must remember that the city of Sacramento is essentially at

sea level, maybe slightly below in places, and these vast levees that

impound the American River rise more than 20 feet high. So when

you’ve got a river at flood stage and the levee breeches, you will

have a tidal wave of water engulfing the homes that lie in its path.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you.

Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I can tell you the exposure that was defined did not relate to the concrete portion of Folsom Dam. What

was described to me was that in the winter time, when the storage

and flood protection raises the level of the water from what is currently at 419 up to 475, when you put a vehicle on the earthen portion of the dam, which is the winged sides of the dam—and an

analysis was done if such a vehicle exploded, much like they did

at the Oklahoma City thing—you would displace enough earth that

the structural integrity would be compromised and the earthen portions would collapse. That’s the threat that was analyzed.

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman.

Any other questions for the panel? Mrs. Napolitano.

17

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Ose, you mentioned that bridges had been

built by the Bureau of Reclamation since 1902. When was the last

one built, approximately?

Mr. OSE. To answer your question directly, the last one that I’m

advised was built was Douglas Creek at Bobby Thompson campground, known as Black Water No. 1, for the Forest Service, in

1999. Prior to that, there’s a Nazlini Wash bridge in Chinle,

Arizona, 260 feet— Mrs. NAPOLITANO. So they’re more recent, they are recent.

Mr. OSE. Correct. There are 17 of them here that I’ve been able

to identify since— Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Then my next question would be—The pro- jected cost is about $66 million?

Mr. OSE. That is correct.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. What percentage is that of the Bureau’s budget?

Mr. OSE. I don’t know the answer to that question.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. OK. It turns out to be not quite 10 percent,

but close to that, according to the information I have. My concern

is that it would take away a large portion of the Bureau’s funding

to deal with other projects that have been waiting on line, probably

much like yours, but that actually have been the focus and goals

of the Bureau. Although I know the Bureau is interested in reclamation and the storage, et cetera, I am concerned about what impact that would have. Would you mind— Mr. OSE. If I may, that was one of the things I found most interesting about this article in the Wall Street Journal yesterday. This

issue is so directly tied to homeland security and the added costs

that come from our measures taken, it’s very analogous, for instance, to the burdens we’ve put on the airlines. In this article in

yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, on page A-12, Mitch Daniels is

cited as saying backing aid to the airlines to the extent of their

added security costs pursuant to 9/11 ‘‘could have a certain logic to

it’’.

So I would contend that, under that same logic that would support an airline request for assistance on added security costs, the

logic could easily be applied to this particular situation, also.

We would have to work out in our regular order, you know, the

amount that we would otherwise provide, whether it be under the

Bureau’s regular budget or over in homeland security. But it seems

to me the foundation has been laid accordingly.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Following that same analogy, though,

wouldn’t it stand to reason that we should actually look also at

transportation funds as well as homeland security funds, as well as

the Army Corps of Engineers and Department of Interior, because

they all are part and parcel of this project, if I may be so bold.

Mr. OSE. I have thought about that, if the gentlelady would allow

me to respond.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Certainly.

Mr. OSE. I have thought about that, and the reality is that transportation and the Corps, they don’t typically deal with issue of national or homeland security kinds of things. This is not a flood

issue; this is not a transportation issue, if you will. This is an issue

of homeland security, and that’s what we’re trying to address here.

18

We’re trying to bring to bear the authorization under the homeland

security rubric, which is the reason for the closure of the road, to

provide some relief to these communities.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I understand, and I agree that it has to be

done somewhere along the line. My concern is how the funding is

going to be put together and the fact that you’re asking for authorization to turn it over to Folsom totally without any strings attached, so to speak, and the maintenance and everything else will

be the concern of the Bureau.

Mr. OSE. If I recall the bill correctly, the maintenance after the

fact would be shifted to the city of Folsom.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. The maintenance. I’m sorry.

Mr. OSE. Yes.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. OK. Then I stand corrected.

But certainly the full funding, without any support—and I did

talk to the members that came to see me in March, and I did specifically point out to them that normally projects of this nature do

work better, for funding purposes and for other approval support

systems, if there is a joint partnership with the community and

with other agencies, including State agencies. I had not heard anything from anybody on that.

Mr. OSE. If I may, if this recommendation to close the road had

come from anybody other than the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, as a result of an analysis they had done in quantifying a homeland security issue, I would tend to agree with you. But the entire

driving logic behind this—and I’m sure Mr. Keys and maybe some

of the others can testify to this—was that this is a homeland security issue. It’s not a Corps issue, it’s not a Department of Transportation issue. This is a homeland security issue.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. It would then have the purview of transportation and homeland security, because it is transportation-related,

and it also is a issue of security of the bridge.

Mr. OSE. I will be interested in Commissioner Keys’ testimony.

My understanding is the Defense Threat Reduction Agency are the

ones who did the analysis.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you for clarifying. I appreciate it.

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentlelady. Any questions for this

panel?

Mr. Pearce.

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My question will be for

Mr. Linder. In section 4 of the bill, item (3) under that, it says the

duties are to consult with representatives of such agencies to develop recommendations for a comprehensive water strategy, and

then part (A) under that says it respects the primary role of States

in adjudicating, administering and regulating.

Do you foresee any way, when States coexist, when they share

a border and yet have different water laws—for instance, Texas

has the rule of capture, which means they can pump just about

whatever they want, and New Mexico right next to it has an appropriating system based on beneficial use. Those are completely different logics that underlie the rule.

How would the commission know how to sort that out?

Mr. LINDER. I have no answers. I have tons of questions. The

whole idea behind this is to bring some people with expertise in

19

water issues around the table together, to look at everything. We

can look and see what Los Angeles has done in saving and conserving water. They’ve done a remarkable job, and Las Vegas is recharging aquifers in a very, very environmentally friendly way.

Tampa has the largest desalinization plant in the Western Hemisphere. There’s all kinds of things that may be going on that we

should just bring to the same place and share the information.

We lose a quarter of our water through leaky pipes. Philadelphia

loses 85 million gallons of fresh water a day through leaky pipes.

We have a fund that is a low interest borrowing fund that localities can borrow from for infrastructure needs. It may have to be

enlarged. We may have to have a huge public works project just

to begin to save the water that’s being lost through pipes.

So it is my hope that people who spend a lifetime thinking about

these things will bring a lot of answers to the table and we can

deal with them after the commission has done its work.

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just from a small State perspective, New Mexico’s perspective, I

sat in 2 days of hearings where the State of Texas was telling New

Mexico that, because you’re good friends with us, you should give

us 50,000 acre-feet. When we as good friends didn’t give them

58,000 acre-feet of the Rio Grande water, then they took us to

court.

My fear as a small State is that, with seven members and no balancing mechanism here, that small States would be disadvantaged

extremely. And while I agree with the concept of your bill, I do

have that deep-rooted concern, that the powerful will take the

water from those who don’t have quite as much political clout.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Osborne.

Mr. OSBORNE. I have a question of Mr. Linder.

Traditionally, water issues have been State functions. My understanding is that this commission would continue to lead the primary focus at the State level and would simply be a coordinating

agency, where we would try to gather best practices and make

States better aware of what can be done and what is being done.

Mr. LINDER. The whole intention is to do just that, to bring some

expertise to one table, to make a conscious effort to get around the

country, to attend different hearings in different parts of the country, to find out what’s being done in water policy, and to make recommendations.

I think if we undertook, for example, a huge public works project

to fix the leaky pipes in most major cities, the Federal Government

can be very helpful in financing that. Conservation is the first step.

But I do not—in fact, I have written it in here quite specifically,

that this is not a Federal takeover of water policy. In fact, in May

of last year, that was the first response to many people who responded to the bill. I made it as clear as I can, that water policy

is still driven at the local level. But this can be helpful.

Mr. OSBORNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman.

Any other questions for this panel? Mr. Baca.

Mr. BACA. Yes, a couple of questions. I don’t know if they’ve been

asked, Mr. Chairman.

20

Since most highway projects require at least some cost sharing,

has the city of Folsom considered implementing a reasonable costshare plan for this project? As I looked at it, I don’t know if it was

answered or asked before or not.

Mr. OSE. Congressman Baca, this is a homeland security issue,

that the reason the road was closed in the first place had to do

with an analysis put forward by the Defense Threat Reduction

Agency that identified Folsom as a very high potential target for

terrorist activities. It’s not a transportation issue; it’s not a flood

control issue. This is a homeland security issue related to getting

vehicular traffic off of the dam road—excuse me, the road atop the

dam—that would otherwise constitute a threat to the homeland security of our country.

Mr. BACA. Is there any kind of matching funds or any other

kinds of funds that would be coming up or not?

Mr. OSE. As a result of its analysis as a homeland security issue,

this proposal envisions having the Federal Government pay the entirety of the $66 million.

Mr. BACA. Has there been any kind of feasibility studies that

have been done?

Mr. OSE. There have been some very preliminary design pieces,

which I’m familiar with anecdotally. There has been an EIR done

on a two-lane arterial on the land that the Bureau owns below the

dam. But as far as any actual bid documents or construction documents, I’m not aware of those.

Mr. BACA. And would those be presented to the Chair of this

Committee, if there was any kind of feasibility studies done in that

area, for consideration?

Mr. CALVERT. To answer the gentleman’s question, anything

that’s done under the Bureau of Reclamation is under our jurisdiction, so we would have the opportunity to review those documents.

Mr. BACA. Good. Thank you.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Inslee. By the way, Mr. Inslee, the Folsom

Dam has nothing to do with global warming.

[Laughter.]

Mr. INSLEE. We’ll find a way. We’ll find a way.

Mr. Ose, I just want to know, do you think this is an issue of

homeland security?

Mr. OSE. I believe this is a serious issue of homeland security.

To answer your question, without equivocation.

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you.

Mr. CALVERT. OK. Any other questions for this panel?

I have one comment, and maybe you can answer this. For the

record, I understand this is not an issue of whether or not we’re

going to obviously build on to the Folsom Dam, because if, in fact,

even if the Folsom Dam was raised, which I know is somewhat controversial in that community, we still could not put transportation,

I assume, on top of that facility for the exact reasons that we’re

here today; isn’t that correct?

Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the Defense

Threat Reduction Agency analysis of the homeland security threat

exists whatever the condition of the dam is. They want the vehicular traffic off the dam.

21

Mr. CALVERT. So in order to get the vehicular traffic off the dam,

we have to build a bridge?

Mr. OSE. That’s my belief, yes.

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman.

Any other questions? If not, we certainly thank this panel for attending today. If you would like to join the rest of us up here for

questions of other panelists today, you’re certainly invited, if

there’s no objections from the people here today. I see none. So ordered. If not, thank you for attending.

Mr. CALVERT. Our next panel is the Commissioner of the Bureau

of Reclamation, the Honorable John W. Keys, II, and Ms. Theresa

Rosier, Counselor to the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs.

Thank you for attending our hearing today. With that, Commissioner, you’re recognized.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN W. KEYS, III, COMMISSIONER,

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE

INTERIOR

Mr. KEYS. Mr. Chairman, I have three different statements. I

would certainly request that the full text be entered into the

record.

Mr. CALVERT. Without objection, so order.

Mr. KEYS. I would also ask, is there any particular order that

you would prefer me to proceed in?

Mr. CALVERT. We’ll leave that totally to your discretion.

Mr. KEYS. Mr. Chairman, we’ll hit them head on, then.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 901 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to design and construct a bridge on Federal land west and

adjacent to Folsom Dam in California which, when completed,

would be transferred to the city of Folsom. H.R. 901 would also authorize $66 million to be appropriated for the bridge.

When construction of Folsom Dam was completed in the mid1950’s, the narrow two-lane road built on top of the dam was intended to serve as an access road for maintenance of the dam and

for incidental recreation access to the lake. In the ensuing years,

as the population of Placer and El Dorado counties has grown, the

road over Folsom Dam has become a major transportation artery,

with about 18,000 cars using it every day.

Folsom Dam is a flood control facility, protecting about 700,000

people downstream. For security purposes, the Bureau of Reclamation closed the road over Folsom Dam on February the 28th, 2003,

for an indefinite period of time. This decision was not made lightly.

The decision came after extensive security assessments from the

Department of Defense’s Defense Threat Reduction Agency. It was

their professional recommendation, and the Department of Interior

agreed, that it was prudent to close the road across the dam to protect the facility.

Mr. Chairman, I would certainly offer a secure briefing to you

and the members of your Subcommittee to cover the details of that

assessment and the implementation and why it was implemented,

if that would be the pleasure of the Subcommittee.

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. KEYS. I’m certainly aware that the Folsom Dam road closure

has resulted in traffic disruption in and around Folsom. I recently

22

met with Folsom city officials to discuss their concerns and the possibility of reopening the road.

While we are willing to work with the surrounding communities,

the responsibility of building a new bridge to handle current and

future traffic is not within Reclamation’s purview. As such, the Administration cannot support H.R. 901 as drafted.

I do understand that a new bridge is warranted to handle current and future traffic, and I would urge the bill’s sponsors and

local stakeholders to work with the appropriate local, State and

Federal transportation agencies to accomplish that.

I might add that the Federal Government has started construction of a new bridge below Hoover Dam, and that one is certainly

one that has been receiving a lot of attention after 9/11. That structure is being funded, designed and constructed by the Department

of Transportation.

There are several other issues with H.R. 901 that we’re concerned about. The Administration is concerned about the lack of

any local cost share requirements. The city of Folsom and surrounding communities would be the primary beneficiaries of the

new bridge to alleviate transportation issues in their communities.

A local cost share requirement would be appropriate.

Section (1)(b)(2) says ‘‘The Secretary shall provide appropriate

sizing and linkages to support present and future traffic flow requirements for the city of Folsom.’’ This language clearly states

that the Secretary would be placed in the position of providing ancillary roadway connections and analyzing future transportation logistics. These requirements are more appropriate for the Department of Transportation and are beyond the mission of the Bureau

of Reclamation.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, let me reiterate that the Administration understands and shares the concerns of the sponsors of

H.R. 901 and the local communities about the additional traffic

congestion caused by the closing of Folsom Dam road. The decision

to close the road over the dam was not made in haste and was decided only after considerable review of the facts. However, Reclamation was entrusted with the task of protecting the Folsom

Dam facility for the people who rely on it for flood control and

water supply. I again urge the bill’s sponsors and local stakeholders to work with appropriate local, State and Federal transportation authorities to address these traffic concerns.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Keys on H.R. 901 follows:]

Statement of John Keys, III, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation,

U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 901

My name is John Keys, III, Commissioner of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. I

am pleased to provide the Administration’s views on H.R. 901, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to construct a bridge adjacent to the Folsom Dam in California.

H.R. 901 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to design and construct

a bridge on Federal land west and adjacent to Folsom Dam in California which,

upon completion, would be transferred to the City of Folsom. H.R. 901 would authorize that $66,000,000 be appropriated for this purpose.

When construction of Folsom Dam was completed in the mid–1950’s, the narrow

two lane road built on the top of the dam was intended to serve as an access road

for maintenance and for incidental recreational access to the lake. In the ensuing

years, as the population of Placer and El Dorado counties has grown (Placer County

has been listed as the fastest growing county in the nation), and since the area

23

adjacent to the dam is within the city limits of Folsom, California, which is one of

the fastest growing cities in the state, the road over Folsom Dam has become a

major transportation artery between these two counties. Over the last 20 years, traffic on this road has grown exponentially to the point that up to 18,000 cars were

crossing the dam each day.

Since Reclamation last testified before this Subcommittee on a similar bill last

April, there have been some developments in the Folsom area that I would like to

bring to your attention. First, it is important to understand that the primary purpose of the Folsom Dam facility is flood control for the estimated 700,000 people

downstream of the facility. For security reasons, Reclamation closed the two-lane

road over Folsom Dam on February 28, 2003, for an indefinite period of time. We

took this action because Reclamation is responsible for dam safety. Our decision was

largely based upon the results of an extensive security assessment under contract

with the Department of Defense’s, Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA). It was

their professional recommendation, and the Department of Interior concurred, that

it was prudent to close the road over the dam to protect the facility

I am certainly aware that the Folsom Dam road closure has resulted in traffic disruption in and around Folsom. In fact, I recently met with several Folsom city officials who expressed their concern about increased traffic control costs and the possibility of reopening the road.

While we are willing to work with the surrounding communities, the responsibility of building a new bridge to handle current and future local and commuter

traffic is not within Reclamation’s purview. Given that the closure decision was

predicated on a homeland security issue, we are willing to discuss the issue with

the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Transportation to determine what role they can play in future transportation planning around Folsom.

Unfortunately, the Administration cannot support H.R. 901 as drafted. I understand that a new bridge is in fact warranted to address current and future traffic,

and I urge the bill’s sponsors and local stakeholders to work with appropriate local,

state, and Federal transportation agencies.

When construction of Folsom Dam was completed in the mid–1950’s, the narrow

two lane road built on the top of the dam was intended to serve as an access road

for maintenance and for incidental recreational access to the lake. In the ensuing

years, as the population of Placer and El Dorado counties has grown (Placer County

has been listed as the fastest growing county in the nation), and since the area adjacent to the dam is within the city limits of Folsom, California B which is one of the

fastest growing cities in the state B the road over Folsom Dam had become a major

transportation artery between these two counties. Over the last 20 years, traffic on

this road has grown exponentially to the point that up to 18,000 cars were crossing

the dam each day.

Reclamation has always taken the job of dam safety seriously. However, as we

have all unfortunately experienced the last few years culminating in the events of

September 11, 2001, the traditional dam safety reviews are no longer adequate. The

following events have shaped the evolution of Reclamation’s security reviews at

Folsom and at all of our facilities.

In 1995, a spillway gate at Folsom Dam failed which necessitated closing the road

for an extended period for both immediate safety reasons and to accommodate repairs to the spillway. As a result, traffic congestion adversely impacted the city of

Folsom and severely restricted emergency traffic (police, fire and ambulance) from

reaching one side from the other.

After the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma was bombed, the Government closely examined the vulnerability of all its structures. Reclamation completed

security assessments at Folsom Dam in 1996, 1997, 1998 and 2001 and clearly documented the risks associated with open public access across this dam. The DTRA assessment was the latest of these reviews.

After the events of September 11, 2001, Reclamation closed the road across

Folsom Dam which again resulted in serious traffic congestion in the community.

Subsequently, the road was reopened during daylight hours to cars and pickups, but

was closed to large vehicles at all hours. This was the case until February 28, 2003.

Additional Issues

H.R. 901 would require Reclamation to build a bridge unassociated with project

operations. Designing and building bridges is the not the primary function of Reclamation. Passage of this bill would require Reclamation to transfer limited resources from core mission activities such as those I outlined to this Subcommittee

on March 5, 2003. Reclamation’s request for California projects in the Fiscal

Year 2004 Water and Related Resources budget is approximately $190 million.

24

The Administration has concerns with the absence of any local cost-sharing requirements in H.R. 901. Any Federal involvement in the design and construction

of a bridge should have state and local cost sharing arrangements consistent with

Federal policy. The City of Folsom and surrounding communities will be the primary beneficiaries of a new bridge to ease and improve the transportation issues

in those communities, and a local cost share requirement would be appropriate. Further, section (1) (c) requires the Secretary to transfer the bridge, property, and easements to the City of Folsom at no cost. Any transfer of land should be made to reflect the fair market value of the land. The legislation also specifically states in Section (1) (b) (2), the ‘‘Secretary shall—provide appropriate sizing and linkages to support present and future traffic flow requirements for the city of Folsom.’’ The paragraph clearly states that the Secretary would be placed in the position of providing

ancillary roadway connections and analyzing future transportation logistics. These

requirements are more appropriate for the Department of Transportation and are

beyond the mission of Reclamation.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, let me reiterate that the Administration understands and shares the concerns of the sponsors of H.R. 901 and the local communities about the additional traffic congestion resulting from the closure of the

Folsom Dam road. The decision to close the road over the dam was not made in

haste and was decided only after considerable review of the facts. However, Reclamation was entrusted with the task of protecting the Folsom Dam facility for the

people who rely on it for flood control and water supply purposes. I again urge the

bill’s sponsors and local stakeholders to work with appropriate local, state, and Federal transportation authorities to address these traffic concerns.

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

Mr. KEYS. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1284 would amend the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992, to increase

the Federal share of the costs of the San Gabriel Basin Demonstration project by about $12.5 million.

Based upon Reclamation’s investigation of this project, we do not

believe that a cost ceiling increase is warranted at this time. Therefore, the Administration cannot support H.R. 1284 as written.

There are three main components of the San Gabriel Basin Demonstration project: the Rio Hondo Water Recycling Program, the

San Gabriel Valley Water Reclamation Project, and the San Gabriel Basin Demonstration Project. Reclamation is authorized to

provide up to 25 percent of the cost of planning, design and construction of these projects for a Federal contribution of no more

than $38,090,000.

Through Fiscal Year 2003, $28,845,000 has been made available

for those three projects. The Rio Hondo recycling program and the

San Gabriel water reclamation project will be completed in 2004,

and are within $900,000 of being fully funded for the 25 percent

Federal cost share. That leaves $8.6 million under the existing ceiling to cover the 25 percent Federal share of the San Gabriel demonstration project.

In 1999, perchlorate was discovered in the groundwater of the

San Gabriel Basin. In 2000, Congress created the San Gabriel

Basin restoration fund, providing a 65 percent Federal cost share

of costs for projects that would improve the quality of groundwater

in the San Gabriel Basin. A total ceiling of $85 million was placed

in the restoration fund, with $10 million of that reserved for the

Central Basin cleanup and $75 million for the San Gabriel Basin.

We believe that the total funding ceiling provided by the title

XVI authority and the restoration fund is sufficient to provide the

Federal cost share for all projects that are contemplated for the

San Gabriel Basin cleanup program. This title XVI project has

more than $8 million left and the restoration fund has $25 million

25

remaining. We believe that these ceiling levels will adequately

cover future projects under this authority. The cost ceiling for the

San Gabriel demonstration project authorized by title XVI does not

need to be increased beyond its currently authorized limit.

Mr. Chairman, I would add to that that we have had an excellent

working relationship with the San Gabriel demonstration project

people. We look forward to working with them for completion of

this project.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Keys on H.R. 1284 follows:]

Statement of John Keys III, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation,

U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 1284

Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee, I am John Keys, III and I am

the Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). I am pleased to be

here today to comment on H.R. 1284, which amends the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992, to increase the Federal share of the costs

of the San Gabriel Basin Demonstration project.

Based on our investigation of this project, we do not believe a cost ceiling increase

is warranted at this time and therefore the Administration cannot support

H.R. 1284 as written. We believe that there is sufficient funding available to provide the Federal cost share for all projects that are contemplated for the San Gabriel Basin cleanup program.

Title XVI of P.L. 102–575, enacted in 1992, authorizes Reclamation to participate

in the San Gabriel Basin Demonstration Project. There are three components of the

project: the Rio Hondo Water Recycling Program with the Central Basin Municipal

Water District, the San Gabriel Valley Water Reclamation Project with the Upper

San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District, and the San Gabriel Basin Demonstration Project with the San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority. Reclamation is authorized to provide up to 25 percent of the cost of planning, design, and

construction of the project components for a Federal contribution of no more than

$38,090,000.

Congress provided the initial appropriation for the project in Fiscal Year 1994,

and through the current Fiscal Year 2003, a total of $28,845,000 has been made

available for the three components. Of that amount, all but $0.3 million has been

obligated to existing agreements. With the exception of Rio Hondo and San Gabriel

Valley Reclamation components, all existing agreements have been fully funded.

The Rio Hondo and San Gabriel Valley Reclamation components, which are water

recycling projects, should be completed within the next two years, and are within

$900,000 of being fully funded for the 25 percent Federal share. This leaves a net

available amount of $8.6 million before the ceiling is reached.

The primary component of the San Gabriel Basin Demonstration is the groundwater cleanup program that will result in the Basin being used as a conjunctive use

water resource for the region. Reclamation, working closely with the San Gabriel

Basin Water Quality Authority since 1994, has executed 9 funding agreements with

the Authority to fund specific portions of the cleanup work. All agreements have

been fully funded for the 25 percent Federal share.

Over the last ten years that the project has received funding, the schedules for

all three components have slipped significantly. In light of this, the San Gabriel

Basin Demonstration Project has consistently carried over significant amounts of

unexpended funds every year as a result of the extended schedules. Due to these

delays, the construction schedule is not firm. In addition, smaller agreements to

cover cleanup projects in the El Monte, South El Monte and Puente Valley Operable

Units are being implemented. An agreement has been executed with the Water

Quality Authority to fund design activities for these Operable Units. We have executed an agreement for the Monterey Park Treatment Facility, which is in the

South El Monte Unit. To date we have obligated $2.425 million for the project, and

spent approximately $300,000 of that amount.

We believe that the total funding ceiling provided by the Title XVI authority and

the Restoration Fund, which may also be available for these projects, is sufficient

to provide the Federal cost share for all projects that are contemplated for the San

Gabriel Basin cleanup program. This Title XVI project has more than $8 million remaining under its ceiling after fully funding all current project obligations. The Restoration Fund has $25 million remaining under its ceiling after fully funding all current project obligations. We believe that this will adequately cover future projects

being contemplated. Therefore, the cost ceiling for the San Gabriel Basin

26

Demonstration Project authorized by Title XVI does not need currently to be increased beyond its authorized limit.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I want to add that we have had an excellent working relationship with the San Gabriel Demonstration Project partners and look forward to working with them to complete this important project. This concludes my

remarks. I would be happy to answer any questions at this time.

Mr. KEYS. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 135 would establish the 21st

Century Water Commission to develop recommendations for a comprehensive water strategy to address future water needs of the

United States.

The Department of the Interior supports efforts to address the

future of America’s water supply. In Reclamation’s Fiscal

Year 2004 budget request, we have proposed a program called the

Western Water Initiative that is very consistent with what we perceive the intent of H.R. 135 to be. The Western Water Initiative

would expand and focus on Reclamation’s existing efforts to work

with our partners to use technology and management techniques

more efficiently and effectively to optimize water supplies.

This Initiative has four major components. The first one is enhanced water management and conservation. That would include

pilot projects to work with different irrigation districts and entities

around the West, for canal lining programs, for control structures,

check structures, and measuring facilities to find better ways to

stretch the existing water supplies to meet needs. It would also include experimental work and current work that we’re doing in establishing water banks to help address additional water needs that

are out there.

The second component of that program is preventing water management crises. Its main purpose is to take a look 25 years into the

future to see where water needs occur that could not be met with

existing infrastructure. It would let us look at where other water

requirements may occur, such as are occurring in some places now

with the Endangered Species Act, that are occurring now with

growing populations and other requirements out there.

The third part of our Western Water Initiative is the expanded

science and technology program. There are three main components

of that one.

The first one is a hard look at desalinization and how we might

bring the cost down for desalting seawater and brackish groundwater out on the plains. The goal that we have in that program is

to reduce the cost of desalting water by about 50 percent by the

year 2020. Currently, it costs about $650 an acre-foot to desalt seawater. If we can get that below $600 an acre-foot, it’s competitive

in the high cost markets of the western United States.

The second part of that science and technology program is adaptive management programs, such as we are implementing on the

Colorado River below Glen Canyon Dam now.

The third part of it is peer review, taking a hard look at the

science that backs up our projects, so that we know we’re on the

right track when we develop biological opinions and biological assessments to address endangered species needs. The fourth part of

that initiative is to strengthen Endangered Species Act expertise

inside Reclamation.

27

Mr. Chairman, my purpose in sharing our strategic vision of the

Western Water Initiative with you is because H.R. 135 is generally

consistent with this vision. There are a few specifics in H.R. 135

that we would like to share with you, though.

We are pleased to see that the bill recognizes the role of States

on water rights and water uses. They are our close partners in

water issues in all 17 of the Western States. H.R. 135 also differs

from last year’s bill by reducing the number of qualified commission members from 17 to 7. While the reduced commission size will

reduce cost and maybe improve efficiency, we would still advocate

emphasis on State representations.

As H.R. 135 moves through the legislative process, we would encourage you to remember the responsibilities that Congress and the

judiciary have placed on the Department of the Interior, special

ones, such as the unique role the Secretary has as water master

for the lower Colorado River.

Lastly, the Administration objects to section 8(b)(2) of H.R. 135,

which would give the commission the authority to detail to the

commission ‘‘such personnel as the Commission considers necessary

to carry out the provisions of this Act.’’ Specifically, the Department of Justice has informed us that giving such power to an advisory commission raises constitutional concerns, including potential

Appointments Clause problems. The Department of Justice recommends that the provision be amended to authorize and not require Federal agencies to detail personnel to the Commission.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my oral comments. I would certainly entertain any questions that you might have today.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Keys on H.R. 135 follows:]

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

U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 135

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, my name is John Keys and I

am Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. It is my pleasure to be here today

to provide the Department of Interior’s (DOI) views on H.R. 135, the Twenty–First

Century Water Commission; a bill to develop recommendations for a comprehensive

water strategy to address future water needs.

The Department supports efforts to address the future of America’s water supply.

In Reclamation’s Fiscal Year 2004 budget request, we have established a program

called the Western Water Initiative that is very consistent with what we perceive

the intent of H.R. 135 to be. Basically, this initiative expands and focuses on Reclamation’s existing efforts to work with our partners to use technology and management techniques more efficiently and effectively to optimize water supplies.

Reclamation has a long history of managing limited water supplies in arid environments. However, with increased population growth, aging facilities, severe

drought, and environmental and health concerns, our skills and resources are being

challenged like never before. Reclamation’s Western Water Initiative is the beginning of what we hope will be the catalyst for a longer-term strategic approach to

predicting, preventing, and alleviating water conflicts. It improves upon our historic

proactive, rather than a reactive, approach to water management and conservation,

desalination research and development, preventing water management crises, and

strengthening Endangered Species Act expertise among Reclamation employees.

Last year, Reclamation began identifying areas in the West that may have potential

water supply problems today or 25 years from now. Using existing information, we

identified areas where there was an increase in population, water-dependent

Federally protected species and severe climatic conditions. The intent of this 25-year

water supply study is to help us target funds in the Western Water Initiative to

areas with the most critical needs.

The new Western Water Initiative uses collaboration, conservation, and innovation to make sure every drop of water counts. This means improved water conservation, investments in science and technology, and modernization of existing infraVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:15 Aug 21, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 86198.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
28

structures. This initiative will provide a comprehensive forward-looking water resource management program that will respond to growing water demands. It will

position the bureau in playing a leading role in developing solutions that will help

meet the increased demands for limited water resources in the West. This proactive

initiative will benefit western communities that are struggling with increased water

demands, drought, and compliance with the Endangered Species Act. The Western

Water Initiative involves four major components:

Enhanced Water Management and Conservation. Funding will be used for the

modernization of irrigation delivery structures such as diversion structures and canals. This will also allow Reclamation to use existing intrastate water banks where

they are available, and to promote intrastate water banking as a concept to help

resolve future water supply conflicts.

Preventing Water Management Crises. This initiative will enable us to provide effective environmental and ecosystem enhancements in support of Reclamation’s project operations through proactive and innovative activities. For example, we are

exploring ways of addressing issues at projects by identifying and integrating longterm river system ecological needs within the context of regulated river management. Pilot projects will be selected from a list of critical areas based on their potential for cost savings that could be realized from proactive planning. Pilot projects

are anticipated to include environmental enhancements that provide support for

project operations or optimization of project operations for both water supply and

environmental benefits.

Expanded Science and Technology Program. Reclamation will expand its Desalination Research and Development Program to research cost reduction of water desalinization and waste disposal. It will also expand the effective use of science in

adaptive management of watersheds. This cooperative effort with the USGS would

assist Reclamation in reaching decisions that are driven by sound science and research, are cost effective, and are based on performance criteria. Funding will also

provide for peer review of the science used in ESA consultations and other environmental documents issued by Reclamation. This initiative will improve Reclamation’s use of science and technology to address critical water resource management issues.

Strengthening Endangered Species Act (ESA) Expertise. Funding will be used to

strengthen staff expertise in implementing and complying with the Endangered Species Act, and will produce identifiable mechanisms in order to achieve continuity in

evaluating biological assessments and/or biological opinions. This initiative will enable managers to acquire a greater understanding of the purpose, process and requirements of the ESA as it relates to Federal actions that are important to carrying out Reclamation’s water resources management mission.

My purpose in sharing our strategic vision of the Western Water Initiative with

you at this time is because H.R. 135 is generally consistent with this vision.

I am pleased to see the bill has been amended from the version in the last Congress, H.R. 3561, to specifically recognize the role of states on water rights and

water uses. Last year I testified that a tremendous amount of research has already

been done by Federal, state, local, and private entities. I am therefore pleased to

see that the Commission would take this existing information into account before

requesting additional studies.

For the past century DOI agencies have played an integral role in the development of Federal water management policy and any new management policy should

continue to have strong input from DOI. As H.R. 135 moves through the legislative

process, we would again encourage you to keep in mind the responsibilities that

Congress (and the Judiciary, in some cases) has placed on DOI—for example, the

unique role the Secretary plays as Water Master for the lower Colorado River.

I have already outlined for you the steps Reclamation hopes to take to improve

water management in order to meet ever-increasing demands for water. Reclamation works in an environment of cooperation with state, tribal, and local governments and other Federal agencies. H.R. 135 also differs from last year’s bill by reducing the number of qualified commission members from 17 to 7. While the reduced committee size will reduce costs and perhaps improve efficiency, we would

still advocate that due deference be given on membership to representatives from

state government.

Lastly, the Administration objects to Section 8(b)(2) of H.R. 135 which would give

the Commission the authority to require Federal agencies to detail to ‘‘the

Commission—such personnel as the Commission considers necessary to carry out

the provisions of this Act. Specifically, the Department of Justice has informed us

that giving such power to an advisory commission raises constitutional concerns, including potential Appointments Clause problems. The Department of Justice recommends that the provision be amended to authorize (and not require) Federal

agencies to detail personnel to the Commission.

29

Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I would be happy to answer any questions at this time.

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman.

First we will hear from Ms. Theresa Rosier and then we’ll have

questions for both of you. Thank you. You are recognized.

STATEMENT OF THERESA ROSIER, COUNSELOR TO THE

ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, U.S.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Ms. ROSIER. Good afternoon, Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee. My name is Theresa Rosier and I am Counselor to the

Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs. I appreciate the opportunity

to be here today to testify before the Subcommittee on H.R. 495,

the ‘‘Zuni Indian Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act of 2003.’’ I would like to abbreviate my testimony and submit my full written testimony for the record.

Mr. CALVERT. Without objection, so ordered.

Ms. ROSIER. The Administration supports H.R. 495. This bill is

the product of a cooperative effort over the past 5 years that involves the Zuni Pueblo, the State of Arizona, the United States, the

Salt River Project, and local water users in northeastern Arizona.

The settlement agreement at issue here today concerns only the

Zuni Tribe’s relatively small water rights claim regarding the Zuni

Heaven Reservation in northeastern Arizona. Zuni Heaven is a

unique reservation, created fairly recently, to accommodate religious and cultural practices of the Zuni Tribe. As you all know, the

main Zuni Reservation is in New Mexico, and this is where a majority of the Zuni members reside.

According to Zuni religious beliefs, a lake formerly located on the

Zuni Heaven Reservation is a window into Heaven. The lake and

the surrounding wetlands, however, have recently disappeared due

to upstream diversions and ground-water pumping in the surrounding areas. This settlement provides the Tribe with water and

land to restore the lake for future religious purposes.

H.R. 495 approves and authorizes Federal participation and a

settlement agreement. When fully implemented, the settlement will

constitute a final resolution of water rights claims of the Zuni Tribe

and the United States on behalf of the Tribe.

The settlement would secure for the Zuni Tribe approximately 5,

500 acre-feet per year, which includes both surface water and

groundwater, and also provides for the rehabilitation, restoration of

the sacred land, wetlands, and riparian areas of the Reservation.

The surface water component of the settlement would be secured

through the purchase of State law based water rights from willing

sellers, as well as through flood flows of the Little Colorado River.

To supplement surface flows in times of drought and to allow for

restoration activities while the surface water rights are being initiated, the settlement provides the Tribe with groundwater rights of

1,500 acre-feet per year.

The settlement here today involves significant cost sharing and

cooperation between the Federal Government, the State, and local

parties. The Tribe’s non-Indian neighbors have agreed to assist in

the acquisition of water rights, to store surface water supplies for

30

the Tribe, and to make other contributions to help carry out the

settlement.

In addition, some water supplies for the settlement will be secured through a $6 million grant from the State of Arizona.

H.R. 495 would authorize a total Federal contribution of

$19.25 million for the acquisition of water rights and also for necessary actions to restore the sacred lake, wetlands, and riparian

areas of the Zuni Heaven Reservation.

We believe the Federal contribution contemplated in H.R. 495 is

appropriate to facilitate resolution of the Zuni Tribe’s water rights.

The settlement is designed to release the United States from any

potential damage claims that might be asserted by the Tribe, and

also relieve the Federal Government of the obligation to litigate the

Tribe’s water rights claims. The United States does retain its ability to initiate enforcement actions, as necessary, in the future to

protect the environment and water quality in this area. Resolution

of the Tribe’s water rights claims would provide certainty to its

neighbors and to the Tribe, enabling both of them to make necessary plans for the future.

Negotiated agreements among Indian tribes, States and local

parties are the most effective ways to resolve water rights claims.

The settlement embodied in H.R. 495 is an example of creative solutions that are fostered by the collaborative process.

This concludes my testimony. I will be happy to answer any

questions.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Rosier follows:]

Statement of Theresa Rosier, Counselor to the Assistant Secretary for

Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 495

Good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee. My name is Theresa Rosier and I am the Counselor to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs within the Department of the Interior. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this

Subcommittee to discuss H.R. 495, ‘‘Zuni Indian Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act

of 2003.’’

The Administration supports H.R. 495. The bill is the product of a cooperative effort over the last five years among the Zuni Pueblo, the State of Arizona, the United

States, the Salt River Project and many local water users in northeastern Arizona.

The Settlement Agreement has been signed by the Zuni Tribe and many other settlement parties.

Background

The Little Colorado River (LCR) Basin covers an area of approximately 17.2 million acres or 26,964 square miles in northeastern Arizona and northwestern New

Mexico. The main stem of the Little Colorado River is entirely in Arizona. Therefore,

this adjudication deals only with claims inside the borders of Arizona. Five different

Indian tribes have reservations, or pending claims to reservation lands, within the

Basin: the Navajo Nation, Hopi Tribe, Zuni Tribe, San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe

and the White Mountain Apache Tribe.

The Settlement Agreement at issue here concerns only the Zuni Tribe’s relatively

small water right claims at the Zuni Heaven Reservation located in the south eastern section of the Basin, at the confluence of the Zuni and Little Colorado Rivers.

Zuni Heaven is a unique reservation created fairly recently to accommodate the religious and cultural practices of the Zuni. The main Zuni reservation, in contrast, is

located in New Mexico. The majority of the Zuni members reside on the main reservation.

According to Zuni religious beliefs, a lake formerly located on the Zuni Heaven

Reservation is a window into heaven. That lake and the surrounding wetlands disappeared in recent history due to upstream diversions and groundwater pumping

in the surrounding areas. The Settlement Agreement provides the Tribe with the

water and land to restore the lake for use in future religious ceremonies.

31

The Zuni Heaven Reservation was established by Congress in 1984 through Public

Law 98–498 and expanded in 1990 through Public Law 101–486 to further the religious and cultural needs of the Tribe. That legislation established the land base of

the Reservation within the Tribe’s aboriginal territory and facilitated the Tribe’s

regular pilgrimage from New Mexico to Arizona by authorizing the United States

to obtain easements along the pilgrimage route.

Since 1979, water rights in the Little Colorado River basin have been the subject

of an Arizona state general stream adjudication. The United States filed a water

rights claim on behalf of the Zuni Tribe in the state proceeding for water rights to

Zuni Heaven. Mirroring most general stream adjudications, the litigation has moved

very slowly. Recognizing that the Zuni claims lent themselves to settlement, the

parties devoted significant effort to negotiations. The Settlement Agreement and

H.R. 495, which would ratify that agreement, are the fruits of that negotiation.

H.R. 495

H.R. 495 approves and authorizes Federal participation in a settlement agreement, which includes three subsidiary agreements. When fully implemented, the

settlement would constitute a final resolution of the water rights claims of the Zuni

Tribe and the United States on its behalf. The Settlement would secure to the Zuni

Tribe approximately 5,500 acre-feet per year, including both surface water and

groundwater, and provide for the rehabilitation and restoration of the Sacred Lake,

wetlands and riparian areas of the Reservation. The surface water component of the

Settlement would be secured through the purchase of state law based water rights

from willing sellers, as well as through use of flood flows of the Little Colorado

River. To supplement surface flows in times of drought and to allow for restoration

activities to be initiated while surface water rights are acquired, the Settlement provides the Tribe with a groundwater right of 1,500 acre feet per year.

The Settlement involves significant cost sharing and cooperation between the

Federal Government and the state and local parties. The Tribe’s non–Indian neighbors have agreed to assist in the acquisition of water rights, to store surface water

supplies for the Tribe and make other contributions to carry out the Settlement. In

addition, some water supplies for the Settlement will be secured through up to $6

million in water protection grants funded by the State of Arizona. H.R. 495 would

authorize a total Federal settlement contribution of $19.25 million. These funds

would be used for the acquisition of water rights, as well as other actions necessary

to restore the Sacred Lake, the wetlands and riparian areas of the Zuni Heaven

Reservation. These actions include engineering, water and sediment distribution, removal of exotic vegetation, reestablishment of native vegetation, aggrading the river

channel and other related activities.

We believe the Federal contribution contemplated in H.R. 495 is appropriate to

facilitate resolution of the Zuni Tribe’s water rights. The Settlement is designed to

release the United States from any potential damage claims that might be asserted

by the Tribe and will relieve the Federal Government of the obligation to litigate,

at significant cost and over many years, the Tribe’s water rights claims. The United

States would retain its ability to initiate enforcement actions as necessary in the

future to protect the environment and water quality in the area. Resolution of the

Tribe’s water rights claims would provide certainty to its neighbors, enabling them

to plan and make necessary investments based on the assurance that they have secure and stable water rights.

Conclusion

Negotiated agreements among Indian tribes, states, local parties, and the Federal

Government are, in general, the most effective way to resolve reserved water right

claims in a manner that secures tribal rights to assured water supplies for present

and future generations while at the same time providing for sound management of

an increasingly scarce resource. The known benefits of settlement generally outweigh the uncertainties that are inherent in litigation to the tribe, the state, other

interested parties and the United States. The settlement embodied in H.R. 495 is

an example of the creative solutions that can be found to resolve contentious water

rights problems in the West.

This concludes my statement. I would be happy to answer any questions the Subcommittee may have.

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentlelady.

Commissioner Keys, you have written a directive that all added

security costs as a result of 9/11 will be paid for by taxpayers due

32

to the multipurpose nature of the Bureau’s facilities; isn’t that correct?

Mr. KEYS. Mr. Chairman, yes, sir.

Mr. CALVERT. Am I also correct that the Bureau closed the road

because of the added 9/11 security concerns?

Mr. KEYS. Mr. Chairman, there are a number of threats that

were evaluated since 9/11, and the closure was the direct result of

those reviews.

Mr. CALVERT. Well, let me ask you another way. Would you assess the road closure if 9/11 had not occurred?

Mr. KEYS. Mr. Chairman, no.

Mr. CALVERT. Were any other bridges closed prior to 9/11?

Mr. KEYS. Mr. Chairman, the only time before 9/11 that we had

closed roads was for a short time after the first attack on the World

Trade Center, and for numerous times when we’ve had to do maintenance on the facilities.

Mr. CALVERT. All of that’s true, but yet you indicate the Bureau

cannot support funding for the bridge, even though the Bureau

closed the road. Why is the Bureau changing its security costs policy only when it comes to building a bridge?

Mr. KEYS. Mr. Chairman, I don’t see that as a change. What we

are doing in other places—and it’s even true at Folsom—is looking

at the security forces necessary there, and then changes, you might

say, to harden the facilities against attack. All of those costs we are

trying to keep nonreimbursable.

The example that I used at Hoover is one where another agency,

that is more amendable or capable of designing and building a

bridge, is handling that activity.

Mr. CALVERT. Is it true that the Federal Government is paying

for the construction of that facility?

Mr. KEYS. It is a cost-shared effort at Hoover, between the States

of Arizona, Nevada, and the Department of Transportation.

Mr. CALVERT. But a significant amount of that is being paid for

by the Federal Government?

Mr. KEYS. That’s correct.

Mr. CALVERT. The Bureau certainly has, as well laid out by our

colleague, Mr. Ose, you certainly have the capacity to plan and design a bridge, and you have built bridges as recently as 1999.

Mr. KEYS. Mr. Chairman, that’s true.

Mr. CALVERT. What Bureau reservoirs currently allow automobile traffic?

Mr. KEYS. Mr. Chairman, we have—Mr. Chairman, I would rather answer that in a secure briefing, if I could.

Mr. CALVERT. OK. I understand. We’ll have the opportunity to do

that.

I’m certainly involved in the Armed Services Committee, so I

have been involved in some of these briefings. But much of this is

in the public media and has been exposed, so I don’t think we’re

exposing any classified information here today. But certainly there

have been threats to this country and you must do your job, as I

know you are, and doing it properly. But again, a point must be

made that certain roadways are being closed because of homeland

security concerns, and you’ve answered that in the affirmative,

isn’t that correct?

33

Mr. KEYS. That’s correct.

Mr. CALVERT. What plans does the Bureau have to mitigate the

effects of road closures, since these are Federal decisions?

Mr. KEYS. Mr. Chairman, in most cases, those roads are not

being used for the volumes of traffic that are occurring at Folsom.

We have no plans for reimbursements.

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman.

The gentlelady from California, Mrs. Napolitano.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Commissioner Keys, thank you very much.

I was wondering whether on Mr. Ose’s 901, whether there’s been

any effort by you to suggest to Mr. Ose and the other cosponsors

to work together with other agencies, such as Transportation, Interior, the Army Corps?

Mr. KEYS. Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Napolitano, yes, we have talked

with the people from Folsom, we have talked to the people that

represent them back here, and have tried to put them in contact

with some of the other agencies involved.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. But have you convened any meeting where all

the agencies are at the table at the same time, rather than somebody going out and starting from point A all over again in making

the presentation and being able to get the agencies to enjoin in a

cooperative manner?

Mr. KEYS. Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Napolitano, I have not convened

such a meeting, but I have personally talked to representatives of

the other agencies.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And?

Mr. KEYS. All the other agencies that I’ve talked about are willing to sit down and talk.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Commissioner.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. On my bill, H.R. 1284, you indicated you had

done some investigation, or your Bureau had done some investigation, on the fact you feel there’s enough money left in the VOC

cleanup in the San Gabriel Basin.

How did the Bureau arrive at this conclusion?

Mr. KEYS. Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Napolitano, in reviewing the requirements for completion of the project, the three units—El

Monte, South El Monte, and Puente Valley—those three are the

three that are not started yet. To get those started and complete

them is about $11 million of Federal cost share requirement. In our title XVI appropriation, we have an $8.5 million ceiling left. There is also $25 million of ceiling left in the restoration fund

ceiling that’s left. So we feel there is plenty to cover those three

projects that are left undone at this time.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. But did the Bureau take into account that the

coming projects that could be proposed by local entities may require more funding?

I would like to enter into the record, Mr. Chair, a copy of the actual contaminated—this is the Superfund site. The two on the left

are El Monte and South El Monte, and the one on the bottom, the

blue one, is Puente Valley. They all tie in. They all are part of the

Superfund list.

Now, this is only what has been identified or is partly funded,

while the bill itself, in 910, it only dealt with perchlorates. We’re

talking about VOCs in this area. The fact that it’s twice as costly

34

to be able to clean some of the other, the perchlorates, it is depleting some of the funds. Their estimates are running higher than

they thought. The fact that when El Monte, South El Monte and

Puente Valley came on board, the actual funding cap had been

placed so they really didn’t know how much it was going to cost.

So how can you determine they are going to be able to fund out

of the remaining funds available where there are still others that

have not come on board dealing with this contaminated site, that

have not been addressed because some of those cities did not have

the expertise, they didn’t have the ability to understand the whole

impact or how it affected their drinking water.

Again, as you heard the Congresswoman indicate, there are carcinogens that affect health, especially of the elderly and children

and those prone to cancer.

Mr. KEYS. Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Napolitano, I would say that we

have evaluated those plans that have been presented to us under

the authorizations that we’re working with. If there are some that

are out there that are incomplete or are still developing, we could

certainly listen to those and evaluate them. But everything that we

have been given to this date shows that we could cover the Federal

share of that expenditure.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Commissioner Keys, did you by any chance

have your staff talk to the three cities that I have tried to put this

bill forth on?

Mr. KEYS. Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Napolitano, yes, we did. I spoke

with my field office just Friday about all of these projects and how

they came up with the numbers that supported my testimony.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. OK. But did you actually have your staff talk

to the city managers? I have letters that I would like to introduce

into the record, Mr. Chairman, from all three cities, where they indicate this is a need. Apparently somebody from one of the water

agencies indicated to your staff that there was no need to raise the

cap, which is erroneous, because I have testimony from all three

cities stating that there is a need.

Mr. KEYS. Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Napolitano, certainly if there’s

other information out there that we don’t have, we would welcome

it into Reclamation.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I would really appreciate it, Commissioner,

and I look forward to working with you. I would like to enter these

into the record, Mr. Chair.

Mr. CALVERT. Without objection, so ordered.

[The information referred to follows:]

35

36

37

38

39

40

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I certainly appreciate your willingness because it is, as you well know, a big site that continues to run into

some road blocks here and there. I look forward to working with

your Bureau to address those road blocks.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentlelady.

Mr. Osborne.

Mr. OSBORNE. I would like to thank Mr. Keys for being here

today. I have a couple of questions.

41

I gather from your testimony that the Western Water Initiative

that you have already been working on is very similar to the concept of the 21st Century Water Commission that was envisioned by

H.R. 135; is that correct? In other words, you feel there is some duplication or similarity here?

Mr. KEYS. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Osborne, there are a great number

of similarities. I do not believe they would duplicate effort because

certainly the Bureau of Reclamation only works in the 17 Western

States. The initiative of the 21st century bill is for all of the United

States. So ours does just focus on the Western States. But they are

complimentary.

Mr. OSBORNE. There are a couple of statements that you have in

your testimony that I would like to have you flesh out as little bit,

if you could.

You mentioned that Reclamation is to promote intrastate water

banking as a concept to help resolve future water supply conflicts.

Could you explain that a little bit to me, as to how that works?

Mr. KEYS. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Osborne, we have used and are

using water banks in several projects in the Western United States

right now to address specific requirements associated with projects.

This year, in trying to address the problems in the Klamath

Basin project in Oregon, we have established a water bank of

60,000 acre-feet there, where we have purchased that water from

lands in the Basin—in other words, under a voluntary program,

people have sold their water off of about 30-40,000 acres of land to

produce 60,000 acre-feet of water to address the Endangered Species Act problems in the Basin. Setting that amount of water aside

in a water bank, to be operated for the Endangered Species Act,

frees the rest of the water supply in the Basin to be operated in

its best manner for the irrigation in the Basin.

We have similar type water banks where we have purchased

water going on in the Snake River Basin in Idaho, Washington, Oregon, in California, and we are in the process of working with the

States of New Mexico and Texas on purchasing water into a similar

water bank on the Middle Rio Grande for this year.

Mr. OSBORNE. Thank you. I guess my last question would be

somewhat related. It says here that funding will be used to

strengthen staff expertise in implementing and complying with the

Endangered Species Act. So do you feel that staff knowledge and

expertise can be improved in terms of implementing the Endangered Species Act and some aid is appropriate here?

Mr. KEYS. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Osborne, our people need all of the

expertise that we can give them in addressing the Endangered Species Act, so that we can keep our projects running and at the same

time accomplish the requirements of the Act.

Our projects are continually changing because of the demands on

them, because of population growth, other requirements that are

showing up that we didn’t even plan for. For our folks to stay on

top of those, we try to give them the best training that we can in

dealing with the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act and so forth. This is to give our folks every advantage in working those projects, so that they can accomplish

that.

Mr. OSBORNE. Thank you. I yield back.

42

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Inslee.

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you, Mr. Keys. In regard to the Folsom

Bridge project, if that was funded out of your budget, what impact

would that have on other water related projects in your budget— for instance, the Yakima River Enhancement Project up in the

State of Washington.

Mr. KEYS. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Inslee, our annual budget is about $850 million. Sixty-six million dollars is almost 10 percent of that.

We are currently operating under a flat line assumption. In other

words, our budgets are being held level with all of the other requirements on the Federal Treasury. I would anticipate a significant impact on our budget if that were to happen.

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you.

To fulfill Mr. Calvert’s expectation, I wanted to ask you one question about global warming, because I don’t want to let him down.

Just briefly, could you tell me what the Bureau has been doing

to try to assess the impact of global warming on water supplies,

particularly in the Western United States, if you can just give me

a summary of your efforts, to the extent you have some.

Mr. KEYS. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Inslee, I don’t have the people

working for Reclamation that have that expertise. We work very

closely with the Geological Survey and the National Academy of

Science, who both have active programs underway evaluating global warming and what impacts there may be. We meet with them

regularly and I have not seen a recent paper from them, but we

get regular reports from them and we’re working very closely with

both of those agencies.

Mr. INSLEE. Could you share with me what information, at least

in summary form, the Bureau may have ‘‘ginned up’’ in that regard? Would that be too difficult? Or could you ask your people to

do that?

Mr. KEYS. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Inslee, we haven’t ginned up any

information. We go to those agencies and they tell us what’s going

on.

I will tell you that there are no short-term results from those

things. There is nothing that we can take and say we need to operate a project or a storage facility this year to accommodate global

warming. Certainly those are long-range projections, and we’re still

trying to take a look and see.

I would certainly poll my people to see if we have any reports

from those two agencies that we could share with you.

Mr. INSLEE. I would be very appreciative. Thank you very much.

Mr. KEYS. You’re welcome.

Mr. CALVERT. Get some of that global warming over here, will

you? I’m tired of this weather.

[Laughter.]

Mr. Renzi.

Mr. RENZI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Keys, during your testimony you made reference to the Hoover Dam that connects the great State of Arizona with Nevada. I

just want to clarify for you an issue as it relates to the Hoover Dam

and the security issues revolving around the transportation across

that dam. I’m sure you’re aware that we did not close the Hoover

43

Dam to passenger traffic. We have rerouted some of the cargo

trucks.

In addition, for the last several year, as my good friend from Arizona, Mr. Grijalva, knows better than I do, we tried to connect

Canada with Mexico through the new Cana-American-Mexican

highway, and Mr. Grijalva has worked for years to help us blend

and be involved in commerce between the three nations.

Given all that, after September 11th, the Hoover Dam was restricted to some traffic. We did not close the Hoover Dam. I see you

want to say something.

Mr. KEYS. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Renzi, we did close Hoover Dam

for a short period of time, and certainly it was recognized, the

interruption of traffic on a Federal highway. It was opened fairly

shortly, I think like 3 days afterwards to passenger car traffic. And

then, as time went along, it was impacting the commerce on each

side of the reservoir there. We implemented a special permit program with those trucks that needed to do business across the

bridge and we currently have that in place.

We also have at Hoover— Mr. RENZI. I’m aware of the transportation, and I appreciate

that. Let me just get to my point.

Mr. KEYS. Sure.

Mr. RENZI. You may have closed the bridge or the dam for 3

days, but what we really did was we accelerated the building of a

bridge just downstream, called the Willow Beach Bridge. As you

know, Arizona and Nevada for years had been hoping and planning

for that bridge, and we were very much bogged down in environmental studies, which were accelerated themselves. In that acceleration that was caused by the security concerns of September

11th, the Federal Government will now pick up more of the lion’s

share as it relates to the building of that bridge, since Arizona and

Nevada have not been able to set aside the moneys in the same

time fashion that the Federal Government would now like us to

build that bridge. That’s just a matter of record and fact, sir.

Mr. RENZI. Miss Rosier, thank you for your testimony on my bill

and on the Zuni legislation.

One of the issues that you spoke about in your testimony was

that the United States can avoid the costly litigation by approving

this settlement, and that we also have a trust responsibility to Native Americans in this country, a trust responsibility that included

in 1984 creating Zuni Heaven. The Zunis move out of New Mexico

into Arizona, and their birthplace is recognized, from my colleague,

Mr. Pearce’s district in New Mexico, and a place where they pass

into eternity is recognized in Arizona. So it’s a migratory type of

history, as well as two reservations, two areas, that typically was

connected by their own lands.

In 1984, when we created Zuni Heaven and recognized a small

piece of their original lands, we did not give them the water that

goes with the land. We just gave them dry Arizona dirt. So I want

to thank you for pointing out that we had a trust responsibility in

your testimony today.

I recommend to my colleagues that we move forward in providing

not just the land but also the water. Thank you.

Ms. ROSIER. Thank you.

44

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Pearce.

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Commissioner Keys, is it possible to get a copy of your Western

Water Initiative, and where did that originate and what was the

approval process of that?

Mr. KEYS. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Pearce, we can certainly share

with you the Western Water Initiative. It was part of the Fiscal

Year 2004 budget presentation to Congress. It is based upon existing authorities. We have authority to do water conservation work

under a number of different Acts.

The desalinization portions have been authorized several times.

We could certainly share with you a copy of that and those authorizations.

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Keys, were you with the Bureau of Reclamation when they

filed suit against the State of New Mexico over the Elephant Butte

Irrigation District?

Mr. KEYS. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Pearce, I don’t know what year

that was.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I would suspect it would be 5 years

ago, 4 years ago. Commissioner Martinez was there at the time.

Mr. KEYS. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Pearce, I worked with Reclamation

through 1998, and I came back as Commissioner in July of 2001.

I have worked closely with Elephant Butte while I’ve been there on

a number of issues.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, without being a lawyer, if I were to

try to remember the circumstances, it was that the Bureau felt

that, since they had built the dam and the structures, that they

should own the water in the dam and should appropriate those waters instead of the State of New Mexico or the Elephant Butte Irrigation District.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask if that’s an ongoing practice of the

Department.

Mr. CALVERT. Are you asking me that question, or are you asking

the Commissioner?

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Keys, yes.

Mr. KEYS. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Pearce, I am not familiar with the

case that you’re talking about. I will tell you that every project we

have ever built has a State water right, and we operate those

projects within the State water rights. We have worked very closely

with Elephant Butte on property issues. I am not familiar with a

case where we have told the Elephant Butte folks that we own the

water there.

I would certainly get myself up to speed and come and talk with

you, if you would like me to do that.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate that. It would be

meaningful. Because as I read the comments of the text, I see that

the initiative is to expand and focus Reclamation’s existing efforts,

and then further down, developing solutions that will meet the increased demands for limited water resources in the West.

Those things begin to really concern me when the Federal

Government begins to consider taking water rights away from

State governments for possibly developing solutions for a limited

resource. Again, I approach this from the perspective of a State

45

that’s lacking in political power and lacking economic horsepower

in the courts. So I’m curious about exactly how you intend to expand your capabilities and by what authority. That’s the reason I

would like to look at the report.

Mr. KEYS. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Pearce, not being argumentative,

but I know of no case where Reclamation has taken water rights

from a State. Certainly every piece of that Western Water Initiative would be implemented in close partnerships with all 17 of the

Western States, to try to address future issues. From Reclamation’s

and Interior’s viewpoint, the States are sovereign on water rights,

and certainly every effort we would do would be to work with them

in trying to stretch those water supplies further.

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I would also point out that the Commissioner’s testimony mentioned the voluntary purchases of water

rights, or the purchase of water rights from willing sellers, but the

effect of that, Mr. Chairman, is to decrease the economy in an area,

to decrease the economic base in an area. I’m in one of the States

that is 60 percent owned by Federal or State governments, who

have retired land out of productive use. It’s causing extreme havoc

in our county budgets and in our State budgets.

Then, according to your own testimony, I refer the Commissioner

to his own testimony, that they were not so concerned about the

economic impacts at Folsom, but they are concerned about the economic impacts somewhere else. So it is that different value system

that concerns me somewhat as I look at the West and possible actions by the Bureau of Reclamation.

I will let the gentleman respond and will yield back.

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman. I’m sure Commissioner

Keys will be more than pleased to come by your office and discuss

these issues.

We’re going to try to get a couple of quick questions off before

we have to go on recess. Mr. Rodriguez, do you have a question?

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, let me apologize and thank you

for having me at my first Subcommittee meeting of this Committee.

Mr. CALVERT. Welcome.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you very much. I apologize. I just wanted

to maybe get some guidance.

We have had some real serious problems on the Mexican border

with the treaty that we’ve had with Mexico, especially the State of

Chihuahua on the other side. It is supposed to relinquish about

350,000 acre-feet of water per year and they haven’t been doing

that for some time now. They’re always about 1.7 million acre-feet.

They released a certain amount recently, but we’ve had some problems, where the Rio Grande no longer flows into the Gulf.

I was wondering, in terms of some guidance in that area might

be helpful, and what you might suggest we do to be able to help

some of the people in the lower part of the Rio Grande, especially

on the Texas border.

Mr. KEYS. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Rodriguez, that problem is being

handled by the State Department and the International Boundary

Waters Commission. We are working very closely with them to provide them the information that they need. But the State Department is the lead on that at the current time. I have no advice for

you on how to handle that right now.

46

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. OK. Because we’ve had some difficulty in trying

to come to grips with that. And two-thirds of that is owed to people

downstream on the Mexican side, so they are also hurting. Thank

you very much.

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman for that question.

Mr. Nunes.

Mr. NUNES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Keys, it’s good to see

you again.

In your testimony in opposition to H.R. 1284, you talked about

the funding ceiling provided by title XVI and that there was additional funding up to—I think it is $25 million remaining under the

ceiling on the restoration fund. Can you clarify the difference between title XVI and its origination, and also the difference between

the restoration fund and its origination?

Mr. KEYS. Title XVI was part of Public Law 102-575, passed in

1992. Every project that is authorized under title XVI has its own

limits and fundings and authorizations that go along with it. When San Gabriel was authorized, we were authorized about $40

million there, and certainly we still have about $8.5 million of that

cost ceiling left. The restoration fund was authorized at $80 million, of which $70 million was dedicated to the San Gabriel restoration work. There is currently $25 million of that ceiling left.

Mr. NUNES. When was the restoration fund authorized? What

restoration fund is this, and what authorized it?

Mr. CALVERT. If the gentleman will yield, I believe that legislation was offered by Mr. Drier— Mrs. NAPOLITANO. 910.

Mr. CALVERT. —910, and it authorized the amount of money to

put forward for the restoration of the San Gabriel Basin. It was a

separate restoration fund, I believe.

Mr. KEYS. Mr. Chairman, it was authorized in the year 2000.

Congress created the San Gabriel Basin restoration fund and it

provided a 65 percent Federal cost share. It was authorized at $85

million, 75 of which was dedicated to the San Gabriel Basin.

Mr. NUNES. Commissioner, thank you. As you know, ‘‘restoration

fund’’ is a term that is used for many other issues.

Mr. KEYS. Yes.

Mr. NUNES. So I wanted to clarify that it wasn’t the same restoration fund that I’ve asked about, I think on four separate occasions. I still have not received, as of this date, anything in regards

to the CVPIA restoration fund, as to its current account balance,

nor any other issues as to what the money has been spent on in

the last 10 years. I’m still waiting very patiently for that information, Mr. Keys, and I find it a little bit disconcerting that I haven’t

heard back from the Bureau yet.

Mr. KEYS. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Nunes, I will get that to you as

soon as I can.

Mr. NUNES. OK. Thank you. I would appreciate it.

Mr. CALVERT. And I know from experience, Commissioner, he’s

not all that patient.

[Laughter.]

Mr. KEYS. Thank you.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Ose, if you’ll be patient, we have a series of

three votes, and if this panel would please stay with us, we’re going

47

to go vote, come right back, and we will finish with Mr. Ose’s questions. Then we have a panel here from the community of Folsom.

So thank you very much.

We are recessed until after the last vote.

[Recess.]

Mr. CALVERT. While we’re waiting for Mr. Ose, I thought I would

ask the Commissioner a question on the qualification settlement

agreement. As you know, the State of California, the primary folks

in this agreement, have come to a tentative agreement. Is there

any new news you would like to pass on to the Committee?

Mr. KEYS. Mr. Chairman, I don’t have any news right now, other

than to say there is a negotiating committee, or there is a group

of people from Interior in California, yesterday and today, talking

with those folks about the QSA and the settlement. So negotiations

are underway.

Mr. CALVERT. Well, we certainly are looking to a positive resolution as soon as possible.

Mr. Renzi, did you have any further questions for the Commissioner?

Mr. RENZI. Yes, thank you.

I just wanted to clarify the point that I made earlier when we

were talking about the Hoover Dam. I appreciate your knowledge

of the transportation that goes over it. I just don’t want to make

the fact of the impact as it relates to these local communities is

something that the Federal Government in my State is willing to

bear. I think it’s probably relevant to the argument as it relates to

Mr. Ose.

I realize you have a tough job to do. We’re looking at communities that are now being drastically impacted on the way they

travel, and economically being greatly impacted. But I do believe

it is reasonable that we consider particularly the funding mechanism that Mr. Ose is talking about putting together.

Thank you for your testimony on the Zuni situation. It’s a long

time coming. Senator Kyl did a great job of pulling this together,

and Congressman J.D. Hayworth worked on it before I was able to

take over. I know we’ve got representatives here from Arizona,

from the Zuni Tribe, who have for years persevered and have come

a long way to make sure that we provide adequate resources along

with the land to allow Zuni Heaven to become a reality.

I had an opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to see a copy of the master

plan of what Zuni Heaven will eventually look like. It’s a beautiful

garden spot that our nation will be able to be respectful of and also

to be sure the trust responsibilities have been significantly discharged to the good people of the Zuni Tribe. So thank you for your

leadership, too, and for your years of making sure we get to this

point today.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you.

Mrs. Napolitano.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Commissioner Keys, one last question.

The Bureau of Reclamation had a toilet exchange program.

Where is that at?

Mr. KEYS. Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Napolitano, I did not hear the

whole question.

48

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. There was as toilet exchange program funded

by the Bureau of Reclamation, up to maybe about a year ago,

whereby I think it was the Met was charging nonprofits or schools

to go out and exchange them for the high volume of water, two gallons or whatever it is, versus the low flush toilet. That was being

funded out of the Bureau of Reclamation.

I’m wondering whether the program is going to be refunded?

Mr. KEYS. Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Napolitano, I have to confess I

don’t know anything about it. I will certainly find out and get back

to you.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I would appreciate it.

Mr. Chair, I don’t know if my witness who flew in to give testimony on the Puente Valley operating unit—I guess they told him

we would be back a little longer than it was thought, and he must

be outside waiting. So I have sent somebody to look. So, if I may,

I would like to bring him in when he comes.

Mr. CALVERT. Without objection.

Mr. Ose.

Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, thank you.

Mr. Keys, first of all I want to commend you on your presentation today. I know we don’t agree on this issue, and we’ve had

that conversation.

When DTRA did its analysis of Folsom, what was the basis

under which they looked at it, why that one and not others?

Mr. KEYS. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ose, starting in September of

2001, we started an evaluation of every structure that Reclamation

operates, all of our dams, 346 of them, 58 power plants, and some

other critical infrastructures. The DTRA analysis has been used on

all of those, in addition to some RAM-D analyses that were developed by the Corps of Engineers. So that DTRA analysis is the same

methodology that we’ve used on all of our facilities.

Mr. OSE. In the context of homeland security, did the Folsom

Dam issue rate high, medium or low?

Mr. KEYS. Mr. Chairman, I would prefer not to answer that outside of a secure briefing. We would certainly offer that to you and

Mr. Ose and other members of your Subcommittee.

Mr. OSE. I’m agreeable to that, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CALVERT. We’ll arrange for that to happen soon, with the

Commissioner, Mr. Ose and myself, and any other interested

members.

Mr. OSE. Mr. Keys, if I may, I want to make sure I understood

your earlier testimony; that is, that the Bureau has, in fact, built

bridges?

Mr. KEYS. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ose, that’s correct.

Mr. OSE. Was Reclamation responsible for their design?

Mr. KEYS. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ose, each one of those was authorized as part of a water resources project, and we were responsible

for the design and construction of those facilities.

Mr. OSE. So like the one in Glen Canyon, that was done by the

Bureau in its entirety?

Mr. KEYS. That’s correct.

Mr. OSE. Now, I’m told that, in fact, the Bureau’s bridge designers in Denver have conceptual drawings on Folsom Dam. I’m only

told that anecdotally.

49

Mr. KEYS. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ose, we have looked at a number

of options at Folsom, as we do at a lot of our facilities. There was

an appraisal level report that was done at the field level on a

bridge for taking the traffic off of the dam earlier.

Mr. OSE. And the property where the new bridge would be proposed to be built, is that Reclamation land?

Mr. KEYS. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ose, that’s correct.

Mr. OSE. OK.

Mr. Chairman, I want to again thank you for having this hearing. I appreciate the opportunity to interact with Commissioner

Keys. He and I disagree on this issue, as you have noted.

I yield back.

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman for bringing this legislation

forward. We will be marking up the legislation on Thursday, along

with the Zuni Indian legislation, the San Gabriel legislation, and

the Linder commission legislation, Thursday at 10 o’clock in the

morning. So hopefully we can move this along to the full Committee as soon as possible.

With that, if there are no further questions for this—Mr. Nunes.

Mr. NUNES. Commissioner Keys, I apologize, but I just want to

kind of go on farther from where we left off regarding the restoration fund.

I realize that it’s different than H.R. 1284. It’s a different restoration fund than the CVPIA restoration fund. But I am a bit concerned that myself and other members have made requests in writing for an account of the CVPIA restoration fund money, and now,

during our brief recess, when I went to vote, luckily another member’s office was in here and they actually had, as of November

30th, 2002, the exact information that I have been requesting for

85 days, roughly.

I realize that the information is hard to get and we don’t have

it. But obviously, at one point or another, the Bureau did get the

information to another Member of Congress. So I find it a little disconcerting, Commissioner—and I know this is probably not your

doing. But I want to kind of get to the bottom as to why I can’t

get some very simple numbers that greatly impact my district and

the entire San Joaquin Valley to the tune of probably close to $100

million a year, I would guess.

Mr. KEYS. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Nunes, your concerns are my concerns. I did not understand that we had those figures together. I

will certainly find out and have them to you as quick as possible.

Mr. NUNES. OK. And I can get this information to you, if that

would help you get to the bottom of who actually has the numbers,

at least as of 5 months ago.

Mr. KEYS. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Nunes, I will get them myself from

our agency, and if I cannot find them, I will come back to you and

do that.

Mr. NUNES. Thank you very much, Mr. Keys.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman. Again, I want to thank this

panel.

One last comment. Today is April 1st. It’s not April Fools necessarily. But we understand from Interior—and maybe this is coming out of a different part of the shop over at Interior. But the

50

crosscut budget for the Cal-Fed project was required to be brought

in front of this Committee on April 1st. So if you could pass that

along to our friends, I would appreciate it. We hope to get that this

week because we need that in the formulation of our Cal-Fed legislation.

Mr. KEYS. Mr. Chairman, I will certainly take that back. I was

not aware of that deadline, but we will take it back and be sure

that that happens.

Mr. CALVERT. I would appreciate that.

I want to thank you, Commissioner, as I always do, for your

courtesy and for coming to this Committee and putting up with us

for a little while. I appreciate that.

Ms. Rosier, thank you very much. You both have a good day.

You’re excused. Thank you.

Mr. KEYS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CALVERT. Our next panel is Mr. Jeff Starsky, councilman,

city of Folsom; Ms. Aileen Roder, Taxpayers for Common Sense;

and Mr. Roger Niello, Sacramento County Supervisor. I ask unanimous consent to submit the statement of the Honorable Steve

Miklos, the Mayor of the City of Folsom, California, for his statement. Without objection, so ordered.

[The prepared statement of Mayor Miklos follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Steve Miklos, Mayor,

City of Folsom, California, on H.R. 901

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, my name is Steve

Miklos, and I am the Mayor of the City of Folsom, California. I appear today in support of H.R. 901, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to construct a

bridge on Federal land west of and adjacent to Folsom Dam in California. I appreciate the opportunity to speak today regarding this legislation.

I thank this Committee for holding this hearing today. While this is one of the

first steps for this bill in the legislative process, many pieces of legislation never

even receive a hearing. I believe this hearing serves as evidence that the Chairman

of this Committee, Mr. Calvert, and the Members of this Committee take very seriously the problems and concerns facing the people of my City and of our entire region. On behalf of the citizens I represent, thank you for taking up the matter of

H.R. 901 and demonstrating your desire to help us find a way to cope with the disruption caused by the closure of Folsom Dam Road earlier this year.

I also wish to thank both Congressman Doug Ose and Congressman John Doolittle for their ongoing support for our City and our region. Our City appreciates

deeply Congressman Ose’s commitment to improving the lives of the citizens of

Folsom, and we specifically commend him for introducing H.R. 901 very early in the

First Session of the 108th Congress. Congressman John Doolittle has been a friend

and strong advocate on behalf of Folsom for over a decade, and we look forward to

continuing our work with him on behalf of our entire region.

My colleague on the Folsom City Council, Councilmember Jeff Starsky, has testified regarding many of the specific problems associated with the decision to permanently close Folsom Dam Road. He has also drawn an accurate picture of severe

problems caused by the road closure. I take this opportunity to expand several of

the points covered in his testimony and extend the discussion further into public

policy so the Committee Members can understand why we believe H.R. 901 is the

best legislative approach to achieve our goals.

H.R. 901 is important legislation on several levels. Locally and regionally, the legislation will help relieve impacts of circumstances and decisions beyond our local

control. Although our City and our local economy are relatively strong, we live in

uncertain economic times. Our City continues to cultivate our strong economic base

while simultaneously working to develop new business opportunities benefitting our

City as well as our region. The closure of Folsom Dam Road has a significant negative impact on local and regional businesses of all sizes—from local ‘‘Mom and Pop’’

stores to our larger corporate citizens. We need Federal assistance to replace the

closed crossing with a four-lane bridge as rapidly as possible—we cannot do it alone.

51

The State of California is, as the Committee is aware, in difficult financial straits.

The State of California is not in a position to provide significant assistance in our

efforts to restore what was a major regional artery. We will continue to press our

State government to help us solve our regional traffic congestion caused directly by

the Bureau closing Folsom Dam Road, but we have slim hopes of actually securing

the level of assistance necessary to mitigate the closure.

On the Federal level, H.R. 901 is important legislation for at least two reasons.

First, the legislation acknowledges the role of the Federal Government to assist

local and state governments achieve important objectives that are not within the

scope of non-Federal resources.

Second, and more specifically relevant in the current situation facing Folsom,

H.R. 901 correctly answers the question of responsibility for mitigating the impacts

of the decision to close Folsom Dam Road. Those of us in local government know

very well that responsibility for our actions rest with local government. If we condemn property under the law of eminent domain, we are responsible for making the

property owner whole. When we temporarily close a road, we hear quite clearly from

our constituents that we are responsible for getting that road open quickly. We understand that there are consequences to our decisions and that we in local government have a responsibility to mitigate negative consequences.

Similarly, I emphatically believe it is the duty of a Federal agency with the authority to make a decision with such negative local and regional impacts to bear the

responsibility to help mitigate those impacts. Without this kind of certainty of responsibility, local governments can be shuffled between Federal agencies for years

without ever securing the assistance needed to resolve problems created by the decisions of Federal agencies. There are several public agencies which could, in theory,

be responsible for funding the new bridge, including the Department of Homeland

Security, the Department of Transportation, and the Department of Defense via the

Army Corps of Engineers. I would argue that none of these agencies are in any better or worse position to take charge of the new bridge. But the distinction between

the other agencies and the Bureau of Reclamation is, in my mind, quite clear: the

Bureau of Reclamation had the authority to close the road and it exercised that authority. Good public policy requires the Bureau of Reclamation to bear responsibility

for replacing the river crossing closed by its decision.

I have testified why I believe H.R. 901 makes sense and why I am urging the

Committee to report the bill favorably as expeditiously as possible. I do not want

to leave the Committee with the impression that I believe the Bureau of Reclamation is wrong to attempt to protect the dam from terrorist attack. Those of us testifying on behalf of H.R. 901 recognize the real risks associated with allowing public

traffic on Folsom Dam Road. Last year, I outlined for this Committee the devastating impacts of a breach of the dam and focused on impacts to our region’s transportation infrastructure. I testified how providing the new bridge for traffic

would protect our freeways, our light rail, our local streets and regional transportation corridors, our rolling stock, and our other transportation assets from loss and

damage due to a massive flood. And I pointed out the inextricable link between

transportation infrastructure and our local, regional, and national economy. Thus,

a decision taken to protect our transportation infrastructure from flooding is a good

decision, and we argued that traffic should be removed from the road and the dam

should be closed to the public.

But I also testified that Folsom Dam Road should have remained open—if at all

possible and with proper controls in place—until the new bridge was in place.

Folsom Dam Road was the easternmost river crossing downstream from the major

river forks. It serves businesses and residents traveling between major employment

centers in El Dorado County, eastern Sacramento County, and Placer County. Approximately 18,000 vehicles a day cross the dam. The dam crossing is a major regional traffic connector providing access between jobs and housing in the three different counties. Some of our region’s largest industrial and commercial employers

used Folsom Dam Road, including Intel, Hewlett–Packard, and Blue Cross. And especially during the summer months, Folsom Dam Road was an indispensable crossing for visitors to Folsom Lake—the most visited state park in the State of California—and the region’s parks and recreation facilities.

The crossing at Folsom Dam needed to be moved off the dam, but the impact of

doing so without a replacement bridge in place is and will continue to be devastating to the local and regional economy. Folsom Dam Road was an inadequate,

but essential, transportation artery between the three counties. It was extraordinarily important for local circulation. Just as there is a balance between airport

security measures and moving people efficiently onto departing flights, so too there

must be a reasonable security system put in place to protect the dam while allowing

the public to cross the dam until the new bridge is completed.

52

I understand and appreciate the difficulty faced by Commissioner Keys and the

Bureau of Reclamation generally. They understand the importance of the road to

local and regional transportation and air quality, but they also understand their responsibility to safeguard Folsom Dam. However, now that the road is closed and the

dam is secure from possible vehicular attack, the Bureau cannot avoid the consequences of its decision to close the dam. I do believe the Bureau has a limited

budget and I encourage Congress to provide adequate funding to the Bureau so it

can discharge its other responsibilities while making the City of Folsom and our region whole again. If the Bureau of Reclamation is not responsible for its decisions,

then I fear we will suffer intolerable traffic, air quality, and negative economic consequences of the road closure for many, many years to come.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to testify on behalf of the City of

Folsom in support of H.R. 901. We understand that there are many new priorities

in our nation now. We are mindful of the cost of the war in Iraq—both the human

toll as well as the financial cost. But we do believe that we as a nation must not

neglect significant internal matters, and for those of us in the Sacramento Metropolitan region, the new bridge at Folsom Dam is a significant matter. We need the

new bridge to remain economically vital both locally and regionally. We need the

new bridge to alleviate traffic directly resulting from the closure of Folsom Dam

Road. We need the new bridge to help lessen pollution locally and regionally caused

by cars idling while waiting to squeeze through new choke points. We urge you and

your Subcommittee to support H.R. 901 and work towards its speedy passage.

I would be happy to answer any questions you may have, and I thank you for

the opportunity to testify today.

Mr. CALVERT. First I would like to recognize Mr. Jeff Starsky for

his opening statement.

Please try to keep the opening statements within the 5-minute

time line. Any additional information will be entered into the

record. So, with that, Mr. Starsky, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

STATEMENTS OF JEFFREY STARSKY, COUNCILMAN,

CITY OF FOLSOM, CALIFORNIA

Mr. STARSKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, distinguished members

of the Committee. My name is Jeffrey Starsky. I am a representative on the city of Folsom’s City Council, here on behalf of the

50,000 taxpayers which reside in my city. I want to express my appreciation for the opportunity to appear myself on behalf of my constituents and, in addition, on behalf of the three million users of

the roadway that traverses the Folsom Dam, and the opportunity

to have our voices heard at this very, very important hearing.

I would first also like to thank Congressman Ose, our Representative and champion, for those of us in the city of Folsom. Congressman Ose’s efforts and vision has helped us accomplish what has

been a tremendously disruptive impact from the closing. In addition, we would like to thank Congressman Doolittle for his tremendous support. He has been a long time friend of our region.

I think it is important to note that these two gentlemen have

worked and, with the introduction of H.R. 901, are working on

something that will not simply benefit the people they represent.

This is going to benefit a region. As I said, three million people will

traverse this roadway, or had until a month ago, traversed this

roadway. These men are looking beyond the bounds of politics and

are looking to help our region survive what will be a devastating

economic impact.

53

I would ask, Mr. Chairman, that my written comments be submitted, and I do not intend to read those. I just wanted to highlight

a few of the salient points.

Mr. CALVERT. Without objection, your full statement will be entered into the record.

Mr. STARSKY. Thank you, sir.

Briefly, just some history of this area. When this facility was constructed in the 1950’s—it is important to remember that there were

three crossings across the American River prior to the construction

of this dam: the Mormon Island Bridge, the Rattlesnake Suspension Bridge, and the Salmon Falls Bridge. When the dam was constructed, the Salmon Falls Bridge was the only bridge that was relocated and reestablished across the river. The other two were

never replaced.

The two lanes across the Folsom Dam did help to address some

of the transportation issues that were addressed by this facility. Of

course, at the time the city was small, the region was very small.

But now, as the region has continued to grow, this transportation

link has been absolutely vital to the economic success of the area.

Quickly, to talk about the impact itself on the city of Folsom, I

can speak directly to those. Within the first week of the dam road

closure, the city expended $38,000 just in additional security and

additional law enforcement. We have seen a 40 percent increase in

traffic accidents within our city, and we expect this could amount

to as much as $15,000 per week in additional police and fire protection services.

The loss of businesses in our city we are unable to measure at

this time. It has simply been too early. I know I have spoken to

several business owners that are along the immediate affected corridors. They have seen a 50 percent drop in their floor traffic. That,

of course, has a tremendous impact on the sales tax, which is a direct benefit to the city of Folsom, as you are aware. California, as

most of you know, is suffering a very serious financial crisis, and

cities are at risk for funds through property taxes, and we’re very,

very concerned that an impact on sales taxes is our last bastion

that will be impacted.

By way of example, when the facility experienced the failure of

a gate in 1995, 38 businesses within the city of Folsom closed as

a result of that short-term closure. We are very, very concerned

about the long-term impacts this time of a permanent closure.

Most importantly, the impact is going to be in our redevelopment

area. Our redevelopment is an area that we have tried to remove

the blight. It is an old area. Many of you may not have the history

of Folsom, but it dates back to the Pony Express. We have preserved our historic district in that setting, and we use it as a retail

area. We try to attract businesses and tourism, which is being

choked off by the 18,000 additional vehicles that are traveling

through and directly impacting that area.

My last comment would be that I view this a little bit like when

we, as a city, act and we take something. We have a transportation

route here that has existed for over 50 years. It has been that region’s transportation route. The Federal Government, by the actions of the Bureau, have taken that from us. When those of us

that are on city councils act to take property or rights, we have to

54

pay for those rights. We are asking that the Federal Government

do the same.

We do not dispute the contentions of the Bureau, that this is a

national security issue. It absolutely is. All we’re asking is that we

be given mitigation rights, as the Federal Government has done in

the past.

Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Starsky follows:]

Statement of Jeffrey Starsky, Councilmember,

City of Folsom, California, on H.R. 901

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, my name is Jeffrey

Starsky and I serve on the City Council of the City of Folsom, California. I appreciate the opportunity to speak today regarding H.R. 901, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to construct a bridge on Federal land west of and adjacent

to Folsom Dam in California.

I wish to begin by thanking you and the members of the Subcommittee on Water

and Power for holding this hearing this afternoon. The citizens of the City of

Folsom, Sacramento County, El Dorado County, and Placer County need your assistance in helping us adjust to the recent closure of Folsom Dam Road, a major regional connector and lifeline for many local and regional businesses and families.

This hearing today is a critical step in the life of H.R. 901, and demonstrates your

concern and commitment to our city and our region.

On behalf of the City of Folsom, I also wish to thank Congressman Doug Ose for

his leadership and for introducing H.R. 901. Congressman Ose has served his constituents and the nation well since first being elected in 1999. Folsom is proud to

have Congressman Ose represent us in the United States Congress, and we appreciate his commitment to our City, our region, and the State of California.

In addition, we wish to thank Congressman John Doolittle for cosponsoring

H.R. 901. Congressman Doolittle has served the City of Folsom in the House of

Representatives for over a decade with distinction and honor, and our City values

deeply his hard work, dedication, and commitment to our City and Northern California.

By way of background, The Flood Control Act of 1944 authorized the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers to build a dam on the lower American River. The U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers completed construction on Folsom Dam in 1956. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation now operates the dam. The reservoir holds just under one million acre feet of water when filled to operational capacity. The dam’s power plant

has three penstocks delivering 6900 cubic feet per second to turbines producing approximately 10% of the power used in Sacramento each year.

Three river crossings were inundated and lost in the 1950’s when the reservoir

filled up: Mormon Island Bridge, Rattlesnake Suspension Bridge, and Salmon Falls

Bridge. While the Salmon Falls Bridge was located upstream and is accessible

today, the other two crossings were never replaced. Each crossing included two

lanes, thus four lanes were lost as a direct result of dam construction.

The Federal Government and others recognized security risks posed by traffic on

Folsom Dam Road, but the matter never seemed urgent until September 11th

changed America’s way of thinking about security within the United States. In one

morning, the issue of traffic atop the dam was transformed into a distinct and critical issue of national significance.

The new bridge at Folsom probably would never have been the subject of its own

congressional hearing without the tragedy of September 11th. It is likely the project

would have continued to play a minor role in Sacramento’s flood control debate. I

believe this is an important point to remember—the need for the new bridge transcends flood control and is, in fact, a security issue.

Even prior to September 11th, Congressman Ose and Congressman Doolittle recognized the need to move traffic off the dam to a new bridge. H.R. 2301, introduced

in the last Congress, would have achieved that goal. Now, H.R. 901, introduced by

Congressman Ose and cosponsored by Congressman Doolittle, carries forward the

effort to provide a bridge to replace Folsom Dam Road which, by the Bureau of Reclamation’s own admission, was a major transportation artery for the City of Folsom

as well as Placer County and El Dorado County.

Almost one year ago I testified before this same Committee in strong support of

legislation authorizing construction of a bridge to replace Folsom Dam Road. During

that hearing, my regional colleagues and I emphasized the need to ensure the secuVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:15 Aug 21, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 86198.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
55

rity of Folsom Dam and Folsom Reservoir. We pointed out that removing automobile

traffic from Folsom Dam would help prevent a catastrophic failure and flood caused

by a terrorist act. We testified that a major breach caused by a terrorist act would

result in a titanic flood—hundreds of thousands of lives would be at immediate risk,

as would the capitol of the fifth largest economy in the world.

We insisted that a new bridge replacing Folsom Dam Road would be essential for

the physical safety and economic stability of our City and the entire Sacramento

metropolitan region. We also outlined the costs and heavy burdens our City and our

region would bear if the Bureau of Reclamation closed Folsom Dam Road prior to

having a new bridge in place.

As the Committee is aware, the Federal Government drew the same conclusions

regarding the security of the dam. The Federal Government took action and the

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation closed Folsom Dam Road on February 28, 2003. I am

here today to tell you that our prognosis of closure offered to you one year ago was,

unfortunately, quite correct. The City of Folsom and the citizens of our region now

bear the heavy burdens of the Bureau’s sudden and complete closure of Folsom Dam

Road.

I am not suggesting that the Bureau’s decision was unjustified or hasty. But, in

fact, the closure did occur suddenly, with little warning, and with no plan in place

for assisting the region in handling the disruption of traffic patterns established

over decades.

Last year, I testified that closing Folsom Dam Road without providing a replacement bridge would do significant and lasting damage to our local and regional economy and environment. Only a short time has passed since closure, but I can report

that closure has, in fact, done significant damage to our local and regional economy

and environment. For example, closure without replacement costs the City $15,000

a month in traffic control costs alone. These direct and quantifiable costs may seem

insignificant viewed on the Federal level, but I can testify without reservation that

the costs are enormous locally and regionally.

Public safety has also been compromised by the closure. Specifically, our police

and fire departments have lost a primary access which severely impacts response

times. Also, the routes emergency vehicles must use are now are heavily impacted

by traffic which has been re-routed from the now closed Folsom Dam Road.

We are gathering additional facts regarding other direct costs to the City. As a

procedural matter, I would request that the Committee leave the record open temporarily so the City can provide additional impact information as it becomes available.

But the real costs to our economy and environment are widespread, enormous, and

can neither be easily nor accurately quantified. We see these costs being borne by

the people of Folsom and our region every day. We see 18,000 additional vehicles

each day now clogging the streets of our City. We miss meetings and we are late

to pick up our children from school. We burn expensive gasoline and pollute our air

while waiting for traffic to cycle through intersections designed to carry a fraction

of the traffic now imposed on the City.

I can report to the Committee that businesses located along impacted roadways

have suffered immediate and significant negative impacts. Negative impacts on

businesses are not only felt near the closed road entrances, but also all along the

newly heavily congested alternative routes. Customers are finding it very difficult

to enter and exit parking lots, and traffic congestion has driven shoppers away from

local business. It is important to note in particular that the impacted routes run

through the heart of the City’s redevelopment area, putting the City’s significant redevelopment efforts and opportunities at risk.

Last year, we framed the twin issues quite clearly: ensuring the physical security

of Folsom Dam, and ensuring the economic security of the City of Folsom and our

region. The Bureau’s decision to close the road without a plan to replace the road

addressed the first issue while simultaneously and immediately undermining the

second. H.R. 901 addresses the significant local and regional negative impacts of a

Federal response to a grave national security risk. The Federal Government needs

to take responsibility for these impacts and mitigate closure by way of providing a

bridge.

We who live in the Sacramento region are quite familiar with the negative impacts of the closure of Federal facilities due to national security concerns. In the

past decade we have endured the costs of the closure of three major military facilities: Mather Air Force Base, McClellan Air Force Base, and the Sacramento Army

Depot. In each case, the Federal Government’s decision to close its facilities had significant, immediate, and lasting negative impacts locally and regionally.

However, in the case of base closure, the Department of Defense worked with our

region to mitigate the impacts of its decision to close the facility. The Air Force and

the Army spent significant amounts of money to help our region during and after

56

the closure of each facility. The Department of Defense assisted our region—through

funding and technical assistance—in adjusting to the loss of the Federal facility. In

short, the Department of Defense did not merely pull up stakes and put a lock on

the gate.

The positive results of the efforts of the Department of Defense are real and measurable. The facilities have transformed into important and positive economic engines

for our region. The Federal Government’s acknowledgement of responsibility for assisting local and regional government respond to base closure should serve as a

model in the case of the Bureau of Reclamation’s decision to close Folsom Dam

Road. Without the same high level of Federal assistance, the impacts of Folsom

Dam Road’s closure on national security grounds will be borne entirely by the City

of Folsom and the citizens of Placer and El Dorado Counties. Furthermore, the negative effects of closure will be felt throughout the entire Sacramento Metropolitan

region.

There are distinctions to be drawn between base closure and our current situation. While military bases do come with significant negative characteristics—for example, the costs associated with environmental clean up at closed bases are real and

significant—military facilities also come with significant positive features and facilities. In the case of Mather Air Force Base—renamed Mather Field—the facility is

now a major hub for freight movement thanks to its excellent runway and access

to major surface transportation corridors. McClellan’s superior facilities and transportation access have drawn important businesses to headquarter there. However,

Sacramento would have been unable to take advantage of the positive attributes of

these facilities without direct and active assistance—technical and funding—from

the Department of Defense.

In the case of Folsom Dam Road, there are neither direct nor indirect benefits to

closure beyond ensuring dam security. While this is a critical objective, we cannot

view this matter in the vacuum of national security. There are real and negative

impacts as a direct result of closure without replacement. Borrowing from the Department of Defense model once again, national security needs are linked with economic needs. That is why DOD put so much effort and funding into base reuse.

DOD recognized the shortcomings of trading military readiness for regional economic security without mitigation, and DOD took responsibility and action to help

ensure a safe transition for the local and regional economy. We ask the Federal Government—specifically, the Bureau of Reclamation—to do the same in the case of

Folsom Dam Road.

As I testified last year, the new bridge would provide extremely important and

direct benefits to our region. Our City and our region have attempted to address

traffic congestion and air pollution for years. In fact, Folsom recently completed a

new bridge across the American River at a total project cost of $75 million. This

new bridge, which was built without Federal funds, dramatically improved automobile circulation in our city and regionally. However, the benefits of the new

bridge have been severely undercut by the loss of the Folsom Dam Road as virtually

all traffic formerly using the dam road now uses the new bridge or the old bridge

nearby.

There are other positive outcomes of going forward with the new bridge that are

unrelated to security and are also critically important to our City and our region.

A new four-lane bridge at Folsom Dam is an indispensable component of the sixcounty Sacramento Region’s Metropolitan Transportation Plan, the area’s Federallymandated regional transportation plan for the next twenty years. But H.R. 901 cannot be viewed as a congestion mitigation bill. The bill represents recognition by the

Federal Government that it must help our region deal with its decision to close its

facility.

It was vitally important to get traffic off the dam as quickly as possible. However,

we must also ensure that our goal is achieved in a responsible manner. We must

work together to ensure that local and regional economic stability is maintained and

traffic flow is managed as best as possible while the new bridge is under construction.

Prior to the February 28th closure, approximately 18,000 vehicles a day crossed

the dam. The road served as a major regional traffic connector providing access between jobs and housing in three different counties. Some of the larger industrial and

commercial enterprises that benefit from this connection include Intel, Hewlett–

Packard, Blue Cross and a number of other major employment centers.

The people who used the dam road were traveling to and from work and school.

They were conducting business and going shopping. They were enjoying the Folsom

Lake Recreation Area, one of the most popular state recreational facilities in the nation with over one and a half million visitors annually. While the overriding concern

57

is one of security, it is also clear that closing Folsom Dam Road without a replacement will be devastating to the local and regional economy.

We learned the impact of temporary closure several years ago when repair work

required lengthy Folsom Dam Road closures. Several businesses were forced to close

and others were deeply hurt economically. Traffic was horrible, police, fire, and

medical response times increased, and the situation aggravated an already dire air

quality situation locally and regionally. In fact, Congress recognized the cost of limited closures and authorized up to $100,000 in reimbursement to the City of Folsom

for its costs.

Now the situation is much worse as we have experienced significant population

increases locally and regionally and the closure is permanent rather than temporary. We must recognize the economic, traffic circulation, and air quality needs

and realities in our region. It is important to note that these three matters are

points of national significance and Federal involvement. The Committee should be

aware of the remarkable growth of communities adjacent to Folsom Lake over the

past decade. The City of Folsom’s population grew from 15,000 to our current 56,000

in a few short years. Eastern Sacramento County, the City of Roseville and southern

portions of Placer County, and El Dorado County can also report exponential growth

levels. The recent permanent closure has been a terrible shock to our system.

We are aware that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers previously recommended

the construction of a temporary bridge to handle redirected traffic while the dam

is modified pursuant to prior congressional authorization. While the Corps’ interest

in minimizing the impact of closure is well-placed, it still does not make fiscal sense

to put $20 million into a temporary structure when that amount covers almost one

third the cost of a permanent, full-service structure. Congressman Ose’s legislation

recognizes the importance of spending our limited Federal resources prudently as

well as the value of doing something right the first time around. Simple math demonstrates the fiscally responsible approach of foregoing the temporary fix and applying those funds to a permanent, four-lane replacement bridge.

We would like the Subcommittee to know that we have endeavored to meet with

other local interests regarding H.R. 901. Through those efforts, we feel we have covered enough bases to feel comfortable in fully supporting Congressman Ose’s legislation. We met with the Bureau of Reclamation, our other regional congressional representatives, and our representatives in the Senate. We have talked with other local

and regional governments as well as state officials. We believe that H.R. 901 is the

best approach to achieve our goals.

Some continue to ask whether the Bureau of Reclamation should be authorized

to construct the bridge. There are really three questions here: whether the Bureau

has the capability to build the bridge, whether the Bureau should build the bridge,

and whether the Bureau has adequate funding to build the bridge.

Regarding capability, we direct the Subcommittee to a letter to the Sacramento

Bee from Bureau Commissioner John Keys, wherein he wrote, in part:

‘‘the reference to the Bureau of Reclamation not having bridge building capabilities is simply not correct. Reclamation has designed and built many

large bridges throughout the West. The beautiful arch bridge that spans the

depths of Glen Canyon in Arizona is one example’’ Reclamation designed

and built the Foresthill Bridge that spans the American River at Auburn—

The property where the new bridge would be located is Reclamation land,

and Reclamation is quite capable of building the bridge we’ll design.

The Bureau has as much capability to design and build the new bridge as other

Federal agencies. It has built bridges in the past. In fact, it built the large bridge

standing only a few miles upstream from the proposed location of the new bridge.

Second, the Bureau should build the bridge. This project replaces a Federal facility operated by the Bureau of Reclamation and recently closed at the direction of

the Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. It is a Bureau facility and a Bureau responsibility. It is incorrect to suggest, as some have, that H.R. 901 ‘‘throws

the Bureau’s mission out the window.’’ The Bureau’s mission to protect water and

related resources led it to the decision to close Folsom Dam Road. It is not, as some

would suggest, unreasonable for the Bureau to replace the crossing it closed in order

to protect the dam. However, the City stands ready to assist the bureau and is willing to take on whatever tasks are appropriate to construct the project efficiently and

effectively.

Third, we do understand that the Bureau’s current budget does not include funding for the new bridge. We support adding funding to the Bureau of Reclamation’s

budget for this project if additional funding is needed to build the bridge and allow

the Bureau to carry out its other responsibilities. Congress and the Administration

set Federal fiscal priorities, and Congress and the Administration can decide whether to provide funding to the Bureau of Reclamation to build the new bridge in light

58

of the Bureau’s decision to close Folsom Dam Road. Whether the Bureau or some

other Federal agency builds the bridge, a decision to provide Federal funding of

some flavor will need to be taken.

Mr. Chairman, in closing I would once again like to thank you and your colleagues for holding this hearing today. We understand that your Committee is extraordinarily busy, and the fact that this hearing has occurred underscores both

your commitment to ensuring the safety and security of Americans as well as the

clearly established need for the passage of H.R. 901. We also again wish to thank

Congressman Ose and Congressman Doolittle for all their work on this legislation

and on behalf of the City of Folsom.

The City of Folsom urges the Subcommittee on Water and Power to report favorably on H.R. 901 as soon as possible. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before

you today, and this concludes my formal statement. I would be happy to answer any

questions you may have.

Again, thank you.

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman.

Miss Aileen Roder. You’re recognized for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF AILEEN RODER, PROGRAM DIRECTOR,

TAXPAYERS FOR COMMON SENSE

Ms. RODER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, Chairman Calvert, Congresswoman Napolitano, and other distinguished

members of the Subcommittee.

I am Aileen Roder, program director at Taxpayers for Common

Sense, a national, nonpartisan budget watchdog group. Thank you

for inviting me to testify regarding H.R. 901, legislation introduced

by Representatives Doolittle and Ose, to authorize the Secretary of

Interior to construct a bridge on Federal land west of and adjacent

to Folsom Dam in California.

Taxpayers for Common Sense strongly opposes H.R. 901. This

bill ignores other, more appropriate approaches to replacing the

bridge over Folsom Dam. It contains no local cost sharing for an

enhanced bridge, circumvents the normal authorization process for

bridge building, and tries to rewrite the Bureau of Reclamation’s

mission by making it into a highway construction agency.

In February, 2002, the Army Corps of Engineers released a final

environmental impact statement calling for a seven-foot raise of

Folsom Dam in order to reduce Sacramento’s flood risk to a 1 in

213 chance in any given year. The Corps plan includes the building

of a temporary bridge southeast of Folsom Dam at a cost of $20-

30 million. H.R. 901 ignores this and other additional proposals for

a bridge to be built with appropriate local and Federal cost sharing

by the Department of Transportation.

H.R. 901 tries to circumvent the normal highway authorization

process and local cost-sharing requirements for road building improvements. Instead of involving the Department of Transportation, the city of Folsom, the California Department of Transportation, or the Army Corps of Engineers, H.R. 901 drags the Bureau

of Reclamation, a completely unrelated agency, into the process.

The Bureau is in the water supply business, not the bridge building business. At a time when Federal deficits are the highest in

history, H.R. 901 will crowd out legitimate Bureau of Reclamation

funding for projects.

California Members of Congress, including the two co-sponsors of

H.R. 901, have previously opposed diverting Bureau funding. On

January 8th, 2003, the entire California congressional delegation

59

sent a letter to Secretary Norton and Attorney General Ashcroft requesting that settlement funds for Sumner Peck Ranch versus Bureau of Reclamation not come from the Bureau of Reclamation’s

budget. The delegation pointed out that Bureau funding should not

be used for non-Bureau projects. We wholeheartedly agree and

therefore believe it to be completely inappropriate to utilize Bureau

funds to pay for projects outside its core missions, such as those anticipated by H.R. 901.

This bill represents the second attempt by Congressman Doolittle

to replace the bridge over Folsom Dam. In his June 26th, 2001

press release regarding his original bill, H.R. 2301, Congressman

Doolittle stated, ‘‘It is clear that a permanent, full-service bridge is

needed to ensure greater transportation efficiency and commuter

convenience.’’ We believe that the Federal taxpayer should not be picking up the whole $66.5 million tab for commuter convenience resulting

from a bridge upgrade. Unfortunately, despite a debate on that bill,

H.R. 901 fails to include any non-Federal cost sharing provisions.

In closing, the Bureau of Reclamation should not be forced to deviate from its core mission by becoming a highway construction

agency. Any bill authorizing construction of an improved Folsom

bridge should strictly define Federal and non-Federal cost sharing.

Such a bill should go through the normal highway authorization

process, taking into account that the Corps is already contemplating construction of a two-lane bridge. Congress should not raid

the coffers of agencies dependent on energy and water appropriations to pay for the traffic conveniences of a few local beneficiaries.

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. I would ask

that my full written statement be submitted for the record, Mr.

Chairman.

Mr. CALVERT. Without objection, the full statement will be entered into the record.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Roder follows:]

Statement of Aileen Roder, Program Director,

Taxpayers for Common Sense, on H.R. 901

Good afternoon, Chairman Calvert, Congresswoman Napolitano, and other distinguished members of the Subcommittee. I am Aileen Roder, Program Director at Taxpayers for Common Sense (TCS), a national, non-partisan budget watchdog group.

I would like to thank you for inviting me to testify at this hearing regarding

H.R. 901 which would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to construct a bridge

on Federal land west of and adjacent to Folsom Dam in California. The bridge that

formerly traversed Folsom Dam was closed to public use in February 2003.

Taxpayers for Common Sense strongly opposes H.R. 901, introduced by Representatives John Doolittle (R–CA) and Doug Ose (R–CA). This legislation overlooks

other more appropriate approaches to replace the bridge that formerly traversed

Folsom Dam. The most prominent proposal that H.R. 901 ignores is the current

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) plan to build a temporary bridge southeast

of Folsom Dam in conjunction with their overall plan to raise the Folsom Dam seven

feet in order to provide much needed flood control to the City of Sacramento. This

bridge could be turned over to the City of Folsom and would resolve the security

concerns that caused the Bureau of Reclamation to close the bridge over Folsom

Dam to public use. H.R. 901 also ignores additional proposals for a bridge to be

built with appropriate local and Federal cost sharing by the U.S. Department of

Transportation (USDOT).

In February 2002, the Corps of Engineers released a Final Supplemental Plan

Formulation Report/Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report

(FEIS). This FEIS called for a 7-foot raise of Folsom Dam in order to reduce the

City of Sacramento’s flood risk to a 1-in–213 chance in any given year. Recognizing

60

the obvious impact of the raise on the dam bridge traffic, the Corps proposed a temporary bridge southeast of Folsom Dam. The bridge would be similarly sized to the

bridge that formerly traversed Folsom Dam. The Corps stated that the bridge could

be left in place if a local sponsor is identified to assume the operation and maintenance responsibilities. The Corps plan for the 7-foot raise received a favorable Chief

of Engineer’s report in November 2003. I have attached the applicable portions of

the Corps FEIS to my testimony.

H.R. 901 ignores the Corps proposal, and instead tries to end run the normal

process for highway improvements and local cost share requirements for road-building improvements. Instead of involving the USDOT, or other entities such as the

City of Folsom, California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), or the Army

Corps of Engineers, H.R. 901 drags the Bureau of Reclamation, a completely unrelated agency, into the process.

The Bureau of Reclamation’s mission is to ‘‘manage, develop, and protect water

and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the

interest of the American public.’’ The Bureau is in the water supply business not

the bridge-building business. Legislation that foists responsibilities upon the Bureau

that are outside of its core mission sets a terrible precedent by potentially reducing

the agency’s effectiveness in managing the West’s water supply. At a time when

Federal deficits are the highest in history, monies allocated under H.R. 901 will

compete with legitimate Bureau of Reclamation funding in the Energy and Water

Appropriations bill.

On January 8, 2003, the entire California congressional delegation sent a letter

to Department of Interior Secretary Norton and Attorney General John Ashcroft expressing reservations regarding the misdirection of Bureau of Reclamation funds.

This letter requested that settlement funds for Sumner Peck Ranch Inc. v. Bureau

of Reclamation not come from the Bureau of Reclamation’s budget. The California

delegation pointed out that Bureau of Reclamation funding should not be used for

non–Bureau projects. We agree that robbing the coffers of one agency to pay for

projects that should legitimately be run through another agency sets up a system

doomed to failure. Specifically, we oppose efforts to force the Bureau of Reclamation

to fund and build a bridge when this is both outside its core mission and would compete with appropriate funding of Bureau projects. I have attached the January 8,

2003 letter to my testimony for submission to the record.

TCS recognizes that the construction of a new bridge is potentially necessary now

that the bridge that traversed Folsom Dam has been closed due to security concerns.

We also recognize that a wider bridge may be needed, however, H.R. 901 sidesteps

the essential process that USDOT has in place to evaluate the need for such improvements.

H.R. 901 clearly envisions more than replacing the bridge that traversed Folsom

Dam. This bill would likely upgrade the bridge from two lanes to four lanes. USDOT

has a process and formula to identify when highway upgrades, such as improving

a road from two lanes to four lanes, are justified. The City of Folsom and the State

of California, in concert with the Highway Trust Fund, are the proper sources for

bridge enhancement design and funding. Replacing or upgrading Folsom Dam Road

is a transportation need and as such it is inappropriate to tap the general treasury

or energy and water appropriations for funding.

Despite the debate on cost sharing that occurred during the hearing and markup of H.R. 2301, a virtually identical bill from the 107th Congress, H.R. 901 fails

to include any non-Federal cost sharing and instead forces Federal taxpayers to pay

the entire cost of the bridge. While we recognize that security concerns are potentially a legitimate reason for some level of Federal funding, bridge upgrade costs

should be borne in the normal fashion by the local beneficiaries of bridge expansion.

H.R. 901 is the second attempt by Congressman Doolittle to pass a bill requiring

the Bureau of Reclamation to build a bridge to replace the one on Folsom Dam. According to Congressman Doolittle’s June 26, 2001 press release on his original bill

H.R. 2301, ‘‘The region’s heavy reliance on the Folsom Dam Road means that even

temporary closures can snarl traffic through Folsom, inconveniencing drivers and

harming the local retail-based economy.’’ Representative Doolittle added, ‘‘It is clear

that a permanent, full-service bridge is needed to ensure greater transportation efficiency and commuter convenience.’’

Building a bridge to replace Folsom Dam Road may be necessary, but building

an enhanced, four-lane bridge cannot be attributed to security or safety. Instead,

this upgrade from a two to four-lane bridge is tied to local economics and the convenience of the City of Folsom’s citizens. Further, the bridge that traversed Folsom

Dam was intended as a maintenance road rather than to be used for commuter traffic. The Federal taxpayer should not be picking up the whole $66.5 million tab for

‘‘commuter convenience.’’ Further, recent articles in the Sacramento Bee (March 4,

61

2003), Folsom Telegraph (March 12, 2003), and Auburn Journal (March 14, 2003)

found that the predicted post-dam road closure ‘‘traffic snarls’’ never materialized.

H.R. 901 demands that the Federal taxpayer shell out $66.5 million and then outrageously requires the government to turn the bridge over to a non-contributing,

non-Federal entity. Taxpayers should not have to entirely fund an upgraded bridge

and then be forced to turn that bridge over to local entities that refused to contribute a dime to design and construction of that bridge. Caltrans and the City of

Folsom should be required to pay a fair share of bridge replacement costs.

In closing, H.R. 901 sets a dangerous precedence of derailing the Bureau of Reclamation from its core mission rather than staying true to the increasingly essential

work of managing western water supplies. The Bureau of Reclamation is not now

and never has been a highway construction agency. It is crucial that Federal and

non-Federal cost sharing be strictly defined in any bill authorizing a replacement

for Folsom Dam Road. H.R. 901 makes an end run of the normal highway authorization process, ignoring a common sense procedure set in place by the USDOT to

evaluate the need for highway construction and upgrades. The replacement bridge

planned by the Army Corps in their FEIS is estimated to cost $20 to $30 million

compared to the $66.5 million price tag of H.R. 901. Other proposals exist to have

the USDOT replace the bridge with local cost sharing. Congress should not raid the

coffers of agencies dependent on energy and water appropriations to pay for the traffic convenience of a few local beneficiaries.

Thank you again for opportunity to testify today and I would be happy to answer

any questions you may have.

[An attachment to Ms. Roder’s statement follows:]

62

63

64

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Niello, Sacramento County Supervisor. Welcome. You’re recognized for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER NIELLO,

SACRAMENTO COUNTY SUPERVISOR

Mr. NIELLO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and members

of the Subcommittee. My name is Roger Niello. I am a member of

the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors and, in that spot, I

represent the communities in Sacramento County surrounding

Folsom Lake, including the city of Folsom. I am here in support of

H.R. 901.

I have previously transmitted written testimony, which I will abbreviate, and I ask that that be entered into the record.

Mr. CALVERT. Without objection, so ordered.

65

Mr. NIELLO. I do thank you very much for holding this hearing

this afternoon. I want to stress that Sacramento County also recognizes the hard work and dedication exhibited by Congressman

Doug Ose and by Congressman John Doolittle on this extremely

important issue to our communities. We truly appreciate Congressman Ose’s and Congressman Doolittle’s commitment to securing

this new bridge to mitigate against the consequences of a very important homeland security issue.

I am here to provide a regional perspective, if you will, on the

impacts of closing the Folsom Dam road. I have been a businessman in the region for about 25 years, and I certainly know a lot

about the power as well as the vulnerability of our regional economy. As a public official, I have learned about the importance to

our public safety and our economy of a viable water supply, a reliable energy grid, and a functioning transportation system. I also

serve on the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency, so I am, I

would say, painfully familiar with our vulnerability to flooding.

Knowing this, and consistent with the testimony I gave last year,

I fully understand the decision to close Folsom Dam road. It is, indeed, necessary for homeland security reasons. That decision, however, does, indeed, have some real impacts. The traffic impacts of

the dam road closure were very well explained by Councilmember

Starsky.

It is just simply important, I think, to know that Folsom Lake

presents a physical barrier to long-time established travel patterns

needed by the citizens of the growing communities of El Dorado,

Sacramento, and Placer Counties, for work, shopping, and recreational related travel between these socially and economically

linked communities.

Now that the road over the dam no longer provides a means to

cross that barrier, all of that traffic must invade, literally, Folsom

neighborhood streets. The impact is not only to Folsom, as was explained, but also to the lives and pocketbooks of many more regional residents and businesses.

It is also important to stress that good planning requires that the

new bridge be a full service, four-lane bridge. Congressman Ose’s

legislation properly requires that the bridge be designed and constructed with both current as well as future demands in mind, and

this requires the allowance for four lanes.

Now, as my testimony before this Committee last year indicated,

flood control is certainly always controversial in our region. It’s

again important to note, though, that this legislation has absolutely no prejudicial effect on that flood control debate. As I mentioned, I am a member of SAFCA, as we call the flood control

agency, and as a member of that board, I’m on record as supporting

both the Folsom ‘‘mini-raise’’ as well as the Auburn Dam. With the

closure of the Folsom Dam road, a replacement of this vital transportation link needs to be provided, regardless of which project or

combination of projects is approved or constructed. In fact, now

that the dam road has been closed, the bridge becomes a need independent of the flood control project, and it is now not just contingently needed due to a desired flood control project, but it is unconditionally needed due to the actual permanent closure of the dam

road.

66

There have been discussions about whether the Department of

Interior is a bridge builder or not. The one thing that I want to

stress on that is that the completion of this bridge is, indeed, the

completion of the original Folsom Dam project which pledged to the

local community whole with regard to impacts of the building of

that dam. Of course, four traffic lanes were flooded, never retained

other than by this bridge, which now has been permanently closed.

So, to sum up, I would say this is not about redefining missions

of Federal agencies; it’s not about rewriting legislative processes.

This is directly related to homeland security and, thus, it is truly

independent of any flood control project and it fulfills a 50-year-old

obligation by the Bureau to hold our communities traffic lane

harmless, if you will, and thus I urge this Subcommittee to report

favorably on H.R. 901.

That concludes my testimony. Thank you again very much, and

I would be prepared to take any questions that you have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Niello follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Roger Niello,

Sacramento County Board of Supervisors, on H.R. 901

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Sub-committee, my name is

Roger Niello, and I am a member of the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors

representing the communities in Sacramento County surrounding Folsom Lake. I

am honored to be here in support of H.R. 901, a bill to authorize the Secretary of

the Interior to construct a bridge on Federal land west of and adjacent to Folsom

Dam in California.

I join my friends and colleagues invited to testify today in thanking you and the

members of the Subcommittee on Water and Power for holding this hearing this

afternoon. This is truly a critical project, and we cannot do what needs to be done

without Federal involvement. Sacramento County also recognizes the hard work and

dedication exhibited by Congressman Doug Ose and Congressman John Doolittle on

this issue. We truly appreciate Congressman Ose’s and Congressman Doolittle’s

commitment to securing the new bridge and doing so in a fiscally responsible manner. Their legislation recognizes the present day realities of the impact of the closure of Folsom Dam Road on regional transportation and air quality issues, and we

appreciate their leadership in taking on this necessary project.

We urgently need the bridge authorized by H.R. 901 to mitigate the impact of

closing Folsom Dam Road to ensure security at Folsom Dam and Folsom Reservoir.

This new bridge is essential for the economic stability of our region. While the decision by the Federal Government to remove automobile traffic from Folsom Dam was

driven by perfectly justifiable security issues, the impact of this decision has severely affected the region I live in. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this legislation

and I urge you and your colleagues to act speedily on H.R. 901 to make certain the

bill is passed and signed into law as soon as possible.

I am here to provide a regional perspective on the impacts of closing Folsom Dam

Road. As a local businessman, I know quite a bit about the power of our regional

economy. As a public official I have learned the importance to our public safety and

economy of a viable water supply, a reliable energy grid, and a functioning transportation system. I also serve on the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency, so I am

painfully familiar with our vulnerability to flooding and the devastating impact a

major flood would have on Sacramento and on California. And I do not believe it

is hyperbole to suggest that a major flood in Sacramento coupled with the immediate loss of a major water and power supply would have a significantly damaging

impact on our national economy. Simply put, the triple whammy impact of a catastrophic failure of Folsom Dam would be beyond devastation. I fully understand the

decision to close Folsom Dam Road, but that decision has some real and immediate

impacts.

The communities surrounding Folsom Lake depended on the Folsom Dam Road

to provide a vital transportation link for the movement of people, goods and services. Over 18,000 cars per day utilized Folsom Dam Road to cross Folsom Lake.

Folsom Lake provides a physical barrier to travel for the surrounding communities.

In particular, the communities in El Dorado County must, for the most part, leave

El Dorado County for employment. In particular, the traffic pattern from El Dorado

67

County to South Placer County requires the crossing of Folsom Lake. The ability

to utilize Folsom Dam Road enabled this traffic to skirt the community of Folsom.

With the closure of Folsom Dam Road, all of that traffic is now forced to utilize surface streets in Folsom, directly impacting that local community. We have major traffic congestion and air pollution problems locally and regionally that are exacerbated

by the closure of Folsom Dam Road. The bridge and linkages provided by H.R. 901

will provide significant congestion relief upon completion and also anticipate and address future growth in our region.

I also agree with my colleagues on the panel that good planning requires the new

bridge to be a full-service, four-lane bridge. Congressman Ose’s and Congressman

Doolittle’s legislation properly requires that the bridge be designed and constructed

with appropriate sizing and linkages to support present and future traffic flow requirements for the City of Folsom and the adjacent Sacramento County, Placer

County and El Dorado County communities.

As I stated in my testimony before this Committee on this issue last April, flood

control is always controversial in our region. It is important to point out, though,

that this legislation has absolutely no prejudicial effect on the flood control debate.

The new bridge will provide transportation and air quality benefits, and will do so

without biasing the flood control debate or outcome. As I mentioned, I am a member

of the Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency. As a member of that Board, I am

on record as supporting both the ‘‘mini-raise’’ as well as the Auburn Dam. With the

closure of Folsom Dam Road, a replacement for this vital transportation link needs

to be provided, regardless of which project or combination of projects is approved

and constructed. In fact, now that the Dam Road has been closed the bridge becomes a need independent of the flood control project. It is now not just contingently

needed due to a desired flood control project; it is unconditionally needed due to the

actual permanent closure of the Dam Road.

One of the reasons cited in opposition to having the department of the Interior

construct this bridge is that the Department of the Interior is not in the bridge

building business unless it is a part of a project such as the ‘‘mini-raise.’’ Setting

aside that particular debate, it is my contention that the construction of the proposed bridge is the ‘‘completion’’ of the original Folsom Dam project. It is my understanding that the legislation that originally authorized Folsom Dam included a commitment to replace the bridge lanes that were flooded upon that project’s completion. The utilization of Folsom Dam Road provided at least partial replacement for

those lost cross-river access points. With the closure of the Folsom Dam Road, the

replacement of that access has been removed. The bridge proposed in H.R. 901

would be a permanent replacement for this lost access. It is not only appropriate

to have Interior build this bridge, but also it is a logical conclusion to the Folsom

Dam project.

H.R. 901 is the right legislation at the right time. The Sacramento region is in

desperate need of additional flood control improvements and it is making progress

towards that goal. While I support moving forwarded on our regions flood control

protection, I also recognize that that process is ongoing. Additionally, our region has

adopted a balanced transportation plan that invests in the needed infrastructure of

our roadways and transit systems. For this part of the Sacramento Region, those

communities surrounding Folsom Lake, there is not another more vital single

project. The construction of the bridge and the flood control improvements, with the

closure of Folsom Dam Road, are now, independent of each other. What is not separate is the real physical barrier that Folsom Lake presents to local traffic circulation.

One final point on the impacts to local businesses by the closure of Folsom Dam

Road. When one of the Dam’s gates failed in 1996, Folsom Dam Road was closed

for a period of several months. It has been reported to me by the Folsom Chamber

of Commerce that 38 businesses failed in Folsom due to the impacts of that road

closure. I am fearful that there could be a repeat given the impacts of the permanent closure in our current economic environment.

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for holding this hearing and giving my colleagues

and me from the Sacramento Region the opportunity to appear before you today.

We also again wish to thank Congressman Ose and Congressman Doolittle for all

their work on this legislation and on behalf of our community. I urge the Subcommittee on Water and Power to report favorably on H.R. 901 as soon as possible.

This concludes my formal statement, and I would be happy to answer any questions

you may have.

Again, thank you.

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman.

68

Ms. Roder, I appreciate your coming out and your knowledge of

the core mission of the Department of Reclamation. Some people

around here have been trying to find out what that mission has

been for some time.

[Laughter.]

So, since you know it, I’m going to ask you a couple of questions

and see if we can’t come to some kind of conclusion.

Is part of the core mission of the Bureau of Reclamation, as far

as you know, homeland security?

Ms. RODER. No, Mr. Chairman, not that I’m aware of.

Mr. CALVERT. It isn’t. But based upon that, they have made certain determinations. Would you agree the Bureau of Reclamation

made the determination to close vehicle traffic on Folsom Dam?

Ms. RODER. My understanding is the traffic is closed, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CALVERT. Based upon the testimony that you were here to

listen to today, would you conclude, based upon what the Commissioner and others have said, that it was based upon the tragedy of

9/11 and the Department of Reclamation choosing to protect the

people who live downstream of Folsom Dam?

Mr. RODER. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CALVERT. So, based upon that, do you agree that there is a

Federal impact based upon that decision, some Federal impact?

Ms. RODER. Certainly there is an impact, yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CALVERT. Based upon the Federal Government?

Ms. RODER. Yes, sir.

Mr. CALVERT. So your disagreement is what the amount of that

impact is, what percentage?

Ms. RODER. My disagreement, Mr. Chairman, is certainly that

there should be a local-Federal cost share, and which agency

should be responding to the needs of the community.

Mr. CALVERT. But you do agree that the Federal Government has

a responsibility to some degree?

Ms. RODER. We do believe that the Federal Government has

some responsibility.

Mr. CALVERT. OK. We agree on that.

This next question is for the Councilman for the city of Folsom,

Mr. Starsky. I have a close friend there in your community, a good

friend. I went from kindergarten through college with him, your

chief of police, who has let me know that you have literally a disaster on your hands there in the community of Folsom, as far as

traffic is concerned.

Can you describe the impact of that Federal decision upon the

community of Folsom?

Mr. STARSKY. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman, yes. Our police chief,

Sam Spiegel, was probably the person most responsible for the immediate response to the closure of the roadway. The impacts are

clearly that roughly six million additional trips by the end of the

next 11 months will have been directed immediately through

streets in the city of Folsom that were simply not designed for that

kind of a load.

By way of example—and again, I bring this down to the lowest

level because that’s where I talk to people, the people who can’t

turn out of parking lots because it takes eight light changes for

69

them to get through a light of a major intersection within our city.

That is devastating to the businesses.

I have e-mails that have nearly crashed my system from responses from angry motorists, most of them not even within my

city. They’re outside my city.

Mr. CALVERT. That’s the next question I was going to ask. Do you

have an idea of what percentage of folks that are just passing

through?

Mr. STARSKY. I would purely be speculating, but certainly, from

my own anecdotal observations, I would say, of those 18,000 trips

per day, that 75 percent or more of those are from the surrounding

counties.

Mr. CALVERT. Any trucks?

Mr. STARSKY. Trucks were prohibited from using the dam road—

again, I apologize for that term. I guess we mean it both ways.

Mr. CALVERT. D-a-m.

Mr. STARSKY. Yes. But trucks were prohibited after the 9/11 incident from using the roadway, so we’ve been dealing with that experience of those trucks coming through the city of the roadway and

they’ve had serious impacts on our roadways.

Mr. CALVERT. It has a cumulative impact upon the other bridge

that you have remaining; isn’t that correct?

Mr. STARSKY. Absolutely. I think a key point for us was we designed and built, as was indicated earlier, the city of Folsom built

a replacement bridge or an additional bridge to accommodate our

growth plans. We spent—basically, we have effectively mortgaged

our transportation future.

Mr. CALVERT. By the way, on that, how much Federal dollars

went into that bridge?

Mr. STARSKY. None. That was—

Mr. CALVERT. None?

Mr. STARSKY. That was funded completely by the city of Folsom,

$75 million. To give you some perspective, the city of Folsom’s annual general fund budget is $38 million.

Mr. CALVERT. So no money went into the non-Federal bridge that

is going through Folsom property at the present time.

Mr. STARSKY. That’s correct.

Mr. CALVERT. And the so-called Federal bridge, that was shut

down by the Department, is impacting the community and is

what’s causing this pain in your local area.

Mr. STARSKY. That’s absolutely correct, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you.

Mrs. Napolitano.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Starsky, you mentioned that there’s an impact on the community, and as a former elected official at the local level, I understand what that can mean.

Is there any indication to show there has been an increase in

customers for your business community?

Mr. STARSKY. That’s a very good question, Madam Congresswoman. Again, before I answer that, let me just say I want to

thank you for seeing our delegation that came here a month ago.

They said you were very gracious in listening to their concerns.

70

Your question, in my opinion, is baited in marketing 101, and

that is where I first took the assessment. How can you complain?

You have 18,000 more customers coming past your businesses. The

fact of the matter is that that’s simply not true, and the reason

why is, in speaking to the businesses who are directly in those

routes, people refuse to pull into their establishments because they

cannot get out. They cannot get out of the blocked parking lots.

They can’t afford to lose their place in line, so to speak. The majority of them that would normally, in speaking to most of the small

businesses—coffee shops, retailers—they say that the people simply

will not stop. One man, a coffee shop owner, told me he lost all of

his regular customers because they were so frightened they could

not get out of the parking lot once they got in. That has been the

experience all the way throughout the entire city.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I would have thought at least there would be

good news in some of the businesses that may have received customers after hours. You know what I’m talking about. It may have

had some positive impacts on some of these businesses.

Mr. STARSKY. I was hoping for the same thing.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Miss Roder, you apparently have very good

knowledge of some of the issues on the bridge building side of the

Bureau. Do you have any idea of what the cost is of any of those

bridges they have built? I understand there have been 17 built, according to my colleague. Do you know the cost of any of those particular bridges, individually? For instance, the last one.

Ms. RODER. No, Congresswoman Napolitano. Off the top of my

head, I do not. I can answer that through written testimony.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Would you, please? I would be interested to

learn if they’re of the same size, of the same breadth and depth of

what we’re talking about at Folsom. I certainly congratulate

Folsom for taking the initiative and building their own bridge at

their own expense, to be able to provide access for their constituency.

Mr. Chair, that’s all I have. Thank you.

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentlelady.

Mr. Ose.

Mr. OSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Starsky, in terms of the bridge that Folsom built for $75 million, how long is it? Is it about a half mile?

Mr. STARSKY. That’s correct.

Mr. OSE. So half a mile would be $30,000 a lineal foot? Is that

right? I’m trying to get to your question. I mean, $75 million divided by half a mile, whatever that is. That should give you some

indication of what the cost of the bridge would be on a relative

scale.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. If the gentleman would yield, I was talking

about the bridge they built in ’99. In other words, the cost of other

bridges.

Mr. OSE. I understand.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. OK. Thank you.

Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I’m concerned about something. I listened to Ms. Roder’s testimony, and I listened to Commissioner

Keys, and I’m trying to reconcile the two of them. I asked Mr. Keys

directly, has the Bureau ever built bridges, and he said yes. Miss

71

Roder is saying that’s not part of their responsibility. I went on and

asked have you ever designed bridges, and he said yes. I’m not sure

we’re getting the truth here. I’m wondering whether we ought to

bring Commissioner Keys back under subpoena to testify under

oath.

Mr. CALVERT. I would be happy to acknowledge the fact that the

Bureau of Reclamation builds bridges. That’s part of the testimony.

But if you would like to have a letter made part of the record, we

can make that happen.

Mr. OSE. I do have a letter here dated October 1st of 2001, printed in the Sacramento Bee. I would like to enter it into the record.

It is signed by John Keys, III.

Mr. CALVERT. Without objection, so ordered.

[The Sacramento Bee letter submitted for the record follows:]

72

73

Mr. OSE. He is noted here as Washington, D.C. Commissioner of

the Bureau of Reclamation. It’s interesting. ‘‘Reclamation has designed and built many large bridges throughout the West. The

beautiful Arch Bridge that spans the depths of Glen Canyon in Arizona is one example. Reclamation designed and built the Forest

Hill Bridge that spans the American River at Auburn. The conceptual drawings for the bridge at Folsom Dam came from our bridge

designers in Denver.’’ I’m just a little bit confused. I appreciate you allowing me to

enter that into the record.

Mr. Niello, you and I grew up in Sacramento, so we know a little

bit of the history. I want to make sure I’ve got it correct. In 1956,

when Folsom opened, there were six lanes of crossings that were

inundated with the filling of the Folsom Dam, is that correct?

Mr. NIELLO. That’s correct, and two of them have since been

raised above the water and relocated, I believe. But the other four,

the other two structures, remain submerged and never replaced in

any way.

Mr. OSE. So you had six lanes going across, two were moved, so

you replaced two of them, so you’re down four. Then the two atop

the dam basically constitute a replacement of two more, so you’re

down two at that point. And then you close this and now you’re

down four. I mean, that’s the math. You’re the accountant. You tell

me.

Mr. NIELLO. We appear not to be making much statistical

progress.

Mr. OSE. OK. So we’re down four lanes of crossings, is that correct?

Mr. NIELLO. That is correct.

Mr. OSE. Perhaps I should direct this to Ms. Roder.

Ms. Roder, is it Bureau policy to basically not replace crossings,

or do you know if the Bureau has a policy for replacing the river

crossings that are inundated in a construction project of this nature?

Ms. RODER. Congressman Ose, I’m not sure exactly what the Bureau policy would be on that. From our perspective, the city of

Folsom has done very well because they receive flood control— Mr. OSE. OK. Mr. Chairman, if I could reclaim my time, do you

know the answer to that question, or does somebody on staff know

the answer to that question?

Mr. CALVERT. I can speculate, but rather than do that, we will

get you a written response to your question.

Mr. OSE. OK. I would appreciate that.

Now, the other question I have—and I was just thinking about

this walking over for the votes—we have established the road atop

Folsom Dam was closed in response to the Defense Threat Reduction Agency analysis that occurred subsequent to 9/11.

I would ask Miss Roder, relative to the occasion of 9/11, I could

take your argument and suggest that perhaps the subway improvements in New York following the collapse of the World Trade Center should have a cost share figure and, in effect, the people of New

York City should be punished for being victims. I don’t understand

the difference between that particular set of circumstances, where

conceptually the people of New York City are held accountable for

74

the adverse impacts of such an act, and the people of Folsom,

under your scenario, being asked to pay for replacing a bridge they

had nothing to do with closing.

Can you reconcile those two things for me?

Ms. RODER. Respectfully, Congressman Ose, this is a plan that

was in place prior to September 11th, 2001. This legislation was

originally submitted in June of 2001 to build this bridge.

I would also submit that this bridge is looking at doing more

than just replacing the existing or now closed bridge over Folsom

Dam. It’s looking to upgrade from two to four lanes.

Mr. OSE. Well, we are going to examine that question. Incidentally, I was a cosponsor of that June, ’01 legislation, having identified the need to take traffic off the dam.

Mr. Chairman, I do appreciate the opportunity to come before the

Committee and spend time on the dais. I have to scratch my head

at the concepts that seem to be of popular distribution, when you

blame the victim for circumstances that adversely affect their communities. I mean, I can’t even imagine what it would have been

like here had we blamed New York City for the consequences of the

acts of those 19 individuals, any more than I can imagine the logic

that burdens a community with replacing river crossings when, in

fact, it was done at the behest of some other party.

I do appreciate being here. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman.

One last comment. I want to thank the gentlelady. Ms. Roder, for

mentioning the Sumner Peck letter, because I circulated that letter

and was happy to see the judgment fund used instead of reclamation. I’m sure the gentleman from Sacramento really doesn’t care

who pays for it, as long as it comes from or is being picked up by

the responsible parties at the end of the day.

With that, we want to thank this panel. You are excused. Have

a great day.

Mr. STARSKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CALVERT. Next we have a number of people that are going

to be introduced by some folks that represent them. First I would

like to recognize Mrs. Napolitano to recognize some people from the

San Gabriel Valley.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to ask both Mr. Michael Whitehead, Board Member

of the San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority, and Mr. George

Lujan, from Riando College, South El Monte, also in his capacity

on the council. Both of them have come at our request to speak to

H.R. 1284 and the need for the expansion to include South El

Monte, El Monte, and the city of industry, or otherwise known as

the Puente Valley operating unit.

As we had covered earlier, the three projects have been lumped

into one, so that Congresswoman Solis is a cosponsor of this because two of her cities are El Monte and South El Monte. These

are projects that were not readily available at the time the cap was

placed on the project area, which, of course, is the Superfund list

I talked about.

As some of my colleagues here said, this affects 1.3 million people because of the area it covers. So I look forward to hearing from

both of them and I hope we will be able to shed some light on this.

75

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentlelady.

Mr. Hayworth would like to introduce a mutual friend of ours

from the State of Arizona.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I thank you. He is a good friend,

and I see him back there preparing to ‘‘Enter and sign in, please.’’

It’s our friend Bob Lynch, who is not new to the Subcommittee. He

has testified before this Committee on a number of occasions and

has provided valuable expert testimony.

He is a long-time friend of mine, and I hope the Committee will

not hold it against him. Despite the handicap of being a friend of

mine, he is a well-respected attorney in Phoenix and well known

across our country. He holds undergraduate law degrees from the

University of Arizona, a masters degree in natural resources law

from George Washington University. His law practice, Robert S.

Lynch & Associates focuses on electricity, water, and environmental and public land issues—in short, everything this Committee

has an interest in.

He is affiliated with the American Public Power Association, the

National Water Resources Association, and the Central Arizona

Project Association. He is an active participant in all the aforementioned organizations and he has served as President and Chairman

of the Board of the Central Arizona Project Association.

My friend from the 1st District, Brother Renzi, joins me in welcoming our friend, Bob Lynch. Bob, welcome.

Mr. CALVERT. With that, I recognize Mr. Renzi to recognize a

representative from the Zuni Indian Tribe. Mr. Renzi.

Mr. RENZI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is a pleasure of mine to introduce Mr. Wilfred Eriacho, Sr.,

who is the Chairperson of the Zuni Indian Tribe Water Rights

team. He has been a critical part of the negotiation team that has

allowed us to reach this point. It is through his hard work, along

with my colleague, Mr. Hayworth and Senator John Kyl, that we

have again reached this point of settlement.

I want to thank you all very much for allowing us to go down

this path with you and for the compromise that you’ve shown, particularly the ability to allow the agreement to have a feature in it

which allows the voluntary aspect of the water users in the upper

region to flow to Zuni Heaven. I am grateful for your compassion,

your consideration, and welcome you here today. Thank you.

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman.

I have the privilege of recognizing Dr. Peter Gleick, Director of

the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and

Security. He is here to testify, along with Mr. Lynch, on H.R. 135,

the Linder Commission Initiative.

With that, Mr. Gleick, I recognize you for 5 minutes. We try to

keep our testimony, by the way, within 5 minutes. If there’s any

additional testimony or information, we will be happy to take it

into the record. So, with that, Mr. Gleick, you’re recognized for 5

minutes.

76

STATEMENT OF PETER H. GLEICK, PRESIDENT,

PACIFIC INSTITUTE

Mr. GLEICK. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Napolitano, members, thank you for inviting me today to testify on the need for a

National Water Commission for the 21st Century, and in particular, on the approach taken by H.R. 135.

I believe there is, indeed, a need for such a commission and, in

fact, about 3 weeks ago the Pacific Institute, which I direct in Oakland, called for a national water commission in a letter to the

President and to Congress. Copies of that letter were attached to

my formal testimony and I expect they will be entered into the

record.

Mr. CALVERT. Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. GLEICK. I will also abbreviate my testimony here today.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you.

Mr. GLEICK. The United States has not had a national water

commission for 30 years, since the 1968 National Water Commission reported to the President and Congress in 1973. Moreover, we

have never had a national water commission with the authority

and responsibility to review and recommend on the role of the U.S.

in addressing international water issues. My comments today will

address the idea of a national water commission with those responsibilities, and I will also provide some specific comments on

H.R. 135.

In short, I believe the idea of a commission is an excellent one,

but I believe that the findings and duties described in H.R. 135

need some important modifications. I will offer some specific suggestions.

As we enter the 21st century, pressure on the United States’

water system and on international water resources is growing.

Conflicts among users are worsening, international tensions are

growing, and international attention to these issues is growing, as

reflected by the recent meeting in Johannesburg at the Earth Summit, the World Water Forum that just ended about a week ago in

Kyoto, with 10,000 participants from the international community,

the fact that the year 2000 is the International Year of Fresh

Water, as named by the United Nations, there is growing attention

to the failure to meet basic needs for water, growing international

tensions and conflicts over water resources, the issue of climate

change—I’m sorry the other representative is not still here—the

controversy of dams, a whole series of international issues.

In addition, here at home municipalities are facing billions of dollars of infrastructure upgrades and investments, growing disputes

over the role of public and private participation in water resources,

arguments over shared rivers between the U.S. and Mexico, concerns among our Canadian neighbors that perhaps the United

States is going to take water from the Great Lakes in inappropriate ways. All of these issues are facing us, and they have received an enormous amount and are going to continue to receive a

great deal of attention.

In many cases, the answer to those problems requires smart

State and local action and not national efforts. But national policies

and actions are also needed, as is leadership at the national level.

77

It is time, I think, for a new national water commission. The

commission must be nonpartisan, it must include representation

from across the many disciplines affected by water issues, including

the sciences, economics, public policy law, pretty much anything

you can think of is affected by water resource issues.

As an example of some of the goals, I would like to offer first to

reevaluate national water science and policy and offer guidance on

integrating efforts that are now scattered among many Federal

agencies. The United Nations has 23 different pieces that work on

water. I think in the Federal Government alone it’s probably 20.

So there is need for integration.

Recommend revisions or better enforcement of national water

laws. We have national water laws on water quality, we have some

national standards on water use efficiency. There are national laws

related to water, but some of them need revision.

Develop recommendations for flood and drought management, including implementing overdue changes that have already been proposed by Federal surveys and studies.

Work to ensure the physical security of the nation’s water. Obviously, in light of some of the discussion about Folsom recently,

there is an urgent need to do that.

Develop recommendations for the U.S. in identifying and addressing global water problems, including how to significantly accelerate efforts to meet the large and devastating unmet basic

needs for water in poorer countries. The U.S. plays a role in this,

but could play a larger and more effective one.

Explore how to deal with the risks of climate change. Climate

change is a real problem. The impacts on water resources in the

United States will be real, but there is no significant comprehensive efforts in that area.

Make recommendations for reducing the risks of international

tensions over shared water resources, including how to resolve concerns with our neighbors, Mexico and Canada, and that, I would

point out, can be tremendously useful in other international basins,

including the Middle East.

It is past time for an integrated and comprehensive national

water strategy and for a stronger effort by this nation in solving

water problems. In this context, H.R. 135 is a good idea, and I

would like to commend Congressman Linder on proposing it. I offer

some comments specifically in my written testimony.

I realize I’m short on time, so let me just say three quick things.

The principal focus of that bill seems to be to offer recommendations on improving and enhancing the nation’s water supply. That’s

not our problem. If you look at the two figures that are attached

to my testimony, you can see, in fact, the demand for water in the

United States is going down, not up. We use 20 percent less water

per person today in the United States that we used 20 years ago.

We are improving our efficiency. The problem is not demand but

how we manage our water resources. I have made some specific

recommendations for wording changes to make this bill reflect, in

fact, what I think is our greatest need; that is, how to manage our

water resources more efficiently rather than how to enhance supply.

78

1Dr. Gleick is President of the Pacific Institute, Oakland, California; an Academician of the

International Water Academy, Oslo, Norway; and a member of the Water Science and Technology Board of the U.S. National Academy of Science. His comments reflect his own opinion

and the recommended position of the Pacific

Let me stop my comments there. I would be happy to take questions. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gleick follows:]

Statement of Dr. Peter H. Gleick, 1 President of the Pacific Institute,

Oakland, California

Mr. Chairman, Representatives: thank you for inviting me to offer comments on

the need for a National Water Commission for the 21st Century. I believe there is

indeed need for such a Commission, and on March 10, 2003, the Pacific Institute

called for its creation in a letter to the President and members of Congress. I have

attached for the record a copy of that letter (Attachment 1).

The United States has not had a national water commission in place for 30 years,

since the 1968 National Water Commission reported to the President and Congress

in 1973. Moreover, we have never had a national water commission with the authority and responsibility to review and recommend on the role of the U.S. in addressing

international water issues. My comments today will address the idea of a Commission generally, with some detailed recommendations. I will also provide specific comments on H.R. 135, a bill proposed to establish such a Commission. In short, the

idea of such a Commission is an excellent one; but I believe the Findings and Duties

as described in H.R. 135 need clarification and revision if the Commission is to adequately deal with the water challenges facing us.

International and Domestic Water Challenges

As we enter the 21st century, pressures on United States and international water

resources are growing and conflicts among water users are worsening. International

attention to these problems is growing, as shown by the focus on water at the Johannesburg Earth Summit and the Kyoto Third World Water Forum. Moreover,

2003 has been declared the International Year of Freshwater by the United Nations.

Globally, the realization is growing that the failure to meet basic human and environmental needs for water is the greatest development disaster of the 20th century.

Millions of people, mostly young children, die annually from preventable water-related diseases. Climate change is increasingly threatening our own water systems

and water resources abroad. Controversy is developing over the proper role of expensive dams and infrastructure, private corporations, and local communities in managing water. Yet the United States has not offered adequate leadership in providing

resources, education, and our vast technological and financial experience to address

these problems.

Here at home, municipalities are faced with billions of dollars of infrastructure

needs and growing disputes over the role of public and private water management.

Arguments among western states over allocations of shared rivers are rising, as are

tensions between cities and farmers over water rights. The U.S. and Mexico have

unresolved disagreements over the Colorado and Rio Grande/Rio Bravo rivers, and

our Canadian neighbors are concerned about proposals to divert Great Lakes or Canadian water for U.S. use. Communities are facing new challenges in meeting water

quality standards and ensuring that safe drinking water is available for all.

Responding to Water Challenges: A New Water Commission

In many cases, the resolution of these problems requires smart state and local action. But national policies and actions are also needed, as is leadership at the national level. Unfortunately, there is inadequate attention being given to national

water issues, and what efforts are being made are often contradictory or counterproductive. Responsibility for water is spread out over many Federal agencies and

departments, operating with no overall coordination.

It is time for a new national water commission. The Pacific Institute has called

for the creation of a National Commission on Water for the 21st Century to provide

guidance and direction on the appropriate role of the United States in addressing

national and international water issues. The Commission must be non-partisan and

include representation from across the many disciplines affected, including the

sciences, economics, public policy, law, governments, public interest groups, and appropriate private sectors. While the duration of the Commission should be fixed,

adequate financial resources should be provided to permit it to do a serious and effective job. The goals of the Commission should include:

79

• Re-evaluate national water science and policy and offer guidance on integrating

efforts now scattered among disparate and uncoordinated Federal agencies and

departments. National budget priorities should also be re-evaluated and restructured to ensure that the national objectives are more clearly supported.

• Recommend revisions or better enforcement of national laws related to water,

including laws governing water quality, the protection of aquatic ecosystems,

the financing of water infrastructure, and national standards for improving

water-use efficiency and conservation.

• Develop recommendations for flood and drought management, including implementing overdue changes proposed by previous reviews.

• Work to ensure the physical security of the nation’s water, by highlighting necessary steps that could be taken to reduce overlap and streamline responsibilities of the multiple Federal agencies working on water issues.

• Develop recommendations for the U.S. role in identifying and addressing global

water problems, including how to significantly accelerate efforts to meet the

large and devastating unmet basic human needs for water in poorer countries.

These recommendations should address how best to apply the vast financial,

educational, technological, and institutional expertise of the United States to

these problems.

• Explore how to deal with the risks of climatic changes, including how to adapt

to the growing and potentially severe impacts of global warming for water resources.

• Make recommendations for reducing the risks of international tensions over

shared water resources, including how to resolve concerns with our own neighbors, Mexico and Canada, over shared water systems. These recommendations

would be valuable in other international river basins where our experience,

international stature, and expertise can be effective.

The Need for U.S. Leadership

It is past time for an integrated and comprehensive national water strategy and

for a stronger effort by this nation in solving water problems abroad. While many

water issues will remain local, to be resolved by community participation and efforts, our national government can no longer ignore the positive and effective role

it can play both here and abroad.

The need for such integrated thinking was further made apparent at the global

water conference in Kyoto, Japan, which ended just one week ago. The meeting involved 10,000 of the world’s leading water experts as well as a Ministerial meeting

involving senior diplomatic officials from more than 150 countries. It offered an opportunity to demonstrate the commitment of the international community, nations,

and non-governmental organizations to resolve serious water problems. The United

States, with its great technical, financial, and educational expertise, is perfectly positioned to be a world leader in addressing water problems, yet the U.S. delegation

came without the comprehensive, integrated, and informed positions necessary to

play a leadership role. Indeed, the United States is perceived to be a marginal player, making contributions well below our capability and stature as a world leader.

And while money is not the only answer, the size of the U.S. financial contribution

to meeting basic water needs around the world is paltry—actually only one-quarter

the size of Japan’s and even less than Germany’s. Instead, world leadership on

these issues is being played by the Netherlands, Japanese, French, British, Germans, and others.

It doesn’t have to be this way. A more coordinated and considered set of positions

on the size and form of U.S. contributions to global water problems, including financial, technological, and educational, could be developed by the National Water Commission for the 21st Century.

Comments on H.R. 135 ‘‘Twenty–First Century Water Commission’’

Finally, I’d like to offer specific comments on H.R. 135. I commend Congressman

Linder and his co-signers for proposing this bill. As my preceding testimony should

make obvious, I strongly support the creation of a national commission. I believe,

however, that this bill, as written, will not meet the needs of the nation. In particular, the ‘‘Findings’’ of this bill are somewhat misdirected and the ‘‘Duties,’’ while

well-intentioned, are too limited and occasionally inappropriate.

In particular, the Findings emphasize the need ‘‘to increase water supplies in

every region of the country.’’ Overall water supply is not a problem, with some regional exceptions. And even in these regions, increasing supplies does not appear

to be the most efficient, cost-effective, and timely response. The greatest water problems facing the United States are not shortages, but inefficient use, inappropriate

water allocations, water pollution, and ecological destruction. Indeed, water use in

80

the United States has decreased in the past 20 years, reducing pressure on overall

supply. On a per-person basis, this decrease is substantial, as shown in Figure 1.

Per-capita use in the U.S. has decreased 20 percent since 1980—a remarkable

change. Figure 2 shows that total economic growth in the U.S. has continued, even

as overall water use has leveled off and even declined. Moreover, where the problem

is ‘‘shortage,’’ the fastest, cheapest, and most environmentally acceptable solution

will not be an increase in ‘‘supply’’ but a reallocation of existing uses and improvements in efficiency.

Most of the proposed ‘‘Duties’’ of the Commission are clear and well designed. But

others could be strengthened and refocused:

Duty (2) should not be ‘‘directed at increasing water supplies’’ but ‘‘directed at improving water use and reliability.’’

Duty (3)(E) should not be aimed at ‘‘increasing water supply efficiently while safeguarding the environment’’ but at ‘‘improving water-use efficiency and reliability of

water supplies while safeguarding the environment.’’

Duty (3)(F) should not recommend ‘‘means of capturing excess water and flood

water’’ but should rather ‘‘means for managing floods using appropriate structural

and non-structural approaches.’’ This would be in line with recent Federal recommendations on comprehensive flood management.

Duty (3)(G) asks for recommendations on ‘‘financing options for public works

projects.’’ While this would be useful, given growing constraints on funding at the

national and local levels, it should be broadened to make recommendations on ‘‘financing options for comprehensive water management projects.’’

Duty (3)(I) asks for recommendations on ‘‘other objectives related to water supply.’’ Again, this should be broadened to make recommendations on ‘‘other objectives

related to water management.’’

On a relatively minor point: I believe the number of Commissioners should be

larger than 7, as proposed in Section 5, paragraph (a). Given the diverse nature of

the nation’s waters, and the complex set of issues that must be addressed, broader

representation is necessary.

Finally, I reiterate the need to expand the scope of the Commission to address

the role of the United States in solving international water problems.

I congratulate you for considering this vital issue and for helping to raise national

attention on the need to re-evaluate and re-focus efforts on sustainably managing

our precious freshwater resources.

Thank you for your attention.

81

82

83

84

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Lynch.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT S. LYNCH, ESQ., MEMBER,

WATER RIGHTS TASK FORCE, PHOENIX, ARIZONA

Mr. LYNCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee. I’m Bob Lynch, an attorney in Phoenix, Arizona. I

would ask that my written testimony be submitted for the record.

Mr. CALVERT. Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. LYNCH. Since no one has talked about why this bill shouldn’t

pass, I don’t think I should spend my time talking about what a

wonderful bill it is. It’s a good bill and I’m here to support it. I

want to talk about why it needs to pass quickly.

On April 15th, Reclamation will convene a meeting in Boulder

City, NV to talk about the shortages in the Colorado River and the

coming impacts that we’re already feeling. Glen Canyon Dam is

holding 62 percent of Lake Powell’s available supply. Lake Mead

85

is down a similar amount. I mean, this is real and it’s immediate.

Our Governor Napolitano has established a drought task force

within the last 2 weeks.

I don’t have to tell you, Mr. Chairman, about the problems in

California. California has enough water problems that it could be

its own country. But they’re there, and we all know what they are.

Colorado, the East Slope Reservoir, in spite of the blizzard, it will

take another 4 years to fill, according to my friend Rod Caharich,

who runs the Colorado River Water Board. It didn’t help the Colorado River Basin at all. It was on the wrong side of the mountain.

So we’re still in deep trouble.

Governor Owens from Colorado is going to ask that antennas be

removed from the river basins. We can’t do that because of a bird

that happens to like Arizona but doesn’t like Colorado, and it’s

endangered. If Mr. Tancredo was here, he would probably remember that he signed a letter on March 14th to Secretary Veneman,

saying the Forest Service is still doing this bypass flow thing that

the task force I was on that reported to Congress in ’97 said they

didn’t have authority to do, and they’re still doing it, and asking

them to stop, especially in a drought, especially when we’re talking

about people’s drinking water.

In New Mexico, in February the Mexican section of the International Boundary and Water Commission toured Caballo and Elephant Butte. Elephant Butte was about 20 percent full and Caballo

about 18. These are real problems. The litigation in New Mexico requiring intubation transfer from the San Juan that’s on appeal to

the 10th Circuit, Commissioner Keys has said publicly could destroy Reclamation’s ability to manage their 248 reservoirs. These

are real problems.

There are other suits, suits that involve the Central Valley

Project in Idaho, where the Justice Department has expanded the

concept of the Winter’s Doctrine beyond all reason, as far as I’m

concerned. All of this needs to get corralled in some fashion. This

study commission has a huge task. There are immediate problems.

I know the Washington Post said that the East Coast drought is

over. I’m glad they think so. I wouldn’t take that to the bank if I

were you, not when they were threatening to close the University

of Virginia last fall when our daughter is graduating from there

this year, wondering whether she was going to be able to.

These are real problems, and they are nationwide. Mr. Linder

talked about the problems which have been ongoing for years. We

need this bill and I urge your quick action on it.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lynch follows:]

Statement of Robert S. Lynch, Appointed Member,

Water Rights Task Force, on H.R. 135

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Bob Lynch. I am

an attorney in Phoenix, Arizona. I have worked on water and water rights issues,

beginning at the Justice Department here in Washington in the late 1960’s and then

in private practice in Phoenix for over 35 of the 38+ years I have been a member

of the bar.

In June 1996, then Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich appointed me to the

Water Rights Task Force, a Federal advisory committee that had been established

by the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act, P.L. 104–127. This sevenmember advisory committee was chaired by Colorado water attorney Bennett Raley,

86

now Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Water and Science. The Task Force met

and conducted public hearings at a dozen locations, including one here in the Russell Senate Office Building. We received written documentation and heard testimony

from interest groups and private citizens. At the Washington hearing, a Member of

Congress addressed us.

Our Task Force was directed to examine more narrow issues than those presented

in H.R. 135. Nevertheless, the issues related to the role of Federal agencies and

conflicts that arose between agency desires and state water rights. Our report was

submitted to Congress in August 1997.

You may remember that I appeared here last May to testify on Mr. Linder’s prior

bill, H.R. 3561. In my written and oral testimony, I questioned the structure of the

entity that was to be tasked to acquire information about water supply issues in

the twenty-first century. In sum, I recommended that an approach like the Water

Rights Task Force be utilized, giving Congress a view from outside government as

to the issues that lay before us in solving water supply problems.

While I could not support H.R. 3561 as introduced last year, I am pleased to be

able to appear before you today to support H.R. 135 enthusiastically. I want to congratulate Mr. Linder both for his zeal in pursuing this subject and for his flexibility

in listening to suggestions of others in crafting H.R. 135. Without putting too fine

a point on it, I think this approach will work.

BARRIERS

This new commission will give the President and the Congress a fresh perspective

on the complex subject of water supply and water rights. I am pleased that the bill

calls for respect for state water rights and the primary role of the states that this

country has historically recognized. Continued respect for the states is central to acceptance of any commission recommendations.

We all know that water flows downhill or toward money. However, beyond the

mere application of principles of physics or finance, this commission needs to take

a hard, independent look at the barriers our laws and institutions, both Federal and

state, present to problem-solving.

To be of real value, this commission must be blunt, perhaps even brutally frank,

in its assessment of how we manage water supply in this country and the extraordinary variability woven into that task in different regions.

Some of the barriers this commission must establish are statutory. Some of the

barriers are institutional. Some of the barriers are social. To overcome these barriers and be able to suggest paths to solutions, this commission will need to find

strategies that can provide benefits to multiple interests.

Virtually every problem related to water supply that I have encountered, at least

in the last quarter century, whether environmental, municipal, or agricultural,

could have been solved singly or in combination by more water. Yet we often do not

engage in strategies to increase supply, or protect against floods and conserve flood

flows, because others may gain an advantage or because we cannot necessarily

quantify or increase our advantage.

To the extent that this commission will be confronted by historic patterns of applied self-interest, it will need to suggest methods for reorienting some of our past

water attitudes. Hopefully the commission will be charged with thinking outside the

box. H.R. 135 lists an impressive array of duties for the commission. I am not sure

how all these can be accomplished in the time allotted but it is certainly a worthwhile list.

CONCLUSION

Being a water lawyer, I tend to gravitate to articles in the newspaper about

water. This last several years, most of them have been about drought. I have been

impressed by the extent to which the drought has impacted so many different areas

of the country. We in the West are used to having this problem and reading about

our neighbor states and their drought problems. I, frankly, was not prepared for articles on the drought problems in Charlottesville where our daughter goes to school

or Roanoke, where my wife’s family lives. I have been aware of the problems in the

Atlanta area for some time because of legislation that has been introduced and work

that has been done in that area. But I didn’t realize until the Governor of Maryland

declared a drought emergency in seven counties near here how bad it had gotten

in this area or in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and elsewhere.

What Mother Nature has taught us recently is that not being prepared is not an

option. Just last week, I read an article in our paper about a study that suggests

that the Mayan culture of Mexico was driven out of existence by drought, not just

over five years like the current drought in Arizona or seven or ten or thirty like

87

the Southwest drought of the late 1800’s. This study talked about a drought lasting

one hundred years.

We may already be behind the curve in looking at strategies for increasing our

water supply. Whether we are or not, we are clearly at a point in our history where

we must focus on this issue. H.R. 135 does just that. It is a good bill. It is a good

idea. It is clearly an idea whose time has come.

Thank you Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee for the opportunity

to testify on this extraordinarily important subject.

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Renzi, do you have a special guest you want to introduce?

Mr. RENZI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I was hesitant in my duties and I want to introduce to you the

Governor of the Great Zuni Nation and Tribe, Arlen Quetawki, who

I met in Phoenix not too long ago and who has been integral in

helping us reach this settlement for Zuni Heaven. I know that you

were involved in the negotiations, a newly elected Governor involved in the negotiations and the end game.

I particularly want to thank you for reaching out to the local

communities, as I mentioned earlier, the upstream users, and allowing the voluntary portion of this agreement to be part of the

settlement. I think that shows the magnanimous aspect of your

character, Mr. Governor, and of the people that you represent. So,

with that, I recognize you today and I appreciate your traveling

here to Washington, and thank you so much for getting us to this

point. I’m grateful.

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman.

With that, I recognize Mr. Eriacho for 5 minutes. Thank you.

STATEMENT OF WILFRED ERIACHO, SR., CHAIRPERSON, ZUNI

INDIAN TRIBE WATER RIGHTS NEGOTIATION TEAM; ACCOMPANIED BY HON. ARLEN QUETAWKI, GOVERNOR OF THE

ZUNI INDIAN NATION

Mr. ERIACHO. Thank you, Chairman Calvert.

‘‘Ko’ don laik’yadik’yanawe?’’ How are you to this time of day? My

name is Wilfred Eriacho, Sr. I am the Chairman of the Zuni Water

Rights Team. I thank Chairman Calvert and the rest of the Committee members for giving us the opportunity to testify before you

on a very important topic for the Zuni Tribe. I especially thank

Representative Renzi for sponsoring the bill, and for previous work

done by Mr. Hayworth.

With me today to assist me in my presentation are our newly

elected Governor, Arlen Quetawki, Sr., Councilman Edward

Wemytewa, who is in the audience back there, and our tribal attorney, Jane Marx. Also, I believe the Salt River Project has some representatives here in support of this bill.

I have submitted a full written testimony, and I would like that

to be included in the record.

Mr. CALVERT. Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. ERIACHO. I will do a synopsis of that written statement to

inform you on the purposes of the settlement.

On behalf of past, present and future generations of Ashiwi, the

Zuni people, we present our tribe’s water needs for a most important and sacred ancient site. This most important and sacred place

was created in very ancient times as the final resting place for all

88

Zuni people who have transitioned into their spirit form, to watch

over and protect their Zuni children for as long as Koluwalawa, or

Zuni Heaven, shall exist.

In 1984, Congress set aside the Zuni Heaven Reservation for the

express purpose of protecting the Tribe’s long-standing religious

and sustenance activities on those lands. Even today, Zuni religious

leaders make a pilgrimage to that Zuni Heaven area every 4 years.

In drought condition years, this pilgrimage is made more often.

That 1984 legislation addressed the lands to be protected but did

not cover the Tribe’s water needs. For that reason, the United

States, on behalf of the Tribe, filed water rights claims in the Little

Colorado River general adjudication.

Despite the strength of Zuni’s litigation claims relating to its use

and occupation of the area encompassing Zuni Heaven and its

water since time immemorial, the Tribe was motivated by the desire to secure ‘‘wet’’ water and not just ‘‘paper’’ water rights. The

proposed settlement before you today provides the Zuni a minimum

of 5,500 acre-feet per year of water to develop and maintain its

wetland restoration project. The Tribe will use both groundwater

and surface water. Surface water will be acquired through voluntary transactions.

Importantly, the parties set out to provide water to the Tribe

without disrupting, to the greatest extent possible, the existing

uses and expectations of the parties.

In conclusion, this water rights settlement agreement will enable

the Zuni people to restore their most sacred land area in the way

it is described in ancient traditional historical accounts. It will enable them to develop wetlands for water plants, birds and other

animals so important and necessary in carrying out the Zuni

Kachina religion. Furthermore, it will ease the minds and hearts

of the people, knowing that the spirits of their ancestors will once

again be living in wetland conditions as were the land conditions

at the very beginning.

Past and present Zuni Tribal Councils, water rights team members, and tribal religious leaders have worked closely and reasonably with all non-Zuni parties to keep whole their water rights and

land interest, and at the same time secure our interest to water

and land for our sacred lands.

The leaders of the civil government, religious leaders, the Zuni

people, are satisfied with the terms of this settlement and respectfully ask that you approve it. Also, we have the agreement and

support of the United States, the State of Arizona, and all local

water users, including major groundwater pumpers.

Esteemed members of the House of Representatives, on behalf of

our Zuni people, I humbly ask and urge you to support the ratification of this proposed legislation for the water rights of the Zuni

people at their most sacred land. As a representative of the Zuni

Tribe’s religious leaders and the Zuni Tribal Council, I bequeath on

each of you a long and valued life trail. ‘‘Don dek’ohanan yanitchiy

adehy awonayadu. Elahkwa don yadon k’okshi’sunnahk’yanapdu.’’

Thank you. May you spend the rest of the day in a good way to

the evening time.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Eriacho follows:]

89

Statement of Wilfred Eriacho, Sr., Chairperson,

Zuni Indian Tribe Water Rights Negotiation Team

Introduction

Ko’ don la:k’yadik’yana:we? (Literally speaking) How are all of you to this time

of day?

By appointment from the Governor and Tribal Council, going back two terms, I

have served on the Water Rights Team since 1994. I am especially grateful to have

been given the task of presenting to you, members of the Committee. I am very

humbled to be in your presence. With me today to assist me in my presentation and

to support the Zuni Indian Tribe Water Rights Settlement Agreement are Zuni Governor Arlen Quetawki, Sr., Tribal Councilman Edward Wemytewa, and the Zuni

tribe’s attorney, Ms. Jane Marx.

We appreciate your consideration and ask for your support for H.R. 495 which is

identical to S.222, which has passed the Senate.

Overview

On behalf of past, present and future generations of A:shiwi, the Zuni people, we

present our tribe’s water needs for a most important and sacred ancient site. This

most important and sacred place was created in very ancient times, as the final

resting place, for all Zuni people who had transitioned into their spirit form to

watch over and protect their Zuni children for as long as Ko’uwala:wa, the Zuni

Heaven shall exist. This settlement will satisfy our water needs and put finality on

our tribe’s many centuries of endeavors to restore its role as owners and stewards

of our most sacred ancestral final resting place.

Honorable Congressmen, in our quest to re-establish our ownership and stewards

of this most sacred place, we are all following in the footsteps of many great elected

and traditional Zuni leaders. We are following in their footsteps to acquire lands

and to continue to use Ko’uwala:wa, or referred to as Zuni Heaven, to practice our

religion which was created for us in time immemorial. Today, we are here to ask

for your support and advocacy to approve this settlement so that our Zuni people

can achieve the peace of mind and emotional security so necessary to maintain a

positive style and so that we can begin the important tasks of restoring the sacred

land to its formal wetlands conditions.

Significance of the Zuni Heaven and the Importance of Water

The name Ko’uwala:wa is made from the words for Kokko (kachina ) and

‘‘uwalanne (village). Therefore, the true translation of that sacred place name is

Kachina Village. It is the ancient and sacred village occupied by the Kachinas who

are the ancestor spirit beings of departed Zuni people. This is the village where the

spirit beings of departed ancestors of the living Zuni people reside. These spirit

beings have lived here from time immemorial and will live here to perpetuity.

Countless generations of Zuni people have, with their individual and collective prayers, made sacred corn meal and food offerings to these spirit beings asking for good

and long life trails, moisture for Earth Mother, plentiful crops, courage, strength

and other good things in life.

In very ancient times when Zuni Heaven was created and established for the Zuni

people, oral tradition describes the land area as being very wet with a waist high

deep and swift flowing river running through it. In these oral tradition stories, this

river is called K’yawa:na Ahonna or Reddish Brown River referring to a deep and

swift flowing silt laden river. Since that very ancient beginning, past and present

generations of Zuni people believe that the spirit beings, residing at Zuni Heaven,

are responsible for the origin of clouds for rain, snow, hail and sleet that will bless

Earth Mother with their moisture. The Zuni people believe that in order for the

spirit beings to perform their responsibility of originating clouds that will deliver

moisture to Earth Mother, they must reside in a land that is blessed with an abundant supply of both underground and surface water. That is, the land must be in

the same wetlands conditions that existed when Zuni Heaven was first created and

established. For this reason, the Zuni people have been very adamant about acquiring stable sources of and adequate quantities of water to be used to re-establish the

wetland conditions that are needed by the spirit beings to bless Earth Mother with

all forms of moisture.

The traditional Zuni religion has three major components. The first component is

the Ancient Rain Priesthood. The second is the Kachinas and the third is the Medicine Orders. All of these different religious components cooperate and collaborate to

pray for the continued physical, mental and emotional welfare of the Zuni people.

In the overall scheme of the Zuni religion, the Kachinas component has a very direct

relationship to Zuni Heaven as that is where the Kachina spirit beings reside in

90

perpetuity. The Kachinas component of the Zuni religion is supported, promoted,

practiced and maintained by members of the six kivas in the tribe. The Kachinas

component of the Zuni religion is the most active and visible throughout the calendar year. Through and with this religion component, all Zuni people, young and

old, have continual connection with their departed ancestors and children through

prayers, sacred prayer meal and food offerings, dances and other activities.

During the many years of pre-history and history of the Zuni people, the practice

of making a pilgrimage to Zuni Heaven has been maintained. Leaders of the six

kivas and other appointees make this pilgrimage every four years, during early

summer and normal non-drought years. During drought condition years, these pilgrimages were made on second or third years. A major purpose for the pilgrimage

is to beseech the spirit being residents for all forms of moisture so that Earth Mother can support all plant and animal life necessary to maintain the lives of her Zuni

children. Other important purposes include the validation of the Zuni people’s deep

belief in the religion associated with the Zuni Heaven and the Kachina component

of the Zuni religion. This pilgrimage is a very important and major religious event

that involves practically all members of the tribe and many non-tribal friends. The

pilgrimage to Zuni Heaven is made on the Sacred Moisture Trail of the Kachina

Beings. This Sacred Moisture Trail is the entire length of the Zuni River which

starts at the headwaters of the Zuni Mountains, to the east, and ends where it

empties into the Little Colorado River. Along this Sacred Moisture Trail, many sacred springs and seeps are visited where prayers, sacred corn meal and food offerings are made. When at Zuni Heaven, the pilgrims harvest water, water plants and

animals, and minerals to take back to Zuni to be used during the years’ cycles of

religious activities.

All forms and sources of water are most important and sacred to our Zuni people

because from the dawn of their traditions and culture, farming has been a major

life and culture sustaining occupation. Using the moisture absorbed by Earth Mother during the winter snows and the spring and summer rains, ancient Zuni farmers

cultivated every available land to grow their precious corn along with other crops

such as squash and beans. Traditional oral stories tell of ancient farmers cultivating

fields irrigated by spreader dikes that controlled flood flows. To further validate the

Zuni people as being skilled farmers, historical records show that during the early

years of the American occupation of the current Zuni and Navajo land areas, Zuni

farmers provided Fort Wingate and Fort Defiance Army Depots with enough corn

and other crops to sustain their work efforts.

Because of the importance and sacredness of all forms and sources of water, all

prayers and songs of the three major components of the Zuni religion contain language asking for rain and snow to ensure that all crops have enough water to finish

their life paths to provide sustenance for their Zuni children. According to Zuni beliefs Zuni Heaven is the sacred place where all forms of moisture originate. Therefore in order for the Zuni people and their lands to be blessed with rain, snow, sleet

and hail forever, we have worked very diligently with all non–Zuni parties, entities,

townships and the State of Arizona to obtain what we hope will be a permanent

and adequate source of water to restore our most sacred land. We will use this

water to restore the land area to as close to original wetland conditions as is possible. Today, we are here to ask for your support and advocacy to approve this settlement so that our Zuni people can achieve peace of mind and emotional security

that is so necessary to maintain our Zuni traditions and culture.

It is clear, therefore, why settlement rather than litigation is the preferable path

for my people. As you know, in 1984 Congress set aside the Zuni Heaven Reservation for the express purpose of protecting the Tribe’s long-standing religious and

sustenance activities on those lands. As just described to you and testimony leading

to passage of Pub. L. No. 98–498, 98 Stat. 1533 (August 28, 1984) revealed, water

for riparian habitat and the Sacred Lake is essential to those activities, the very

purpose for which Congress set aside the Reservation. That legislation, as amended

by Pub. L. No. 101–486, 104 Stat. 1174 (October 31, 1990), addressed the lands to

be protected but did not cover the Tribe’s water needs. The United States on behalf

of the Tribe, therefore, filed water rights claims in the Little Colorado River basin

general adjudication which has been pending since 1979. The LCR adjudication involves thousands of parties, including five Indian tribes.

Despite the strength of Zuni’s litigation claims relating to its use and occupation

of the area encompassing Zuni Heaven and its waters since time immemorial, the

Tribe was motivated by the desire to secure ‘‘wet’’ water and not just a ‘‘paper’’

water right. The settlement provides for real water to be acquired by the Tribe, in

an area of the Little Colorado River basin where the surface water is already over

appropriated and where there also exists significant groundwater demand. Equally

important, the settlement also provides the resources to be able to restore the wetVerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:15 Aug 21, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 86198.TXT HRESOUR1 PsN: HRESOUR1
91

lands and riparian areas on our sacred lands, an outcome we would not obtain

through litigation. This settlement, thus, restores the ecosystem necessary for our

sacred practices and provides the parties, and Zuni in particular, the benefit of certainty and finality without spending numerous years and extensive resources in litigation. Moreover, this settlement resolves the Zuni Tribe’s water rights claims with

no adverse impacts on the water rights of any party in the LCR litigation.

Overview of The Settlement

This settlement is the culmination of the Tribe’s attempts to protect and restore

the sacred lands of Zuni Heaven. The Tribe’s litigation claims are satisfied by providing water and resources to rehabilitate and restore to the Reservation a riparian

habitat for the Tribe’s religious and sustenance activities.

Description of the Restoration Project and Water Needs

Our restoration project will take a number of years to accomplish. Simply described, it involves acquisition of water rights, use of groundwater, aggradation of

the LCR stream channel, removal of exotic plants that impede restoration of the

wetlands, and planting and maintenance of native plant species. Although our goal

is to restore the area to as close to natural, predevelopment conditions as possible,

certain hydrologic conditions may have been permanently altered by upstream dams

and surface water diversions as well as extensive groundwater pumping; significant

engineering planning and design is needed, as well as the ‘‘artificial’’ maintenance

of certain wetland and riparian areas. We will endeavor to create as natural an environment as is reasonably possible.

With regard to the water requirements, the settlement provides Zuni a minimum

of 5,500 acre-feet per year (afy) of water to develop and maintain its wetland restoration project. The Tribe will use both groundwater and surface water. Importantly, the parties set out to provide water to the Tribe without disrupting, to the

greatest extent possible, the existing uses and expectations of the parties. The mechanism to accomplish this goal includes the voluntary acquisition of surface water

rights from willing sellers in an area where water uses are changing and irrigation

is declining. In the long run, the Tribe needs to acquire a total of at least 3,600

afy of surface water. The remainder of the minimum 5,500 afy of water needs will

be met through appropriation of floodtype flows, development and ‘‘harvesting’’ of

water from Zuni lands upstream of the Reservation, and groundwater pumping. The

settlement recognizes the right of the Tribe to withdraw 1,500 of groundwater free

from objection by the parties. Notably, Zuni will need to acquire 2,350 afy of surface

water rights over the next few years in order to effectuate the settlement and waive

its claims.

The Tribe’s project includes two phases: a core, initial wetland development area

that includes restoration of Hadin K’yaya, the Tribe’s Sacred Lake. This area will

be developed immediately using groundwater, and will be maintained in perpetuity

even in periods of drought. The secondary wetland area will be developed using surface water, after the Little Colorado River channel has been aggraded, or raised up,

on the Reservation, through removal of sediment upstream and relocation of that

sediment to Zuni Heaven. The extent of the secondary wetland area is expected to

fluctuate depending on surface water availability in wetter or dryer years.

As noted above, the surface water rights will be acquired pursuant to state law.

As such they will carry the associated state law priority dates. However, of great

significance to the Tribe, once those rights have been acquired and severed and

transferred to the reservation, the water takes on key attributes of a Federal right:

the water rights shall be held in trust by the United States in perpetuity, the water

rights cannot be lost by abandonment or forfeiture, state law does not apply to

water uses on the Reservation, and the state has no authority to regulate or tax

the use of the water. The settlement provides similar protection for the Tribe’s use of 1,500 afy of groundwater on the Reservation.

Contributions; Development Fund

The settlement provides for a unique partnership among the Tribe, the United

States, the State of Arizona, and certain individual parties to accomplish the goals

of this settlement. First, in addition to the financial contribution of $19.25 million

requested of the United States, the state parties, including the State of Arizona and

other major groundwater pumpers, are contributing roughly $8 to $9 million dollars

toward this settlement, and the Zuni Tribe itself has spent close to $5 million dollars to acquire certain key lands and water essential to the success of the project.

The extent of shared funding is unprecedented in water rights settlements. Equally

important, however, is the creative use of state programs to support the restoration

and environmental goals of this settlement. In addition to contributions from its

general funds, the State of Arizona is using two state programs aimed at

92

endangered species protection and habitat conservation to fund its contribution to

this settlement. Through use of these state funds, the Tribe will receive water rights

to be used for its wetland restoration project as well as dollars that will be spent

for wetland restoration and maintenance purposes. Ultimately, these efforts along

the Little Colorado River stream will create more habitats for threatened and endangered species. Through this partnership, Zuni restores its sacred lands, and environmental protection goals are met.

This agreement will establish the Zuni Indian Tribe Water Rights Development

Fund managed by the Department of Interior into which the contributions from the

State of Arizona and the United States will be deposited. From the Federal contribution of $19.25 million, $3.5 million dollars will be made available immediately

to secure water rights so that the settlement agreement can become enforceable.

The remaining funds will be made available after the enforcement date. The Zuni

Indian Tribe has extensive working knowledge of trust funds management and investment by the U.S. Treasury Department and Department of Interior’s Office of

Trust Funds Management. Our tribe has prudently used funds from prior settlement of land claims. We have used the prescribed regulatory process for drawing

down funds under Secretarial control. We have also exercised the option of withdrawing monies under the American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act

of 1994. The Congressional route for withdrawing of funds has also been successfully used by our Tribe.

The Zuni Indian Tribe will use the settlement Development Fund in the manner

prescribed by this proposed legislation and by the terms embodied in the agreement.

Our trustees at the Southwest Regional office and the Office of Trust Funds Management are extremely aware of our adherence to Federal fiduciary standards, but

more importantly, to the fiduciary standards of my people. We have met these

standards in the past, and we will meet the standards contemplated in this legislation in furtherance of our restoration goals.

Rationale for Certain Waivers and Compromise

This settlement represents many hours of working with my people to develop a

workable vision and concept for restoring our sacred Zuni Heaven given the present

conditions at the Reservation. In addition, the settlement is the result of more than

four years of extensive negotiations involving my water rights team and our water

rights attorneys. As such, it contains negotiated compromises, some of which were

arrived at only after a great deal of discussion and deliberation. Several provisions,

described below, required a great deal of ‘‘soul-searching’’ and discussion by Zuni’s

water rights team and Council. We firmly believe, however, that this settlement,

even with some difficult compromises, provides the best possible approach to securing an adequate amount of water of sufficient quality for our religious practices.

The first of the significant compromises relates to taking lands into trust. As mentioned above, the Tribe has acquired certain lands near the Reservation that are

critical to our ability to gather and send water down the Little Colorado River channel to the Reservation. Other lands along the LCR are also important to the project.

To further this settlement and the needs of some parties to have certainty about

the status of these lands now and in the future, the Tribe identified a key corridor

along the LCR that contains lands we now own or may acquire in the future that

will be taken into trust as part of this settlement. One section of land adjacent to

the Reservation will also be made part of the Reservation; it is the expected location

of much of the Tribe’s groundwater pumping. The legislation provides that only

these lands in Arizona will be taken into trust, absent a subsequent act of Congress

authorizing additional lands into trust for Zuni.

Before any lands may be taken into trust, the Tribe, the State of Arizona, and

Apache County will enter into an intergovernmental agreement covering a number

of water and land use issues that are identified in the settlement agreement. These

issues include, for example, adoption of a tribal water code, jurisdiction by the Tribe

over wildlife management, payments by the Tribe in lieu of state taxes, rights-ofway or easements for adjoining landowners, and protection of land remaining in fee

status for the Tribe’s religious practices. We support the intergovernmental agreement approach as a useful mechanism for sovereign governments to use to facilitate

their relationship. After considering the nature of our land and water use in Arizona

for sustaining our religion and culture, lands which are not the site of my people’s

homes or economic livelihood, we are also comfortable with the substantive agreements within the provisions to be covered by the intergovernmental agreement and

believe they strike a reasonable balance of interests.

The next area of significant compromise relates to waiver of future water quality

claims. We know that this waiver covers new ground in a water rights settlement.

Again, after a great deal of deliberation and consideration of the specific

93

circumstances of this settlement, we are comfortable with the compromises contained in the approach to waiver of these future claims. Circumstances may differ

in another case where, for example, a reservation is a homeland and is located in

an area with more industrial or other development. Moreover, in our negotiations,

we agreed to try to reach a settlement that would, as much as possible, maintain

the status quo and the parties’ existing water use expectations. This may not be a

goal in another context. From the Tribe’s perspective here, the location of the Reservation in a relatively undeveloped area of Arizona, combined with the state parties’ agreement to provide water quality monitoring and data on an ongoing basis,

along with the broad retention of regulatory authority by the United States to address water quality or environmental problems that may arise, provide us adequate

assurance that a serious problem will not go unremedied, even if the Tribe is limited

in the type of claims it can assert. On balance, Zuni believes that the overall benefits to us of this settlement outweigh the risks associated with the limited waiver

of future water quality claims.

Finally, I want to discuss briefly the issue of the timing of the Tribe’s waiver of

litigation claims and the acquisition of water rights as a condition precedent to such

a waiver. As I mentioned earlier, the Tribe needs to acquire 3,600 afy of surface

water rights in order to develop its project. The Tribe will waive its claims, however,

when 2,350 afy of the necessary 3,600 afy of surface water is acquired. This must

be accomplished by the end of December 2006. Clearly, there is a risk to the Tribe

of waiving its claims before it has acquired all of the necessary water rights. However, after significant thought, we felt it the wisest use of time and resources to

structure the settlement in this fashion, for several reasons. First, under the settlement agreement and legislation, the Tribe has early access to $3.5 million dollars

in order to secure the necessary 2,350 afy of water. Given the voluntary nature of

the water acquisitions, we have attempted to strike an appropriate balance between

a reasonably short time frame to determine whether the settlement will become finally enforceable, and a reasonable guess as to the amount of water at a reasonable

price we expect could be acquired within the limited time frame. We did not want

to be in a situation where we are forced to pay too much for any particular water

right in order to satisfy the time deadlines, yet we need to know that we can reasonably expect to secure sufficient surface water to develop the project. The 2,350 afy

amount is the parties’ best estimate as to the amount of water at a reasonable price

that we can anticipate acquiring with the initial funds by December 2006. We will

then acquire the remainder of the water rights over time, with the State of Arizona

expecting to contribute approximately 1,000 afy of water over the next fifteen years.

We believe that this approach is fiscally sound and, in conjunction with our ability

to use groundwater, provides us enough certainty about the ability to develop the

entire wetland restoration project over time.

Conclusion

This water rights settlement agreement will enable the Zuni people to restore

their most sacred land area to the way it was as described in ancient traditional

historical accounts. It will enable them to develop wetlands for water plants, birds

and other animals so important and necessary in carrying on the Zuni Kachina religion. Furthermore, it will ease the minds and hearts of the people knowing that the

spirits of their ancestors will once again, be living in the wetland conditions as were

the land conditions at the very beginning. Past and present Zuni Tribal Councils,

it’s Water Rights Team members, and tribal religious leaders have worked closely

and reasonably with all non–Zuni parties to keep whole their water rights and land

interests and at the same time, secure our interest to water and land for our sacred

lands. The leaders of the tribal civil government, the religious leaders and the Zuni

people are satisfied with the terms of this settlement and respectfully ask that you

approve it. Initial work has already begun to re-establish the wetland conditions of

the Sacred Lake area and adjacent Little Colorado River channel. The several

sources of funds for wetland restoration work efforts will be sufficient to continue

the work already started. We all know that it will take many years of sustained

work efforts and funds to restore our sacred lands to the way that they were in the

beginning. However, with this settlement, we have all made a good start and will

continue the work efforts for as long as it will take.

We firmly believe that with this settlement, the Zuni people and our non–Zuni

neighbors, townships, entities and the State of Arizona have gained benefits that

are so much better than a lengthy and expensive litigation. Expensive and protracted litigations may still remain for the northern reaches of the Little Colorado

River, however, at least one portion will be forever resolved with the approval of

this settlement. We further believe that the United States, on behalf of the Zuni

tribe, will have fulfilled it’s trust obligations with the approval of this settlement.

94

Esteemed members of the House of Representatives, on behalf of our Zuni people,

I humbly ask and urge you to support the ratification of this proposed legislation

for the water rights of the Zuni people at their most sacred land. As a representative of the Zuni tribe’s religious leaders and the Zuni Tribal Council, I bequeath on

each of you a long and valued life trail. Don dek’ohanan yanitchiy a:dehy

a:wona:ya:du. Elahkwa, don yadon k’okshi’’ sunnahk’yanapdu. Thank you, may you

spend a good day to the evening time.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you for your testimony.

Next, Mr. Michael Whitehead, San Gabriel Basin Water Quality

Authority.

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL WHITEHEAD, DIRECTOR,

SAN GABRIEL BASIN WATER QUALITY AUTHORITY

Mr. WHITEHEAD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Committee members. My name is Michael Whitehead. I am president of San Gabriel Valley Water Company, the utility that serves much of the

San Gabriel Valley, but I come to you today as a member of the

board of directors of the San Gabriel Basin Water Quality

Authority.

First of all, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that I have submitted written comments to the Committee, and I would, if it

please the Committee, have those comments entered into the

record and I would like to summarize that.

Mr. CALVERT. Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. WHITEHEAD. Also, Mr. Chairman, please also allow me to express my deepest appreciation to Congresswoman Grace Napolitano

for introducing H.R. 1284, and to Congressman David Drier and

Congresswoman Hilda Solis, who we heard from earlier this afternoon, for their support in cosponsoring this very important

legislation.

Title XVI, the program that has been quite beneficial to the San

Gabriel Valley and the San Gabriel Basin, has enabled groundwater producers in the San Gabriel Valley to provide much needed

wellhead treatment and to stem the flow of contamination that is

flowing underground, to stabilize water rates and, above all else,

to assure a reliable and safe supply of water to over 1.5 million inhabitants in the San Gabriel Valley. The program under title XVI

has been one of the fundamental cornerstones of allowing us to advance that progress in the San Gabriel Valley. For that, we are immensely grateful.

H.R. 1284 would extend that and lift that cap in an important

way that would allow us to provide funding to additional programs.

I mentioned earlier that it is one of the cornerstones. Others Commissioner Keys has mentioned, the other funding sources that the

Bureau of Reclamation is also administering, all of those fit together and become very important funding sources. We have, in

fact, through the Water Quality Authority, brought about agreements throughout the Valley, most notably recently in the Azusa

Baldwin Park area, which has been plagued with a profound

amount of groundwater contamination from volatile organic compounds, perchlorate and—I’m afraid to say a list too long to mention here today—of other contamination in the groundwater.

As Congresswoman Napolitano observed earlier, we have similar

problems emerging in the South El Monte, El Monte and the

95

Puente Valley operable units, which are Superfund cleanup sites in

the San Gabriel Valley. This legislation, as well as other funding

we’re seeking at the local, State and Federal level, will allow us to

advance those projects.

Just for the Committee’s information, I will tell you that under

the auspices of title XVI already through the Bureau of Reclamation, the Water Quality Authority has allocated funding to 10

groundwater cleanup projects, to clean up the groundwater and restore drinking water in the San Gabriel Valley. Seven of those

projects have been completed and have been built and are in operation. Three additional projects are under design and will be built

in the near future, thanks again to title XVI.

I know the hour is late, and I know that others wish to speak,

so I won’t elaborate further. But I do, once again, want to thank

Congresswoman Napolitano for your support. We could not have

achieved the kind of success so far that we have in the San Gabriel

Valley without that kind of support, and we certainly welcome it.

For that reason, we urge this Committee and the Congress to approve H.R. 1284.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Whitehead follows:]

Statement of Michael Whitehead, Member of the Board of Directors,

San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Committee members and staff. My name is Michael Whitehead and I am a member of the Board of Directors of the San Gabriel

Basin Water Quality Authority. Let me express my appreciation to Congresswoman

Grace Napolitano for introducing H.R. 1284 and Congressman David Dreier and

Congresswoman Hilda Solis for co-sponsoring the legislation.

The Title XVI program has provided the San Gabriel Basin with the ability to provide much needed wellhead treatment, stem the flow of contaminants, stabilize

water rates and most importantly deliver safe and reliable drinking water to the

residents of the San Gabriel Basin.

By increasing the authorization for the San Gabriel Basin Demonstration Project,

H.R. 1284 will allow us to continue the incredible progress that has been made over

the last few years in cleaning up and utilizing the groundwater in the San Gabriel

Basin. Title XVI has allowed us to maximize local dollars as we attempt to remediate groundwater contamination that threatens the drinking water supply of over

1 million residents of the San Gabriel Basin.

In the time period since the Title XVI program was made available to the San

Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority, 10 projects have been allocated funding.

Seven projects have been built and another three will begin construction in the near

future.

Without the funding for the treatment facilities local water producers would have

been forced to shut down water wells due to migrating contamination. The closures

would have forced local water purveyors to become reliant on Colorado River water

at a time that the state’s allotment is being cutback. This would have severely impaired our ability to provide water for users in the basin and forced us to rely on

imported water.

It is vital that we restore the basin’s aquifer. Once we are able to remediate the

contamination it is our belief that the Valley will be able to use the aquifer to meet

all of the basin’s water needs. Removing harmful contaminants from our communities groundwater supply will allow local water producers to better meet the needs

of local residents at affordable rates. Lifting the ceiling on Title XVI makes certain

that the basin is able to meet the water supply needs of future generations.

We urge the Committee and their fellow members of Congress to lift the ceiling

on the Title XVI program to allow us to carry out our mission of facilitating groundwater cleanup and providing a clean, reliable drinking water supply for the 1 million residents of the San Gabriel Basin.

Thank you for allowing me to testify for the Subcommittee today.

96

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. George Lujan.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE LUJAN, RESIDENT,

EL MONTE, CALIFORNIA

Mr. LUJAN. Thank you. I have also submitted written testimony.

I am going to summarize the last part of it. I would like to have

this testimony submitted, and I am also going to submit a modified

copy to take into account the additional remarks that I’m going to

cover.

Mr. CALVERT. Without objection, your full testimony will be entered into the record.

Mr. LUJAN. Thank you.

Once again, I do want to thank all of you for having me here.

With my appearance today, you will have heard from an all too frequently neglected stakeholder in this proceeding: the residents. I,

as a disinterested party—interested in the resolution of this problem but disinterested in that I’m not a PRP, I’m no longer a city

official, and I’m just concerned with the well-being of the people of

El Monte, South El Monte, and the entire San Gabriel Basin.

There were three areas that I thought were important to emphasize. These points have not been made in previous testimony,

which I find surprising. I’m going to make those three now and

then I’m going to add a fourth. It is important to be able to see

why it is essential that this bill pass, or if this bill doesn’t pass,

I’m going to argue for something related in just a moment.

First, let me point out that the cities of El Monte, Industry and

South El Monte, have sought to have the 1996 funding cap of $38

million lifted from the moneys provided by the 1992 Reclamations

Act, to include an additional $12.5 million. Because of the 1996

cap, these three cities were not able to benefit from the moneys

provided.

We have heard testimony from Mr. Keys earlier, and I do want

to make sure that my comments will also conform to the issues

that he raised earlier.

The cities of El Monte and South El Monte are among the poorest of the various operable groups. Yet, for the sake of basic fairness, I would urge you to consider that the El Monte and South

El Monte operables, the stakeholders, the PRPs, and now, I guess,

the RPs, the responsible parties, almost alone among the people in

the San Gabriel Basin stood up and tried to avoid the transaction

costs which drive up cleanup efforts by not looking to attorneys but

by trying to work with the EPA, the Federal Government, the local

State agencies, the regional areas, in order to seek resolution.

While I know it’s an anecdotal point that ‘‘no good deed goes

unpunished’’, I think it violates a point of basic fairness that these

people should not be able to achieve the 25 percent matching funds

in order to get their projects funded, since they alone have stood

up in order to work as closely as possible. Yes, the sword of Damocles was hanging over them, but these people stood up for what

they felt they ought to do, and to the extent we want to make sure

the polluter pays, we also want to make sure that there is some

basic fairness in the process.

97

As a matter of public policy, it is not appropriate to have those

people who are the most cooperative to suffer the most in this effort. Hence, H.R. 1284 ought to be passed in order to make sure

that, as a principle of basic fairness, this is done.

Secondly, there is another consideration which has not been

raised. Many of the PRPs in these operable units may not survive

the remediation process without the sort of assistance provided by

the bill.

Now, the reason I mentioned Mr. Keys’ testimony is because he

said he was talking to several people, and I understand there was

some pressuring to find out who were these people. I could say that

I contacted South El Monte in order to secure their support for my

testimony here. Of course, if I only talked to a secretary, I nonetheless spoke to someone at city hall.

In point of fact, I spoke to Patricia Wallach, a councilmember of

El Monte, yesterday. I talked to Larry Felix Friday and yesterday,

and he provided a letter, which I would like to have entered into

the record.

Mr. CALVERT. Without objection.

[The letter follows:]

98

99

100

Mr. LUJAN. Thank you.

In which at the bottom of the second page and top of the third

page he indicates no knowledge of any type of availability of Reclamation moneys for his effort.

Now, just as we have no rights unless we can defend them, similarly, we have no remedies unless we can take advantage of them.

If this information is not made available to the PRPs and to the

RPs, then it cannot be applied in order to defray some of the costs.

The second point I want to mention is this. The economic viability of the region is in question because some of these PRPs are not

able to survive this process and stay in business. Why is this a

matter of public policy as well as a matter of basic fairness? It’s

because we may end up having a large orphan’s share, assumed entirely be the Federal Government, if these people cannot have the

economic sustainability in order to make sure that they own up to

their obligation and continue paying for the water remediation. It

is better to partially supply the moneys to these people in terms

of a 25-75 match, in order to make sure that they’re still around

to continue meeting their obligation, so that the taxpayers at large

do not meet this.

101

Thirdly, it is in the public interest for this body to ensure every

means to remediate this problem as soon as possible because the

plumes are leaching into the Central Basin, and it is not simply a

problem for the San Gabriel Basin PRPs but also for the residents

and water users of the Central Basin.

It is important also—and this is my fourth and last point—to remember, the city of South El Monte and the city of El Monte are

not among the PRPs. In order to make sure the Bureau of Reclamation money is available if Mr. Keys does have it available, it

is to make sure that these people, the stakeholders, the PRPs and

the RPs, are told about this money.

I’m certainly going to take this testimony back and share it with

the PRPs of El Monte and South El Monte. But the city managers

of El Monte and South El Monte have nothing to do with this because they are not responsible parties and they have no say in the

allocation of the moneys or in the contribution of moneys to the

water treatment.

As I said, the city of South El Monte has once provided a great

amount of money in order to allow for cleanup and to do various

experimental projects. I would hope, and surely expect, this body

to achieve such greatness of spirit, as you all are surely capable.

If you don’t pass this bill, H.R. 1284, then simply direct Mr.

Keys to make sure that the $8 million that he says is left over from

the cap, as well as $4.5 million to make the entire $12.5 million

whole, is directed to Industry, South El Monte, and El Monte. Because remember, without the direct force of law, there is no reason

that he has to do this. It really isn’t a remedy. It’s simply something on paper.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lujan follows:]

Statement of George J. Lujan, Resident of

South El Monte, California

Honorable representatives, members of the Committee:

I want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. So far you

have heard from various local and Federal elected representatives and from potentially responsible parties from the business community. With my appearance today,

you will have heard from an all too frequently neglected stakeholder: the residents.

I have spoken about this problem with Representatives Dreier, Napolitano and

Solis, as well as members of their staff, in the past, and I want to thank them for

their efforts in bringing some promise of relief to the heavily minority, economically

distressed cities of El Monte and South El Monte.

Recognizing the long-term threat facing the various communities across the San

Gabriel and Central basins, I have long sought to do what I could to apply what

resources could be brought to bear on remediating the proximate source of that

threat: the various plumes of contaminated groundwater drifting across the San Gabriel Basin aquifer toward the Central Basin. With plumes containing volatile organic compounds, perchlorate, trichloroethene and other ‘‘emerging’’ contaminants,

there is a potentially serious health threat to everybody who lives and works in the

various operable units in the San Gabriel Basin; with the health threat potentially

affecting residents and workers, it is extremely difficult to attract and retain businesses in El Monte and South El Monte, especially with an unemployment rate of

9.3 percent and in which 26 percent of the residents live below the poverty level.

As a private resident, I studied CERCLA, the 1979 Superfund Act, it’s 1986 reauthorization, the Torrez bill, the Smith bill, the Oxley bill and other relevant state

and local legislation. I attended meetings of the Regional Water Quality Control

Board and San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority, as well as local meetings

held by business groups in the various operable units. I educated myself in issues

relevant to my home and my city, and spoke with stakeholders affected by the problems and the attempts to remedy them.

102

When I was elected to the South El Monte City Council, I did my best to look

for ways to build bridges of cooperation among the various stakeholders. Our city

was instrumental in various efforts to test the groundwater, to develop and implement ways of treating the groundwater, to work with the various state water quality control entities and the USEPA, and to safeguard the public’s health and wellbeing. Even though the Citry of South El Monte was not a potentially responsible

party, we contributed $40,000 to a WQA project that blocked one plume so that the

South El Monte PRPs could qualify for $400,000 in contributions and matching

funds to complete the project that they would not have otherwise gotten.

The cities of El Monte, Industry and South El Monte, have sought to have the

1996 funding cap of $38 million dollars lifted from the monies provided by a 1993

reclamations act to include an additional 12.5 million dollars.. Because of the 1996

cap, these three cities were not able to benefit from the monies provided. The cities

of El Monte and South El Monte are among the poorest of the various operable

groups. For the sake of basic fairness, I would urge you to consider the merits of

passing H.R. 1284, but there is more. Consider this: In the first place, the cities of

El Monte and South El Monte have been among the most open and cooperative of

any of the operable units. To allow the other operable units to benefit from the already allocated monies from the 1993 funding while ignoring the publicly minded

efforts of the PRPs of the El Monte and South El Monte operable units is simply

unsound as a matter of public policy. Secondly, there is another consideration: many

of the PRPs of these operable units may not survive the remediation process without

the sort of assistance provided by this bill. The economic viability of the region is

in question. Also, in terms of cost-benefit analysis, it is surely better to allow PRPs

to stay in business so as to defray the cost of what would otherwise be orphan share

assumed by the government. In the third place, it is in the public interest for this

body to ensure every means to remediate this problem as soon as possible, not only

for the health of the residents of El Monte and South El Monte, but for the sake.:

of those living in the Central Basin. The plume is a menace that must be stopped.

As I said, the City of South El Monte provided monies to facilitate actions contributing to the health and economic viability of our residential and business communities. I would hope and surely expect this body to achieve such greatness of spirit

as it is capable of achieving.

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman, and I thank all of you for

your testimony on the various legislative bills. It’s been a busy day

today. We have discussed four pieces of legislation that we intend

to have a markup on Thursday, but we have a few other questions

we need to ask.

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Gleick, I listened to your testimony with interest. You made a comment that the per capita water use is down

and that the issue of supply is not the problem.

You know, I’ve been Chairman of this Subcommittee for 3 years

now, have been a member of the Committee for 10 years, and I

can’t remember anyone telling me that we don’t have a supply

problem in the United States. On the contrary, it seems that everywhere I go in the United States and have a water hearing, there

is a problem with supply. There may be a dispute of where that

supply should go, whether to the urban communities or the farming communities or the environmental community, whoever. But

certainly there is a dispute. Certainly in California, in my experience with Cal-Fed and the Quantification Settlement Agreement, et

cetera, et cetera, there is plenty of disputes. If we could make disputes water and water policy, we would have a flood. But, unfortunately we don’t. So here we are today, I believe with a good bill

that Mr. Linder has put forward, H.R. 135. As Mr. Lynch pointed

out, I think there are very few people who object to the fact that

we need to take another look at water in this country and what

we’re doing.

103

Now, on global warming, I used to chair the Energy and Environment Committee, too, so I’ve been to every global warming conference in the world, I think, and have always with great interest

listened to the folks. I suspect that if, in fact, we do have climate

change issues, we can argue whether it’s because of human participation or just natural elements in the world. I know there’s a controversy around that, too, another dispute. Nevertheless, if, in fact,

we do have a climate change, there are some who would argue that

we may need more supply and more ability to collect water because

the ice pack or the snowfall, which has been, in effect, a reservoir

for us throughout the West, would be less, and there would be

more rainfall.

Do you have any comment about that?

Mr. GLEICK. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Those are all wonderful questions, and very astute.

Let me clarify my comments. In this bill, the findings emphasize

‘‘the need to increase water supplies in every region of the country.’’ That is not the problem facing the United States. There are

some regions and there are some times when supplies are short,

absolutely. But even in these regions, increasing supplies is not the

best solution. The best solution is rethinking the way we use water,

reallocating water from one user to another, as you’ve heard some

of the discussion here today. In fact, demand for water in the

United States is going down, the total demand for water.

I’m sorry that nobody else has told you that in the last 10 or 15

years, but the reality is that the demand for water is going down.

On a per capita basis, it’s going down even more than that.

That’s good news. It’s not bad news, it’s good news. It means we

have the ability to rethink the way we’re using what we have and

to use it more effectively and more efficiently.

I am not disputing the need for such a commission. Such a commission can help us rethink the broad suite of water problems, and

we certainly have very many water problems. But the focus of the

findings and the focus of the duties I think are slightly misdirected,

and that was the point of that set of comments.

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you.

Mr. Lynch, any comment about that?

Mr. LYNCH. Well, obviously I don’t agree with Dr. Gleick. If per

capita water use is going down, we’re being overrun by capitas, because California is growing, Arizona is growing, the West is growing, and the very place where water supply is the biggest problem

is the place where people are all moving. We can just stop them

at the border and say ‘‘I’m sorry, we’re out of water.’’ Well, we’re

not out of water. But we can’t just go up to people and say, ‘‘I’m

sorry, you don’t have any water rights any more.’’ I mean, we do

that under the guise of some processes now too much as it is. But

this is a serious problem.

As I outlined in my testimony, the problem is right in front of

us. We need to get after it and we need to focus on the problems

that face us immediately. There may be problems in other countries, but we need to concentrate on the ones we’ve got right in

front of us.

104

Mr. CALVERT. Speaking of water rights, I think the Federal Government tried to do that in Imperial County the other day, didn’t

they? It didn’t work out too well.

Mr. LYNCH. Yeah, but it worked out better than the Central Valley Project, and they’re suffering with 50 percent allocation.

Mr. CALVERT. That’s right.

Mrs. Napolitano.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Dr. Gleick, the survey in your testimony indicates there is a reduction, although not quite as much as I would

have liked to see. But there is a reduction of water usage.

I also know Metropolitan Water in Los Angeles has data that indicates California has remained constant for the last 10 years because of conservation, storage, et cetera, et cetera. So they’re not

using as much water. The fact that the Department of Interior is

forcing California to go to 4.4 million acre-feet itself indicates that

we may be able to get there, but we need all the help we can get

to be able to get there. That means utilizing every available type

of conservation, storage, recycling, desal, the whole bit.

Can you comment on that?

Mr. GLEICK. Yes. Metropolitan has done a wonderful job, as has

much of Southern California, in reducing its per capita demand— that is, doing what we want to do with less water. And per capitas

are growing, absolutely. Mr. Lynch is right. Population in the West

especially, and in California, is growing.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thirty percent.

Mr. GLEICK. But we use no more water in California today than

we used 20 years ago, with a very much higher population. And

that’s to our credit. It shows that we are doing better.

If we focus this commission only on efforts to increase supplies,

this commission will do nothing useful. I’m not saying in places we

shouldn’t discuss increasing supplies. I am, indeed, suggesting that

we broaden the responsibilities of this commission to look at the

entire suite of water management options that really face us, those

that are most economically achievable, environmentally achievable,

socially achievable. In some places, that’s going to mean smart

groundwater management and conjunctive use, and increases in

groundwater supplies.

I’m certainly not opposed to that, but I am opposed to this bill

if it limits our options of such a commission to look at what really

is the broad suite of problems facing us.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, sir. I appreciate that.

Mr. Lynch, I know that Phoenix is facing a lot of hardships because of the cyclical, if you will, drought problem. Have there been

many efforts in conservation? I know they’ve done it in California

and Texas, and I’m sure they have done something in Arizona. Can

you comment on what kind of conservation efforts have gone before

you or that you’re aware of in Arizona?

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Napolitano, yes, there are a

number of them. For instance, in order for agriculture to take Central Arizona Project water, all of their facilities had to become

lined. They had to reduce their groundwater pumping. In fact, our

Central Desert Basins are all in balance today because of that.

The municipalities have instituted a number of conservation efforts. The zoning laws have changed in terms of facilities, and we

105

are doing a relatively new program that we should have started

when California did, of groundwater banking, which has been very

successful.

Our problem in the Central Deserts, where the Central Arizona

Project is, is the problem of the Colorado River, the continued supply and the 5-year drought that has stymied things in the Colorado

River Basin. Our rural areas are really hurting. In fact, this afternoon as we speak, our Senate is amending a bill to allow some

emergency groundwater transfers in our rural areas that aren’t

normally allowed under our 1980 Groundwater Act because of that.

So yes, we’re working as hard as we can at this. It’s a major program, but this is a killer drought.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. But wouldn’t it then make sense to be able to

address all the issues concerning water and its use throughout the

United States, looking at every conceivable method of being able to

address whether it’s a drought, floods, et cetera?

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, Miss Napolitano, yes. I think we’re

dealing with semantics here. Water reuse is increasing water supply. Vegetation management is increasing water supply. It can also

help with flood control and flood management, and conserving flood

flows to reduce damage as well as to increase water supply.

I am not sure that Dr. Gleick and I are on a different page here,

so much as the words sound differently. But I think the focus is

on increasing our ability to have the resource, and that includes

conservation as well as other things that can increase the usability.

There is no more water. I mean, the water goes up in the sky,

it floats around, it comes down again. It’s all the same water, it’s

all the same molecules. It’s where it’s located at the time and the

fact that it’s not located where you need it at the time that is our

problem. Helping with that management will be, I hope, the focus

of this commission.

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, sir.

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentlelady.

Mr. Hayworth.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I would like

to thank all the witnesses for their patience and diligence and the

testimony here.

I would be remiss if I didn’t offer a special word of welcome to

my friends from the Zuni Tribe. Mr. Chairman and Governor, we

thank you. I was honored to introduce the legislation in the 107th

Congress that now bears the name of my good friend from Arizona’s new 1st District, and I am pleased to be a cosponsor. I am

pleased, also, to be a cosponsor of H.R. 135, and again to my

friend, Bob Lynch, we thank you for your testimony as well on

that.

One question. I can recall in the 107th Congress you offered

some cautionary notes on John Linder’s bill. I suppose working

with Congressman Linder, those concerns you had have been minimized now and we can move forward on this policy. Obviously, as

you reflected in your testimony, we need it.

I just wondered, from then until now, what has encouraged you

along the lines of this bill?

Mr. LYNCH. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Hayworth, Mr. Linder has just

done yeoman’s service in working with the water community, with

106

me and others. I have been privileged to work with him on this,

and I think the redesign of this bill gives it a manageable focus.

I remember in the Federal Water Rights Task Force how difficult

it was for us just to coordinate schedules of seven people, just to

be able to have the hearings and be around different parts of the

country. So I think this bill is a focused attempt to address a major

issue and I think it has a great chance of success. I support it 100

percent.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Thank you, Bob. Again, my thanks to all the

witnesses for their testimony, and to you, Mr. Chairman, for the

hearing.

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Renzi.

Mr. RENZI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also want to thank Congressman Hayworth and everyone who has taken the time to hang

in with us today, particularly at this late hour.

I would be remiss if I didn’t thank the original author of this,

Congressman Hayworth, for a specific portion of this legislation

that I want to talk about real quick, more of a statement than a

question.

The idea that as more of our ranchers are moved off the public

lands in Arizona, these ranchers have less and less income. Within

this settlement agreement is a very insightful agreement that allows the ranchers to sell a part of their water to the Tribe. The

Federal Government will participate and provide a percentage of

that water that will go to Zuni Heaven. I think it’s going to flow

out of our apportionment that we have in Lyman Lake. But what’s

interesting is the concept that Congressman Hayworth developed,

along with the Tribe, the idea that local water users, local ranchers, will now be able to sell their right rights.

I am hopeful, in the spirit of cooperation and working together

as a community, that you’re still finding that friendship and you’re

finding that opportunity to be available to you, if you would like

to comment on that.

Thank you.

Mr. ERIACHO. Thank you, Mr. Renzi.

That is correct. We went into these negotiations with the idea

that we wanted the share of water that rightfully belonged to the

Zuni lands, but at the same time not take anything away from the

residents in St. Jones and Springerville and up along that river.

Like I said in the statement a while ago, any water that we purchase is going to be on a voluntary basis. Anybody that wants to

sell water to the Zuni, we’re ready to buy, using the money the

United States is going to give to us, and also lands, if it’s attached

to lands. So I think this is a good settlement and I think we have

the backing of all of the participants.

Mr. RENZI. Thank you.

It’s unique, in a time when we’re in such a litigious society, at

a time when everyone is suing each other over water and land, it’s

wonderful to see from the original author and from the Tribe the

idea that we’re going to be able to settle, and with the idea we’re

also going to be able to share in the benefits of this. Again, thank

you so very much.

Mr. ERIACHO. Thank you.

107

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you.

I have a few comments to make, and Mrs. Napolitano may have

some additional question. But while waiting for her, I wanted to

make a comment to Dr. Gleick.

I don’t think you have anything really to worry about. I suspect

that your views will be expressed and listened to and be a part of

any future commission. In my experience with water, every element of water must be explored in order to have a balanced approach to this. Certainly conveyance, the issues of groundwater,

reclamation, desalinization, the environment in general and how

that water is shared within those various stakeholders is going to

be necessary because NEPA is not going to go away. Maybe a few

people would like to reform it a little bit, but I suspect it probably

is not going to go away. So those various elements must be dealt

with in a reasonable way in order to have a meaningful policy in

the end, that is workable and we can deal with for the 21st century.

As I mentioned earlier—and I’m sure Mrs. Napolitano has some

comments—I think you’ve got some great assistants, Mr. Whitehead and Mr. Lujan, on H.R. 1284. Mrs. Napolitano is very tough

minded about getting this bill done, and she’s got some great supporters, not excluding myself, and also the Chairman of the Rules

Committee here. So I suspect you have a very great opportunity

ahead of you to pass this legislation. We will work to do that.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Renzi is doing a great job in moving

H.R. 495 and, in fact, we intend to mark up all three of these bills,

along with another bill we heard earlier regarding the Folsom

Dam, on Thursday, so we’ll be moving those to the full Committee

for final consideration, and with all haste.

With that, do you have any final comments, Mrs. Napolitano?

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I, too, want to thank

all the witnesses for coming, especially my California friends, who

are coming here during such cold weather and coming from the

warm weather in California. I would like to thank you all for bringing us more information on how to deal with water.

I would like to comment that sometimes people don’t think about

water. They just turn the faucet on or flush the toilet and it comes

and goes. We have no concept about the issues of water delivery

and the quality and quantity of water.

I agree with Mr. Lynch, and I’m sure my tribal folks understand,

that Mother Earth gave us the water to use and take care of and

we need to be cognizant that we have a responsibility to take care

of that water, and clean it, because it was given to us clean and

we have polluted it. How we deliver it is going to be a challenge

for all of us in the United States, to take a look at and understand

and be cognizant of our own role in the solutions, not always government. I think the fact that we can work together, that we can

bring it before this Committee, which has been very, very good

about listening and acting upon those issues as they come before

us, I think is very laudable.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you and the Committee members. We

must move forward, and I certainly look forward to coming back for

the markup, which is on Thursday. I thank you all for your testimony and we look forward to more work ahead.

108

Thank you.

Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentlelady, and I thank this panel. I

thank everyone for attending this hearing, and thank the members

for sticking in there.

With that, we are adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 5:47 p.m., the Subcommittee adjourned.]

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hayworth submitted for the

record follows:]

Statement of The Honorable J.D. Hayworth, a Representative in Congress

from the State of Arizona, on H.R. 495

Mr. Chairman, Thank you for holding this hearing today. I am particularly grateful to see that H.R. 495, the Zuni Indian Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act of 2003

is on today’s agenda. I introduced this legislation in the 107th Congress, and am

proud to be a cosponsor of this bill in the 108th Congress, now introduced by my

colleague from Arizona, Mr. Renzi.

This legislation ratifies the settlement agreement concerning the Zuni Indian

Tribe’s water rights on the Little Colorado River in Eastern Arizona. The bill will

provide for a wetlands restoration at ‘‘Zuni Heaven,’’ an area of land along the Little

Colorado River that is sacred to the Zuni Tribe of New Mexico. Consistent with the

principles of tribal sovereignty, Indian self-determination and religious freedom, this

legislation will settle ancient water rights and ensure that those rights are preserved for all future generations of the Zuni people.

The Zuni tribe’s water claim is no new development. In fact, litigation of the

water rights on the Little Colorado River basin has been ongoing for nearly a quarter of a century. This legislation represents a culmination of this process in a way

that will reduce expenses for all parties involved. Indeed, we should look at the

settlement process demonstrated in this water settlement as a model for other

settlements. The affected parties have recognized that final resolution of these water

claims through litigation is counter-productive and hurtful to the Tribe, neighboring

non–Indian water users, local towns, utility and irrigation companies, the State of

Arizona, and to the United States. Therefore, negotiations have brought forward a

settlement agreed to by all parties, and we now have the opportunity to codify this

settlement by passing this legislation.

I commend my colleague, Mr. Renzi, for bringing this bill forward in such a quick

manner and making it one of his top priorities. Again, thank you Chairman Calvert

for scheduling this legislation for today’s hearing and working with us to get this

bill through the Resources Committee.

[A statement submitted for the record on H.R. 135 by the

Association of California Water Agencies follows:]

Statement of the Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) on

H.R. 135

The Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) appreciates the opportunity

to submit comments to the Subcommittee on Representative John Linder’s H.R. 135.

ACWA represents 440 public water agencies in California, and our members supply

over 90 percent of the water delivered in the state for residential, agricultural and

industrial uses.

ACWA is pleased to support H.R. 135, legislation creating a ‘‘Twenty First Century Water Strategy Commission.’’ This legislation represents an opportunity to

come to grips with the complexity of modern water problems and assess the means

to their resolution. These comments will spell out areas where California’s water

community believes the commission should devote special emphasis, and offer constructive input on its implementation.

Given the variety of climates and uses that make up the national water supply

picture, a twenty-first century water policy commission must confront the fact that

new strategies and investments are needed to avert a water crisis in the western

United States. For arid states like California, the uneven distribution of precipitation over the state’s geography is a central fact of its existence. The American population continues move toward and grow in the west, in areas faced with resource

constraints and increasing environmental demands. Capturing the water available

for human uses in an environmentally sound manner in these areas is essential.

109

Without significant reinvestment in aging agricultural and residential water infrastructure, the capacity currently available to do this will be overwhelmed. Among

the first places this will happen is California.

ACWA and its members devote a significant amount of time promoting the federal

partnership in new and proven technologies to meet the water needs of the west.

Conservation, recycling, desalination, off-stream storage, conjunctive use and

groundwater management are just a few of the areas where local, state and federal

programs working together have created spectacular success. Water conservation

and recycling today allow California’s largest city to live on nearly the same amount

of water it used in 1976. The state Department of Water Resources estimates that

California water recycling has expanded by about 100,000 acre-feet per year since

1990. And today, a half-dozen seawater desalination projects are under consideration that together could produce more than 120,000 acre-feet of water each year

in California, enough for nearly a million people.

Each of these examples illustrates the multi-faceted approach necessary to meet

water needs in the west. ACWA is encouraged by specific language in the bill directing the commission’s focus toward ‘‘assessments...necessary to project future water

supply and demand.’’ The commission’s work will be most useful if it results first

in a comprehensive assessment of needs, and not an immediate change in policy.

The information presented to and by the commission can then effectively direct the

federal investment that we already know is necessary toward the areas that will

generate the greatest water yield for the money spent.

The commission’s work should also focus on the economic activity generated by

water facilities. A variety of statistics are used to illustrate the business activity and

economic stimulus made possible through public works. Some have claimed that as

many as 40,000 construction jobs are generated for every $1 billion allocated to new

public water infrastructure. The commission’s report should provide a clearer understanding of the economic contribution of water projects, both at the construction

phase and in the long-term activity produced when the facilities come on line.

But new infrastructure alone is not the only avenue to resolve national water

challenges. The regulatory constraints put in place by wildlife agencies can and

should be dealt with in a more efficient way. Existing water infrastructure, designed

and built before the enactment of most environmental laws, is frequently ill-suited

to complying with new goals of environmental restoration. It is not easy to smoothly

overlay a wildlife agency’s objectives onto a facility designed to export water or keep

a floodplain dry. For this reason, new regulatory approaches that seek out opportunities to merge environmental goals with reliably operated water systems are extremely important to optimizing our existing and planned water infrastructure into

the twenty-first century. ACWA believes that California’s CALFED Bay–Delta Program is a successful example of this type of coordination between regulatory agencies, environmental demands and the water needs of people.

A final area of concern for our members is in membership of the commission.

ACWA appreciates the language calling for a broad cross section of government and

geographic representatives, as well as the stipulation that these members bring

‘‘recognized standing and distinction in water policy issues’’ to the group. ACWA believes these members should acknowledge that increased water supplies, as well as

the conservative use of existing water resources, will be essential to creating a

meaningful and effective water policy for the United States.

In the years since California’s construction of the Central Valley Project and the

State Water Project, no equally large water projects have been completed in California. The few regional facilities built have often required years of public review

and inevitable political controversy. In the last 30 years, only two regional reservoirs have been built in California, even though eight million people have come

to the state during that time. Other western states have not fared much better.

Meanwhile, new commitments to environmental goals and programs to protect salmon have further directed away several million acre-feet of water to meet new environmental mandates. This rededication of resources, coupled with rapid population

growth, has vastly destabilized western states’’ water picture.

H.R. 135 will enable policymakers to fully ascertain these facts and plan a longterm means of addressing them. California’s experience has shown that it is not a

scarcity of fresh water that confronts us, but rather the inadequate reclamation and

reuse of water available to us that threatens western communities with shortage.

ACWA looks forward to assisting in the passage of H.R. 135 and in promoting a

sound and well-informed twenty-first century water policy.

Æ