U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

29–766 WASHINGTON : 2019

S. HRG. 115–505 

PENDING LEGISLATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

WATER AND POWER 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

ON

S. 1142/H.R. 2457 

S. 1556 

S. 2074 

S. 2166 

H.R. 2786 

FEBRUARY 28, 2018 

( 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia 

MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada 

TINA SMITH, Minnesota 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER

JEFF FLAKE, Chairman 

JOHN BARRASSO 

JAMES E. RISCH 

MIKE LEE 

BILL CASSIDY 

ROB PORTMAN 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO 

CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO 

RON WYDEN 

BERNARD SANDERS 

JOE MANCHIN III 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH 

TINA SMITH 

BRIAN HUGHES, Staff Director 

PATRICK J. MCCORMICK III, Chief Counsel 

LANE DICKSON, Professional Staff Member 

MARY LOUISE WAGNER, Democratic Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Democratic Chief Counsel 

CAMILLE TOUTON, Democratic Professional Staff Member 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Page 

Flake, Hon. Jeff, Subcommittee Chairman and a U.S. Senator from Arizona ... 1 

Cortez Masto, Hon. Catherine, Subcommittee Ranking Member and a U.S. 

Senator from Nevada ........................................................................................... 5 

Wyden, Hon. Ron, a U.S. Senator from Oregon .................................................... 5 

WITNESS 

Mikkelsen, Alan, Senior Advisor to the Secretary for Water and Western 

Resource Issues, U.S. Department of the Interior ............................................ 6 

ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 

Begaye, Russell: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 31 

Blaine, Tom: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 32 

Brown, Marshall P.: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 34 

Chavez, Aaron: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 35 

Clayton, Seth J.: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 36 

Colorado Springs Utilities: 

Letter for the Record dated February 21, 2018 ............................................. 37 

Letter for the Record regarding S. 2166 dated February 23, 2018 .............. 39 

Colorado Water Congress: 

Letter for the Record regarding S. 2166 ......................................................... 40 

Letter for the Record—Codify Water Supply Infrastructure and Drought 

Resilience Act ................................................................................................ 41 

Colorado Water Conservation Board: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 43 

Cortez Masto, Hon. Catherine: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 5 

Denver (CO) Board of Water Commissioners: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 44 

Fallgren, Tom: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 45 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 2 

Flake, Hon. Jeff: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 1 

Harris, Mark: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 46 

Jamestown (ND) Reservoir Cabin Owners Association: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 21 

Mead, Hon. Matthew H.: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 48 

Mikkelsen, Alan: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 6 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 8 

Response to Question for the Record .............................................................. 27 

Mueller, Andrew A.: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 50 
Page

IV 

Municipal Subdistrict, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 51 

Schmidt, Max: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 52 

Southern Ute Indian Tribe: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 53 

(The) Southwestern Water Conservation District: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 55 

Stutsman County (ND) Park Board: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 22 

Tri-County Water Conservancy District: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 57 

Upper Colorado River Commission: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 58 

Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District Board of Directors: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 60 

Wyden, Hon. Ron: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 5 

The text for each of the bills which were addressed in this hearing can be found on the 

committee’s website at: https://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2018/2/subcommittee-onwater-and-power022818 
(1) 

PENDING LEGISLATION 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2018 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m. in 

Room SD–366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jeff Flake, 

presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF FLAKE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA 

Senator FLAKE [presiding]. This hearing of the Senate Energy 

and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power will 

come to order. 

The purpose of today’s hearing is to receive testimony on a number of important water and power related bills pending before the 

Subcommittee. 

Let me begin by welcoming Senator Cortez Masto as the new 

Ranking Member of the Subcommittee. It is sure nice to have 

someone who is also from the Lower Basin. Thank you for being 

here. 

Today, we will hear testimony from the Department of the Interior on five water and power related bills. These bills affect a range 

of issues including the expiring hydropower licenses, rural power 

projects, sale of excess Reclamation lands and endangered fish recovery programs. 

In addition to testimony from Mr. Mikkelsen, we have received 

a written statement from FERC on S. 1142 and H.R. 2786 which, 

without objection, will be placed as part of the record. 

[Written statement from FERC on S. 1142 and H.R. 2786 follows:] 
2 

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, DC 20426 

OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN 

The Honorable Lisa Murkowski 

Chairman 

February 26,2018 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

304 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington,DC 20510 

RE: S.l142, H.R. 2457 and lf.R. 2786 

Dear Chairman Murkowski: 

This letter is in response to a request by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources for my views on S.l142 and H. R. 2457, two bills to authorize the extension of the 

time to begin construction of the original licenses for the Red River Lock and Dam No 3. (FERC 

Project No. 12756), Red River Lock and Dam No.4 (FERC Project No. 12757), and Red River 

Lock and Dam No.5 (FERC Project No. 12758), and H.R. 2786, a bill to amend the Federal 

Power Act (FPA) with respect to criteria and process for a proposed project to qualify as 

qualifying conduit hydropower facility. 

8.1142 and H.R. 2457 

On April 14,2014, the Commission issued an original license authorizing BOSTJ 

Hydroelectric LLC to construct and operate the Red River Lock and Dam No.3 Project on 

the Red River in Catahoula Parish, Louisiana. The Commission issued an original license to 

BOST4 Hydroelectric LLC on February 17, 2017, to construct and operate the Red River Lock 

and Dam No. 4 Project also to be located on the Red River in Catahoula Parish. Louisiana. On 

March 8, 2017, the Commission issued an original license authorizing BOSTS Hydroelectric 

LLC to construct and operate the Red River Lock and Dam No.5 Project to be located on the 

Red River in Bossier Parish, Louisiana. 

Pursuant to section 3l(a) of the FPA, licensees are required to begin construction of the 

projects within 2 years of the license issuance date. They may be granted one two-year 

extension of time. The licensee for the Red River Lock and Dam No.3 has been granted the one 

two-year extension. 

S.ll42 and H.R. 2457 would extend the time period during which the licensees for 

Project Nos. 12756, 12757, and 12758 are required to c.ommence the construction of their 

applicable project for up to 3 consecutive 2-year periods from the date of the expiration of 

any extension issued by the Commission for such project. 

The last several Commission Chairmen have taken the position of not opposing 
3 

-2-

legislation that would extend a project's commencement of construction deadline where 

the extension does not exceed 10 years past the date that the license in question was issued. 

Where proposed extensions would run beyond that time, there has been a sense that the 

public interest is better served by releasing the site at issue for other public uses. Because 

S.ll42 and H.R.2457 provide for commencement of construction deadlines that do not 

exceed 10 years from the date on which the project license was issued, I do not have 

concerns with the suggested approach. 

H.R. 2786 

Section 30(a) of the FPA exempts certain conduit hydropower facilities from the 

licensing requirements of the FP A. The provision requires an entity proposing to construct a 

qualifying conduit hydropower facility to file with the Commission a notice of intent to construct 

the facility, including sufficient information to demonstrate the facility meets the qualifying 

criteria. Once the notice of intent is filed with the Commission, section 30(a)(2)(B) requires the 

Commission to make an initial determination as to whether the facility meets the qualifying 

criteria within 15 days of receiving the notice of intent. The qualifying criteria, as defined in 

Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act (HREA) of2013, include: 

i. the facility is constructed, operated, or maintained for generation of electric power 

and uses for such generation only the hydroelectric potential of a non-federally 

owned conduit; 

ii. the facility has an installed capacity that does not exceed 5 megawatts (MW); 

iii. on or before the date of the enactment ofHREA of2013 (August 9, 2013), the 

facility is not licensed under, or exempted from the license requirements. 

If the Commission makes an initial determination that the facility meets the qualifying 

criteria, section 30(a)(2)(B) requires the Commission to publish a public notice of the notice of 

intent to construct a qualifying conduit facility, giving the public the opportunity to comment on 

whether the facility meets the qualifying criteria. The FPA further states that if, not later than 45 

days after the date of the publication of public notice, no entity contests whether the facility 

meets the qualifying criteria, the facility shall be deemed to meet the criteria. Although an 

uncontested facility is automatically deemed to qualify at the end of the notice period, as a matter 

of general practice the Commission issues a letter confirming that the facility qualifies. If an 

entity contests whether the facility meets the qualifying criteria, section 30(a)(2)(C) requires the 

Commission to promptly issue a determination as to whether the facility meets the criteria. 

H.R. 2786 would modify the qualifying conduit hydropower facility process in two ways. 

First, the proposed bill would shorten the comment period for the public, including state and 

federal resource agencies, from 45 to 30 days. For your information, FERC staff, on average, 

completes review of qualifying conduit facility applications shortly after the 45-day notice period 

closes. In fiscal year 2017, Staff processed 22 notices of intent to construct qualifying conduits 

in an average of 58 days, and has processed four such notices, in an average of 56 days, thus far 

in fiscal year 2018. The shortened public notice period established by H.R. 2786 could slightly 

reduce the processing time. 
4 

-3-

The second modification to section 30 of the FPA would eliminate the existing 5-MW 

limit on qualifYing facilities, thus allowing projects of unlimited capacity to meet the criteria for 

a qualifying conduit facility. This change could potentially establish a larger subset of 

hydropower projects that would not be required to be licensed or exempted by the Commission. 

Section 30, giving the Commission the authority to exempt certain small hydroelectric facilities 

from the requirements of Part I of the FP A, was added to the FPA in 1978, and since that time, 

the Commission has issued only a handful of conduit exemptions over 5 MW. Accordingly, I am 

uncertain how many projects will be affected by this revision. 

Should Congress choose to remove the 5-MW ceiling on qualifying conduit hydropower 

facilities, such that these projects could be of any size, it might also consider removing the 

ceiling for conduit exemptions. Currently the maximum size of projects for which the 

Commission may issue conduit exemptions under its existing authority is 40 MW. It is not clear 

why there should be no limit on the size of qualifYing conduit hydropower facilities and yet a 40-

MW limit on conduit exemptions. 

If I can be of further assistance to you on this or any other Commission matter, please 

let me know. 

Sincerely, . 

Chairman 

~7 
5 

Senator FLAKE. I look forward to hearing testimony on these bills 

and will turn to Senator Cortez Masto. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Good morning and thank you, Chairman 

Flake, for calling this hearing. I am pleased to be joining the Water 

and Power Subcommittee as the Ranking Member. 

Nevada, like Arizona, as you well know, is home to one of the 

first Reclamation projects in the West. The Reclamation Act of 

1902 established what we now know as the Bureau of Reclamation 

and subsequently authorized the Truckee-Carson project. One hundred sixteen years later, Nevada is home to the largest reservoir 

in the nation, Lake Mead, and one of the largest hydroelectric 

power facilities in the United States, Hoover Dam. 

Today’s hearing covers a variety of issues facing the Bureau of 

Reclamation and FERC. For Reclamation, S. 1556, sponsored by 

Senator Tester, looks to find a path forward for funding completing 

much needed water supply projects for tribal and rural communities. Senator Gardner’s legislation, S. 2166, extends a program 

that helps to recover four endangered fish species while providing 

regulatory certainty for water projects in the Upper Colorado and 

San Juan River Basins. S. 2074 creates a process in which cabin 

owners can purchase the land around Yorktown Reservoir in North 

Dakota. We have two other bills that extend Commerce construction deadlines, S. 1142 for hydro projects in Louisiana, similar to 

several other bills pending in Congress and reduce transaction 

costs for hydro projects located in conduits with little environmental impact, H.R. 2786. 

Mr. Mikkelsen, I look forward to hearing your testimony today. 

I also look forward to working with you and Senator Flake on the 

water and power issues that are of great importance to our home 

states and this nation. 

Thank you. 

Senator FLAKE. Thank you, Senator Cortez Masto. 

Our sole witness today is Mr. Alan Mikkelsen, Senior Advisor to 

the Secretary for the Interior for Water and Western Resource 

Issues. Thank you for the testimony you will give to us, and please 

plan to limit your testimony to five minutes. We have a function 

that starts on the Senate Floor involving all the Senators at about 

10:25, so I think we could probably wrap this up by that time. 

Thank you for your attendance here today and with that, we will 

recognize you for your testimony. 

Mr. MIKKELSEN. Thank you, Senator and Ranking Member Cortez Masto, I—— 

Senator FLAKE. Hold for a second. 

I see we have been joined by Senator Wyden. Do you have an 

opening statement or want to say anything? 

STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON 

Senator WYDEN. Mr. Chairman, thank you so much. I want to 

thank you and our Ranking Minority Member, if I could just be 

very brief. 
6 

Mr. Mikkelsen, we want to thank you for being here. As you 

know, we are pushing very hard to get a workable solution in the 

Klamath Basin. For folks at home and in rural Oregon, this has 

been the longest running battle since the Trojan War, and we have 

got to get it resolved. 

Senator Merkley and I have worked very closely together with 

the Governors of Oregon and California, the tribes, irrigators 

throughout the Basin, Secretaries of Interior and your agency to 

find a comprehensive agreement. 

So we have gotten close in the past. I thought we were there 

when I put together a working group that involved folks from your 

agency, but we have to come up with a truly lasting agreement to 

resolve those concerns. If we don’t, the farmers get hurt, ranchers 

get hurt, the tribes get hurt and, of course, we set back the effort 

to protect wildlife in the Basin as well. 

This is going to be a very difficult water year. I think all my colleagues in the West know that we are looking at maybe one of the 

most challenging years since the early 2000s. With low snowpack 

and a warm winter, irrigators, literally and figuratively, feel the 

heat. 

We have appreciated the fact that you, in particular, have had 

a great presence in the region. We want to thank you for being on 

the ground. 

I gather my colleagues are going to ask the questions and when 

they are done, I have a question for you. 

But I want to thank the Chairman and the Ranking Minority 

Member for scheduling a very important hearing for folks in Oregon, who know Mr. Mikkelsen as an individual who really wants 

to step up and have us finally find a path to a real solution in the 

Klamath Basin that would be important to Oregonians, but I think 

would be a model for the country, in terms of bringing Westerners 

together. 

My colleagues, we are all Westerners, and we see this day in and 

day out and the watch word is ‘‘collaboration.’’ That is what our 

constituents say when we go home in Arizona and Nevada and Oregon, but often it is easier said than done. 

I thank the Chairman for the chance to make those remarks, and 

I will wait for questions. 

Senator FLAKE. Thank you, Senator Wyden. 

Please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF ALAN MIKKELSEN, SENIOR ADVISOR TO THE 

SECRETARY FOR WATER AND WESTERN RESOURCE ISSUES, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. MIKKELSEN. Thank you, Chairman Flake. 

I am Alan Mikkelsen, Senior Advisor to the Secretary of the Interior for Water and Western Resource Issues and formerly, Deputy 

Commissioner at the Bureau of Reclamation. And I am pleased, 

today, to testify on behalf of the Department of the Interior on 

three of the bills pending before the Subcommittee today. 

First, S. 1556, authorizes the use of designated funds to pay for 

the construction of authorized rural water projects and for the resolution of claims against the United States related to the use of Indian Tribal land by the United States for the generation of hydro-
7 

power and to underwrite the implementation of Indian Water 

Rights Settlements. The bill creates a Reclamation Rural Water 

Construction and Settlement Implementation Fund which includes 

two separate accounts, both funded with the deposits that would 

otherwise go into the Reclamation Fund. The total funding would 

be $115 million annually for 20 years. The Department supports 

the goals of encouraging vibrant, rural economies and ensuring 

safe, reliable sources for drinking water for rural and tribal residents. Rural water projects help to build strong, secure rural communities and are important to our non-federal sponsors. The Administration also continues to strongly support Indian Water 

Rights Settlements in order to increase opportunities for Indian 

tribes to develop, manage and protect their water and related resources. 

Next, Senate bill 2074 establishes a procedure for the conveyance 

of Reclamation-owned property around the Jamestown Reservoir to 

the Stutsman County Park Board. Reclamation has technical modifications to provide additional clarity and protections. This includes 

recommendations that will ensure that the parcels in question are 

managed consistently with the Secretary’s commitment to protect 

public lands and increase public access. We look forward to working with the sponsor and the Committee to ensure proposals of this 

nature preserve access and recreation for future generations to 

come. 

Finally, the Endangered Fish Recovery Program Extension Act, 

S. 2166, like its House counterpart, would extend both the Upper 

Colorado River and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Programs. 

These programs share the dual goals of recovering populations of 

endangered fish while development continues to meet current and 

future human needs for water. The programs provide ESA compliance for more than 2,400 federal, tribal and non-federal water 

projects, consuming 3.7 million acre-feet of water to support municipal, industrial and agricultural water use and related economic development. The Department supports both efforts and does not object to S. 2166’s enactment. 

Mr. Chairman, these distinct pieces of legislation, significant as 

they are, are fragments of a larger tapestry of legislative reforms 

necessary to allow the Bureau of Reclamation to meet its principle 

goal of delivering reliable water supplies of water and developing 

a dependable supply of hydropower. Among the many other reforms 

that are needed, include substantive streamlining of the NEPA 

process and implementing regulatory reforms. The Department and 

the Bureau look forward to engaging with this Committee on these 

important issues. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks. I’m happy to answer 

any questions on any of the matters pending before the Subcommittee today. 

[The prepared statements of Mr. Mikkelsen follow:] 
8 

Statement of Alan Mikkelsen 

Senior Advisor to the Secretary for Water and Western Resource Issues 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Before the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Subcommittee on Water and Power 

United States Senate 

on S. 1556, a Bill to authorize the Secretary of the interior to use designated funding to pay 

for Construction of authorized rural water projects, and for other purposes 

February 28, 2018 

Chairman Flake, Ranking Member King, and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Alan 

Mikkelsen, Senior Advisor to the Secretary of Interior for Water and Western Resource Issues, 

and former Deputy Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). lam pleased to 

provide the views of the Department of the Interior (Department) on S. 1556, a bill to designate 

funding to pay for construction of authorized rural water projects and for implementation of 

Indian water rights settlements. 

The Department supports the goals of encouraging vibrant rural economies and ensuring safe, 

reliable sources of drinking water for rural and tribal residents, but believes federal support for 

Reclamation rural water projects and for future Indian Water rights settlements should come 

through discretionary appropriations. Rural water projects help to build strong, secure rural 

communities and are important to our non-federal sponsors, which is why the President's FY 

2019 Budget includes $34 million for Reclamation's rural water projects. As the bill sponsors 

and this Committee know, the Congress has, in recent years increased appropriations for the 

construction of authorized projects. Since 2012, approximately $181.6 million in additional 

appropriations have been included for rural water construction projects. The Administration also 

continues to strongly support Indian water rights settlements in order to increase opportunities 

for Indian Tribes to develop, manage and protect their water and related resources. 

Still, as important as the rural water program is, it must compete with a long list of other 

priorities within the Budget, including aging infrastructure, environmental compliance and 

restoration actions, dam safety, and other activities needed to address future water- and energyrelated needs. Notwithstanding the importance of rural water projects, current budgetary 

constraints have limited the ability to make federal investments that match on-the-ground 

capabilities. 

S. 1556 would create the Reclamation Rural Water Construction Fund and a separate Settlement 

Implementation Fund; two separate accounts with revenues that would otherwise be deposited 

into the Reclamation fund totaling $115 million annually for 20 years. 

The legislation directs that the first account designate a constant level of mandatory funding for 

the construction of authorized rural water projects to deliver water to smaller, isolated 

communities. Similarly, the second account would be structured to designate a constant level of 

mandatory funds for compensation to resolve Indian tribe claims against the United States 

related to the use of Indian tribe land by the United States for the generation of hydropower and 

1 
9 

to underwrite implementation of authorized Indian water rights settlements, including planning, 

design and construction of water projects. 

It is the Department's belief that federal investments in such projects must recognize ongoing 

fiscal constraints and the need to make tough choices in prioritizing those investments. The 

Administration supports the goals embodied by S. 1556 of advancing the economic security of 

Americans living in rural areas and on tribal lands. Constructing basic water infrastructure 

projects will not only help to provide the economic and health benefits associated with clean, 

reliable, drinking water systems that many Americans take for granted, but it would also assist in 

creating jobs in the short-term through ongoing construction. 

Since the 1980s, Congress has authorized Reclamation to undertake the design and construction 

of specific projects intended to deliver potable water supplies to rural communities located in 

North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, New Mexico and the non-Reclamation states of 

Minnesota and Iowa. These authorized projects exist in communities that have experienced 

needs for water due to poor quality of the existing supply or the lack of a secure, reliable supply. 

For example, in rural Montana, some communities have, from time-to-time, been subject to "boil 

water" orders due to the unsafe conditions of the existing drinking water supplies. In Eastern 

New Mexico, the communities currently rely on the diminishing Ogallala Aquifer and the current 

drinking water systems are projected to be depleted within 35 to 40 years. The rural water 

supply projects authorized for Reclamation's involvement provide a resource to these rural 

communities, and Congress has authorized federal assistance to these communities. 

Across the country, state, local, and Tribal governments are taking a greater leadership role in 

water resources investments, including financing projects the federal government would have in 

the past. Constrained federal budgets do not preclude the ability of non-federal parties to move 

forward with important investments in water resources infrastructure and the Department stands 

ready to support that effort. 

We believe the author's intent is for the funding provided by S. 1556 to be used to achieve 

earlier completion of authorized water projects and to enable the payment of compensation 

associated with authorized Indian water rights settlements. Section !03(c) of the bill restricts the 

availability of designated funds with the intent of not increasing the deficit. The Department 

supports this commitment to fiscal responsibility. Designated funds could become available in 

conjunction with an equivalent offset. However, even if an equivalent and acceptable offset is 

identified, use of those funds must be weighed against other priorities across the federal 

government, including deficit reduction. As indicated above, the Department believes funding 

for rural water projects and Indian Water rights settlements should come through discretionary 

appropriations to enable appropriate annual review and oversight. 

Section 103 of S. 1556 provides that, for each fiscal year from 2018 through 2038, $115,000,000 

per year will be deposited into the Fund in addition to interest earned on invested money that is 

available in the Fund but not utilized for the current withdrawal. Section 104 of S. 1556limits 

expenditures from fiscal year 2018 through 2038 from the Fund to not more than $115,000,000 

in addition to interest accrued in that same fiscal year, with an allowance for the use of funds 

carried over from prior years. The bill further divides the total figure of $115 million between 

2 
10 

the two accounts- $80 million for the Rural Water Project Account, and $35 million for the 

Reclamation Infrastructure and Settlement Implementation Account. 

Specific to the Rural Water Project Account, S. 1556 provides that if a feasibility study has been 

submitted to the Secretary by February 27, 2015, and those rural water projects are subsequently 

authorized by Congress, they may be eligible to receive funding through the Reclamation Rural 

Water Project Account. 

With respect to its rural water program, Reclamation's first goal is to advance the construction of 

rural water projects that meet the most urgent water supply needs in the shortest amount of time, 

given our current budget constraints. The second goal is to give priority to rural water projects 

that address Tribal water supply needs. 

Within the context of the above goals, Reclamation recognizes that current and projected funding 

levels may not be sufficient to expeditiously complete the federal funding portion of every 

project and that it must prioritize the allocation of available funding. Reclamation applies 

funding criteria to guide decision-making and maximize the agency's ability to meet its 

programmatic goals, to maximize water deliveries to rural communities in as short a period as 

possible, and to reflect the diverse needs and circumstances facing each individual project. The 

water construction prioritization criteria identified by Reclamation, and reflected in Section 

202(b)(2) ofS. 1556, take into account the following: 

Is there an urgent and compelling need for potable water supplies in the affected 

communities? 

How close is the Project to being completed? 

What are the financial needs of the affected communities? 

What are the potential economic benefits of the expenditures on job creation and general 

economic development in the affected communities? 

What is the ability of the Project to address regional and watershed level water supply 

needs? 

Does the project minimize water and energy consumption and encourage the 

development of renewable energy resources such as wind, solar, hydropower elements? 

Does the project address the needs of tribal communities, tribal members, and the other 

community needs or interests? 

The criteria would also take into account "such other factors as the Secretary determines to be 

appropriate to prioritize the use of available funds." 

Regarding the second account, for Indian water rights settlements, Title III of S. 1556 further 

defines the Reclamation Infrastructure and Settlement Implementation Account, stipulating that 

no less than $35 million, plus accrued interest, be expended to provide compensation to resolve 

congressionally authorized Indian water rights settlements and to complete planning, design and 

construction of authorized water projects associated with those settlements. The Department 

assesses these needs annually, through the budget process. 

3 
11 

The Department continues to strongly support Indian water rights settlements grounded in the 

policy that negotiated Indian water rights settlements are preferable to protracted and divisive 

litigation. Indian water rights settlements have the potential to resolve long-standing claims to 

water, provide certainty to water users, foster cooperation among water users with a watershed, 

allow for the development of water infrastructure, promote tribal sovereignty and selfsufficiency, and improve environmental health conditions on reservations. 

To date, Congress has enacted 30 Indian water settlements, a good start in addressing the need 

for reliable water supplies in Indian country. There are over 280 federally recognized tribes in 

the West alone (excluding Alaska), and we are seeing increased interest in Indian water rights 

settlements east of the IOO'h Meridian. Many of these tribes need: clean, reliable drinking water; 

repairs to dilapidated irrigation projects; and the development of other water infrastructure 

necessary to bring economic development to reservations. 

Once a settlement is enacted by Congress, and appropriations are authorized to implement it, 

primary implementation responsibilities fall to Reclamation, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), 

the relevant tribe or tribes, and other agencies based on the terms of the settlement enacted by 

Congress. To support these efforts, the President's FY 2019 Budget for the Bureau of 

Reclamation requests $133.7 million for Indian water rights settlements ($6.4 million for 

negotiation and legal support and $127.3 million for implementation). 

With some notable recent exceptions, such as the $180.0 million in mandatory funding 

authorized by P.L. 111-291 and directed to the Navajo-Gallup Water Supply Project between the 

fiscal years of2012-2014 and mandatory funding authorized to partially fund several settlements 

authorized in the Claims Resolution Act of 2010, water rights settlements generally have been 

funded through the Department's discretionary appropriations. Work to be performed under the 

settlements by Reclamation has been funded within Reclamation's budget, and trust funds and 

other settlement costs generally have been funded within the BIA' s budget, but all Departmental 

agencies have been asked from time to time to expend discretionary funds from their budgets on 

implementation of these water settlements. In these cases, the Administration has worked 

successfully with Congress to secure funds to continue to implement and complete signed 

settlements. The Administration will continue to work with Congress on these issues. 

In conclusion, I want to underscore the importance of these settlements to the Department. Indian 

water rights settlements can resolve uncertainty, produce critical benefits for tribes and bring 

together communities to improve water management practices in some of the most stressed water 

basins in the country. The Department believes that we must be cognizant of and responsive to 

the many competing needs for limited budgetary resources, particularly given widespread 

drought throughout much of the West. 

This concludes my written statement. I am pleased to answer questions at the appropriate time. 

4 
12 

Statement of Alan Mikkelsen 

Senior Advisor to the Secretary for Water and Western Resource Issues 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Before the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Water and Power Subcommittee 

U.S. Senate 

on S. 2074, A bill to establish a procedure for the conveyance of certain Federal property 

around the Jamestown Reservoir in the State of North Dakota. 

February 28, 2018 

Chairman Flake, Ranking Member King, and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Alan 

Mikkelsen, Senior Advisor to the Secretary of Interior for Water and Western Resource Issues, 

and former Deputy Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). Thank you for 

the opportunity to provide the views of the Department of the Interior (Department) on S. 2074, a 

bill to establish a procedure for the conveyance of certain Federal property around the 

Jamestown Reservoir in the State of North Dakota. The intent of the legislation is to provide a 

path for current permitted cabin owners and the Stutsman County Park Board to take ownership 

of certain Federal lands, allowing flexible management of the lands to meet local needs and 

alleviate the Department's administrative oversight and management of the land. 

Before I discuss the Department's views on S. 2074, I wanted to reiterate that during the 

Secretary Zinke's confirmation hearing, he stated to this Committee that he does not support the 

wide-scale sale or transfer ofFederallands. Reclamation has technical modifications to 

recommend to provide additional clarity and protections. We look forward to working with the 

sponsor and the Committee to ensure proposals of this nature preserve access and recreation for 

future generations to come. 

The Flood Control Act of 1944 authorized construction of Jamestown Dam and Reservoir 

(Project) as part of the Garrison Diversion Unit, Missouri-Souris Division, Pick-Sloan Missouri 

Basin Program. Federal lands were acquired for Project purposes which include municipal water 

supply, irrigation with flood control, and recreation benefits. The Project provided extensive 

flood control benefits for Jamestown and downstream areas. There are currently two water 

service contracts associated with the project, one with an individual and one with an irrigation 

district downstream of the reservoir. 

The current management agreement between Reclamation and Stutsman County Park Board for 

operation and maintenance of the majority oflands around the reservoir includes the area for 71 

permitted exclusive use cabins-- 30 occupied year-round, and 41 occupied seasonally 

(approximately 73 acres), as well as additional lands dedicated to recreation and wildlife 

management (approximately 4,421 acres). In addition to lands managed by Stutsman County 

Park Board, Reclamation leases a 6-acre parcel to the North Dakota Game and Fish Department 

(NDG&F) for their Regional Headquarters. In 2013, Reclamation's Dakotas Area Office 

(DKAO) requested a fair market appraisal of the rates for the exclusive use cabins be conducted 

pursuant to the Code of Federal Regulations related to Use of Bureau of Reclamation Land, 
13 

Facilities, and Waterbodies (43 CFR 429) As required by Department policy, the appraisals 

were conducted by the Department of the Interior's Office of Valuation Services for all 

reservoirs with exclusive use under the administration of DKAO, resulting in the need to raise 

rates at all areas to recover fair market value. The results of the appraisal were presented to the 

respective managing partners in 2016. 

Title transfer can be an important tool to ensure that management oflands and other real property 

is carried out by the entities that are best equipped to most effectively manage such property. 

The Administration recently submitted a legislative proposal which would address this issue 

more comprehensively which would facilitate title transfer of certain Reclamation facilities to nonFederal entities when such transfers are beneficiaL 

Section l(b )(2)(A) of S. 2074 provides for the fair market value of a property to be determined 

by a local, third party appraiser, valuing the property as unimproved residential property, 

excluding all improvements. The Department believes that the property should be valued as-is, 

inclusive of improvements. The Department also recommends clarification of this language to 

ensure the cost for the third-party appraisal shall be the responsibility of the permittee(s). The 

permittees should also be made aware that a third-party appraisal would have to comply with 

federal appraisal standards and procedures as determined by the Office of Valuation Services. 

Section l(c)(3) provides conveyance subject to reversion to the United States of non-recreation 

lands managed by the Board if no longer used for public access or recreation. As worded inS. 

2074, this language warrants clarification to ensure the Department's interpretation is consistent 

with the author's intent We suggest simply revising this language to state that the lands 

conveyed (other than those in the cabin pennit area and the North Dakota State Game and Fish 

Department headquarters area) are to remain available for public use in the future, and if it is 

determined that these areas are no longer needed for public access or recreation, then the land is 

subject to reversion to the United States. Given the Secretary's commitment to protecting public 

lands, the Department encourages what we believe is a shared intention for Stutsman County 

Park Board to continue to manage the parcels with recreational and public interests in mind. 

Section !(f) of S. 2074 provides that any revenues from a sale ofFederalland pursuant to this 

section shall be made available to the Secretary, without further appropriation, for the costs to 

the Secretary of carrying out this section, and to conduct deferred maintenance activities relating 

to the dam in the Jamestown Reservoir. The Department believes that any such revenues should 

be remitted to the Reclamation fund. In addition, because revenues would not be generated until 

the properties are transferred to the permittee, as proposed in the bill, Reclamation would need 

appropriations to complete the surveys and appraisals and other pre-sale activities. In previous 

legislation to transfer cabin properties, as well as Reclamation's process for Use Authorization 

requests, it is the responsibility of the permittees/requestor to pay for the required pre-sale work, 

including all administrative costs to convey Federal property to private individuals/beneficiaries 

rather than placing this burden on the United States. As written it appears the United States is 

responsible for the administrative costs and therefore in "net" it receives less than market value 

for the land. ln accord with our prior recommendation to clarify that permittees/requestor pay 

2 
14 

for required pre-sale work, we recommend revising this section to clarify that revenues shall be 

remitted to the Reclamation fund. 

Section l(d)(l) provides liability protection for flood damage to the property of a permittee, the 

Board, or the State arising out of any act, omission, or occurrence relating to a lot to which a 

permit applies. As worded, this language does not cover the liability for all property, depending 

on whether or not it is related to a lot. We suggest replacing the language "a lot to which a 

permit applies" with "the property of a permittee, the Board, or the State" in order to more 

clearly cover the liability to the United States. 

The Department would be happy to work with the sponsor and the Committee to revise the 

language based on these recommendations. In addition, we would urge enactment of the 

Department's title transfer legislative proposal to address Reclamation title transfer. Our title 

transfer legislative proposal will streamline the title transfer process, potentially allowing appropriate 

transfers to take place without subsequent legislation. This concludes my written statement. I am 

pleased to answer questions at the appropriate time. 

3 
15 

Statement of Alan Mikkelsen 

Senior Advisor to the Secretary for Water and Western Resource Issues 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Before the 

Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

Subcommittee on Water and Power 

U.S. Senate 

on S. 2166, the Endangered Fish Recovery Programs Extension Act of 2017 

February 28, 2017 

Chairman Flake, Ranking Member King, and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Alan 

Mikkelsen, Senior Advisor to the Secretary of Interior for Water and Western Resource Issues, 

and former Deputy Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). Thank you for 

the opportunity to provide the views of the Department of the Interior (Department) on S. 2166, 

the Endangered Fish Recovery Programs Extension Act of 2017. The Department provided 

testimony the House-companion to this bill, H.R. 4465, and our testimony here reflects the same 

conclusions. 

As described below, the Department supports the efforts of both the Upper Colorado River 

Endangered Fish Recovery Program and San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation 

Program (Programs) and as such does not object to HR 4465 or S. 2166. 

The Programs share the dual goals of recovering populations of endangered fish while water 

development continues to meet current and future human needs. The Programs' actions provide 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) compliance for more than 2,400 federal, tribal, and non-federal 

water proj eels consuming 3. 7 million acre-feet of water to support municipal, industrial and 

agricultural water use and related economic development. The Programs, initially authorized by 

Public Law (PL) 106-392, were established under cooperative agreements in 1988 (Upper 

Colorado) and 1992 (San Juan). The Programs' partners include the states of Colorado, New 

Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming; the Bureau of Reclamation, Western Area Power Administration, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, and Bureau 

of Indian Affairs; Native American tribes; environmental organizations; water users; and power 

customers. 

PL 106-392 expressly authorized the use of a maximum of $6 million per year (indexed for 

inflation) of Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP) hydropower revenues from Glen Canyon 

Dam and other CRSP facilities to support the base funding needs of the Programs through 20 II. 

Subsequent legislation extended this authority through 2019. Base funding is used for program 

management, scientific research, fish population monitoring, fish stocking, control of non-native 

fish, and operation and maintenance of capital projects. 

Section 2 as introduced would extend the authorization to utilize CRSP hydropower revenues at 

the current level (up to $6 million per year adjusted for inflation, or approximately $8.48 million 

in 2017 dollars) through 2023 to support the base funding needs of the Programs. Section 3 of 

HR 4465 would also require the Secretary to submit a report to Congress in 2021 that includes a 
16 

description of Program accomplishments, expenditures, and status of the four endangered fish 

species. The report will also project listing status of the fish at the end of fiscal year 2023, 

identify management activities beyond 2023, and estimate costs of the post-2023 activities. 

The Programs are nationally recognized for their cooperative approach to recovering native fish 

species, avoiding litigation, and providing ESA compliance to federal and non-federal water 

users. The continued use of CRSP hydropower revenues is critical to ensuring these Programs 

accomplish their goals. Both Programs have developed strong grassroots support and the bill is 

unanimously supported by the Programs diverse non-federal partners. 

This concludes my written statement. I would be pleased to answer questions at the appropriate 

time. 
17 

Senator FLAKE. Thank you, we appreciate the testimony. 

You mentioned in your testimony that the Jamestown Dam and 

Reservoir were authorized for irrigation, flood control and recreation. Would transferring the cabin lots and other federal land surrounding the reservoir interfere with any of the authorized project 

purposes, additional benefits like wildlife habitat or current management of the project? 

Mr. MIKKELSEN. Mr. Chairman, the proposed legislation would 

not interfere with any of the current authorized uses, nor the recreational uses that you’re referring to. 

Senator FLAKE. Okay, thank you. 

In Arizona, we have seen firsthand the value of resolving Indian 

water settlements or disputes through settlements and how this 

certainty often leads to innovative water management and infrastructure investment. Do you think that the lack of a more certain 

mechanism to fund Indian water settlements factors into the willingness of the tribes to enter settlement negotiations and the overall success of negotiating these settlement agreements? 

Mr. MIKKELSEN. Mr. Chairman, this is a conundrum, frankly, for 

all of us that are involved in these issues from both the legislative 

and the administrative positions. We’ve got a number of Indian 

water right settlements across the West that have been implemented that we are trying to fund. And I guess, I would just simply 

point out an example that I’m very familiar with in Montana, the 

Blackfeet settlement that was just recently enacted. 

Senator FLAKE. Yes. 

Mr. MIKKELSEN. That settlement provides for a total of about $600 million that’s necessary for implementation. That’s supposed 

to be in place by 2026. Four hundred million of that comes from 

Bureau of Reclamation and at this point we are appropriating $10 

million a year. And so, if you do the math on that, in 2025 there’s 

going to be a substantial balloon payment that we’re going to have 

to figure out what we’re going to do with, how we’re going to deal 

with that. 

Senator FLAKE. Alright. Thank you. 

It is my understanding that the Upper Colorado River Fish Recovery Program has allowed for continued water and power operations without a single ESA lawsuit being filed in the decade since 

its development. Can you speak to the success of avoiding litigation 

and what it means in terms of management on the Upper Colorado 

for water and power supply and species recovery and the cost savings from avoiding litigation and litigation risk? 

Mr. MIKKELSEN. Excuse me. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, the program has made successful, or I should say, 

substantial progress and has been successful in restoring and stabilizing the populations of the endangered fish. And we believe the 

program is much preferable and has been much more successful 

than what litigation would entail. 

As I travel the West doing conflict resolution within litigation, 

we have winners and losers and, at the end of the day, it’s not necessarily the best thing for the resource, even if people win. 

And so, I would point to this particular issue as being a real success story. We’ve been able to recover, or we’re substantially on the 

way to recovering, the Colorado Pike Minnow, the Humpback Chub 
18 

and the Razorback Sucker. And we’ve got the Bony Tail showing 

great strides in the most recent surveys that we’ve conducted. And 

so, you know, from that perspective we believe that the program 

has been very successful and would like to see it continued. 

Senator FLAKE. Alright. Thank you. 

Senator Cortez Masto. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Thank you. 

Let me just follow up on that. 

Can you talk a little bit, Mr. Mikkelsen, about why these programs are important for Reclamation projects? 

Mr. MIKKELSEN. This program and other programs like this are 

important because they are, in essence, negotiated settlements and 

in these types of settlements we have the opportunity and the ability to protect existing uses to the maximum extent possible. And 

that provides for much more surety and certainty for all water 

users as we’re going forward with that and with these types of activities. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Thank you. 

And then Mr. Mikkelsen, let me jump back also to the conversation on the Blackfeet settlement in Montana. I appreciate your 

comments. I do have concerns about a balloon payment in 2025. 

How do we solve this problem? Are you working now on a strategy 

with us or recommendations on how we address this issue for this 

funding problem because let me just say, as you mentioned in your 

statement, Congress has authorized 30 negotiated Indian water 

right settlements, including the Shoshone-Paiute Duck Valley settlement and the Pyramid Lake settlement in my home State of Nevada. So I am curious if you have any ideas on how we solve the 

problem, the funding problem. 

Mr. MIKKELSEN. To define the scope of what we’re talking about, 

as you know, we’ve got about 30 settlements underway, in negotiation right now. There’s been, I think, 32 that have been approved 

by Congress. There are approximately 225 left to go. And so, just 

the sheer scope of what we’re talking about—— 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Right. 

Mr. MIKKELSEN. ——means that we should probably be having 

a serious discussion with policymakers, with the legislature, in trying to resolve and come up with realistic solutions for this. 

I don’t have any specific proposals to make today, other than to 

encourage all of us to sit at the table and do the best we can to 

address the situation in a proactive manner. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Thank you. 

Let me jump back now to some budget cuts that I am concerned 

about. 

There is a recent Reclamation report that found that based on 

2016 funding levels, the six remaining Congressionally-authorized 

rural water projects would not be completed until well after 2065. 

It also estimates that by 2065 there will still be a $1.8 billion balance to complete these projects despite a $4 billion federal investment, and the President’s Fiscal Year 2019 budget also requests 

$35 million, down from $84 million in 2017. This is a 65 percent 

cut to the rural water programs. 

I understand we are in a tough fiscal environment and it is important that we carefully consider what projects are funded, but 
19 

how do you reconcile the issue of funding levels being so inadequate that these projects will not be completed until 50 years from 

now, yet, also proposed cutting funding for rural water projects in 

your budget? 

Mr. MIKKELSEN. You know, I think this is a source of frustration 

for all of us that work in this arena, but we also have to face the 

fiscal realities that are before Congress and the Administration at 

this time. And you know, we will do everything that we can to support these settlements, these rural water programs, as we go forward, but we need to figure out some long-term solutions. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Yes. 

And isn’t it true that the longer we delay these projects, the more 

expensive they are and they become? 

Mr. MIKKELSEN. Certainly. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Yes. 

Mr. MIKKELSEN. I cannot deny that at all. 

Senator CORTEZ MASTO. Alright. 

Thank you, Mr. Mikkelsen, I appreciate you being here today. 

Senator FLAKE. Thank you. 

Senator Hoeven. 

Senator HOEVEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this 

hearing today and also for consideration of my bill, S. 2074. 

I know we are tight on time, so I will be brief both in my statement and in my question. 

S. 2074 is a result of hard work and constructive meetings 

among state, local and federal entities. The legislation grew out of 

meetings between myself and my staff that we have held with 

homeowners and local officials over the past several years and is 

modeled after legislation that I introduced last year concerning 

Lake Patterson in Dickinson, North Dakota. This bill is a result of 

the stakeholders looking at all aspects of this land conveyance and 

coming to a workable solution for all of the stakeholders involved. 

Construction of North Dakota’s Jamestown Dam and Reservoir 

was authorized under the Flood Control Act of 1944 as part of the 

Garrison diversion unit, Missouri division Pick-Sloan, Missouri 

Basin program. The purposes of the project include irrigation and 

flood control, and provide a municipal water supply as well as 

recreation benefits. 

The Stutsman County Park Board currently has a management 

agreement with the Bureau of Reclamation for operation and maintenance of the majority of lands around the reservoir. This includes 

the area for 71 permitted, exclusive use, cabins. Thirty of those 

cabins are full-time, 41 are occupied part-time. 

Additional lands are dedicated to recreation and wildlife management, and there is a parcel of land that is leased to the North Dakota Game and Fish Department. 

For almost 70 years cabin owners have worked and invested in 

enhancing the land and improving the quality of life, not just for 

themselves and their families but for the public there as well. Over 

the decades, Stutsman County Park Board has also tried to increase and enhance recreational opportunities and support public 

accessibility. 

Mr. Chairman, I would ask permission and unanimous consent 

to submit for the record letters of support for S. 2074. The letters 
20 

are from the Stutsman County Park Board and the President of the 

Jamestown Reservoir Cabin Owners Association. 

Senator FLAKE. Without objection. 

[Letters of support for S. 2074 follow:] 
21 

Darin Peterson 

300 2nd Avenue NE Suite 207 

Jamestown, ND 58401 

February 9, 2018 

Honorable Ryan Zinke 

Secretary ofintcrior 

US Department ofinterior 

1849 C Street NW 

Washington, DC 20240 

Re: Jamestown (ND) Reservoir Legislation 

Dear Secretary Zinke: 

On behalf of the Jamestown (ND) Reservoir Cabin Ov..ners Association Members, I am 

submitting this letter of support for Senate Bill S2074. We whole heartily support Senator 

Hoeven' s legislation to allow the cabin owners to purchase the lots tmder their cabins. We 

support the transfer of land m<~naged by the Stutsman County Park Board to them as well as the 

transfer ofland to the North Dakota Game and Fish Department. 

The .Jamestown Reservoir Cabin Owners Association represents the 71 cabin owners at the 

Jan1estown, ND reservoir. At our various meetings over this past year, the cabin owners have 

continually expressed unanimous support of Senator's Hoeven's legislation. 

For almost 70 years, the cabin owners have worked to improve the quality of life at the reservoir, 

not only for their families, but for the general public's enjoyment as well. Such investment work 

will certainly continue. 

The Jamestown Reservoir and the surrounding recreation areas are enjoyed by all ages in our 

community. The local ownership of these lands ean only strengthen the drive to further invest in 

this area and expand the use and enjoyment. 

Peterson 

President 

Jamestown Reservoir Cabin Owners Association 
22 

November 17,2017 

Honorable Ryan Zinke 

Secretary of Interior 

US Department of Interior 

1849 C Street NW 

Washington, DC 20240 

Secretary Zinke: 

At the Stutsman County Park Board meeting held on October 3, 2017, the Board voted to unanimously 

support the bill sponsored by Senator John Hoeven in Senate Bill S.207 4. 

The passage of the bill will provide cabin owners the opportunity to purchase the land they reside on and 

give them more flexibility on improvements to the property and obtaining financing. The additional transfer 

of lands to the Stutsman County Park Board will allow more flexibility in providing recreational services to 

the citizens of Stutsman County and surrounding regions. 

Respectfully, 

Nicole Meland 

Interim Auditor I COO 

CO. C'OMl\-IISSIO:\'ERS 

;\lARKT. KJ.OS:K hmcsl01.\Tl 

COC'\TY OFFICIALS 

;'o;lC'OLE l\fEI.A::'orD. 1nt AuJitor/('()0 TYLER l'ER!,Ell!CRG • 

. fESSlC'A ALONGE, lnt R~cordcr 

JESSICA MOSER, lnt 

J<'RITZ FRK\IGEN. St1tes Attorney 

CJL·\I) KAISER Sh0nif 

ALlC'IA IL'\RST.-I.D, Exten~1nn Agent 
23 

Senator HOEVEN. I look forward to working with this Subcommittee, the full Energy and Natural Resources Committee and 

the Department of Interior on this legislation. 

Again, I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, first I want to thank you for being here today. I 

want to thank you for your testimony. I appreciate the feedback 

that you have given. 

My question is simply, will the Department commit to working 

with me on this issue and help provide technical assistance on the 

legislation? 

Mr. MIKKELSEN. The short answer to that, Senator Hoeven, is 

absolutely, we will commit to that. 

I don’t see any reason why we can’t reach a resolution that will 

be acceptable to everybody here. The Secretary’s only concern is 

making sure that his concerns regarding the transfer of public land 

and particularly recreational land are addressed and I don’t see 

any reason that we can’t, with the support that we have from the 

local Park Board from the local county and from your office. 

Senator HOEVEN. And State Game and Fish. 

We have everybody on board so we will work with you a little 

bit on the language, but we want your commitment that you will 

help us get it done. 

Mr. MIKKELSEN. And we will definitely work with you on that. 

Senator HOEVEN. Okay. Thank you, I appreciate it very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator FLAKE. Thank you. Thank you. 

Senator Wyden. 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Mikkelsen, you have heard everyone here, Democrats and 

Republicans, really zero in on one word which is ‘‘collaboration’’ 

which is the key to resolving so many of these natural resource 

questions. 

I want to zero in on the Klamath Basin because that is, obviously, important to my constituents. I also think if we can get it 

resolved it is going to be a national model for dealing with contentious water issues. 

As you know, when I was Chairman of this Committee we had 

a working group and I thought we were on the cusp of being able 

to finally resolve this. We had basically almost all the stakeholders 

together, the Administration, the Governors, I thought we were 

there. As you know, it, kind of, fell apart at the last minute. 

You have built some goodwill out there. I think I told you that 

when you came to visit. And I think folks in Klamath Falls are 

paying attention to this hearing because they know you are here, 

and they know there is going to be a discussion of this. 

I think it would be very helpful if you could outline what you are 

going to do going forward to build greater support in the Basin 

based on your trips and the studying you have done for collaborations, so that you can be the one to actually thread the needle. I 

mean, that is what this is really all about is how do we unlock this 

kind of challenge so that we can thread the needle, bring the stakeholders together and produce the kind of collaboration all the Senators have been talking about? 
24 

I would like to see us buying that place. It has been a long time. 

You have heard me characterize it. It is the longest running battle 

since the Trojan War. 

So, if you would, just describe, I mean, outline, how you think 

you can move forward and get more folks in the Basin together on 

a collaboration that will resolve this. 

Mr. MIKKELSEN. Thank you, Senator Wyden. 

Let me preface my remarks by saying that I have been engaged 

in collaborative, consensus-based, conflict resolution processes for 

almost three decades. And I just completed one in New Mexico that 

I liken to perhaps climbing Mt. Rainier or, if I wanted to exaggerate, like perhaps climbing Denali. 

I would liken what we’re going to be doing in the Klamath Basin 

to climbing Everest and probably without oxygen. So, it is definitely a challenge. 

I do believe that there is room in the Basin for all the parties 

to come together in an effort to secure, bargain for benefits that 

they will not, that none of the parties would be able to get unilaterally through litigation or any other method. And so, we’re doing everything we can to encourage people to start looking in that direction. 

In the meantime, as you noted earlier in your statement, this is 

an extremely difficult year. And so, we’re doing everything that we 

can to also help the parties get through this year. 

We are engaged—— 

Senator WYDEN. What do you have in mind, excuse me for interrupting. What do you have in mind to help the parties get through 

this year because I think that is welcome that you sense it, as I 

heard this weekend in rural Oregon at town meetings? What do 

you have in mind to help them to get through this year? 

Mr. MIKKELSEN. From the agricultural side, we are doing everything that we can to secure enough water to make the injunctive 

flows that we have to in the Basin and we’re discussing with the 

parties the possibility of, perhaps, adjusting the dilution flow in 

particular because we do believe that we will be able to make the 

flushing flow that’s required by the court. 

But at the same time, we are reaching out to all of the federal 

agencies and the Fish and Wildlife Service has been a great partner here in trying to secure enough water to make those flows and 

still be able to make agricultural deliveries. 

We believe that we are close to that, and we had a call with parties on Monday night. We’re going to have another call with parties 

late this afternoon on that. 

With respect to the fisheries, the fishery in the lake, we have a 

trust responsibility and an ESA responsibility to make sure that 

the two species of endangered suckers do not go extinct and we are 

doing everything we can, again, working with Fish and Wildlife 

Service, to make sure that that doesn’t happen. 

Fish and Wildlife Service have a hatchery program going at this 

time. We’re, in 2018, we will be releasing the first two-year-old fish 

from that program, and we’re hoping that we will be able to judge 

how successful that is with this first release and we intend to accelerate those efforts with Fish and Wildlife Service. 
25 

And so, we’re also then engaged with all of the parties, just simply asking them to start thinking about what their desires for longterm solutions are and it’s not going to be an easy—I have no illusions about how this is going to go. We are going to have starts 

and stops. I would submit and I have told all of the parties that 

we do not have to start from square zero here because of the work 

that you’ve referred to that’s been done in the Basin earlier. 

We’ve got a tremendous amount, a tremendous body of work, I 

think, that we can build on as we go forward here. 

So, I think and hope that we would be able to accelerate these 

efforts in the next year or so. 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I am well over my time. 

Just one last thought, Mr. Mikkelsen. 

What we said for purposes of the working group that we had 

when I was Chairman of this Committee, I hope you’ll look at as 

something of your watch word, which is on these tough collaborations nobody gets everything they want. Nobody gets everything 

they believe they ought to have. The question is whether everybody 

can get something significant that they feel strongly about so they 

can be part of the collaboration. If you will keep that in mind, I 

would appreciate it. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MIKKELSEN. Thank you. 

Senator FLAKE. Thank you. 

Senator Smith. 

Senator SMITH. Thank you very much, Chair Flake and Ranking 

Member Cortez Masto. I know that we are on a short timetable. 

I would like to just quickly say that I requested this hearing on 

Senator Tester’s bill, the Authorized Rural Water Projects Completion Act because in my state the Lewis and Clark Regional Water 

System is still awaiting federal funding to complete a project that 

was authorized nearly 18 years ago. This project is critically necessary for water. It is a critically necessary water project serving 

Minnesota, South Dakota and Iowa. Senator Tester’s bill, of which 

I am a co-sponsor along with Senator Klobuchar and others, would 

ensure that this previously authorized water project gets the funding that it needs to be completed. 

So thank you so much for this hearing. 

Thank you, Senator Cortez Masto, for drawing attention to the 

cost of delay for these projects. 

I look forward to working with the Committee to getting this 

done. 

Senator FLAKE. Thank you, Senator Smith. 

With that, I mentioned that we have an event over on the Floor 

to go over to the Rotunda. 

Thank you for your testimony. Thank you and the hearing record 

will remain open for two weeks. We urge you to get any responses 

back quickly for inclusion in the official hearing record. 

With the thanks of the Committee, this Committee stands adjourned. 

Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 10:30 a.m. the hearing was adjourned.] 
(26) 

APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 
27 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Subcommittee on Water and Power 

February 28, 2018 Hearing: Pending Legislation 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Mr. Alan Mikkelsen 

Question from Ranking Member Maria Cantwell 

(S. 2074) Question: As part of your written testimony for this legislation, you state that "Title 

transfer can be an important tool to ensure that management of lands and other real property is 

carried out by the entities that are best equipped to most effectively manage such property. The 

Administration recently submitted a legislative proposal which would address this issue more 

comprehensively which would facilitate title transfer of certain Reclamation facilities to nonFederal entities when such transfers are beneficial." 

Specifically, would the legislative proposal provide Reclamation with the authority to 

administratively transfer the lands described inS. 2074? 

Response: The Department's legislative proposal is designed to allow local water managers to 

make their own decisions to improve water management at the local level, while allowing the 

Bureau of Reclamation to focus management efforts on projects with a greater federal nexus. 

Under the proposal, the conveyance of Reclamation facilities under this authority would be 

contingent upon the utilization of eligibility criteria set forth in Section 4, along with any 

additional criteria the Secretary of the Interior finds is in the public interest. Eligible facilities 

include Reclamation projects or facilities, or portions of Reclamation project or facilities, which 

include dams and appurtenant works, infrastructure, recreational facilities, buildings, distribution 

and drainage works. The legislative proposal also allows for the conveyance of"associated land 

or interest in land or water". Absent the development of criteria as required under Section 4(a), 

the Department cannot determine with certainty whether the lands described in S. 2074 would be 

subject to this new authority. However, as a general matter, Reclamation believes that Congress 

should retain the ability to approve complicated transfers. 

Questions from Senator John Barrasso 

Question 1: If S.2166 is signed into law, the cooperative agreement, capitol construction 

authorization, and the funding authorization will expire at the same time. Do you anticipate the 

program needing to go beyond 2023? 

Response: Yes, although it may assume a different programmatic format. Efforts are currently 

underway to assess what type of program or actions will be necessary after fiscal year (FY) 2023 

to address continued threats to endangered fish and to provide Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

coverage to current water users and future water development. Even if all four species of fish are 

delisted by 2023, there would be a need to continue activities that address threats faced by the 

fish, including continued operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation of fish screens on diversion 

structures to prevent entrainment of fish, fish passages that expand habitat, flooded bottomlands 

that support reproduction and hatcheries. The greatest threat to endangered fish at this point is 

the presence of predatory nonnative fish in endangered fish riverine habitat, some of which have 
28 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Subcommittee on Water and Power 

February 28, 2018 Hearing: Pending Legislation 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Mr. Alan Mikkelsen 

been illegally introduced. Efforts to control nonnative fish in river habitat may have to be 

continued for the foreseeable future. 

Federal and nonfederal participants in The Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery 

Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program (Recovery Programs) 

have initiated discussions to identify activities needed to benefit the endangered fish after 2023 

and to maintain ESA compliance for approximately 2,500 water projects, including every 

Reclamation project upstream of Lake Powell. The discussions will include recommendations for 

the institutional and cost-sharing arrangements that will be needed to support these activities. 

The proposed funding legislation (S. 2166) requires the Secretary of the Interior, in collaboration 

with participants in the two programs, to provide a Report to Congress in FY 2021 identifying 

the status of the fish in 2023 and recommending continuing institutional and financial 

needs/arrangements beyond 2023. 

Reclamation and the other Program partners see the need for continuation of activities to benefit 

the species beyond 2023 in order to assure that the species are recovered and delisted, and are not 

in need of protection of the ESA in the future. Any activities beyond 2023- and cost 

sharing/institutional arrangements- will be subject to review and approval of Congress. If 

enacted, a joint report to Congress will be required by the Recovery Programs, through the 

Secretary oflnterior, in FY 2021 which will provide a detailed prognosis and recommendation 

for the future activities that will be necessary to avoid jeopardy of the endangered fish. 

Question 2: When does the Bureau of Reclamation anticipate the endangered fish in the Upper 

Colorado River will be recovered? 

Response: Reclamation and the Recovery Program partners do not anticipate that all four 

species will be delisted by 2023. The ongoing discussions referenced in the response to Question 

I include identifying the manner in which species will be maintained and protected beyond 2023. 

A range oflegal and institutional alternatives are being reviewed that will ensure the species are 

protected in the future and that ESA compliance is maintained for water projects in the Upper 

Colorado and San Juan river basins. 

In 2002, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) amended the Colorado River fish recovery 

plans with objective and measurable recovery goals (endangered species population 

demographics and threat removal) to define what recovery means. Those recovery goals 

estimated that the fish would be recovered by 2023. Five-year status reviews were completed for 

each of the endangered species in 2011 and 2012, which determined that each of the species 

remained endangered. 

Ongoing recovery actions are continuously evaluated to determine their effectiveness in 

contributing to recovery. Species Status Assessments for three of the four endangered fish are 

underway and the next round of 5-year status reviews will be completed by the end ofFY 2018. 

On March 22, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced its completion of a Species Status 

2 
29 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Subcommittee on Water and Power 

February 28, 2018 Hearing: Pending Legislation 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Mr. Alan Mikkelsen 

Assessment and 5-Year Review, which proposes downlisting the humpback chub from the status 

of "endangered" to the status of"threatened". The humpback chub is still classified as 

endangered and, at this time, is only proposed for downlisting. If the classification of the 

species is officially changed to threatened, as the 5-Year Review recommends, it will remain 

fully protected under the ESA. The Recovery Programs are recognized as key contributors in the 

recovery of this native fish. Reclamation's modification of flow regimes from large dams, 

provision of flows to support native fish, and participation in and funding of the conservation and 

recovery programs is a central reason this species is able to be considered for 

downlisting. Collaborative partnerships and management of resources have protected the species 

from extinction. 

The remaining 5-year reviews may recommend that one or more of the endangered Colorado 

River fish be downlisted from endangered to threatened, and that the objective and measurable 

criteria in the recovery plans be updated to incorporate new information gathered since 2002. 

The report to Congress referenced in the proposed legislation, requires the Secretary of Interior 

to describe projected timelines to recovery based on the revised recovery plans. Reclamation 

and Program partners anticipate that the species recovery plans will be revised consistent with 

the recommendations coming from the discussions referenced in Question 1 and the Secretary's 

report to Congress. 

Question 3: What would happen to the communities in the Colorado River Basin if the Upper 

Colorado River Endangered Species Recovery Act program goes away without the fish being delisted? 

Response: The Recovery Programs provide ESA compliance for approximately 2,500 existing 

water projects and future development in the Upper Colorado River Basin above Glen Canyon 

Dam. Since the first Colorado River Recovery Program was established in 1988, all existing and 

proposed water development and hydropower projects associated with the Recovery Programs 

have proceeded in compliance with the ESA, Reclamation project authorizations, interstate water 

compacts, and state water law without ESA litigation. These projects provide approximately 3.8 

million acre-feet of water to municipal, industrial, and agricultural water users. The cost-shared 

Recovery Programs have shifted the burden of ESA compliance from individual projects to the 

Recovery Programs. If the Recovery Programs go away before the fish are delisted, the vehicle 

for ESA compliance disappears, and the cooperative programs that are working and have the 

broad support of water users, federal agencies, states, tribes, environmental organizations, and 

power customers would be replaced with legal and regulatory chaos that would create 

tremendous uncertainty for water suppliers that would likely go on for years. This may require 

the Service tore-initiate ESA consultations on existing water projects. Each individual project 

would then be responsible compliance with the ESA. This would result in uncertainty on the 

ability of municipal, industrial, and agricultural water suppliers to meet current and future 

demands and the cost of meeting those demands. 

3 
30 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Subcommittee on Water and Power 

February 28, 2018 Hearing: Pending Legislation 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Mr. Alan Mikkelsen 

The Recovery Programs have greatly streamlined administration of the ESA for the Service, 

federal agencies, and water users. The Service conducted four ESA consultations on 

approximately 700 water projects on National Forest lands using the Recovery Programs as the 

means of compliance. Programmatic biological opinions on depletions in the Colorado, 

Gunnison, and Yampa river basin provide ESA compliance using recovery Program actions for 

literally hundreds of water projects. These efficiencies would be lost if the Recovery Programs 

were to cease. 

Question 4: Is there anything else that should be done to ensure the fish are on the correct 

pathway to recovery? 

Response: The Recovery Programs must continue to adaptively manage 1) instream flows and 

floodplain habitats, 2) control and reduce nonnative predatory fish, 3) operate fish passage and 

irrigation canal screens, 4) manage the endangered fish stocking program and 5) monitor 

endangered fish populations. When the Recovery Programs were initiated, relatively little was 

known about the endangered fish. The Recovery Programs have put substantial effort into 

research and monitoring to fill in the information gaps. Reclamation and our partners are 

confident that the efforts of the Recovery Programs to recover the endangered fish are science 

based and represent the most effective and efficient means of recovering the fish. The Recovery 

Programs will continue to evaluate the response of the species to recovery actions and to 

adaptively adjust those measures based on scientific evidence. 

Question 5: Does the Bureau of Reclamation have other species recovery programs that use 

revenue generated from hydropower production to pay for the program costs? 

Response: Yes, but use of power revenues for ESA purposes in Reclamation is not a 

widespread practice. Congress sets forth the purposes for which power revenues collected from 

the operation of Reclamation hydropower projects may be used. If authorized by Congress, then 

Reclamation policies (Reclamation Manual, Policy ENV P04 and PEC P07, "Allocation of 

Operation, Maintenance, and Replacement Costs") specify that Regional Directors determine 

whether and how costs of compliance with the ESA) will be allocated among project purposes. 

4 
31 

febrmtl) 

Subjt't!t: S. 2166 "•:mlaug.,rro Fish Rt'<!<lVC1':Y Progranu Extension Act of 2011." 

Flake and Ranking Member Cortez Masto: 
32 

STATE OF NEW MEXICO 

OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER 

CONCHA ORTIZ Y PINO BUILDING, 130 SOUTH CAPITOL, SANTA FE, NM 87501 

TELEPHONE: (505) 827-6091 FAX: (505) 827-3806 

TOM BLAINE, P.E. 

STATE ENGINEER 

The Honorable Jeff Flake, Chairman 

February 13, 2018 

The Honorable Catherine Cortez Masto, Ranking Member 

Water and Power Subcommittee 

U. S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

304 Dirksen Senate Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Mailing Address: 

P.O. Box 25!02 

Santa Fe, NM 87504-5102 

Subject: S. 2166 "Endangered Fish Recovery Programs Extension Act of21J17." 

Dear Chairman Flake and Ranking Member Cortez Masto: 

I am writing to supportS. 2166 "Endangered Fish Recovery Programs Extension Act of2017." 

S. 2166 amends P.L. 106-392, the authorizing legislation to provide for continued use of 

Colorado River Storage Project for annual funding of the Upper Colorado River Endangered 

Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program 

through 2023 at currently authorized levels. Substantial cost sharing and in-kind contributions 

are also provided by the States of Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico, and Utah, water users, 

tribes, environmental organization, and CRSP power customers. 

These programs have the objective of recovering four fish species listed as endangered under the 

federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) while water development proceeds in accordance with 

state water and wildlife law, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation water project authorizations, and 

interstate compacts approved by Congress. 

The recovery programs take actions to recover the endangered fish species. Those actions 

provide ESA compliance for approximately 2,500 water projects in Utah, Colorado, Wyoming 

and New Mexico in the Upper Colorado River basin upstream of Lake Powell. There have been 

no lawsuits on ESA compliance provided by the recovery programs. The programs have 

streamlined administration of the ESA for federal agencies, tribes and water users. 

Colorado River Storage Project revenues provide critical annual funding for the programs for 

operation and maintenance of facilities to recover the species, including fish screens, fish 

passages, bottomland habitat, and hatcheries, research and monitoring, and program 

management. 
33 

The Honorable Jeff Flake, Chairman 

The Honorable Catherine Cortez Masto, Ranking Member 

February 13, 2018 

Page2 

I appreciate the Subcommittee's past support for the programs and request your support for S. 

2166. 

Sincerely, 

Tom Blaine, PE 

State Engineer 

TB/kme 

cc: John Longworth, Director of the Interstate Stream Commission (ISC) 

Rolf Schmidt Petersen, Bureau Chief, Colorado River Bureau , ISC 
34 

Water Administration 

15151 E. Alameda Parkway, Suite 3600 

Aurora, Colorado 80012 

303.739.7370 

February !3, 2018 

The Honorable Jeff Flake, Chairman 

The Honorable Catherine Cortez Masto, Ranking Member 

Water and Power Subcommittee 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

304 Dirksen Senate Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Subject: S. 2166 "Endangered Fish Recovery Programs Extension Act of 2017." 

Dear Chairman Flake and Ranking Member Cortez Masto: 

I am writing to Programs Extension Act of2017." S. 2166 

amends P.L the authorizing continued use of Colorado River Storage 

Project for annual funding of the Recovery Program and the San 

Juan River Basin Recovery Program through at currently authorized levels. 

Substantial cost and contributions are also provided the States of Colorado, Wyoming, 

New Mexico, and water users, tribes, environmental and CRSP power customers. 

These programs have the objective recov;,rirlg four fish species listed as endangered under the federal 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) while proceeds in accordance with state water and 

wildlife law, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation authorizations, and interstate compacts approved 

by Congress. 

The recovery programs take actions to recover the endangered fish Those actions ESA 

compliance for approximately 2,500 water projects in Utah, Wyoming and New in the 

River basin upstream of Lake Powell. There have been no lawsuits on ESA compliance 

by the recovery programs. The programs have streamlined administration of the ESA for federal 

agencies, tribes and water users. 

Colorado River Project revenues provide critical annual funding for the programs for operation 

imd to recover the species, including fish screens, fish passages, bottomland 

habitat, and hatcheries, research and monitoring, and program management 

I appreciate the Subcommit!ee's past support for the programs and request your support for S. 2166. 

Director, Aurora Water 
35 

February 14,2018 

The Honorable Jeff Flake, Cbainnan 

The Honorable Catherine Cortez Masto, Ranking Member 

Water and Power Subcommittee 

U, S. Senate Commi!tee on Energy and Natural Resources 

304 Dirksen Senate Building 

Washington, DC205l0 

Subject: S. 2166 "Endangered Fish Recovery Programs EKtension Act of20!7." 

Dear Chairman Flake and Ranking Member Cortez Masto: 

Jam 

recovery 

Program and the 

recovering four fish species listed as en<lange,·ect 

while \Vater development proceeds in with state Bureau 

Reclamation water project authorizations, and interstate compacts approved by Congress. 

The recovery programs take actions to recover the endangered i1sh species. Those 

ESA compliance for approximately 2,500 water projects in Utah, Colorado. 

Mexico in the Upper Colorado River Basin upstream of Lake Powell. There have hcen no lawsuits on 

ESA compliance because of these two Reco·very Programs. The programs have streamlined 

administration of the ESA for federal agencies and water users. 

Colorado River Storage Project revenues provide critical annual funding for the for 

operation and maintenance of facilities to recover the including fish screens, passages1 

bo!tomland habitat, and hatcheries. research and and program management. 

S. 2166 "Endangered Fish Recovery Progrmns Extension Act of201 T amends P.L. 106·392, the 

power customers. 

!am 

nrc>Pc3m.<ro provide for continued use of Colorado River Storage 

River Endangered Fish Recovery Program 

lmJ>leJneJltatlon Program through at currently 

Project revenues provide critical in 

In addition, cost sharing for the programs is 

Mexico, and Utah, water users, and CRSP 

S. 2!66, Please do not hesitate to call me if you need further 

in any other way. 
36 

February 23, 2018 

The Honorable Jeff Flake, Cl111innan 

The Honorable Catherine Cortez Masto, Ranking Member 

Water and Power Subconnnittee 

U. S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

304 Dirksen Senate Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Subject: S. 2166 "Endangered Fish Recovery Programs Extension Act of 20 17." 

Dear Chairman Flake and Ranking Member Cortez Masto: 

I am writing to supportS. 2166 "Endangered Fish Recovery Programs Extension Act of2017." S. 2166 amends P.L. 

106-392, the authorizing legislation to provide for continued use of Colorado River Storage Project for mmual 

funding of the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the SanJnan River Basin Recovery 

Implementation Progrmn through 2023 at currently authorized levels. Substantial cost sharing and in-kind 

contributions are also provided by the States of Colorado, Wyoming. New Mexico, and Utah. water users. tribes, 

environmental organization, and CRSP power customers. 

These programs have the objective of recovering four fish species listed as endangered under t11e federal Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) while water development proceeds in accordance with state water and wildlife law, U.S. Bureau 

of Reclamation water project authorizations, m1d interstate compacts approved by Congress. 

The recovery programs take actions to recover the endangered fish species. Those actions provide ESA compliance 

for approximately 2.500 water projects in Utah, Colorado. Wyoming and New Mexico in the Upper Colorado River 

basin upstream of Lake Powell, including water projects that are critical for the Board of Water Works of Pueblo's 

mission to provide reliable water service to the citizens of Pueblo. There have been no lawsuits on ESA compliance 

provided by the recovery programs. The programs have streamlined administration of the ESA for federal agencies, 

tribes and lvatcr users. 

Colorado River Storage Project revenues provide critical anmml funding for the programs for operation and 

maintenance of facilities to recover the species. including fish screens, fish passages, bottomland habitat, m1d 

hatcheries. research and monitoring. and program management. 

I appreciate the Subcommittee's past support for the programs and request your support for S. 2166. 

Sincerely, 

Seth J. Clayton 

Executive Director 

(719) 584-0214 
37 

February 21, 2018 

The Honorable Jeff Flake, Chairman 

The Honorable Catherine Cortez Masto, Ranking Member 

Water and Power Subcommittee 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

304 Dirksen Senate Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Chairman Flake and Ranking Member Cortez Masto: 

On behalf of behalf of Colorado Springs Utilities, I am writing to express our support for several 

provisions of the draft Water Supply Infrastructure and Drought Resilience Act of 2018. Colorado 

Springs Utilities is a municipal utility that provides water, wastewater, gas, and electric utility services to 

approximately 450,000 residents in the Pikes Peak Region. As a community owned utility, we focus on 

maintaining safe, reliable and competitively priced utilities, providing exceptional service, and 

responsible environmental practices. 

There are three provisions of the draft Water Supply Infrastructure and Drought Resilience Act that we 

want to address in our comments. First, I want to express Colorado Springs Utilities strong support for 

Title Ill, Subtitle C of the draft legislation to reauthorize the Upper Colorado Fish Recovery Program 

through 2023 (S.2166/H.R.4465 ). Extending this program allows for our continued water diversions 

from the Upper Colorado River and ongoing purchase of reliable Colorado River Storage Project 

hydropower- both critical to our continued success as a community owned utility. 

These programs have the objective of recovering four fish species listed as endangered under the 

federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) while water development proceeds in accordance with state water 

law, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation water project authorizations, and interstate compacts approved by 

Congress. The recovery programs take actions to recover the endangered fish species. Those actions 

provide ESA compliance for approximately 2,500 water projects in Utah, Colorado, Wyoming and New 

Mexico in the Upper Colorado River basin upstream of Lake Powell. There have been no lawsuits on ESA 

compliance provided by the Recovery Programs. The programs have streamlined administration of and 

compliance with the ESA for federal agencies and water users. 

Colorado River Storage Project power revenues provide critical annual funding for the programs for 

operation and maintenance of facilities to recover the species (including fish screens, fish passages, 

bottomland habitat, and hatcheries) research and monitoring, and program management. 

Second, I want to express our strong support for Title Ill, Subtitle B- Permits for Water Transfers. Water 

transfers play an important role in Colorado Springs Utilities ability to deliver clean and reliable water 

supplies to the citizens of Colorado Springs. Currently, between 60 and 70 percent of our water supply 

originates from the first use and subsequent reuse of water obtained from the Colorado River 

P.O. Box 1103, MC 950 

Colorado Springs, CO 80947-0950 

719·668·8005 
38 

headwaters through four transbasin diversions. Requiring a discharge permit would be prohibitively 

expensive and burdensome, cause regulatory uncertainty, and alter the cooperative state-federal 

relationship envisioned. The passage of this legislation would ease regulatory uncertainty, and secure 

the cooperative state-federal relationship envisioned by Congress. It represents a well-reasoned 

approach to water delivery while ensuring that the quality of the nation's waters will not be diminished. 

Lastly, I want to express our support for Title Ill, Subtitle A- Water Rights Protection Act 

(S.l230/H.R.2939) which prohibits the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture 

from conditioning any permit, lease or other use agreement on the transfer of a right to the U.S. In 

recent years, we have seen attempts by the Forest Service to force ski areas to relinquish their water 

rights simply to make administrative modifications to special use permits. The ability to have secure 

water rights is imperative to keeping our rates as low as possible for our citizen-owners and ensures that 

our infrastructure investments are protected. 

On behalf of Colorado Springs Utilities and the community we serve, we respectfully urge passage the 

draft Water Supply Infrastructure and Drought Resilience Act of 2018. 

Sincerely, 

Cc Senator Cory Gardner 
39 

Colorado Springs Utilities If's how we're all connffted 

The Honorable Cory Gardner 

The Honorable Michael Bennet 

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

February 23, 2018 

Subject: 5.2166 "Endangered Fish Recovery Programs Extension Act of 2017." 

Dear Senators Gardner and Bennet: 

I am writing on behalf of Colorado Springs Utilities to thank you for introducing S. 2166 the 

"Endangered Fish Recovery Programs Extension Act of 2017 ." 

Colorado Springs Utilities is a municipal utility that provides water, wastewater, gas and electric 

utility services to approximately 450,000 residents in the Pikes Peak Region. Extending this program 

allows for our continued water diversions from the Upper Colorado River and ongoing purchase of 

reliable Colorado River Storage Project hydropower- both critical to our continued success as a 

community owned utility. 

5.2166 amends P.l. 106-392, the authorizing legislation for the programs to provide for 

continued use of CRSP power revenues for annual funding of Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish 

Recovery Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program through 2023 at 

currently authorized levels. Cost sharing for the programs is also provided by the States of Colorado, 

Wyoming, New Mexico, and Utah, water users, and CRSP power customers through the Western Area 

Power Administration. 

These programs have the objective of recovering four fish species listed as endangered under 

the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) while water development proceeds in accordance with state 

water law, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation water project authorizations, and interstate compacts approved 

by Congress. 

The recovery programs take actions to recover the endangered fish species. Those actions 

provide ESA compliance for approximately 2,500 water projects in Utah, Colorado, Wyoming and New 

Mexico in the Upper Colorado River basin upstream of Lake Powell. There have been no lawsuits on ESA 

compliance provided by the Recovery Programs. The programs have streamlined administration of and 

compliance with the ESA for federal agencies and water users. 

Colorado River Storage Project power revenues provide critical annual funding for the programs 

for operation and maintenance of facilities to recover the species (including fish screens, fish passages, 

bottomland habitat, and hatcheries) research and monitoring, and program management. 

We appreciate your leadership on this important issue and urge prompt passage of S.2166. 

Sincerely, 

~ Chief Energy Services Officer 
40 

The Honorable Jeff Flake. Chairman 

The Honorable Catherine Cortez Masto, Ranking Member 

Water and Pov;cr Subcommittee 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

304 Dirksen Senate Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Subject: S. 2166 "Endangered Fish Recovery Programs Extension Act of 2017" 

Dear Chainnan Flake and Ranking Member Cortez Masto: 

On behalf of the Colorado Water Congress, we arc writing to express our support for S. 2166, ''Endangered Fish 

Recovery Programs Extension Act of2017." The Colorado Water Congress is the principal voice of Colorado's 

\Yater community. 

The Colorado Water Congress supports the intent of the legislation to provide for continued use of Colorado River 

Storage Project for annual funding of the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San 

Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program through 2023 at the current authorized levels. Substantial cost 

sharing and in-kind ccntributions are also provided by the States of Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico, and Utah, 

water users, tribes. environmental organizations. and CRSP power customers. 

These programs intend to recover four fish species listed as endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act 

(ESA) while water development proceeds in accordance with state water and wildlife law, U.S. Bureau of 

Reclamation water project authorizations, and interstate compacts approved by Congress. 

TI1e recovery programs take actions to recover the endangered fish species. TI10se actions provide ESA compliance 

for approximately 2,500 water projects in Utah, Colorado, Wyoming, and New Mexico in the Upper Colorado 

River basin upstream of Lake Powell. There have been no lawsuits on ESA compliance provided by the recovery 

programs. The programs have streamlined administration of the ESA for federal agencies, tribes, and water users. 

Colorado River Storage Project revenues provide critical mmual funding for the programs for operation m1d 

maintenance of facilities to recover the species. including fish screens, fish passages, bottomland habitat, and 

hatcheries, research and monitoring, and program management. 

We appreciate the Subcommittee's past support for the progrmns and request your support for S. 2166. 

Sincerely, 

Doug Kemper 

Executive Director 
41 

The Honorable Jeff Flake, Chainnan 

The Honorable Catherine Cortez Masto, Ranking Member 

Water and Power Subcommittee 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

304 Dirksen Senate Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Re: Codify Water Supply Infrastructure and Drought Resilience Act 

Dear Chairman Flake and Ranking Member Cortez Masto: 

On behalf of the Colorado Water Congress, we arc writing to express our support for the codification of 

the Water Supply Infrastructure and Drought Resilience Act. The Colorado Water Congress is the 

principal voice of Colorado's water community. 

The Colorado Water Congress supports the codification of the legislation on three points of Title III: (I) 

Water Rights Protection Act, (2) treatment of water rights, and (3) the extension of authorization to use 

Upper Colorado River Basin Fund Revenues for Annual Base Funding of Fish Recovery Programs and 

removal of certain reporting requirements. 

(I) Water Rights Protection Act 

The Colorado Water Congress recognizes the supremacy of state water law. No water user should be 

required to acquire a water right in the name of the United States under state law. Neither should the 

United States place limits on a water user's right or ability to acquire or usc any land use or occupancy 

agreement. 

(2) Treatment of Water Rights 

We wish to express our long-standing support for the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Water 

Transfers Rule (Rule), and request that this well-reasoned protection of water management by states be 

enacted into federal legislation as part of infrastructure legislation. The Rule clarifies the EPA's historic 

exclusion of water transfers from the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES) of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The Rule represents a well-reasoned approach to water 

delivery while ensuring that the quality of the nation's waters will not be diminished. TI1e effective 

management of our water is critical to the infrastructure needs of our nation and securing the future of 

these operations should be included in any infrastructure efforts of Congress. We ask that Congress 

protect our existing regulatory structure for the future by cementing the existing Rule into federal law. 

The Colorado Water Congress also supports section 122.3(i) of Title 40 as it requires no water permit 

transfers on water rights. Requiring the issuance ofNPDES permits for water transfers would severely 

interfere with water management across the nation, on the states' well-established authority over their 

water resources, and on private property rights in the use of water granted by the states. 

(3) Upper Colorado River Basin Fund Revenues 

We support Subtitle C- Endangered Fish Recovery Programs (S. 2166) to provide for continued use of 

Colorado River Storage Project for annual funding of the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish 

Recovery Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program through 2023 at the 
42 

current authorized levels. Substantial cost sharing and in-kind contributions are also provided by the 

States of Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico, and Utah, water users, tribes, environmental organizations, 

and CRSP power customers. 

These programs intend to recover four fish species listed as endangered under the federal Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) while water development proceeds in accordance with state water and wildlife law, 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation water project authorizations, and interstate compacts approved by Congress. 

The recovery progran1s take actions to recover the endangered fish species. Those actions provide ESA 

compliance for approximately 2,500 water projects in Utah, Colorado, Wyoming, and New Mexico in the 

Upper Colorado River basin upstream of Lake Powell. TI1ere have been no lawsuits on ESA compliance 

provided by the recovery prograu1s. The progran1s have streamlined administration of the ESA for federal 

agencies, tribes, and water users. 

Colorado River Storage Project revenues provide critical annual funding for the programs for operation 

and maintenance of facilities to recover the species, including fish screens, fish passages, bottomland 

habitat, and hatcheries, research and monitoring, and program management. 

We appreciate the Subcommittee's past support for the programs and request your support for the 

codification of the Water Supply and lnfrastmcture Resilience Act. 

Siucerely, 

Doug Kemper 

Executive Director 

Federal Affairs Committee Chair 

Vice Chair 

Federal Affairs Committee 
43 
44 

DENVER WATER 

The Honorable Jeff Flake, Chairman 

The Honorable Catherine Cortez Masto, Ranking Member 

Water and Power Subcommittee 

U. S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

304 Dirksen Senate Building 

Washington, DC 2051 0 

Subject: S. 2166 "Endangered Fish Recovery Programs Extension Act of2017." 

Dear Chairman Flake and Ranking Member Cortez Masto: 

I am writing to you on behalf of the Denver Board of Water Commissioners to express our 

support of S. 2166 "Endangered Fish Recovery Programs Extension Act of20 !7." S. 2166 

amends P.L. 106-392, the authorizing legislation to provide for continued use of Colorado River 

Storage Project for annual funding of the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery 

Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program through 2023 at 

currently authorized levels. Substantial cost sharing and in-kind contributions are also provided 

by the States of Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico, and Utah, water users, tribes, environmental 

organization, and CRSP power customers. 

These programs have the objective of recovering four fish species listed as endangered under the 

federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) while water development proceeds in accordance with 

state water and wildlife law, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation water project authorizations, and 

interstate compacts approved by Congress. 

The recovery programs take actions to recover the endangered fish species. Those actions 

provide ESA compliance for approximately 2,500 water projects in Utah, Colorado, Wyoming 

and New Mexico in the Upper Colorado River basin upstream of Lake Powell. There have been 

no lawsuits on ESA compliance provided by the recovery programs. The programs have 

streamlined administration of the ESA for federal agencies, ttibes and water users. 

Colorado River Storage Project revenues provide critical annual funding for the programs for 

operation and maintenance of facilities to recover the species, including fish screens, fish 

passages, bottomland habitat, and hatcheries, research and monitoring, and program 

management. 

We appreciate the Subcommittee's past support for the programs and Denver Board of Water 

Commissioners sincerely request your support for S. 2166. 

Sincerely, 

/s/Jim S. Lochhead 

CEO/Manager 

303-628-6500/303-628-6199 fax 

Jim.Lochhead@denverwater.org 
45 

Tom Fallgren 

Vice President, PNM Generation 

Public Service Company of New Mexico 

2401 Aztec Road NE 

Building A· Z120 

Albuquerque, NM !17107 

February 19, 2018 

The Honorable Jeff Flake, Chairman 

The Honorable Catherine Cortez Masto, Ranking Member 

Water and Power Subcommittee 

U. S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

304 Dirksen Senate Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Subject: S. 2166 "Endangered Fish Recovery Programs Extension Act of 2017.'' 

Dear Chairman Flake and Ranking Member Cortez Masto: 

I am writing to support the passage of S. 2166. The bill is entitled "Endangered Fish Recovery Programs 

Extension Act of 2017" and is vital to our ability to divert water from the San Juan River in support of 

electric generation for New Mexico and the West 

S. 2166 amends P.L 106-392 to extend the use of Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP) revenues for 

annual funding, through 2023 for the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program and the 

Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. 

These CRSP revenues provide funding for operation and maintenance of critical facilities to recover the 

species, including fish screens, fish passages, bottomland habitat and hatcheries, research and monitoring 

and program management. 

The actions taken by these programs to recover endangered fish provide ESA compliance for approximately 

2,500 water projects in Utah, Colorado, Wyoming and New Mexico in the Upper Colorado River basin 

upstream of lake PowelL Under these programs there have been no lawsuits on ESA compliance and no 

water projects have lost any water. 

There will be no change in authorized Federal funding levels and cost sharing for the programs continues by 

Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico, Utah, water users, tribes, environmental organizations and CRSP power 

customers. 

I appreciate the Subcommittee's past support for the programs and urge your support for S. 2166 to keep 

this valuable Federal, State, Tribal and private collaboration working for sustainable environmental and 

economic development. 
46 

Grand Water Users Association 

February 14,2018 

Grand 

1147 24 Grand 

Phone: 970-242-5065 

The Honorable Jeff Flake, Chairman 

co 81505 

Fax: 970-243-4871 

The Honorable Catherine Cortez Masto, Ranking Member 

Water and Power Subcommittee 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

304 Dirksen Senate Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Subject: S. 2166 "Endangered Fish Recovery Programs Extension Act of 2017 ." 

Dear Chairman Flake and Ranking Member Cortez Masto: 

I am ;vriting to supportS. 2166 "Endangered Fish Recovery Programs Extension Act of2017." 

S. 2166 amends P.L. l 06-392, the authorizing legislation to provide for continued use of 

Colorado River Storage Project for annual funding of the Upper Colorado River Endangered 

Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program 

through 2023 at currently authorized levels. Substantial cost sharing and in-kind contributions 

are also provided by the States of Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico, and Utah, water users, 

tribes, environmental organization, and CRSP power customers. 

These programs have the objective of rccovc1ing four fish species listed as endangered under the 

federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) while water development proceeds in accordance with 

state water and wildlife law, U.S. Bmeau of Reclamation water project authorizations, and 

interstate compacts approved by Congress. 

The recovery programs take actions to recover the endangered fish species. Those actions 

provide ESA compliance for approximately 2,500 water projects in Utah, Colorado, \Vyoming 

and New Mexico in the Upper Colorado River basin upstream of Lake PowelL There have been 

no lawsuits on ESA compliance provided by the recovery prof,rranls. The programs have 

streamlined administration of the ESA for federal agencies, tribes and water users. 
47 

Colorado River Storage Project revenues provide critical annual funding for the programs for 

operation and maintenance of facilities to recover the species, including fish screens, fish 

passages, bottomland habitat, and hatcheries, research and monitoring, and program 

management. 

I appreciate the Subcommittee's past support for the programs and request your support for S. 

2166. 

s~J~ Mark Harris ? 7 

General Manger 
48 

MATTHEW H. MEAD 

GOVERNOR 

February 20,2018 

THE STATE 

The Honorable Jeff Flake 

Chainnan 

The Honorable Catherine Cortez Masto 

Ranking Member 

Water and Power Subcommittee 

U. S. Senate Committee on E&NR 

304 Dirksen Senate Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Water and Power Subcommittee 

U. S. Senate Committee on E&NR 

304 Dirksen Senate Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Re: S. 2166 "Endangered Fish Recovery Progtams Extension Act of2017. 

Dear Chainnan Flake and Ranking Member Cortez Masto, 

support S. 2166 "Endangered Fish Recovery 

continued use of Colorado River revenues for 

annual funding (at currently authorized levels) by the Upper Fish 

Recovery Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Progtam through 

2023. Cost sharing for the programs is also provided by the States of Colorado, New Mexico, 

Utah and Wyoming, water users, and CRSP power customers through the Western Area Power 

Administration. 

The goal of these progtams is to recover four fish species listed as endangered under the federal 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) while water development proceeds .in accordan.ce with state 

water law, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation water project authorizations, and interstate compacts 

approved by Congress. 

in the four states of the Upper Colorado River basin 

upstream have ESA compliance through these programs. In 

addition, there have been no lawsuits on ESA compliance provided by the 

The streamlined administration of and compliance with the ESA 

and water users. 

Colorado River Storage Project revenues provide critical annual funding for the programs for 

operation and maintenance of facilities to recover the species (including fish screens, fish 

passages, bottomland habitat, and hatcheries), research and monitoring, and program 

management. 

PHONE: (307) 777·7434 FAX: (307) 632-3909 
49 

Chairman Flake and 

20,2018 

Member Cortez Masto 

RE: S. 2166 "HrldaJtlgered Fish Recovery Prr.ar"•m~ Extension Act of 2017." 

Page2 

I request your support for S. 

Governor 

cc: The Honorable Mike Enzi, U.S. Senate 

The Honorable John Brurrasso, U.S. Senate 

Patrick T. State En•am"er 

En<ianlgenld Fish 
50 

Colorado River District 

Protecting Western Colorado Water Since 

Febmary 13,2018 

The Honorable Jeff Flake, Chainnan 

The Honorable Catherine Cortez Masto, Ranking Member 

Water and Power Subcommittee 

U. S. Senate Committee on Energy and NaturaJ Resources 

304 Dirksen Senate Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Re: Support for S.2166 "Endangered Fish Recovery Programs Extension Act of 2017." 

Dear Chairman Flake and Ranking Member Cortez Masto: 

I write to respectfi.Jily request your support for S.2166, "Endangered Fish Recovery Programs Extension 

Act of20 17.'' S. 2166 would amend P.L. 106-392, the authorizing legislation to provide for continued use 

of Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP) revenues for annual fi.mding of the Upper Colorado River 

Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Progran1 

through 2023 at currently authorized levels. Substantial cost-sharing and in-kind contributions are also 

provided by the States of Colorado. Wyoming, New Mexico, and Uta11. water users, tribes, environmental 

organization, and CRSP power customers. 

These two programs have twin goals of recovering four fish species listed as endangered under the federal 

Endangered Species Act (ESA) while water development proceeds in accordance with state water and 

wildlife law, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation water project authorizations, and interstate compacts approved 

by Congress. 

The recovery programs initiate and oversee actions to recover the endangered fish. Those actions provide 

ESA compliance for approximately 2,500 water projects in Utah, Colorado, Wyoming and New Mexico 

in the Upper Colorado River basin upstream of Lake Powell. 1l1ere have been no lawsuits on ESA 

compliance provided by the recovery programs. These programs have streamlined administration of the 

ESA for federal agencies, tribes and water users in all four states. 

CRSP revenues provide critical annual funding to the programs for operation and maintenance of 

programs and facilities to recover the species, including fish screens. fish passages, bottomland habitat, 

and hatcheries, research and monitoring, and program management. 

I appreciate the Subcommittee's past support for the programs and request your support for S. 2166. 

Sincerely, 

Andrew A. Mueller, General Manager 

201 Centennial Street I PO Box 1120 * Glenwood 

(970) 945-8522 ' (970) 945-8799 Fax 

co 81602 
51 

February 13, 2018 

The Honorable Jeff Flake, Chairman 

The Honorable Catherine Cortez Masto, Ranking Member 

Water and Power Subcommittee 

U. S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

304 Dirksen Senate Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Subject: S. 2166 "Endangered Fish Recovery Programs Extension Act of2017." 

Dear Chairman Flake and Ranking Member Cortez Masto: 

I am writing on behalf of the Municipal Subdistrict, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy 

District to support S. 2166 "Endangered Fish Recovery Programs Extension Act of 20 17." S. 

2166 amends P.L. 106-392, the authorizing legislation to provide for continued use of Colorado 

River Storage Project revenues to annually fund the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish 

Recovery Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program through 

2023 at currently authorized levels. Substantial cost sharing and in-kind contributions are also 

provided by the: states of Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico, and Utah; water users; tribes; 

environmental organizations; and CRSP power customers. 

These recovery programs have the objective of recovering four fish species listed as endangered 

under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) while water management and water 

development efforts proceed in accordance with state water law, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 

water project authorizations, and interstate compacts approved by Congress. 

The recovery programs take actions to recover the endangered fish species. Those actions 

provide ESA compliance for approximately 2,500 water projects in Utah, Colorado, Wyoming 

and New Mexico in the Upper Colorado River basin upstream of Lake Powell. The recovery 

programs are providing an efficient and effective means of addressing ESA challenges and 

assuring ESA compliance for federal agencies, water users, and tribes. 

Colorado River Storage Project revenues provide critically needed funding for the recovery 

programs costs, including costs associated with: operation and maintenance of facilities to 

recover the species; installment and operation offish screens, fish passages, and hatcheries; 

improvement of habitat; research and monitoring; and program management. 

The Municipal Subdistrict, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District sincerely appreciates 

the Subcommittee's past support for the recovery programs and request your support for S. 2 l 66. 

Sincerely, 

Eric W. Wilkinson, P E. 

General Manager 
52 

668 38 Road 

Pa!is::uk. CO S1520 

The Honorable Jeff Flake, Chairman 

The Honorable Catherine Cortez Masto, Ranking Member 

Water and Power Subcommittee 

U. S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

304 Dirksen Senate Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Subject: S. 2166 ''Endangered Fish Recovery Programs Extension Act of20! 7." 

Dear Chairman Flake and Ranking Member Cortez Masto: 

970·4M~ 7SS5 

FAX 970-464-5928 

I am writing to supportS. 2!66 '·Endangered Fish Recovery Extension Act of20l7." 

S. 2166 amends P.L. 106-392, the authorizing legislation to {()f continued use of 

Colorado River Storage Project for annual funding of the Upper Colorado River Endangered 

Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program 

through 2023 at currently authorized levels. Substantial cost sharing and in-kind contributions 

arc also provided by the States of Colorado, Wyoming. New Mexico, and Utah, water users, 

tribes, environmental organization, and CRSP power customers. 

rmmrmr1~ have the objective of recovering four fish species listed as under the 

Act (ESA) while water development proceeds in aet<lrd~;~nce with 

state water law, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation water project authorizations, and 

interstate compacts approved by Congress. 

The recovery programs take actions to recover the endangered tlsh species. Those actions 

provide ESA compliance lor 2,500 water projects in Utah, Colorado, Wyoming 

nnd New Mexico in the Upper River basin upstream of Lake PowelL There have been 

no lawsuits on ESA compliance provided by the recovery The programs have 

streamlined administration of the ESA for federal agencies. and water users. 

Colorado River revenues provide critical annual for the programs for 

operation and maintenan<:e of facilities to recover the species, including screens. fish 

passages, bottomland habitat, and hatcheries, research and monitoring, and program 

management. 

apJJrC<~ial:e the Subcommittee's past support for the programs and request your support for S. 

Sincerely, 

Max Schmidt 

General Manager Orchard Mesa Irrigation District 
53 

Fcbmary 20. 2018 

The Honorable Jeff Flake, Chairman 

The Honorable Catherine Cortez Masto. Ranking Member 

Water and Power Subcommittee -

U. S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

304 Dirksen Senate Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Re: S. 2166 '·Endangered Fish Recovery Programs Extension Act of2017." 

Dear Chainnan Flake and Ranking Member Cortez Masto: 

On behalf of the Southern Ute Indian Tribe,! am your suppmt ofS. 2166 

"Endangered Fish Recovery Programs Extension Act S. 2166 amends P.L 106-392, 

the authorizing legislation, to provide for continued use of Colorado River Storage Project 

(CRSP) for annual funding of the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program 

and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program ("'Recovery Programs'') 

through 2023 at currently authorized levels. Substantial cost sharing and in-kind contributions 

are also provided hy the States of Colorado. Mexico, and Utah, the Sonthem Ute 

Indian Tribe, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe. Nation and Navajo Nation, The Nature 

Conservancy, water users, and CRSP power customers. 

These Recovery Programs have the of recovering four fish species listed as endangered 

under the federal Endangered Species (ESA) while water development proceeds in 

accordance with state water and wildlife law. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation water project 

authorizations, interstate compacts Court decrees and federal 

trust responsibilities to the Southern Ute Tribe, Jicarilla Apache 

Nation and Navajo Nation. 

The Recovery Progran1s take actions to recover the endangered fish Those actions 

provide ESA compliance for approximately 2,500 water projects in Colorado, Wyoming 

and New Mexico in the Upper Colorado River basin upstream of Lake Powell. There have been 

no lawsuits on ESA compliance provided the Recovery The Programs have 

streamlined administration of the ESA for agencies, and water users. 
54 

The Honorable Jeff Flake, Chairman 

The Honorable Catherine Cortez Masto, Ranking Member 

February 20, 2018 

Page2 

CRSP revenues provide critical annual funding for the Recovery Programs for operation and 

maintenance of facilities to recover the species, including fish screens, fish passages, bottomland 

habitat, and hatcheries, research and monitoring, and program management. 

The Southern Ute Indian Tribe requests your support for S. 2166. The Tribe appreciates the past 

support and assistance of your Subcommittee for these ongoing efforts. 

Sincerely, 

Southern 

~~ Ute Indian Tribe 
55 

THE SOUTHWESTERN WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT 

February 13,2018 

Developing and Conserving the Waters of the 

SAN JUAN AND DOLORES RIVERS AND THEIR TRIBUTARIES 

IN SOUTHWESTERN COLORADO 

West Building- 841 East Second Avenue 

DURANGO, COLORADO 81301 

(970) 247-1302 

The Honorable Jeff Flake, Chairman 

The Honorable Catherine Cortez Masto, Ranking Member 

Water and Power Subcommittee 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

304 Dirksen Senate Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Subject: S. 2166 "Endangered Fish Recovery Programs Extension Act of 2017" 

Dear Chairman Flake and Ranking Member Cortez Masto: 

The Southwestern Water Conservation District was formed to protect, conserve, use and develop 

the waters of the Dolores and San Juan river basins in southwestern Colorado. Following this 

mandate, the District board strongly supports S. 2166 "Endangered Fish Recovery Programs 

Extension Act of201 7." S. 2166 amends P.L. 106-392, the authorizing legislation to provide tor 

continued use of Colorado River Storage Project for annual funding of the Upper Colorado River 

Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation 

Program through 2023 at currently authorized levels. Substantial cost sharing and in-kind 

contributions are also provided by the States of Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico, and Utah, 

water users, tribes, environmental orgm1ization, and CRSP power customers. 

These programs have the objective of recovering four fish species listed as endangered under the 

federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) while water development proceeds in accordance with 

state water and wildlife law, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation water project authorizations, and 

interstate compacts approved by Congress. 

The recovery programs take actions to recover the endangered fish species. Those actions 

provide ESA compliance for approximately 2,500 water projects in Utah, Colorado, Wyoming 

and New Mexico in the Upper Colorado River basin upstream of Lake Powell. There have been 

no lawsuits on ESA compliance provided by the recovery programs. The programs have 

streamlined administration of the ESA for federal agencies, tribes and water users. 

Colorado River Storage Project revenues provide critical annual funding for the programs for 

operation and maintenance of facilities to recover the species, including fish screens, fish 
56 

Page2 

SW Water Conservation District 

Support for S. 2166 

February 13, 2018 

passages, bottomland habitat, and hatcheries, reseatch and monitoring, and program 

management. 

Considering all the aforementioned benefits of the legislation, our District board and staff request 

your supp01i for S. 2166. 

Sincerely, 

Bruce Whitehead 

Executive Director 

(970) 24 7-1302 
57 

February 13,2018 

The Honorable Jeff Flake, Chairman 

The Honorable Catherine Cortez Masto, Ranking Member 

Water and Power Subcommittee 

U. S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

304 Dirksen Senate Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Subject: S. 2166 "Endangered Fish Recovery Programs Extension Act of 2017." 

Dear Chairman Flake and Ranking Member Cortez Masto: 

The Tri-County Water Conservancy District is writing to request your support of S. 2166 

''Endangered Fish Recovery Programs Extension Act of2017." S. 2166 amends P.L. 106-392, 

the authorizing legislation to provide for continued use of Colorado River Storage Project for 

annual funding of the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San 

Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program through 2023 at currently authorized levels. 

Substantial cost sharing and in-kind contributions are also provided by the States of Colorado, 

Wyoming, New Mexico, and Utah, water users, tribes, environmental organization, and CRSP 

power customers. 

These programs have the objective of recovering four fish species listed as endangered under the 

federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) while water development proceeds in accordance with 

state water and wildlife law, US. Bureau of Reclamation water project authorizations, and 

interstate compacts approved by Congress. 

The recovery programs take actions to recover the endangered fish species. Those actions 

provide ESA compliance for approximately 2,500 water projects in Utah, Colorado, Wyoming 

and New Mexico in the Upper Colorado River basin upstream of Lake Powell. There have been 

no lawsuits on ESA compliance provided by the recovery programs. The programs have 

streamlined administration of the ESA for federal agencies, tribes and water users. 

Colorado River Storage Project revenues provide critical annual funding for the programs for 

operation and maintenance of facilities to recover the species, including fish screens, fish 

passages, bottomland habitat, and hatcheries, research and monitoring, and program 

management. 

We appreciate the Subcommittee's past support for the programs and request your support 

forS 2166. 

Sincerely, ~ 

Mike Berry 

General Manager 
58 

355 South 400 East • Salt lake City • Utah 84111 • 801-531-1150 • FAX 801-531-9705 

February 22, 2018 

The Honorable Jeff Flake, Chainnan 

The Honorable Catherine Cortez Masto, Ranking Member 

Water and Power Subcommittee 

U. S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

304 Diriksen Senate Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Subject: S. 2166 "Endangered Fish Recovery Programs Extension Act of2017." 

Dear Chainnan Flake and Ranking Member Cortez Masto: 

On behalf of the Upper Colorado River Commission, an interstate water administrative agency 

representing the interests ofthe states of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming on 

Colorado River matters, as established pursuant to the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact of 

1948, 63 Stat. 31, I write in support of S. 2166, "Endangered Fish Recovery Programs Extension 

Act of 2017 ." S. 2166 amends P .L. I 06-392, the authorizing legislation for the recovery 

programs, to provide for continued use of Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP) hydropower 

revenues for annual funding of the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program 

and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program through 2023 at currently 

authorized levels. Substantial cost sharing and in-kind contributions are also provided by the 

states of Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico, and Utah, water users, tribes, enviro!liDental 

organization, and CRSP power customers. 

These recovery programs have the objective of recovering four fish species listed as endangered 

under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) while water development proceeds in 

accordance with state water and wildlife law, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation water project 

authorizations, and interstate compacts approved by Congress. 

The recovery programs take actions to recover the endangered fish species. Those actions 

provide ESA compliance for approximately 2,500 water projects in Utah, Colorado, Wyoming 

and New Mexico in the Upper Colorado River basin upstream of Lake Powell. There have been 
59 

no lawsuits on ESA compliance provided 

streamlined administration of the ESA for 

nrr,m-:•m•~ The programs have 

and water users. 

CRSP revenues provide critical annual funding for the programs for and 

maintenance of facilities to recover !he species, including screens, fish passages, bottomland 

habitat, and hatcheries, research and monitoring, and program management 

The Upper Colorado River Commission the Subcommittee's past support for the 

recovery programs and requests your support for S. 2166. 

Sincerely, 
60 

rhe Honorable Jeff !'lake, Chairman 

The Honorable Cath~rine Cortez 

Water and Power Subcommiuee 

February 2018 

Ranking Member 

U, S, Senate Committee <Jn Energy and Natural Rcsour~::es 

Dirksen Senate Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Re: Support for S, 2 J 66 Endangered FM1 R~covel)' Programs Extension 

Dear Chairman Flake and Ranking Member Cnrtez i\1as!o: 

I am writing nn behalf of the Board of Directors oflhe 

District to enactmem of$, 2166 Programs Extension 

106-392, the authorizing continued use 

revenue ll1r annualftmding River Endangered Fish 

the San Juan River Basin Program 2023 at 

mrthc"'"'Pnlevels, Substantial cost contributions are by the States of 

Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico, and water users (including the Upper Gunnison District), tribes, 

envimnme!ltal organization, and CRSP power customers, 

by Congress. 

The 

of recovering four fish species listed as endangered under the federal 

while water in accordance with state water and 

Bureau of Reclamation water and imerstale compacts approved 

ew:tarw:ered l!sh species, 

Colorado, 

basin upstream There have been 

The programs have streamlined administration of the ESA 

water users, 

Colorado River Project revenues critical annual funding for the programs for 

and maimenance to recover including fish screens, Hsh passages, nolttOI'lllllnU 

habitat, and hatcheries, research and mrm111rwm" and program management 

We appreciate the Suhcomminee' s past support lor the programs and request your support S. 2166. 

0