U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

30–834 PDF 2006

S. HRG. 109–677

MISCELLANEOUS WATER & POWER BILLS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

S. 1812 S. 1965

S. 2129 S. 2470

S. 2502 S. 3404

H.R. 2383 H.R. 4204

JUNE 28, 2006

(

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, Chairman 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

RICHARD M. BURR, North Carolina, 

MEL MARTINEZ, Florida 

JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia 

GORDON SMITH, Oregon 

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky 

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

KEN SALAZAR, Colorado 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey

BRUCE M. EVANS, Staff Director 

JUDITH K. PENSABENE, Chief Counsel 

ROBERT M. SIMON, Democratic Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Democratic Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman 

GORDON SMITH, Oregon, Vice Chairman

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

RICHARD M. BURR, North Carolina 

MEL MARTINEZ, Florida 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky 

JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

KEN SALAZAR, Colorado 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey

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

NATE GENTRY, Counsel 

MIKE CONNOR, Democratic Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS 

Page

Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator From Idaho ................................................... 21

Dieker, Richard, Secretary-Manager, Yakima-Tieton Irrigation District ........... 22

Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., U.S. Senator From Utah ................................................... 2

Johnson, Hon. Tim, U.S. Senator From South Dakota ........................................ 11

Macy, Richard, Chairman, North Unit Irrigation District, Madras, OR ............ 13

Maisch, Einar L., Director of Strategic Affairs, Placer County Water Agency .. 23

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

Peltier, Jason, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Water and Science,

Department of the Interior .................................................................................. 10

Rinne, William E., Acting Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation, Department 

of the Interior ....................................................................................................... 2

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

APPENDIX 

Additional material submitted for the record ........................................................ 39

(1)

MISCELLANEOUS WATER & POWER BILLS 

WEDNESDAY JUNE 28, 2006

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., in room 

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

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI,

U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

Senator MURKOWSKI. This hearing will come to order. I’d like to 

welcome you all this afternoon to the Water and Power Subcommittee. 

We have eight bills that are before the subcommittee this afternoon: S. 1812, sponsored by Senator Hatch, which authorizes the 

participation in a conjunctive use project in Utah; S. 1965, sponsored by Senator Cantwell, which conveys certain buildings and 

land of the Yakima Project; S. 2129, sponsored by Senator Crapo, 

conveying certain land and improvements on the Minidoka Project; 

S. 2470, sponsored by Senator Craig, authorizing the early repayment of construction costs within the A&B Irrigation District; 

S. 2502, sponsored by Senator Smith, which amends the repayment contract between the Secretary of the Interior and the North 

Unit Irrigation District; S. 3404, sponsored by Senator Johnson, 

extending the date of the authorization for the Mni Wiconi Rural 

Water Supply Project; H.R. 2383, sponsored by Representative 

Nunes, renaming the Tracy Pumping Plant; and H.R. 4204, sponsored by Representative Doolittle, transferring ownership of the 

American River Pump Station Project. 

I’d like to welcome the administration witnesses: Mr. William 

Rinne, the Acting Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation, and 

Mr. Jason Peltier, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Water and 

Science. And we have some additional witnesses that will be joining us on the second panel. 

The subcommittee has received some written testimony on several of the bills before the subcommittee today, and that testimony 

will be made part of the official record. 

So with that, why don’t we invite up our two administration witnesses. 

Mr. Rinne, am I pronouncing your name correctly? 

Mr. RINNE. Yes. 

2

Senator MURKOWSKI. Makes it easier, doesn’t it? Nice to have 

you here, and you, as well, Mr. Peltier. 

With that, why don’t we go ahead and start off with you, Mr. 

Rinne. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Hatch follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ORRIN G. HATCH, U.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH,

ON S. 1812

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing today. And thank you for giving me the opportunity to express my support for S. 1812, the Juab County Surface 

and Ground Water Study and Development Act of 2005. S. 1812, if enacted, would 

amend the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 (P.L. 

102-575) to allow Juab County, Utah to receive Central Utah Project (CUP) funds. 

Mr. Chairman, as you know, the House of Representatives approved a companion 

bill (H.R. 4013) earlier this month. 

Under the original plan for the Bonneville Unit of the Central Utah Project, several counties in central Utah, including Juab, were to be delivered supplemental 

water through an irrigation and drainage delivery system. Over the years, however, 

the planning requirements for the Bonneville Unit have changed and, presently, 

most of the water allocated to the Bonneville Unit of the Central Utah Project is 

planned for use in Wasatch, Salt Lake, and Utah Counties. 

Many central Utah counties have elected not to participate in the plan and no 

longer pay the requisite taxes to the Central Utah Water Conservancy District, the 

political division of the State of Utah established to manage CUP activities in the 

state. But, unlike other central Utah counties, Juab County remained active in the 

Central Utah Water Conservancy District’s efforts and has paid millions in property 

taxes to the district. Unfortunately, the County has yet to reap any of the benefits 

of its membership. 

My bill would simply allow Juab County to use Central Utah Project funds to 

complete water resource development projects. It will enable the County to better 

utilize their existing water resources and will ensure that farmers, ranchers, and 

other citizens of Juab County have a reliable water supply. It will give the citizens 

of Juab County the opportunity to benefit from the system they have financially 

supported for so many years. 

Once again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for considering this important measure 

today. I urge the committee to swiftly approve the measure and send it to the full 

Senate for further consideration.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM E. RINNE, ACTING COMMISIONER, 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. RINNE. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

I’m Bill Rinne, Acting Commissioner for the Bureau of Reclamation. I’m pleased to present the Department of the Interior’s views 

on seven bills before the subcommittee today. 

Madam Chairwoman, I would request my full statement on each 

of these bills be submitted for the record, and I’ll also do my best 

and stay within the 5-minute time allotment here. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Your full statement will be included as part 

of the record. 

Mr. RINNE. Just a minute or two over here. S. 1965 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to convey buildings and lands 

of the Yakima Project in Washington to the Yakima-Tieton Irrigation District. Reclamation supports S. 1965. The transfer proposed 

in the bill is the culmination of a collaborative process and should 

be a model for other districts. The full cost of the land and the facilities to be transferred under this bill have been repaid pursuant 

to the district’s original repayment contract. All the lands were acquired by Reclamation and the repayment contract incorporated 

their value and the costs of construction. This title transfer will 

3

give the district more local control of buildings for their use and 

eliminate duplicative administrative obligations for the district. 

Turning to S. 2129, Reclamation also supports this legislation, 

which would authorize the Secretary to convey facilities and lands 

of the Gooding Division of the Minidoka Project in Idaho to the 

American Falls Reservoir District No. 2. The primary feature of the 

proposed transfer is the Milner-Gooding Canal. Reclamation and 

the district have collaborated to enter into a transfer agreement, 

and have also worked with the bill sponsors on the legislation 

under consideration today. 

This title transfer will eliminate periodic facilities reviews and 

paperwork that currently requires significant staff time. In addition, Reclamation can improve public management of remaining 

properties by transferring specific parcels to other governmental 

units. 

S. 2470 would authorize early repayment to Reclamation for 

works within the Minidoka Project’s A&B Irrigation Districts in 

Idaho. Reclamation supports this bill with some minor modifications. 

The A&B Irrigation District is the only district in the Minidoka 

Project that remains subject to the acreage limitation provisions of 

the Federal Reclamation law. In order to provide consistency for 

the landowners in the A&B Irrigation District, we support 

S. 2470’s approach to allow early repayment. However, we recommend that the bill be amended in order to ensure consistency for 

all landowners within the project. There’s Reclamation’s policy to 

require landowners who want to pay early to pay out all their land 

in the subject district, and not just a portion of their land. This 

concept is included in the recently enacted Southern Oregon Bureau of Reclamation Repayment Act of 2005, which provided early 

payout authority for two districts in Oregon. 

As currently written in S. 2470, it can be interpreted to provide 

the opportunity for landowners to pay out either all of their land 

or only a portion of that land. The latter is a benefit that other 

landowners do not enjoy and would inject inconsistency into the administration of the acreage limitation provisions. We believe our 

concerns can be addressed with a simple revision to S. 2470, and 

we stand ready to provide revised language. 

S. 2502 will resolve limitations on the North Unit Irrigation District’s contract with the Deschutes Project, enabling the district to 

be—to more efficiently manage its water supplies. Because Congress approved the district’s contract, and contracts which are beyond the scope of the contracting officer’s authority must also be 

approved by Congress. In order for the district to be eligible for 

State-financed water conservation funds, Oregon law requires districts to dedicate a portion of conserved water to in-stream flows. 

Currently, the project authorization and the district’s contract do 

not allow it to dedicate water to in-stream uses. The district has 

self-financed over $8 million of these conservation activities and 

would like to be eligible for the State program. S. 2502 amends a 

district contract to make this possible. The bill would also allow the 

district to deliver the Deschutes Project water to families who are 

irrigating approximately 9,000 acres of land in the district with 

non-project water diverted by the district’s Crooked River pumping 

4

plant. These lands exceed the current contract ceiling of the 49,818 

acres that are within the district’s boundary and have pertinent 

water rights issued by the State. Using the Deschutes Project 

water on these lands will allow the district to devote less Crooked 

River water and leave more water in-stream. Reclamation supports 

this bill. 

S. 3404 recognizes the Mni Wiconi Rural Water System by—reauthorizes the Mni Wiconi Rural Water System by extending the 

sunset for completion of project construction from 2008, as currently authorized, until 2012. With construction expected to be 

nearly 70 percent complete by the end of the fiscal year 2006, we 

are committed to completing project construction in a timely manner. However, given the amount of work yet to be completed, we 

believe a more appropriate extension date would be 2013, and we 

recommend that the bill be amended accordingly. We support the 

legislation to extend the sunset date, and look forward to working 

with the sponsors and the committee to address these issues. 

Turning to H.R. 2383, Reclamation is neutral on the proposed 

bill to rename the Tracy Pumping Plant to the C.W. ‘‘Bill’’ Jones 

Pumping Plant. However, Mr. Jones’ contribution to Central Valley 

agriculture are well known. We believe that Mr. Jones contributed 

greatly to the building of common understanding between Reclamation and its customers. 

Finally, the Department also supports H.R. 4204, which would 

build and transfer ownership of the American River Pump Station 

Project to the Placer County Water Agency—PCWA—upon completion of construction. PCWA constructed a permanent pumping 

plant on the north fork of the American River in the late 1960’s. 

In 1967, Reclamation initiated construction of Auburn Dam, which 

was halted in 1975. Reclamation removed the PCWA Pumping 

Plant, located upstream of the proposed dam site, at the beginning 

of construction. The agreement between Reclamation and PCWA 

obligated Reclamation to deliver 25,000 acre-feet of water per year 

to PCWA until Auburn Dam was completed, at which time PCWA 

would divert all of its water from the reservoir. 

We currently install a temporary pump station every April and 

remove it in November because of high winter flows that typically 

inundate the site. Because of urbanization in Placer County, PCWA 

will soon require year-round access to its full water supply from 

the Middle Fork Project. Demands substantially exceed the capacity of the temporary facility and configuring the pump station each 

year is becoming increasingly costly. 

In 2003, Reclamation and PWCA entered into a cost-share agreement for the construction of a permanent pumping plant, and 

under the agreement, PCWA will pay all costs for a permanent 

pumping plant that provides for delivery of water at a capacity 

greater than Reclamation’s obligations, and the title will be transferred to PCWA upon completion of the permanent pumping plant, 

scheduled for 2008. Legislation is necessary to complete the title 

transfer, and we support its passage. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today, and I’m 

pleased to answer any questions the subcommittee may have on 

any bills. 

[The prepared statements of Mr. Rinne follow:]

5

PREPARED STATEMENTS OF WILLIAM E. RINNE, ACTING COMMISSIONER,

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION

S. 1965

Madam Chairwoman, members of the Subcommittee, I am Bill Rinne, Acting 

Commissioner of Reclamation for the Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased to provide the Department of the Interior’s views on S. 1965, legislation to authorize the 

Secretary of the Interior to convey certain buildings and lands of the Yakima Project 

in Washington to the Yakima-Tieton Irrigation District. We support this legislation 

and thank the committee for considering it today. 

The transfer proposed in S. 1965 is the culmination of a collaborative and cooperative process and should be a model for other districts and groups interested in title 

transfer. 

What we experienced in this case, and what has made other title transfers successful, is that Reclamation and the non-Federal entities interested in title transfer 

followed a simple plan—identifying obstacles and dealing with them at the local or 

regional level before drafting legislation. 

S. 1965 would authorize the title transfer of federally owned buildings and lands 

to the Yakima-Tieton Irrigation District. Reclamation and the Yakima-Tieton Irrigation District have worked collaboratively and efficiently to lay the groundwork for 

this title transfer. Thanks to the cooperative efforts of the District, the process has 

successfully addressed all the elements of Reclamation’s policy framework that 

guides our title transfers. 

One of the Administration’s goals in title transfer is to protect the financial interest of the United States, that is, to make sure that the United States is no worse 

off financially following title transfer. In this case, the full costs of the lands, buildings and facilities to be transferred have already been repaid pursuant to the district’s original repayment contract. All the lands to be transferred under this legislation were acquired by Reclamation when the project was built. Thus the original repayment contract incorporated their value together with the costs associated with 

the construction of the facilities and buildings. There are no ongoing revenue 

streams associated with these lands and facilities, and the value of all the assets 

has been repaid. The district has fulfilled its repayment obligation under the contract and thus no payment is required. 

On December 6, 2004, Reclamation and the District entered into a title transfer 

agreement for the federally owned facilities (Contract No. 5-07-10-L1658) which 

spells out the terms and conditions for this title transfer and which is the basis for 

the transfer of the facilities in the legislation. Subsequently, Reclamation worked 

with the District and with Representative Hastings and Senator Cantwell on how 

to structure the legislation to authorize the implementation of the title transfer 

agreement. 

We believe that this title transfer will give the District more local control of buildings that were constructed for their use. It will also eliminate the need for duplicative and unnecessary administrative obligations that exist for the District based on 

the fact that title to the buildings and associated properties is held by the United 

States. For example, the District currently has to seek approval for utility work, 

building improvements, and similar activities by virtue of the fact that the buildings 

and properties are Federally owned. 

For Reclamation, the title transfer will obviate the periodic facility reviews and 

processing of paperwork that currently consumes significant staff time. 

In summary, we support passage of S. 1965. It is a good bill, a good title transfer, 

and reflects a cooperative and cost effective process that will provide a benefit to 

the District and to Reclamation. 

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

S. 2129

Madam Chairwoman and members of the Subcommittee, I am Bill Rinne, Acting 

Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased to provide the Department of the Interior’s views on S. 2129, legislation to authorize the Secretary of the 

Interior to convey certain facilities, buildings and lands of the Gooding Division of 

the Minidoka Project in Idaho to the American Falls Reservoir District #2. We support this legislation and thank the committee for considering it today. 

The transfer proposed in S. 2129 is the culmination of a collaborative and cooperative process and should be a model for other districts and groups interested in title 

transfer. What we experienced in this case, and what has made other title transfers 

successful, is that Reclamation and the non-Federal entities interested in title transVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Nov 27, 2006 Jkt 109677 PO 30834 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\30834.TXT SENERGY2 PsN: PAULM
6

fer followed a simple plan—identifying obstacles and dealing with them at the local 

or regional. level before drafting legislation. 

S. 2129 would authorize the title transfer of federally owned facilities, buildings, 

and lands to the American Falls Reservoir District #2. The primary feature of the 

proposed title transfer is the Milner-Gooding Canal. Reclamation and the American 

Falls Reservoir District #2 have worked collaboratively and efficiently to successfully address all the elements of Reclamation’s title transfer policy framework. 

One of the Administration’s goals in title transfer is to protect the financial interest of the United States, that is, to make sure that the United States is in the same 

or better financial position following title transfer. In this case, the full costs of all 

facilities, buildings, and acquired lands to be transferred, including the MilnerGooding Canal, have already been repaid pursuant to the District’s amendatory repayment contract. The District has also identified some withdrawn lands for which 

they would like to gain title and have agreed to pay the fair market appraised value 

for these lands. There are no ongoing revenue streams associated with the facilities, 

buildings, and lands. Because the District has fulfilled its repayment obligation 

under its contract, payment is required only for the additional withdrawn lands that 

the District has proposed for title transfer. 

On October 3, 2005, Reclamation and the District entered into a title transfer 

agreement for the federally owned facilities (Contract No. 5-07-10-L1688) that spells 

out the terms and conditions for this title transfer and that is the basis for the 

transfer of the facilities in the legislation. Subsequently, Reclamation worked with 

the District and the bill sponsors regarding how to structure the legislation to authorize the implementation of the title transfer agreement. 

We believe that this title transfer will give the District more local control of facilities that were constructed for its use. The bill will also eliminate the need for duplicative and unnecessary administrative obligations that exist for the District because 

title to the facilities, buildings, and lands is held by the United States. For example, 

the District currently has to seek approval from Reclamation for certain canal maintenance, utility work, and building improvement. 

For Reclamation, the title transfer will eliminate the periodic facility reviews and 

processing of paperwork that currently consumes significant staff time. In addition, 

with the proposed transfer of the Milner-Gooding Canal and other Gooding Division 

facilities to the District, Reclamation can improve public management of remaining 

dispersed properties by transferring specific parcels to other governmental agencies. 

Accordingly, the legislation directs Reclamation to transfer title for specific smaller 

parcels to the National Park Service, the State of Idaho, and the City of Gooding, 

since those entities currently manage the relevant lands. Regarding the transfer of 

39.72 acres of land to the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, we note that existing law codified at 16 U.S.C. 667b authorizes the General Services Administration 

to transfer land to States for conservation purposes. This authority has been used 

to transfer other Federal lands to State ownership. 

The title transfer also involves Reclamation relinquishing title for withdrawn 

lands to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). These associated transfers will 

place those properties more directly under the administrative control of the appropriate governmental entities and will allow Reclamation to better focus on its core 

mission of delivering water and power. Further, Reclamation has worked closely 

with the National Park Service, the State of Idaho, the City of Gooding, and the 

BLM to craft the language that appears in the transfer agreement. We look forward 

to continuing those close and cooperative relationships once this legislation has been 

adopted to implement the agreement in a timely manner. 

In summary, we support passage of S. 2129. It is a good bill, a good title transfer, 

and reflects a cooperative and cost effective process that will provide a benefit to 

the District and to Reclamation. 

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

S. 2470

Madam Chairwoman and members of the Subcommittee, I am Bill Rinne, Acting 

Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. Thank you for the opportunity to provide the Administration’s views on S. 2470, the Southern Idaho Bureau of Reclamation Repayment Act. The bill, which we support with some modifications, would authorize early repayment of obligations to the Bureau of Reclamation within the A&B 

Irrigation District of Idaho. 

The A&B Irrigation District is the only district in the Minidoka Project that remains subject to the acreage limitation provisions of Federal reclamation law. Under 

section 213 of the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 (RRA), early repayment of a district’s construction costs is prohibited unless the district’s repayment contract with 

7

Reclamation included a provision allowing for early repayment when the RRA was 

enacted. 

At one time, over 50 districts in the Minidoka Project were subject to the acreage 

limitation provisions and many of those districts had an early repayment provision 

in their contracts. In order to provide consistency for the landowners in the remaining district, we support S. 2470’s approach to allow early repayment in A&B Irrigation District. However, we recommend that the bill be amended in order to ensure 

consistency for all landowners within the project. 

In general, early repayment authority in contracts is limited to landowners. In 

other words, a district cannot pay out early; rather, each landowner can decide if 

his or her land should be paid out early. It is Reclamation policy to require landowners who want to pay early to pay out all of their land in the subject district and 

not just a portion of their land. This concept was included in the recently enacted 

‘‘Southern Oregon Bureau of Reclamation Repayment Act of 2005,’’ which provided 

early payout authority for two districts in Oregon (Public Law 109-138). 

As currently written, S. 2470 can be interpreted to provide the opportunity for 

landowners to pay out either all of their land in A&B Irrigation District or a portion 

of that land. The latter is a benefit that other landowners who are subject to the 

acreage limitation provisions simply do not enjoy and would inject inconsistency into 

the administration of the acreage limitation provisions. Early payout would accelerate the repayment of these project costs to the United States Treasury. Where 

these repayment obligations are not accompanied by interest, early repayment has 

a net positive impact on overall repayment to the Treasury and we are highly confident that this will be the case under this bill. However, we should note that a 

small number of landowners hold in excess of 960 acres and therefore pay full cost. 

Since full cost has an interest component, if these landowners opt to pay out early, 

this could result in slightly lower repayment from those landowners. 

We believe our concerns can be addressed with a simple revision to S. 2470 and 

we stand ready to provide revised language. This concludes my testimony and I 

would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. 

S. 2502

Madam Chairwoman and members of the Subcommittee, I am William Rinne, 

Acting Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. Thank you for the opportunity 

to testify on S 2502. The Department supports S 2502. 

The North Unit Irrigation District receives water from the Bureau of Reclamation’s Deschutes Project and the District’s privately developed Crooked River pumping plant in Oregon. Over 900 small farm and ranch families in Oregon’s Deschutes 

Basin rely upon the District for the delivery of irrigation water. Since the District’s 

formation a century ago, these families have shifted from dryland wheat to alfalfa 

hay, grass seed, garlic seed, and carrot seed, as well as raising cattle, sheep, horses, 

and other livestock. 

In the mid-1950s, Reclamation and the District renegotiated the District’s repayment contract in accordance with section 7, subsection (a), of the Reclamation 

Project Act of 1939. Pursuant to the Act of August 10, 1954, Congress approved the 

contract along with an authorization for the construction of Haystack Dam and regulating reservoir. The contract established the maximum irrigable acreage that can 

receive Reclamation project water at 49,818 acres. 

S. 2502 will resolve several limitations in the District’s contract, enabling the District to more efficiently manage its water supplies. Because Congress approved the 

District’s contract, changes to the contract which are beyond the scope of the Contracting Officer’s authority must also be approved by Congress. 

Oregon law requires irrigation districts that participate in a publicly financed 

‘‘conserved water project’’ to dedicate a portion of conserved water resulting from the 

project to instream flows for fish, wildlife or other purposes (ORS 537.455 et seq.). 

The District has self financed over $8 million in conservation activities, and would 

like to consider participation in a publicly financed program. Unfortunately, the underlying Project authorization and the District’s contract do not allow it to dedicate 

water to instream uses. S. 2502 amends the District’s contract so the District can 

comply with State law if it chooses to participate in a conserved water project. 

A related change to the District’s contract would allow the District to deliver 

Deschutes Project water to families who are irrigating approximately 9,000 acres of 

land in the District with non-project water diverted by the District’s Crooked River 

pumping plant. All of these lands are within the District’s present boundary, have 

been irrigated for decades, and have appurtenant water rights issued by the State, 

but they exceed the current contract’s ceiling of approximately 49,818 acres. Using 

8

Deschutes Project water on these lands will allow the District to divert less Crooked 

River water and leave more water instream. 

S. 2502 will benefit fish and wildlife by enabling the District to use less water 

from the Crooked River, and participate in State conserved water projects that return a portion of the conserved water to the Deschutes River. The United States 

would also realize financial benefits in the form of accelerated repayment of Project 

construction costs through the annual participation of an additional 9,000 acres in 

Project repayment. The District’s current contract is based on a variable repayment 

plan, which means that rather than paying fixed annual installments, the District’s 

annual payments vary based on factors such as crop production. Thus it is difficult 

or impossible to predict when the District would pay out its contract if this bill is 

not enacted. This legislation not only increases the number of acres in Project repayment, but also requires the District to pay its remaining obligation of $6,649,371 

in fixed annual installments. 

The Administration also supports the language that this bill inserts at the end 

of the bill, in section 4 to be inserted into the underlying act. This provision gives 

the Secretary the authority to renegotiate this contract upon mutually agreeable 

terms without having to have Congress approve of changes agreed upon between the 

District and the Secretary. This provision reflects the general rule that repayment 

contracts do not require Congressional approval. 

The legislation is specific to the District; it would not affect any other district in 

the Deschutes Project, their patrons, or any others in Oregon. The District will continue to comply with all applicable state and federal laws including the Reclamation 

Reform Act of 1982. 

On behalf of the Department, I would like to compliment the District on its 

proactive approach to addressing the water management issues it is facing, as well 

as obtaining the support of other interested parties in the local community. We are 

pleased to support this legislation. 

I am happy to respond to any questions. 

S. 3404

Madam Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am Bill Rinne, Acting 

Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on S. 3404. 

S. 3404 reauthorizes the Mni Wiconi Rural Water System by amending Section 

10(a) of the Mni Wiconi Project Act of 1988. Specifically, S. 3404 extends the sunset 

date for the completion of project construction from 2008, as currently authorized, 

until 2012. Reclamation supports the need for this amendment, but would prefer 

that the sunset be extended through the end of 2013. 

Reclamation is committed to completing project construction in a timely manner, 

and should be nearing 70% completion by the end of fiscal year 2006. Reclamation 

is supportive of extending the authorization for the project. However, given the 

amount of remaining construction work needing to take place prior to full completion, Reclamation feels a more appropriate date for extending the authorization 

would be 2013. Consequently, Reclamation would ask that the sponsors and the 

committee consider extending the sunset date through 2013 rather than 2012 as 

currently proposed. 

We support the amendment to extend the sunset date for completing construction 

of the Mni Wiconi Project and look forward to working with the sponsors and the 

Committee to address issues concerning the appropriate length for extending the authorization. 

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

H.R. 2383

Madam Chairwoman, and members of the Subcommittee, my name is Bill Rinne, 

Acting Commissioner for the Bureau of Reclamation. I appreciate the opportunity 

to appear before you today to discuss the proposed name change for the Tracy 

Pumping Plant in Byron, California, to the ‘‘C.W. ‘Bill’ Jones Pumping Plant.’’

As you know, Reclamation’s Mid-Pacific Region operates the Central Valley 

Project (CVP)—the Nation’s largest water delivery project. The CVP is a system of 

20 dams and reservoirs, 500 miles of major canals, power plants, and other facilities 

located mainly in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys of California. The CVP 

develops or manages about 9 million acre-feet of water and delivers about 7 million 

acre-feet for urban, industrial, agricultural, and environmental uses annually; produces electrical power; and provides flood protection, water for navigation, fish and 

wildlife, recreation and water quality benefits. 

9

A major facility of the CVP is the Tracy Pumping Plant in the southern portion 

of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. The function of the pumping plant is 

to move water into the Delta-Mendota Canal. Up to approximately 2.5 million acrefeet of water is delivered to highly productive agricultural lands in the Central Valley annually. 

The San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority has had responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the Tracy Pumping Plant since 1993 through various 

agreements with Reclamation. 

Mr. Jones served as the Chairman of the San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority. He had a career that spanned more than 40 years in the water industry, 

and was instrumental in promoting the need for a reliable water supply to keep 

Central Valley agriculture economically viable for the state of California. 

While Reclamation remains neutral on the proposal to change the name of the 

Tracy Pumping Plant to the ‘‘C.W. ‘Bill’ Jones’’ Pumping Plant,’’ Mr. Jones’ contribution to the Central Valley’s agricultural viability through his leadership of the 

Water Authority and his numerous other contributions to the water industry in the 

Central Valley are recognized by the Department and are well known. In addition, 

Mr. Jones contributed greatly to the building of common understanding between 

Reclamation and its customers. 

That concludes my testimony and I would be happy to answer any questions you 

might have. 

H.R. 4204

Madam Chairwoman and members of the Subcommittee, I am Bill Rinne, Acting 

Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. The Department supports H.R. 4204, a bill to transfer ownership of the American River Pump Station Project to Placer County Water Agency 

(PCWA) upon completion of construction. 

The American River Pump Station replaces a permanent pumping plant constructed by PCWA in the late 1960’s on the North Fork of the American River. The 

principal function of the original pumping plant was to convey water supply from 

PCWA’s Middle Fork Project to the Auburn Ravine Tunnel for use in Placer County, 

California. 

Reclamation initiated construction of Auburn Dam in 1967. Construction of the 

dam was authorized by the Act of September 2, 1965 (P.L. 89-161, 79 Stat. 615). 

At the time construction of the dam was beginning, PCWA maintained a pumping 

station just upstream from the proposed dam site. The pumping station could not 

remain in place during construction of the Auburn Dam. 

In lieu of condemnation by the United States, PCWA entered into a Land Purchase Agreement with Reclamation in 1972, transferring PCWA’s land and facilities 

in the American River canyon to the United States, but not their water rights. The 

Land Purchase Agreement obligated Reclamation to deliver 25,000 acre-feet of Middle Fork Project water annually to PCWA until Auburn Dam was completed, at 

which time PCWA would divert all their water from the reservoir. To fulfill this obligation under terms of the Land Purchase Agreement, every year since 1972 Reclamation has installed a temporary pump station each April. The temporary facility 

remains in service until November when it is removed because of high winter flows 

that typically inundate the site. 

Construction of Auburn Dam was halted in 1975 and has yet to be resumed. In 

the interim, Placer County has become increasingly urbanized. Consequently, 

PCWA will soon require year-round access to its full water supply from the Middle 

Fork Project. This demand substantially exceeds the capacity of the temporary facility. In addition, installation and removal of the temporary pump station each year 

is becoming increasingly costly. 

Considering the circumstances, Reclamation and PCWA determined that a new 

permanent pumping plant was the best long-term solution for providing PCWA access to its water. PCWA further determined that it had needs for a higher-capacity 

pump than Reclamation would be obligated to provide. In 2003, Reclamation and 

PCWA entered into a cost-share agreement for the construction of a permanent 

pumping plant which stipulates that PCWA will pay all incremental costs of materials and construction necessary to enable the pumping plant to deliver water above 

the capacity negotiated to meet Reclamation’s obligations to PCWA and that title 

will be transferred to PCWA upon completion of the permanent pumping plant, currently scheduled for 2008. The title transfer is contingent upon statutory authority, 

as provided in H.R. 4204. 

H.R. 4204 would not impact other Central Valley Project (CVP) water or power 

contractors. The completed project will not be operationally or financially integrated 

10

with the CVP, nor will it provide benefits to other CVP water and power contractors. Georgetown Divide Public Utility District could potentially access water 

through agreements with PCWA. Total costs for the completed project are projected 

to be approximately $55 million, and the cost share agreement provides that the 

Federal share for construction is approximately 70 percent. Although the payment 

of fair market value is normally a requirement for transfer of facilities from Federal 

ownership, given the circumstance that Reclamation is responsible for the destruction of PCWA’s original pumping plant and obligated to provide equivalent water 

deliveries, and the expense of annually installing annual pump stations, the cost 

share agreement protects the interest of taxpayers in this case. Transferring title 

will also relieve the Federal Government of the obligations and liabilities of operating and maintaining the facility. 

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

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Rinne. 

Mr. PELTIER.

STATEMENT OF JASON PELTIER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR WATER AND SCIENCE, DEPARTMENT OF THE 

INTERIOR 

Mr. PELTIER. Thank you. My name is Jason Peltier. I’m Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Water and Science, and it’s my pleasure to 

be here to testify in support of S. 1812, introduced by Senator 

Hatch. 

It’s a rather simple bill. It will simply add Juab County, in Utah, 

to the list of preexisting counties which were eligible to participate 

in conjunctive water programs. It makes all the sense in the world 

for Juab County to have the access to this program that the other 

counties do. They have some creative ideas, they have some needs, 

and we’re pleased to support the bill. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Peltier follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JASON PELTIER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR

WATER AND SCIENCE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ON S. 1812

Madam Chairwoman and members of the Subcommittee, my name is Jason 

Peltier. I am a Deputy Assistant Secretary for Water and Science in the Department 

of the Interior. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to express the Administration’s support for S. 1812, which would amend the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992, or more specifically the Central Utah 

Project Completion Act. The proposed legislation would provide the opportunity for 

conjunctive use of surface and groundwater in Juab County, Utah. 

The Central Utah Project Completion Act provides for the completion of the construction of the Central Utah Project by the Central Utah Water Conservancy District. The Act also authorizes programs for fish, wildlife, and recreation mitigation 

and conservation; establishes an account in the Treasury for deposit of appropriations and other contributions; establishes the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and 

Conservation Commission to coordinate mitigation and conservation activities; and 

provides for the Ute Indian Water Rights Settlement. 

Section 202(a)(2) of the Central Utah Project Completion Act provides authorization to develop conjunctive use projects involving groundwater recharge, management and conjunctive use of surface water and groundwater in five counties within 

Utah. S. 1812 would allow conjunctive use funds currently restricted for use in Salt 

Lake, Utah, Davis, Wasatch, and Weber counties to also be used in Juab County. 

To date, only one project in Salt Lake County has participated in the conjunctive 

use program, leaving approximately $8.5 million of authorized appropriations for 

the program. No other counties have requested to participate in the conjunctive use 

program. 

The conjunctive use program was originally limited to five counties that had been 

part of the Bureau of Reclamation’s High-Plains States Groundwater Demonstration 

Program. The Central Utah Project (CUP) as it was originally planned would have 

provided Juab County with sufficient water supplies. However, this project has 

evolved over time. Under current plans, CUP water will be used in more populated 

areas of Utah. East Juab County is now planning to meet its water needs without 

11

CUP water, and this bill will provide it with an opportunity to develop needed water 

resources. 

This bill would not increase the level of authorized appropriations for the Central 

Utah Project Completion Act, but would allow Juab County to compete for funds in 

the same way that its five sister counties do today. 

Madam Chairwoman, this bill would allow Juab County to efficiently develop its 

water resources, and the Administration is pleased to support it. This concludes my 

testimony. I am happy to answer any questions.

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you very much. 

Mr. PELTIER. Thank you. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. At this time, I’d ask either Senator Johnson or Senator Smith if you care to comment on either of the—I 

guess any of the legislation we have which have been sponsored by 

Senator Johnson. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TIM JOHNSON, U.S. SENATOR

FROM SOUTH DAKOTA 

Senator JOHNSON. Well, if I may. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

On June 6th, I introduced legislation that extends the project authorization to the Mni Wiconi Rural Water System. Senator John 

Thune joined me in introducing S. 3404. The legislation is necessary because the current authority to appropriate funds from this 

vital world water project expires after 2008. I want to thank the 

Bureau of Reclamation for working with my staff to help us understand how best to complete this vital project. It’s my hope that the 

Congress can act on the legislation this year in order to provide the 

certainty, and continuity, and funding necessary to fulfill the promise of clean and reliable drinking water. 

When the Mni Wiconi Rural Water System is completed, the Bureau of Reclamation, along with the four local South Dakota 

projects’ sponsors, will have constructed one of the largest and 

most ambitious public works projects in the American West, designed to deliver clean drinking water over a vast geographic area. 

Water from the Missouri River will be pumped and transported 

hundreds of miles to serve some of the most impoverished communities in the United States. 

Importantly, the system will serve three Indian reservations: The 

Oglala Sioux tribe, the Lower Brule Sioux tribe, and the Rosebud 

Sioux tribe. The residents of these tribes utilize route-of-entry 

drinking water networks that would be significantly improved with 

new water transmission and distribution systems. The system will 

also serve the West River/Lyman-Jones Rural Water System in 

southwestern South Dakota as well. 

Since the project’s original authorization in 1988, the Congress 

has had to amend the project to expand the service territory, and 

increase authorized project cost. S. 3404 does not change the service territory or increase the cost authorization to the project, but 

simply provides for the necessary authority to expend funds for the 

project past fiscal year 2008. 

After 12 years of construction activities, the project is now 70 

percent complete, but important aspects of the project remain unfinished. Mni Wiconi is roughly translated to mean ‘‘Water is life’’. 

Certainly, in the West and on the prairies of South Dakota, the 

ability to secure clean and reliable water supplies is critical for 

12

public health, economic development, and the lives of our communities. 

S. 3404 will provide for the full completion of the project, and I 

appreciate the Committee’s favorable consideration of the legislation. I also appreciate the observation that we will work with the 

bill relative to what final date that is. The bill provides for 2012, 

and a suggestion is that 2013 might be the more appropriate number, but we will be in conversation about that, and if there are adjustments, we will be open to making that happen. 

But the remaining portion of the Mni Wiconi Water Project that 

remains to be constructed is the portion that goes into the Pine 

Ridge Indian Reservation of the Oglala Sioux. There are other 

areas in which the construction will take place as well, but this is 

principally what remains to be done. 

And this is truly among the poorest of the poor in America. I’ve 

been to the Pine Ridge repeatedly. I’ve seen the multiple families 

living in the same shack, with a garbage barrel out at the end of 

the gravel road where the tribe occasionally comes by and fills it 

with water. But no electricity, no drinking water, and no paved 

roads. Sub-par housing is characteristic of the lives of a great many 

people in this part of the country. This is truly a Third World situation and it exists right here in the United States, in my home 

State of South Dakota. So it’s my hope that while the annual funding, because of the limited allocations we’ve had, has forced us to 

stretch out this project more than we’d like, I hope that we can reauthorize the timeframe on this to allow us to finally get this water 

to the people who need it in such desperate fashion. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Senator Johnson. 

Senator SMITH.

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

FROM OREGON 

Senator SMITH. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

I appreciate you holding this hearing today on several bills. One 

of the bills is S. 2502. I appreciate the administration’s support of 

the bill. It’s legislation that I’ve sponsored with my colleague, Senator Wyden. It will provide a win-win for the environment, and for 

farmers and ranchers who receive their irrigation water from the 

North Unit Irrigation District in central Oregon. 

Companion legislation introduced in the House by Congressman 

Greg Walden has also been reported out of the House Resources 

Committee. I’d like to put in the record the balance of my statement, and also ask that there be included the testimony of Richard 

Macy regarding this bill, S. 2502. It explains it in full and will 

help complement the record of this hearing. 

[The prepared statements of Senator Smith and Mr. Macy follow:]

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

ON S. 2502

Madam Chairman, I appreciate your holding this legislative hearing today on several bills pending before the subcommittee. One of the bills, S. 2502, is legislation 

I have sponsored that will provide a win-win for the environment and for the farmers and ranchers who receive their irrigation water from the North Unit Irrigation 

13

District in central Oregon. My colleague, Senator Ron Wyden, joins me in cosponsoring this bill. Companion legislation, introduced in the House by Congressman 

Greg Walden, has been reported out of the House Resources Committee. I would like 

to submit, for the record, written testimony from Richard Macy, the chairman of the 

North Unit Irrigation District. 

This legislation represents an opportunity to benefit nearly nine hundred farm 

and ranch families, as well as the fish and wildlife resources of the Deschutes and 

Crooked Rivers. It will do so by removing a limitation in North Unit’s federal water 

contract with the Bureau of Reclamation. This limitation prevents the District and 

its patrons from participating in a conserved water project pursuant to the laws of 

the State of Oregon. 

Removing this contract restriction will enable North Unit to conserve its water 

supplies further through the implementation of conserved water projects. In order 

to comply with state law, the District would return a specific percentage of the ‘‘conserved’’ water back to the Deschutes River permanently as instream flows for fish, 

wildlife, or other purposes. A related change would enable the District to use 

Deschutes Project water on acreage in its service area that is currently irrigated 

with Crooked River water. The savings from these two changes could ultimately 

allow the District to reduce its reliance on its privately developed Crooked River 

supplies. 

Located in central Oregon’s Deschutes Basin, the farm and ranch families of the 

North Unit Irrigation District are the embodiment of the federal Reclamation program. Working small and medium parcels of land, they raise grass seed, carrot seed, 

and alfalfa hay, as well as cattle, sheep, and horses. The overriding limitation to 

their ability to compete successfully in the International marketplace is a shortage 

or water. For these families, conservation is the most efficient means to alleviate 

their shortage and succeed in the market. 

After self-financing over eight million dollars in canal lining and other measures 

to increase the efficiency of their limited water supplies, North Unit would like to 

participate in a state water conservation program. Unfortunately, the District’s federal contract prevents it from doing so. This point has been confirmed to me by officials with the Bureau of Reclamation, an agency of the Department of the Interior. 

Therefore, North Unit’s contract must be amended. Since Congress actually legislatively executed the District’s contract in a 1954 statute, it is Congress, and not the 

Department of the Interior, that must remove this contract restriction. 

These targeted contract changes are specific to the North Unit Irrigation District’s 

contract. For the landowners served by the District, these changes will enable them 

to use their water resources more efficiently, maintain their competitiveness in the 

market, and benefit the fish and wildlife resources of both the Deschutes and Crooked Rivers. Our efforts are supported by the Oregon Water Resources Department, 

which has jurisdiction over state water rights issues. 

I look forward to hearing from the witnesses here today. I also look forward to 

working with the Chairman to enact S. 2502 in the near future. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RICHARD MACY, CHAIRMAN, NORTH UNIT IRRIGATION

DISTRICT, MADRAS, OR, ON S. 2502

INTRODUCTION

Madam Chairwoman, Senator Smith, Senator Wyden, and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for scheduling today’s hearing on S. 2502, the North Unit Irrigation District Act of 2006. I am pleased to submit this written testimony in support 

of this legislation, and I respectfully request it be included in the hearing record. 

The enactment of S. 2502 will benefit nearly 900 farm and ranch families in our 

District, as well as the fish and wildlife resources of the Deschutes and Crooked Rivers. The legislation will provide these benefits by amending North Unit’s amendatory repayment contract with the United States. The contract prevents the District 

from participating in conserved water projects pursuant to Oregon State law and 

further prevents the District from providing Deschutes Project water to a limited 

amount of land within the present District boundary. Our contract, which has 

served North Unit and the United States relatively well for fifty years, today has 

the unintended effect of restricting the District’s ability to conserve water and reduce its reliance on the Crooked River. 

Background and History 

Located in Oregon’s Deschutes Basin, the North Unit Irrigation District lies 

southeast of Mt. Hood. It is east of the Deschutes River and north of the Crooked 

River, and surrounds the cities of Madras, Culver, and Metolius. The District was 

14

first established in 1916 as the Jefferson Water Conservancy District, and later became the North Unit Irrigation District. Like other irrigation districts in Central 

Oregon, North Unit was formed to address the serious water shortages confronting 

individual farmers and ranchers around the turn of the century. 

North Unit receives its irrigation water from the Deschutes River (through storage facilities) and Crooked Rivers (through diversion facilities). This water is conveyed through federal facilities that comprise part of the Deschutes Project. The 

District has an amendatory repayment contract with the Bureau of Reclamation 

(Reclamation) for its Deschutes Project supplies. Based upon its 1913 Deschutes 

River water rights, the District is entitled to approximately 406,000 acre-feet of 

water, when such water is available. In 1955, the District obtained Crooked River 

water rights to supplement those acres irrigated under the District’s Deschutes 

River water right. In 1968, the District developed additional water rights to irrigate 

certain lands, referred to as the Crooked River lands. The Crooked River lands are 

covered by State of Oregon Water Right Certificates (Certificate Nos. 72283 and 

72284). With these two Crooked River water rights, the District is entitled to a 200 

cubic feet per second (cfs) right during the irrigation season; in the past decade, the 

District has annually diverted an average of 23,000 acre-feet from the Crooked 

River. 

Despite these water rights and supplemental supplies, the District’s water shortage continues to be a problem for the 900 farmers and ranchers who irrigate approximately 59,000 acres. Roughly 9,000 acres of these lands are irrigated primarily 

with our Crooked River supplies. Since the District’s formation nearly a century ago, 

local farmers and ranchers have shifted from primarily dry land wheat to irrigated 

alfalfa hay, carrot seed, garlic seed, and grass seed. They also raise cattle, sheep, 

horses, and other livestock. Because of significant conveyance losses, due to a 26-

mile long section of the main canal that passes through porous, volcanic soils, local 

farmers and ranchers rely on less than 2 acre-feet of water per acre. This amount 

of water is inadequate for agricultural production in today’s competitive international markets. For North Unit, conservation is the most efficient means to alleviate this shortage so our farmers and ranchers can succeed in the market. 

Congressional Authorization 

In the mid-1950s, Reclamation and North Unit renegotiated North Unit’s repayment contract. In 1954, Congress authorized Reclamation to execute the contract, 

and more importantly, Congress actually approved the contract, along with an authorization for the construction of the Haystack Dam and regulating reservoir (Act 

of August 10, 1954, ch. 663, 68 Stat. 679). For nearly 50 years, the contract served 

the United States and the District relatively well. 

Now, after self-financing over $8 million in canal lining and other conservation 

measures, the District would like to participate in a State of Oregon publicly costshared, conserved water project. Unfortunately, North Unit’s contract with the 

United States prevents it from doing so, because it does not allow the District to 

dedicate a portion of the savings to instream use, which is a requirement of State 

law. Importantly, the underlying authorization for the federal Deschutes Project 

also prevents the District from complying with State law. This point was confirmed 

in a January 11, 2006 letter from Reclamation’s Pacific Northwest Regional Director, J. William McDonald, to Senator Gordon Smith, Senator Ron Wyden, and Congressman Greg Walden. 

Accordingly, North Unit’s contract must be amended. Because Congress actually 

authorized the District’s contract, however, Congress must amend our contract to 

remove these limitations. 

Specific Contract Amendments 

S. 2502 proposes several amendments to North Unit’s contract. First, it authorizes 

the District to comply with Oregon law with regard to conserved water projects authorized by State statute. Under Oregon’s conserved water statute, an irrigation district that participates in a conserved water project is required to dedicate a minimum of 25 percent of its ‘‘saved’’ water to instream purposes, such as fish and wildlife. North Unit must comply with these requirements, whether it implements its 

own conserved water project or leases conserved water from another district to serve 

its existing lands. 

Reclamation has stated that North Unit’s contract, and the underlying authorization for the Deschutes Project, do not authorize the District to dedicate water to 

instream flow purposes—even for the purpose of complying with State law governing conserved water projects. A specific amendment to the District’s contract to 

authorize the District to dedicate water to instream flow purposes as required by 

a State conserved water project will remove this limitation. 

15

We understand it may appear easier to authorize Reclamation to renegotiate 

North Unit’s contract. Unfortunately, this will not solve our problem or that of the 

United States because it will not address the restriction in the underlying authorization for the Deschutes Project. North Unit and the United States need legislation 

directly authorizing the District to place water instream in conjunction with a conserved water project consistent with the requirements of Oregon law. This will enable the District to achieve all of the benefits we anticipate additional conservation 

will provide our local economy and environment. 

The second amendment will authorize the District to deliver Deschutes Project 

water to the Crooked River lands. The District’s present contract allows it to deliver 

Deschutes Project water to a maximum of 50,000 acres within the District’s boundary. Approximately 9,000 acres of land, known as the Crooked River lands, are irrigated with Crooked River water supplies through the District’s own diversion facilities, pursuant to existing and valid water rights issued by the State of Oregon. The 

legislation will authorize the District to deliver Deschutes Project water to the 

Crooked River lands, for a total of 59,000 acres, instead of 50,000 acres. All of the 

Crooked River lands are within the District’s existing boundary, have been irrigated 

for decades, and have appurtenant water rights issued by the State of Oregon. 

These changes to North Unit’s contract will not increase the District’s allocation 

of Deschutes Project water. For example, if North Unit were to participate in a 

State of Oregon conserved water project—following the passage of this legislation—

by replacing open canal with pipe, and thereby eliminating 10 cfs of ditch loss, 

North Unit would be required by State law to leave a minimum of 2.5 cfs of this 

10 cfs savings instream. The remaining 7.5 cfs would then be available for irrigation. This 7.5 cfs is not a new or additional allocation. It is water the District is 

entitled and for which the District is paying, but it is losing due to open, unlined 

canals. 

An additional benefit of water conservation in this case is energy conservation. 

If the District were to deliver this 7.5 cfs of conserved Deschutes River water to the 

Crooked River lands (through energy conserving gravity flow distribution), the District would avoid the cost of the electricity normally used to pump this same amount 

of water up from the Crooked River. In essence, the District seeks to replace natural 

flow from the Crooked River that comes with a significant pumping cost with conserved Deschutes Project water that is available without the same pumping costs. 

An additional benefit is that North Unit’s reduced energy consumption would occur 

during peak usage periods. 

The changes to North Unit’s contract only authorize the District to comply with 

State instream flow requirements if it chooses to participate in an Oregon State conserved water project, and to supply Deschutes Project water to all of its lands including the Crooked River lands. North Unit will continue to comply with all applicable state and federal laws, including the Reclamation Reform Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and Endangered Species Act in its pursuit of any given conserved water project. 

Economic and Environmental Benefits 

Amending the District’s contract will result in real benefits to our patrons and the 

environment. District participation in a State conserved water project will improve 

efficiency for local farmers and ranchers, and lead to a dedication of a portion of 

the District’s Deschutes Project water for Deschutes River fisheries. With the passage of this legislation and implementation of a conserved water project, the District 

plans to diminish its use of Crooked River water—leaving more instream for the 

Crooked River’s fisheries resources and recreation purposes. 

These amendments will also benefit the federal government. Under this legislation, the United States has no financial obligations. More importantly the legislation 

will accelerate the District’s repayments to the United States. All of the District’s 

patrons eligible to receive Deschutes Project water will be charged equally for the 

capital repayment portion of North Unit’s obligations for the Deschutes Project. The 

legislation will also increase the District’s annual per acre charge, accelerating its 

capital repayment obligation of approximately $6.6 million. 

The District is pleased that S. 2502 is supported by the State of Oregon’s Water 

Resources Department, Jefferson County Board of Commissioners, Oregon Farm Bureau, Deschutes River Conservancy, Oregon Water Resources Congress, Arnold Irrigation District, Central Oregon Irrigation District, Ochoco Irrigation District, 

Swalley Irrigation District, Three Sisters Irrigation District, and Tumalo Irrigation 

District.

16

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you. And both your testimony and 

that of Mr. Macy will be included as part of the record. Thank you 

for participating this afternoon. 

A couple questions for you this afternoon, gentlemen. 

I appreciate your efforts in explaining in pretty abbreviated detail a number of these measures, Commissioner Rinne. Let’s start 

out with S. 1965. This is the Yakima-Tieton Irrigation District conveyance. In terms of annual cost that could be saved by Reclamation if we’re to enact this legislation, what are we looking at? What 

kind of a savings are anticipated? 

Mr. RINNE. Madam Chairwoman, I don’t actually have the actual——

Senator MURKOWSKI. You can give round figures, certainly. 

Mr. RINNE. I can get back to you. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. OK. That’s fine. 

And then in the same vein, in terms of any administrative obligations that might be reduced if this bill was enacted, do you have 

that information? 

Mr. RINNE. Of what would be reduced? 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Right. 

Mr. RINNE. Yes. There are several things, Madam Chairwoman, 

that I would suggest, right now, the district would have to—whenever they make any changes, there’s always approval through Reclamation, so it kind of works in both ways. It works to reduce the 

Federal burden, but it certainly works in the case of the district. 

So if they want to make changes to building or come in and do 

things like that, they’re going to have to check in with Reclamation. So it just takes out a layer of that kind of that administrative 

duplication which is just not necessary. And I think the fact that 

they are paid out—fully paid out at this time, and all of the construction costs are repaid, and that was figured in to the bill, it’s 

just a real good deal to move ahead that way. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Then we’ll look for information on the cost 

savings. 

With regards to S. 2129—this is the Minidoka Project—you mentioned the title transfer; are there any issues associated with that 

title transfer that this committee should be aware of? Anything 

that would cause the transfer to be held up in any way? Anything 

that we should be aware of? 

Mr. RINNE. Not that I’m aware of, Madam Chairwoman. I mean, 

there’s the normal stuff to work through. I was just trying to think 

here. You know there will be, after the title’s transferred, where 

there’s withdrawn land and Muriel Land Management becomes involved, but those are not—they’re not obstacles and what you just 

process, it has to go through. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. What about any other governmental entities that may be involved with the transfer; are they in agreement 

that this legislation is something that needs to move forward? 

Mr. RINNE. We know of no opposition that would impact that. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. OK. Let’s move to S. 2470. This is the A&B 

Irrigation. You mentioned that the Bureau supports this with some 

minor modifications. I guess the first question would be, why this 

irrigation—why the A&B Irrigation District is the only remaining 

district in the project that’s subject to this acreage limitation? 

17

Mr. RINNE. Why we’re just dealing with this district? 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Right. 

Mr. RINNE. All the other districts in the Minidoka Project have 

either—have been relieved of RIA responsibilities. In other words, 

they’ve been fully paid out, they’ve met the criteria, and they’ve 

had in their contracts—they had the ability within their contract 

to do early payout. And under the Reclamation format, that would 

have not been in this particular A&B District’s contract. So what 

has to happen, if you don’t have that, they can’t do early payout. 

So this would just make an equitable situation. It’s the one remaining unit, it’s the Minidoka Project. So on that particular project, 

the other one’s out, so it allows landowners within that district, 

should they choose to, to go ahead and do an early payout. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. And with this early payout, landowners can 

opt for—does this bring more money to the Treasury? 

Mr. RINNE. If you do an early payout, it does. It can benefit the 

Treasury, because what would happen is, over time, according to 

the contracts, you have interest on top of it. So it can benefit the 

Treasury in that regard. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Good. Let’s see. I don’t really have a question about Senator Smith’s legislation, S. 2502, I wanted to ask 

about the status of the—I’ve been mispronouncing it—it’s Mni 

Wiconi. 

Mr. PELTIER. Wiconi. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Mni Wiconi. Senator Johnson, I think you 

indicated that the project is about 70 percent complete? 

Senator JOHNSON. That is correct. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. That’s kind of where we are with it. And 

then, if we are to move forward with the extension of the sunset 

date, as you have proposed, did I understand correctly that that 

doesn’t increase the authorized appropriations that would be needed for the project? 

Senator JOHNSON. At this time, the feeling is it is adequate at 

this time to complete the project. So it’s our——

Senator MURKOWSKI. Even if we have to bump that date out a 

year or two? 

Senator JOHNSON. Yes, particularly if you moved it. And again, 

as the Senator said, I guess we can talk and decide whether it’s 

2004 over 2013, but if it were to move out a year, we still feel we 

would be OK on that. We are not required authorization to increase 

the ceiling. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. OK. And then the last one, a question for 

you. This is H.R. 4204, the American River Pump Station Project. 

What’s the cost to Reclamation for installing the temporary pump 

station there? 

Senator JOHNSON. The total—well, the temporary station—I may 

have to go back—but I would tell you every year they’re doing it, 

we might be around—I think the last time I looked, maybe it was 

a—roughly like—as I recall, a couple million dollars a year. This 

is on a temporary that we would have as our operating costs. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. And then the permanent pumps then would 

be—that project would be complete in 2008? 

18

Senator JOHNSON. 2008, that’s right. It’s substantially underway, 

and the construction’s been going on. I just spoke with our Regional Director today, and he affirmed again that it’s on schedule. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Good. Good. And then, Mr. Peltier, as it relates to S. 1812, the Juab County Conjunctive Use Projects, why 

do you believe that only one of the five communities participated 

in this conjunctive use project or program? 

Mr. PELTIER. The Central Utah Project was passed in 1992, and 

since then, only Salt Lake County has participated in developing 

a conjunctive use program. My guess is that the other counties primarily focus on surface development of surface water and surface 

water systems and that eventually their needs will turn to ground 

water and conjunctive use projects. So it’s more—I think it’s because they’re viewed more as something in the future. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. OK. But you believe that Juab County will 

need the assistance that’s going to be provided by the bill? 

Mr. PELTIER. Yes. They are interested in pursuing work in part 

because in the early days of the Central Utah Project, it was envisioned that water from the project would flow toward them. Over 

the decades, the view has shifted, so the project is focusing more 

on this for industrial water supplies, and we’ll be north to the more 

urbanized areas. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Do you know what they plan to do with the 

assistance then? 

Mr. PELTIER. I’m sorry. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Do you know what they plan to do with the 

assistance? 

Mr. PELTIER. No, I don’t know the specific project, but development of a conjunctive use project would allow them to operate and 

manage their existing surface water supplies in conjunction with 

the more developed and more managed ground water system. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you. I appreciate it. 

Senator Johnson, if you had questions—and Senator Craig, 

would like to make a comment on your legislation? 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you. Well, I do have some questions, if 

Senator Craig wants to make a——

Senator CRAIG. No, go ahead. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. All right. Well, for Acting Commissioner 

Rinne, relative to S. 1965, your testimony notes Reclamation and 

the Yakima-Tieton Irrigation District entered into a title transfer 

agreement prior to legislation being introduced. The question 

that—and how to ask it, I’m sure Senator Cantwell would have—

do you know how long it took to negotiate the agreement with 

YTID, and what types of issues were addressed and resolved, and 

has this been the model you’d suggest for all title transfers? 

Mr. RINNE. Senator, I think from that standpoint, we feel that 

on the second part—we do think it’s a good model or at least a good 

example of the way we should work through these kinds of title 

transfer agreements. And I think the key reason I say that is, it 

has a very clarity in the sense of both back and forth with the district and Reclamation. So we truly had kind of agreements done up 

front before we then moved forward with the legislation. And I 

think, in the big picture, it probably saved some time and possibly 

saved some costs in that too. 

19

Senator JOHNSON. Well, this legislation states the expectation 

the title transfer will occur within 1 year of enactment of the bill; 

is that a realistic timeframe in your view? 

Mr. RINNE. My understanding is that it is. And I know that 

sometimes in other transfer bills—title transfer bills generally may 

be difficult because of prerequisites and things you have to go 

through. I think that the thought here is that the front work that’s 

been done on this, and in the memorandum agreement that’s between the district and Reclamation, that that’ll help shorten that. 

Some of the times, it stretches the time out, and to meet the compliance—meeting the compliance in this is not a major issue, I 

think. In fact, I think there might be an environmental assessment 

completed on it. So that’s the type of thing that—sometime you 

stretch them out. 

Senator JOHNSON. The transfer in 1965 appears to be relatively 

straightforward, and I guess the question would be, has Reclamation transferred title to any facilities which served multiple entities 

and different purposes, and are such transfers currently being negotiated? 

Mr. RINNE. From memory, I would tell you that I think we have 

probably about 70 title transfers that would have occurred, and we 

have had some that do have—we try to go into ones that make 

sense and you get through. But many of these have had a lot of 

issues with them and a lot of interest and we continue to work. We 

continue to think the title transfers where they make sense to the 

parties or—I’m not saying it happens in all cases. 

Senator JOHNSON. I have a couple questions relative to S. 2129 

and S. 2470, which I’m sure my colleague from Idaho would have 

interest in. 

On S. 2129, the bill involves not only the proposed sale of land 

and improvements to entities in Idaho, but also directs the Bureau 

of Land Management and the National Park Service to assume responsibility for sizable parcels of land. Were those agencies parties 

to the title transfer agreement, and do they support the addition 

of land that will add to the agencies’ management responsibilities? 

Mr. RINNE. It’s my understanding on that, as far as the title 

transfer agreement, they would not be part of the one between us 

and the district. However, the land then that would free us up, enable us to make that available, it will go through the Bureau of 

Land Management, so we can actually do a title transfer to those 

States. I guess it would be Fish and Game and National Park Service intervention. I think what city bidding—I think there’s three of 

them that I am aware of that are involved. 

My understanding is that, for example, the city of Gooding, I 

think they have a site for an airport that they’re interested in. The 

State Fish and Game, they’re already managing this area for wildlife purposes, so it’s consistent with that. And the Park Service, I 

think, is interested in taking the one site, it’s like a 10-acre tract. 

So the answer then would be, yes, I think that in most cases, they 

are. 

Senator JOHNSON. Relative to S. 2129, has there been an estimate to the fair market value of the properties to be conveyed 

under the bill? 

20

Mr. RINNE. If there has, I’m not aware of the value. I can check 

back with you, but I do know that fair market value will be applied, and there’s an agreement that it must be—the lands must 

be conveyed at fair market value. So that part, I confirm to you. 

Whether the estimate had been completed, my sense is that it 

maybe has not. And I’m not saying there hasn’t been some work 

done. We’d be happy to get back to you with that. 

Senator JOHNSON. Relative to S. 2470, which my colleague has 

sponsored, let me ask you, the bill establishes that upon repayment 

of all construction costs allocated to each parcel of land within the 

irrigation district, that those parcels will not be subject to Reclamation law. Is that result unique to this bill or is that the typical effect of satisfying the repayment obligation in the construction cost 

repayment contract? 

Mr. RINNE. That is typical of the Reclamation Reform Act of 

1982. It’s when they are fully paid—when the construction costs 

are fully paid out, then they’re not subject anymore to section 213 

of the Reclamation Reform Act. 

Senator JOHNSON. Let me ask you, relative to my own legislation 

and Senator Thune’s, S. 3404, 2006 appropriations, as well as the 

2007 budget, provide about $23 million for continuing construction 

activity in the Mni Wiconi Project. Does that $23 million represent 

the maximum amount of annual work that Reclamation is capable 

of in constructing the remaining features of the project? And if not, 

what is the maximum extent of Reclamation’s capabilities on an 

annual basis? 

Mr. RINNE. As I think you’re aware, Senator, on that point you 

made, it is completed by contractors, on the West River/LymanJones, and others. Their capability—their current capability, I’m 

not sure whether they could do more or not then about the $23 million. I can tell you from the history, and I’m sure you’re aware of 

this, the million dollar benefit, that’s fairly consistent with about 

where they’ve been over the last few years. That tells me it’s like 

everything else. When there’s a lot of pipe being put in the ground, 

if they can get more contracts in place, possibly there could be 

more capability. 

Senator JOHNSON. I guess that’s where we are because that’s 

how large the appropriations have been. There was a time, a number of years ago, when Mni Wiconi was receiving well over $30 million in construction each and every year. 

Let me ask you, on the 2007 budget, it indicates that the balance to complete the project in 2008 and beyond is $106 million; is that 

$106 million still accurate? And if so, it would appear that Reclamation could complete the project by 2012, assuming that appropriations for construction remains at about the $23 million level; 

is there a particular reason why your testimony suggests 2013? 

Mr. RINNE. I think the numbers are still good and accurate. I 

think our thinking behind the extension is based on the work that’s 

remaining to be done, and it would probably be, in some part, a 

judgment—somewhat of a judgment call. It would just—it’s going 

to take that much time to get through. 

I think what we’re concerned about, Senator, is if it didn’t get 

done, and officially had to be authorized—excuse me—extended to 

2012, and we were not able to get there, we’re trying to make sure 

21

we have just a little cushion, in case, so we wouldn’t have to come 

back and request another extension. So I think it’s close, and that’s 

our best feeling, just being up front, that we think we’re going to 

be there. 

Senator JOHNSON. One last question relative to H.R. 4204: As I 

understand it, this bill would free Reclamation from having to install, operate, and take down a temporary pumping facility each 

year. Do you have an estimate of how much that operation costs 

on an annual basis? 

Mr. RINNE. Well, earlier, when I—Senator, when I was trying to 

respond to the chairwoman, I said I wasn’t exactly sure. But I remember I was looking at some of the budget documents, and I may 

be off on this just a little bit, so I’d like to confirm this. But I’d 

say it is in the area of $2 million, but it might be a little more. 

The reason I say that is I looked at the operating part of it, and 

it may be that it’s a little more than that. But it’s not—it’s not inexpensive. 

Senator JOHNSON. Madam Chairman, thank you. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you. 

Senator CRAIG.

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

FROM IDAHO 

Senator CRAIG. Madam Chairman, thank you very much for convening the hearing of this Subcommittee. 

I’ll speak briefly only to S. 2470 and S. 2129. I appreciate the 

Committee reviewing both of these bills at one time. And Senator 

Johnson has asked a question of S. 2470. In the 1982 Reclamation 

Act, when we increased the acreage limitation to 960 acres in this 

particular project in south-central Idaho, the Minidoka Project, for 

some reason the A&B Irrigation District didn’t fall into it at that 

time. So what is obviously sought is equity for this irrigation district. 

And what oftentimes happens out there, beyond the original owners and the original intent, once the construction costs are paid 

off—you know, it’s happening in your State, and it’s happening in 

mine—that’s consolidation of acreages, and farms get larger instead of smaller. And these acreage limitations, prior to you and 

I coming, got battled out pretty robustly in the 1960’s and into the 

1970’s, because the limitation was substantially less, and there was 

argument that some large operators were operating on, if you will, 

subsidized Federal water. Those differences have been worked out. 

This is simply to bring equity to that irrigation district, as it is 

elsewhere across the Minidoka Project. It is not precedence setting, 

and the commissioner responded to that, as I understand it, appropriately to what the law is currently. We’re just asking that these 

members of this particular district have the same advantage. And 

we also understand there may be the dotting of I’s and crossing of 

T’s. We’ll work closely with the bill to make sure all of that happens appropriately. 

The other one is an interesting anomaly in my State, a World 

War II anomaly, and one that we look back on not with fond memory, and that was the internment of both Japanese and JapaneseAmericans. During World War II, some of those locations were deVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Nov 27, 2006 Jkt 109677 PO 30834 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 P:\DOCS\30834.TXT SENERGY2 PsN: PAULM
22

tention centers. One of these that housed some 13,500 Japanese 

and Japanese-Americans is in that same area, and it was called the 

Minidoka Internment Camp. The bill will convey a small acreage 

to, I understand, the National Park Service so that this can be recognized and sustained as part of our national history. 

That’s what the intent of this is. It makes economic sense to be 

a law, and I think it’s important to the local communities involved. 

So S. 2129 is a conveyance of—do we know the total acreage involved? 

Senator JOHNSON. I think it’s around 10 or less acres. 

Senator CRAIG. I think it’s 10 or less acres, something around 

that nature. And again, we’ll work cooperatively obviously with the 

Bureau to make sure that the appropriate language—that if there’s 

some difference in the language, it is worked out, so that we can 

move these pieces of legislation. 

Madam Chairman, thank you for doing this. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you. 

Senator CRAIG. 10.18 acres. Thank you. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Is that right on? 

Senator CRAIG. Yes. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. OK, any further questions of our witnesses 

on the first group? With that, we thank you very much and appreciate your testimony. 

We’ll call forward our second group of witnesses. We have Mr. 

Rick Dieker, the secretary-manager of the Yakima-Tieton Irrigation 

District in Yakima, WA, and Mr. Einar Maisch, the director of strategic affairs, Placer County Water Agency, out of Auburn, CA. 

Welcome, gentlemen, to the subcommittee. We appreciate you 

traveling all the way from the West Coast to join us on this soggy 

East Coast. You could use a little bit of the water we’ve got here 

back on the coast. 

Gentlemen, you’ve heard the statements from our two previous 

witnesses on the questions. We’d be delighted to entertain your 

statements. 

Mr. Dieker, if you want to proceed. 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD DIEKER, SECRETARY-MANAGER, 

YAKIMA-TIETON IRRIGATION DISTRICT 

[Inaudible. Prepared statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RICHARD DIEKER, SECRETARY-MANAGER, YAKIMA-TIETON

IRRIGATION DISTRICT, ON S. 1965

Good afternoon, my name is Richard Dieker. I am the Secretary-Manager of the 

Yakima-Tieton Irrigation District. I am here today on behalf of the Board of Directors and water users of the Yakima-Tieton Irrigation District to provide background 

and information in support of S. 1965, legislation to authorize the Secretary of the 

Interior to convey certain lands and buildings of the Yakima Project in Washington 

to the Yakima-Tieton Irrigation District. We strongly support this legislation and 

thank the committee for considering it today. 

YAKIMA-TIETON IRRIGATION DISTRICT

The District is located in Central Washington and is part of the Yakima Project. 

The District has a long history of involvement with the United States dating back 

to 1906 when construction began on project facilities. The delivery of irrigation 

water began in 1910. The District assumed operation and maintenance of delivery 

facilities in 1947 and were the first reclamation project to repay our construction 

indebtedness to the United States in that year. In 1988 after completion of a rehaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Nov 27, 2006 Jkt 109677 PO 30834 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\30834.TXT SENERGY2 PsN: PAULM
23

bilitation and betterment project, the District again repaid its obligations to the 

United States. The District delivers water to approximately 28,000 acres. 

S. 1965, THE YAKIMA-TIETON IRRIGATION DISTRICT CONVEYANCE ACT OF 2005

The act would authorize the Secretary of Interior to convey title of federally 

owned lands and buildings to the Yakima-Tieton Irrigation District. The title would 

be conveyed to approximately nine acres of land, two houses and associated structures, the headquarters office building and a warehouse. The houses and property 

are used to accommodate district employees who maintain and inspect delivery facilities. The headquarters office building is the base of operation for the District. On 

November 15, 2005 the House of Representatives approved H.R. 1564 containing the 

same language as S. 1965. This is a great example of the bipartisan support for this 

bill. 

TITLE TRANSFER PROCESS

It has been the desire of the District to obtain title to buildings and lands outlined 

in the legislation and owned by the United States for many years. In 1995 when 

the Bureau of Reclamation policy framework for title transfer began the District 

began to investigate the process to complete title transfer. The Bureau and the District worked cooperatively and successfully to address all of the elements necessary 

to bring this legislation forward. We then worked with Senator Cantwell to introduce the legislation. 

BENEFITS OF THIS TITLE TRANSFER

The title transfer will give the District more local control of buildings which were 

constructed for our use. There will be one less administrative layer caused by the 

United States ownership when changes or improvements of the property and buildings are needed. The Bureau of Reclamation will no longer need to complete periodic 

facility reviews of these transferred buildings and properties. They can direct personnel to more important activities. 

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, I would like to thank several people who have made this transfer 

possible. Within the Bureau of Reclamation I would like to thank former Commissioner Keys for his support as Commissioner and also when he was Regional Director in the Pacific Northwest Region. Next is Mike Reif of the Pacific Northwest Regional Office and Keith Angwin from the Upper Columbia Area Office who worked 

hard to make the process successful. Finally, I would like to thank and acknowledge 

Senator Cantwell and her staff who worked closely with us to move this legislation 

forward. 

In summary, S. 1965 is a good bill, a good title transfer and shows a cooperative 

process of benefit to both Reclamation and the District. I urge the Committee to 

move this legislation forward so that the title transfer process for the District can 

be completed. 

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

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Dieker. 

Mr. Maisch. 

STATEMENT OF EINAR L. MAISCH, DIRECTOR OF STRATEGIC 

AFFAIRS, PLACER COUNTY WATER AGENCY 

[Inaudible. Prepared statement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF EINAR L. MAISCH, DIRECTOR OF STRATEGIC AFFAIRS, 

PLACER COUNTY WATER AGENCY, ON H.R. 4204

INTRODUCTION

Chairman Domenici and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity 

to testify today in strong support of H.R. 4204, a Bill to Direct the Secretary of the 

Interior to transfer ownership of the American River Pump Station Project to the 

Placer County Water Agency upon completion of the project’s construction. 

My name is Einar Maisch and I am the Director of Strategic Affairs for the Placer 

County Water Agency, located in Auburn, California. Placer County ranks as one 

of the fastest growing counties in California and currently the Agency provides 

24

water delivery and power generation to more than 150,000 customers covering an 

area from the Sacramento Valley to Lake Tahoe. 

It is a privilege to be here before you today to support this transfer legislation 

and highlight the positive partnership we have enjoyed with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation on this project. The Agency and the USBR Regional Office in northern 

California have worked very closely over the years on this project and we both enthusiastically support the facilities transfer. 

While many parties brought us here, I would like to single out my Board of Directors, Chairman Alex Ferreira, and Directors Pauline Roccucci, Mike Lee, Lowell Jarvis and Otis Wollan for the leadership and vision they have consistently shown on 

this issue; the indefatigable spirit and drive of our General Manager David 

Breninger; and the hard work of my staff. I also wish to commend Kirk Rodgers, 

Mid Pacific Regional Director, Mike Finnegan Central California Area Manager, and 

their respective teams within the USBR for their cooperation and strong support. 

They are real pros and have been a pleasure to work with on this project. 

And on behalf of our Agency and customers, I would like to share our gratitude 

with our Congressman, John Doolittle, for introducing this legislation and to Senator Diane Feinstein for her continued support for this project and regional water 

solutions in northern California. The Agency and our customers are fortunate indeed to have such representation here in Washington, DC. 

There are three primary points I wish to make in urging your support for this 

transfer:

1. All parties are in agreement. Reclamation is not interested in being in 

the O&M business for a facility that only serves one agency and we feel 

we can better operate the facility to deliver a reliable water supply to our 

customers. The project meets Reclamation’s framework for the transfer of 

title to facilities that can be more effectively and efficiently managed by 

non-federal entities; 

2. Congressional consistency. This transfer is consistent with actions the 

Congress has taken historically in such situations—with the authorization 

of transfers such as Sugar Pine Dam (Foresthill PUD) and Sly Park Reservoir (El Dorado Irrigation District). 

3. Completes a Four Decade Long Cycle. The Placer County Water Agency 

(Agency) constructed a pump station on the American River at Auburn in 

1966 to access its Middle Fork Project water rights. When Congress authorized and appropriated funds for the construction of the Auburn Dam, Reclamation acquired the Agency’s pump station property and removed the 

pump station. In return Reclamation agreed to maintain responsibility to 

provide water to the Agency until such time as the Auburn Dam was completed—pursuant to the 1972 Land Purchase Contract.

A temporary pump station was installed in 1977 by Reclamation to meet the 

Agency water supply needs and then annually since 1990 as Agency water supply 

demands increased. This temporary fix proved to be very costly: it is incapable of 

meeting the Agency’s needs; and, as all parties have agreed, it does not satisfy Reclamation’s responsibilities under the 1972 Land Purchase Contract. 

Working in collaboration, Reclamation and the Agency designed a permanent 

pump station to meet the Agency’s needs and executed Contract No. 02-LC-20-7790 

that details the facilities to be constructed, cost sharing and ownership. The project 

has successfully completed all environmental review requirements and is currently 

under construction. Under this contract Reclamation is obligated to pay the costs 

of replacing the original pump station with a 100 cfs capacity facility as compensation for the land it acquired in 1972 and the pump station the federal government 

first removed, and the Agency is obligated to pay the cost of any over-sizing above 

100 cfs. 

Passage of H.R. 4204 will enable Reclamation to transfer the American River 

Pump Station to the Placer County Water Agency, upon completion and under the 

terms of Contract No. 02-LC-20-7790. 

BACKGROUND

Placer County Water Agency 

Placer County Water Agency (Agency) was created by an act of the California 

State Legislature in 1957. The boundaries of the Agency are coterminous with the 

County of Placer, an area of approximately 1500 square miles that extends roughly 

along the I-80 corridor from Roseville to Lake Tahoe. The Agency is governed by 

an independently elected five member Board of Directors. The Agency is functionally 

25

divided into three business units; those being Agency Wide; Power System and 

Water System. 

The American River Pump Station 

In 1972, under threat of condemnation, the Agency entered into a Land Purchase 

Contract with the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) to convey its property and 

pump station on the American River at Auburn to Reclamation to make way for the 

construction of the Auburn Dam. This contract provides that Reclamation will provide water to the Agency through a temporary pump station, when needed, at a rate 

of 50 cfs and 25,000 acre-feet per year until the Auburn Dam is completed. Construction work on the Auburn Dam was halted in 1975 and never restarted. 

The first time that the Agency needed to access its MFP water rights was during 

the drought of 1977. Previously, and for several years after, the Agency was able 

to acquire sufficient water to meet its customers needs from its PG&E contracts for 

Yuba/Bear River water. By 1990 growth within the Agency’s service area was using 

nearly all of the available PG&E water and the Agency began to request that Reclamation install pumps annually to allow the Agency to access its MFP water rights. 

Reclamation used the original pumps installed by the Agency in 1966 for their 

temporary pump station; by constructing a channel through a sand bar to an inlet 

screen a few hundred feet upstream of the Auburn Coffer Dam and Diversion Tunnel. The pumps are only a few feet above the summer water level and are subject 

to flooding in the winter, so they must be removed each fall and cannot be installed 

again until April or May. 

At first the pumps were only needed during the annual PG&E canal maintenance 

period which begins in mid October. But with continued urban growth the Agency 

currently operates the pumps at maximum capacity during the peak summer period. 

Unfortunately, the maximum capacity of the temporary pump station is less than 

50 cfs (due to piping restrictions) and the maximum annual usable diversion capacity is only about 13,000 acre-feet per year (due to the limited time of the year that 

the pumps are operable) which are less than required under the Land Purchase 

Contract. 

Early in the 1990’s the Agency and Reclamation staff agreed that the current temporary pumping arrangement was unsatisfactory for both parties and began work 

on the design and environmental elements of a new permanent pump station. 

Excerpts from Reclamation’s Record of Decision for the project 

‘‘The Project is the subject of the Final Environmental Impact Statement/

Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/EIR), American River Pump Station 

Project, dated July 2002, developed in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the California Environmental Quality 

Act (CEQA). 

The FEIS/EIR was prepared jointly by Reclamation (Reclamation) and 

the Placer County Water Agency (PCWA). The purpose of the Project is 

threefold: (1) to provide facilities to allow PCWA to convey its Middle Fork 

Project (MFP) water entitlement to the Auburn Ravine Tunnel to meet demands within its service area; (2) to eliminate the safety issue associated 

with the Auburn Dam bypass tunnel; and (3) to allow for all pre-construction beneficial uses of water in what is now the dewatered river channel, 

including recreation, navigation, and other instream beneficial uses. 

Prior to the onset of construction, Reclamation and PCWA would approve 

and execute Contract No. 02-LC-20-7790, entitled ‘‘Contract Between the 

United States and Placer County Water Agency Related to American River 

Pumping Plant and Associated Facilities’’ (Contract). 

Reclamation would construct the Project facilities, and pursuant to the 

Contract, transfer the ownership of the pump station and appurtenances to 

PCWA for operation and maintenance. 

The decision is to implement the Proposed Project, identified and discussed in the FEIS/EIR as the Mid-Channel Diversion Alternative.’’

Contract No. 02-LC-20-7790

Contract No. 02-LC-20-7790 (2003 contract) was executed by Reclamation on September 11, 2003 after adoption of the Record of Decision for the project. The 2003 

contract provides in relevant parts:

‘‘Project Facilities to be Constructed

3. (a) Project facilities to be constructed pursuant to this Contract shall 

enable the AGENCY to divert water from the American River near Auburn, 

California into its Auburn Ravine Tunnel on a year-round basis. Project facilities shall... include, but not be limited to: A screened intake strucVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Nov 27, 2006 Jkt 109677 PO 30834 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\30834.TXT SENERGY2 PsN: PAULM
26

ture of sufficient size to allow diversion of not less than 225 cubic feet per 

second (‘‘cfs’’) of water from the American River; A year-round pipeline of 

sufficient capacity to convey to the Pump Station such water as is diverted 

from the intake; A pumping station of sufficient capacity to allow future increase of diversions to an instantaneous rate of 225 cfs; Pumps of sufficient 

capacity to allow instantaneous diversion of 100 cfs of water from the American River, with adequate backup electrical power and pumping facilities as 

may be dictated by prudent design guidelines; A discharge pipe capable of 

delivering up to 100 cfs from the Pump Station into the Auburn Ravine 

Tunnel; All-weather roads sufficient to enable the AGENCY to conduct all 

necessary operation, maintenance, repair and reconstruction of the Project 

and the Auburn Ravine Tunnel. Such roads, adjacent slopes and associated 

surface water runoff control facilities shall be designed and constructed so 

that the roads remain unobstructed.

Project Costs

4. (a) Except where costs are made the responsibility of the AGENCY 

under the express terms of this contract, the UNITED STATES shall be responsible for the reasonable and necessary costs associated with the 

Project, including: The design of the Project facilities; The preparation of all 

necessary environmental documentation and implementation and monitoring of any necessary mitigation measures; All required construction, 

management, construction inspection and construction engineering services; 

All on site grading, road construction, stabilization work, runoff control, restoration and re-vegetation work; Required river gradient control structures; 

All safety facilities; and The cost of the diversion structure, conveyance 

pipeline to the Pump Station, the Pumps, the Pump Station and the discharge pipeline to the Auburn Ravine Tunnel, all sized for 100 cfs capacity. 

The AGENCY shall pay the incremental costs of materials and construction 

necessary to enable the facilities to deliver water at rates in excess of 100 

cfs. Such payments by the AGENCY shall be made in advance of construction of any such facilities by the UNITED STATES.

Operations and Maintenance

7. (a) Upon approval by the AGENCY of the Notice of Completion of Construction issued by the UNITED STATES, the AGENCY, without expense 

to the UNITED STATES, shall care for, operate, and maintain the Project 

facilities.

Grant of Real Property Interest

8. Within 12 months of the AGENCY’s approval of the UNITED STATES’ 

Notice of Completion of Construction of the Project facilities, or as soon 

thereafter as practicable, the UNITED STATES shall grant to AGENCY 

title to the Project facilities, and a recordable indefeasible easement, easements, or other interest in lands, in a form acceptable to the County of 

Placer, sufficient to provide AGENCY with permanent, year-round access to 

all Project facilities and to the Auburn Ravine Tunnel, for maintenance, operation, enlargement, repair, reconstruction, and, if necessary for continued 

reliable operation, for relocation of Project facilities, and for electrical power 

lines necessary to operate and maintain the Project. Said real property interests shall include sufficient rights to allow the AGENCY access to the 

river for future construction and operation of facilities to divert water pursuant to its appropriative rights under its Middle Fork Project.’’

Following the completion of the final EIR/EIS, issuance of a Biological Opinion of 

no jeopardy, adoption of the ROD, execution of the 2003 contract and commencement of construction, Reclamation determined that Congressional authorization 

would be required in order for it to properly affect the transfer of the pump station 

and easements to the Agency.

27

$ in

millions 

Construction Costs 

Reclamation share (per the 2003 contract) .................................... 37.42

PCWA oversizing .............................................................................. 12.80

Total estimated construction cost ............................................ 49.60

PCWA contributed funds ................................................................. 17.00

PCWA oversizing .............................................................................. 12.80

Total PCWA cost for construction ............................................ 29.80

Total Reclamation cost for construction ........................... 20.42

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, 

MID-PACIFIC REGIONAL OFFICE, 

Sacramento, CA, September 11, 2006. 

Mr. DAVID A. BRENINGER, 

Placer County Water Agency, Auburn, CA.

Subject: Transmittal of Executed Contract No. 02-LC-20-7790, Contract Between the 

United States and Placer County Water Agency (Agency) Related to American River 

Pumping Plant and Associated Facilities

DEAR MR. BRENINGER: Enclosed is an executed original of the contract between 

the Agency and Bureau of Reclamation, Contract Number 02-LC-20-7790, for the 

construction and operation of the American River Pumping Plant. We appreciate all 

the time and effort your Agency has put into working out this contract. We also appreciate your Agency’s willingness to agree in Article 9(a) of the contract to assume 

all responsibility—for any damage caused by any previous disturbance to the American River Canyon related to the construction of Auburn Dam. 

We also wish to remind the Agency that this contract does not convey to Reclamation any responsibility for additional work outside that specifically related to construction of the pumping facility, or for making any payment for such work. Specifically, Reclamation will not be responsible for the construction, maintenance, operation, or for any costs associated with the proposed equestrian/pedestrian bridge or 

alternative trail system across the American River at the Auburn Dam site. Additionally, Reclamation will not be responsible for any costs associated with any item 

assigned to the Agency in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program/Environmental Compliance Plan as approved in the Agency’s Resolution No. 02-25. 

If you have any questions, please contact Rick Johnson at 916-989-7181 (TDD 

989-7285). Sincerely, 

Sincerely, 

KIRK C. RODGERS, 

Regional Director. 

[Enclosure.] 

Contract No. 02-LC-20-7790

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION 

CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT, CALIFORNIA

Contract Between the United States and Placer County Water Agency Related to 

American River Pumping Plant and Associated Facilities 

THIS CONTRACT, made this 11th day of September, 2003, in pursuance generally of the Act of June 17, 1902 (32 Stat. 388), and acts amendatory or supplementary thereto, including, but not limited to, the acts of August 26, 1937 (50 Stat. 

844), as amended and supplemented, August 4, 1939 (53 Stat. 1187), as amended 

28

and supplemented, all collectively hereinafter referred to as the Federal Reclamation law, between THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, hereinafter referred to as 

the UNITED STATES, and Placer County Water Agency, hereinafter referred to as 

the AGENCY, a political subdivision of the State of California, duly organized, existing and acting pursuant to the laws thereof, including, but not limited to, the Placer 

County Water Agency Act; with its principal place of business in Auburn, California; 

WITNESSETH, That: 

EXPLANATORY RECITALS

WHEREAS, the UNITED STATES has constructed and is operating the Central 

Valley Project, California for diversion, storage, carriage, distribution and beneficial 

use, for flood control, irrigation, municipal, domestic, industrial, fish and wildlife 

mitigation, protection and restoration, generation and distribution of electric energy, 

salinity control, navigation and other beneficial uses, of waters of the Sacramento 

River, the American River, the Trinity River, and the San Joaquin River and their 

tributaries; and 

WHEREAS, in 1963, the AGENCY obtained the right to divert certain flows of 

the American River pursuant to water right permits for the AGENCY’s Middle Fork 

Project, which permits were issued by the California State Water Rights Board, 

which has been succeeded by the State Water Resources Control Board; and 

WHEREAS, pursuant to those rights, the AGENCY secured land and constructed 

diversion, year-round pumping and conveyance facilities in the American River canyon near Auburn, California for the purposes of diverting water under its permits 

and conveying it to and through the Auburn Ravine Tunnel, also known as the Auburn Tunnel or Ophir Tunnel, for use within the AGENCY’s Service Area; and 

WHEREAS, in 1965, the UNITED STATES authorized a water project known as 

the Auburn-Folsom South Unit (‘‘Auburn Dam’’), and, in furtherance of said project, 

desired to acquire the land upon which the AGENCY’s pumps and conveyance facilities were located; and 

WHEREAS, the UNITED STATES has modified the American River canyon to 

construct the Auburn-Folsom South Unit (‘‘Auburn Dam’’), and some of those modifications have created unstable land features; and 

WHEREAS, under threat of condemnation by the UNITED STATES, the AGENCY entered into a Land Purchase Contract (14-06-859-308) with the UNITED 

STATES, transferring the AGENCY’s land and facilities in the American River canyon to the UNITED STATES, and as partial consideration for the taking of this 

property, the UNITED STATES agreed to provide a water supply to the AGENCY 

until the Auburn Dam was completed; and 

WHEREAS, at the time the Land Purchase Contract was negotiated and executed, the Auburn Dam project, as then designed, was expected to enable the 

AGENCY to obtain water from the American River by gravity flow through the Auburn Ravine Tunnel, without the necessity of pumping; and 

WHEREAS, pursuant to the Land Purchase Contract (14-06-859-308A), UNITED 

STATES has, for many years, annually installed a seasonal pumping station and 

conveyance facilities to enable the AGENCY to pump water from the American 

River into the Auburn Ravine Tunnel during summer months, and 

WHEREAS, the AGENCY has determined that it now requires year-round pumping to meet its water supply obligations to its customers; and 

WHEREAS, the parties have recognized that yearly installation of seasonal 

pumps and facilities no longer satisfies the UNITED STATES’ obligation under the 

Land Purchase Contract; and 

WHEREAS, the parties have recognized that yearly installation of seasonal 

pumps and facilities is inefficient and costly to the UNITED STATES; and 

WHEREAS, the parties now propose to construct a year-round pumping facility 

which fully satisfies the UNITED STATES’ obligations under the Land Purchase 

Agreement, to replace the AGENCY’s original pumping facility; and 

WHEREAS, the parties now desire to enter into a new contract, which will supersede the Land Purchase Agreement regarding issues of cost-sharing, operations and 

maintenance of the new pump station to deliver 50 cfs which is the obligation of 

The UNITED STATES, and up to a total of 100 cfs, the remainder of which would 

be the responsibility of the AGENCY. 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual and dependent covenants 

herein contained, it is hereby mutually agreed by the parties hereto as follows: 

Definitions 

1. When used herein, unless otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent hereof, the term:

29

(a) ‘‘Auburn Ravine Tunnel’’ shall mean that existing 12-foot diameter tunnel 

through the ridge separating Auburn, California from the American River and used 

to convey water from the American River to the tunnel’s outlet in Auburn Ravine. 

The Auburn Ravine Tunnel is also referred to from time to time as the Ophir Tunnel or Auburn Tunnel. 

(b) ‘‘Calendar Year’’ shall mean the period January 1 through December 31, both 

dates inclusive; 

(c) ‘‘Land Purchase Contract’’ shall mean the agreement entered into between the 

UNITED STATES and the AGENCY, identified as Contract No. 14-06-859-308 and 

dated July 25, 1972, as amended, modified and supplemented by the Supplemental 

Agreement to Land Purchase Contract, identified as Contract No. 14-06-859-308a 

and dated May 25, 1979; 

(d) ‘‘Project’’ shall mean the installation of a permanent diversion intake, pumping 

station, electric facilities, electric transmission lines, water conveyance facilities, access roads, and all ancillary facilities necessary to allow the AGENCY to divert the 

water of the American River to the Auburn Ravine Tunnel, on a year-round basis, 

until the Auburn Dam is completed; 

(e) ‘‘Service Area’’ shall mean the area to which the AGENCY is entitled to deliver 

its water rights water from the American River for beneficial use; 

(f) ‘‘Secretary’’ or ‘‘Contracting Officer’’ shall mean the Secretary of the 98 

UNITED STATES Department of the Interior or her duly authorized representative; 

(g) ‘‘Year’’ shall mean the period from and including March 1 of each too Calendar 

Year through the last day of February of the following Calendar Year. 

Organization of Contract 

2. Upon execution of this Contract by both parties, and until the AGENCY approves a Notice of Completion of Construction of the Project facilities, Articles 1 and 

2 and Sections A and D shall apply. Upon approval by the Agency of a Notice of 

Completion of Construction issued by the UNITED STATES and until the AGENCY 

accepts title to the Project facilities and the related real property interests, Section 

A shall no longer be applicable; instead, Articles 1 and 2 and Sections B and D shall 

apply. Upon transfer of title to the Project facilities and the related real property 

interests to the AGENCY and thereafter, Section B shall no longer apply: instead, 

Articles 1 and 2 and Sections C and D shall apply for the remaining life of this contract 

SECTION A. CONSTRUCTION OF PROJECT FACILITIES

Upon execution of this contract by both parties and until such time as the AGENCY has approved a Notice of Completion of Construction of the Project facilities, the 

following provisions shall apply: 

Project Facilities to be Constructed 

3. (a) Project facilities to be constructed pursuant to this Contract shall enable 

the AGENCY to divert water from the American River near Auburn, California into 

its Auburn Ravine Tunnel on a year-round basis. Project facilities shall be defined 

by the drawings and technical specifications for the construction of the Placer County Water Agency American River Pump Station (‘‘Pump Station’’), once they are approved by the parties, and shall include, but not be limited to:

(1) A screened intake structure of sufficient size to allow diversion of not 

less than 225 cubic feet per second (‘‘cfs’’) of water from the American River; 

(2) A year-round pipeline of sufficient capacity to convey to the Pump Station such water as is diverted from the intake; 

(3) A pumping station of sufficient capacity to allow future increase of diversions to an instantaneous rate of 225 cfs; 

(4) Pumps of sufficient capacity to allow instantaneous diversion of 100 

cfs of water from the American River, with adequate backup electrical 

power and pumping facilities as may be dictated by prudent design guidelines. 

(5) A discharge pipe capable of delivering up to 100 cfs from the Pump 

Station into the Auburn Ravine Tunnel; 

(6) All-weather roads sufficient to enable the AGENCY to conduct all necessary operation, maintenance, repair and reconstruction of the Project and 

the Auburn Ravine Tunnel. Such roads, adjacent slopes and associated surface water runoff control facilities shall be designed and constructed so that 

the roads remain unobstructed.

(b) All Project facilities shall be designed to meet both parties’ specifications, at 

a minimum. 

30

(c) (1) The UNITED STATES shall be responsible for construction of all Project 

facilities and their proposed locations. 

(2) The AGENCY shall review and approve the proposed locations of all 

Project facilities and shall approve the configuration and designs of any 

Project facilities; and any submissions, change orders and the Notice of 

Completion of Construction issued by the United States for the Project facilities. 

Project Costs 

4. (a) Except where costs are made the responsibility of the AGENCY under the 

express terms of this contract, the UNITED STATES shall be responsible for the 

reasonable and necessary costs associated with the Project, including:

(1) The design of the Project facilities; 

(2) The preparation of all necessary environmental documentation and 

implementation and monitoring of any necessary mitigation measures; 

(3) All required construction, management, construction inspection and 

construction engineering services; 

(4) All on site grading, road construction, stabilization work, runoff control, restoration and revegetation work; 

(5) Required river gradient control structures; 

(6) All safety facilities; and 

(7) The cost of the diversion structure, conveyance pipeline to the Pump 

Station, the Pumps, the Pump Station and the discharge pipeline to the Auburn Ravine Tunnel, all sized for 100 cfs capacity. The AGENCY shall pay 

the incremental costs of materials and construction necessary to enable the 

facilities to deliver water at rates in excess of 100 cfs. Such payments by 

the AGENCY shall be made in advance of construction of any such facilities 

by the UNITED STATES. 

(8) The cost of parallel facilities as detailed in Article 5, herein. 

UNITED STATES’ Obligation to Continue Water Deliveries 

5. Reclamation shall sequence construction of Project facilities and/or construct 

parallel temporary facilities as required to continue American River water deliveries 

during the period from June 15 through September 15 and during scheduled PG&E 

maintenance outage periods. 

Notice of Completion 

6. Upon substantial completion of construction of all Project facilities, the 

UNITED STATES shall issue a Notice of Completion of Construction. Upon the 

AGENCY’s approval of said Notice, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, Section A of this contract shall no longer apply. 

End of Section A. 

SECTION B. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE OF PROJECT FACILITIES

Upon approval by the AGENCY of a Notice of Completion of Construction of 

Project facilities issued by the UNITED STATES, and until the transfer of Project 

facilities and related property interests to the AGENCY, the provisions in Section 

A, ‘‘Construction of Project Facilities,’’ shall no longer be applicable. Instead, provisions of Articles 1 and 2 and Sections B and D shall apply: 

Operations and Maintenance 

7. (a) Upon approval by the AGENCY of the Notice of Completion of Construction 

issued by the UNITED STATES, the AGENCY, without expense to the UNITED 

STATES, shall care for, operate, and maintain the Project facilities in full compliance with the terms of this contract and regulations and instructions furnished by 

the Contracting Officer, and in such manner that said Project facilities will remain 

in good and efficient conditions. 

(b) The AGENCY shall promptly make any and all repairs to the Project facilities 

being operated by the AGENCY which are necessary for proper care, operation, and 

maintenance. In case of neglect or failure of the AGENCY to make such repairs 

within 60 days following written notification, the Contracting Officer may cause the 

repairs to be made, and the cost thereof shall be paid by the AGENCY as prescribed 

by the Contracting Officer. 

(c) No substantial change shall be made by the AGENCY in any of the Project 

facilities without first obtaining the written consent of the Contracting Officer. 

(d)(1) The AGENCY agrees to indemnify the UNITED STATES for, and hold the 

UNITED STATES and all of its representatives harmless from, all damages resulting from suits, actions, or claims. of any character brought on account of any injury 

31

to any person or property arising out of any act, omission, neglect, or misconduct 

in the manner or method of performing any construction, care, operation, maintenance, supervision, examination, inspection, or other duties of the AGENCY required under this Article 5 regardless of who performs those duties. 

(2) Within thirty (30) days of receipt by either party of any claim for liability arising from actions within the scope of this contract, the party receiving the claim shall 

notify the other party of such claim and provide a copy of the claim to the other 

party, if it is in written form. Nothing in this article shall be construed to limit the 

right of either party to assert such affirmative defenses and file such cross complaints as may be appropriate in relation to any claim affecting the liability of such 

party. 

(e) In the event the AGENCY is found to be operating the Project facilities in violation of this contract, then upon the election of the Contracting Officer, the 

UNITED STATES may take over from the AGENCY the care, operation, and maintenance of the transferred facilities by giving written notice to the AGENCY of such 

election and of the effective date thereof. Thereafter, during the period of operation 

by the UNITED STATES, the AGENCY shall pay to the UNITED STATES annually, in advance, the cost of operation and maintenance of such facilities as prescribed in notices from the Contracting Officer to the AGENCY. Such facilities may 

be retransferred to the AGENCY in the manner originally transferred. 

Grant of Real Property Interest 

8. Within 12 months of the AGENCY’s approval of the UNITED STATES’ Notice 

of Completion of Construction of the Project facilities, or as soon thereafter as practicable, the UNITED STATES shall grant to AGENCY title to the Project facilities, 

and a recordable indefeasible easement, easements, or other interest in lands, in a 

form acceptable to the County of Placer, sufficient to provide AGENCY with permanent, year-round access to all Project facilities and to the Auburn Ravine Tunnel, 

for maintenance, operation, enlargement, repair, reconstruction, and, if necessary 

for continued reliable operation, for relocation of Project facilities, and for electrical 

power lines necessary to operate and maintain the Project. Said real property interests shall include sufficient rights to allow the AGENCY access to the river for future construction and operation of facilities to divert water pursuant to its appropriative rights under its Middle Fork Project, and also to allow diversion and conveyance of a total of 25 cfs. of American River flows to Georgetown Divide Public 

Utility District, pursuant to PL 101-514, from the Project intake, diversion, conveyance and pumping facilities if and when such conveyance is necessary. 

End of Section B. 

SECTION C. TRANSFER OF PROJECT FACILITIES

Upon acceptance by the AGENCY of Title to the Project facilities, the provisions 

in Section A. ‘‘Construction of Project Facilities’’ and Section B. ‘‘Operations and 

Maintenance of Project Facilities,’’ shall no longer be applicable. Instead, the provisions of Articles 1 and 2 and Sections C and D will be effective throughout the remaining life of this Contract. 

Obligations of the Parties Following Transfer of Project Facilities 

9. (a) Upon acceptance of title to Project facilities and easements by the AGENCY, 

the AGENCY shall have sole responsibility for operation, maintenance, repair and 

reconstruction of such Project facilities, including any damage caused by any previous disturbance to the American River canyon related to construction of Auburn 

Dam. The UNITED STATES shall be relieved of its obligation to provide pumping 

of water to the AGENCY as set forth in the Land Purchase Contract. 

(b) The UNITED STATES shall cooperate and assist the AGENCY in the AGENCY’s efforts to fully access, divert and utilize its water entitlements under its water 

rights. 

(c) The UNITED STATES shall retain, beyond the date on which AGENCY accepts title to Project facilities, all responsibility for ensuring public safety associated 

with public access to the lands it acquired or which were withdrawn for the Auburn 

Dam project and/or use of the water within such lands. 

Future Projects 

10. (a) In the event that the UNITED STATES makes or permits changes to the 

course or channel of the American River or to the American River canyon slopes, 

features or improvements other than as provided for in Article 9 above, which 

change or impair the AGENCY’s ability to divert or pump water from the American 

River, UNITED STATES shall assist AGENCY in AGENCY’s efforts to modify, construct or adjust, as necessary and to AGENCY’s satisfaction, the Project facilities 

32

constructed pursuant to this Agreement so that the AGENCY shall continue to have 

access to American River water in the same amount, and at the same rate, as it 

had prior to such changes. Such assistance shall include any necessary modification 

to AGENCY’s real property rights granted pursuant to Article 8 herein above, expeditious design review of proposed facilities, and assistance in obtaining prompt environmental review and permits as may be needed to avoid or minimize disruption 

in AGENCY’s water supply. 

(b) In the event that, after completion of the Project, the UNITED STATES transfers title or possession to its lands within the American River canyon to a third 

party it shall either require that the transferee assume the obligations of the 

UNITED STATES to the AGENCY under this Agreement, or the UNITED STATES 

shall retain such obligations. 

(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 9 (a), in the event that the UNITED 

STATES constructs a dam and reservoir in the American River canyon that inundates or otherwise impairs the operation of the Project facilities, the UNITED 

STATES shall have the obligation, without cost to the AGENCY, to relocate, replace 

or modify the Project facilities to assure their continued enjoyment and use by the 

AGENCY. If a dam is constructed, the AGENCY may salvage any structures or 

equipment from Project Facilities without payment to the UNITED STATES. The 

UNITED STATES shall cooperate and assist the AGENCY in AGENCY’s efforts to 

fully access, divert and utilize its water entitlements under its water rights, 

SECTION D. GENERAL PROVISIONS

Hazardous Material 

11. (a) The AGENCY shall comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local 

laws and regulations, and Reclamation policies and instructions, existing or hereafter enacted or promulgated, concerning any hazardous material that will be used, 

produced, transported, stored, or disposed of on or in lands, waters, or facilities 

owned by the UNITED STATES or administered by Reclamation. 

(b) ‘‘Hazardous material’’ means any substance, pollutant or contaminant listed as 

hazardous under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act of 1980, as amended, 43 U.S.C. § 1901, et seq., and the regulations promulgated pursuant to that Act. 

(c) To the extent provided by law, the AGENCY may not allow contamination of 

lands, waters or facilities owned by the UNITED STATES or administered by Reclamation by hazardous materials, thermal pollution, refuse, garbage, sewage effluent, industrial waste, petroleum products, mine tailings, mineral salts, pesticides 

(including but not limited to, the misuse of pesticides), pesticide containers, or any 

other pollutants. 

(d) The AGENCY shall report to Reclamation, within 24 hours of becoming aware 

of its occurrence, any event which may or does result in pollution or contamination 

adversely affecting lands, water or facilities owned by the UNITED STATES or administered by Reclamation. 

(e) Any intentional violation of any of the provisions of this Article shall constitute 

grounds for initiation of the procedure for immediate termination of this contract 

and shall make the AGENCY liable for the cost of full and complete remediation 

and/or restoration of any Federal resources or facilities that are adversely affected 

as a result of the violation. 

(f) The AGENCY agrees to include the provision contained in paragraphs (a) 

through (e) of this Article in any subcontract or third party contract it may enter 

into pursuant to this contract. 

(g) The UNITED STATES agrees to provide information necessary for the AGENCY, using reasonable diligence, to comply with this Article. 

Notices 

12. Any notice, demand, or request authorized or required by this contract shall 

be deemed to have been given, on behalf of the AGENCY, when mailed, postage prepaid, or delivered to the Area Manager, Central California Area Office, Bureau of 

Reclamation, 7794 Folsom Dam Road, Folsom, California 95630-1799, and on behalf 

of the UNITED STATES, when mailed, postage prepaid, or delivered to the Board 

of Directors of the Placer County Water Agency, P.O. Box 6570, Auburn, California 

95604. The designation of the addressee or the address may be changed by notice 

given in the same manner as provided in this Article for other notices. 

Contingent on Appropriation or Allotment of Funds 

13. The expenditure or advance of any money or the performance of any obligation 

of the UNITED STATES under this contract shall be contingent upon appropriation 

or allotment of funds. Absence of appropriation or allotment of funds shall not reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Nov 27, 2006 Jkt 109677 PO 30834 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\30834.TXT SENERGY2 PsN: PAULM
33

lieve the AGENCY from any obligations under this contract. No liability shall accrue to the UNITED STATES in case funds are not appropriated or allotted. 

Officials not to Benefit 

14. No Member of Congress or official of the AGENCY shall benefit from this contract other than as a water user or landowner in the same manner as other water 

users or landowners. 

Assignment Limited—Successors and Assigns Obligated 

15. The provisions of this contract shall apply to and bind the successors and assigns of the parties hereto, but no assignment or transfer of this contract or any 

right or interest therein shall be valid until approved in writing by the Contracting 

Officer. 

Books Records, and Reports 

16. The AGENCY shall establish and maintain accounts and other books and 

records pertaining to administration of the terms and conditions of this contract, including the AGENCY’s financial transactions and other matters that the Contracting Officer may require. Reports thereon shall be furnished to the Contracting 

Officer in such form and on such date or dates as the Contracting Officer may require. Subject to applicable Federal laws and regulations, each party to this contract 

shall have the right during office hours to examine and make copies of the other 

party’s books and records relating to matters covered by this contract. 

Clean Air and Water 

17. (a) The AGENCY agrees as follows:

(1) To comply with all the requirements of Section 114 of the Clean Air 

Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1857, et seq., as amended by Public Law 91-

604) and Section 308 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 

1251 et seq., as amended by Public Law 92-500), respectively, relating to 

inspection, monitoring, entry, reports, and information, as well as other requirements specified in Section 114 and Section 308 of the Air Act and the 

Water Act, respectively, and all regulations and guidelines issued thereunder before the execution of this contract. 

(2) That no portion of the work required by this contract will be performed in a facility listed on the Environmental Protection Agency List of 

Violating Facilities on the date when this contract was executed unless and 

until the EPA eliminates the name of such facility or facilities from such 

listing. 

(3) To use its best efforts to comply with clean air standards and clean 

water standards at the facility where the contract work is being performed. 

(4) To insert the substance of the provisions of this article into any nonexempt subcontract, including this paragraph (a)(4).

(b) The terms used in this article have the following meanings: 

(1) The term ‘‘Air Act’’ means the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 

1857 et seq., as amended by Public Law 91-604). 

(2) The term ‘‘Water Act’’ means Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as 

amended (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq., as amended by Public Law 92-500). 

(3) The term ‘‘clean air standards’’ means any enforceable rules, regulations, guidelines, standards, limitations, orders, controls, prohibitions, or 

other requirements which are contained in, issued under, or otherwise 

adopted pursuant to the Air Act or Executive Order 11738, an applicable 

implementation plan as described in Section 110(d) of the Clean Air Act (42 

U.S.C. 1857c-5(d)), an approved implementation procedure or plan under 

Section 111(c) or Section 111(d), respectively, of the Air Act (42 U.S.C. 

1857c-6(c) or (d)), or an approved implementation procedure under Section 

112(d) of the Air Act (42 U.S.C. 1857c-(d)). 

(4) The term ‘‘clean water standards’’ means any enforceable limitation, 

control, condition, prohibition, standard, or other requirement which is promulgated pursuant to the Water Act or contained in a permit issued to a 

discharger by the Environmental Protection Agency or by a State under an 

approved program, as authorized by Section 402 of the Water Act (33 

U.S.C. 1342), or by local government to ensure compliance with 

pretreatment regulations as required by Section 307 of the Water Act (33 

U.S.C. 1317). 

(5) The term ‘‘comply’’ means compliance with clean air or water standards. Comply shall also mean compliance with a schedule or plan ordered 

or approved by a court of competent jurisdiction, the Environmental ProtecVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Nov 27, 2006 Jkt 109677 PO 30834 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\30834.TXT SENERGY2 PsN: PAULM
34

tion Agency or an air or water pollution control agency in accordance with 

the requirements of the Air Act or Water Act and regulations issued pursuant thereto. 

(6) The term ‘‘facility’’ means any building, plant, installation, structure, 

mine, vessel or other floating craft, location, or site of operations, owned, 

leased, or supervised by a contractor or subcontractor, to be utilized in the 

performance of a contract or subcontract. Where a location or site of operations contains or includes more than one building, plant, installation, or 

structure, the entire location or site shall be deemed to be a facility except 

where the Director, Office of Federal Activities, Environmental Protection 

Agency, determines that independent facilities are collocated in one geographical area. 

Equal Employment Opportunity 

18. During the performance of this contract, the AGENCY agrees as follows:

(a) The AGENCY will not discriminate against any employee or applicant 

for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, disability, or national 

origin. The AGENCY will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants 

are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without 

regard to their race, color, religion, sex, disability, or national origin. Such 

action shall include, but not be limited to, the following: Employment, upgrading, demotion, or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. The AGENCY agrees to post in 

conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, 

notices to be provided by the Contracting Officer setting forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause. 

(b) The AGENCY will, in all solicitations or advertisements for employees 

placed by or on behalf of the AGENCY, state that all qualified applicants 

will receive consideration for employment without discrimination because of 

race, color, religion, sex, disability, or national origin. 

(c) The AGENCY will send to each labor union or representative of workers with which it has a collective bargaining agreement or other contract 

or understanding, a notice to be provided by the Contracting Officer, advising the said labor union or worker’s representative of the AGENCY’s commitments under Section 202 of Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 

1965, and shall post copies of the notice in conspicuous places available to 

employees and applicants for employment. 

(d) The AGENCY will comply with all provisions of Executive Order No. 

11246 of September 24, 1965, as amended, and of the rules, regulations, 

and relevant orders of the Secretary of Labor. 

(e) The AGENCY will furnish all information and reports required by 

said amended Executive Order and by the rules, regulations, and orders of 

the Secretary of Labor, or pursuant thereto, and will permit access to its 

books, records, and accounts by the Contracting Officer and the Secretary 

of Labor for purposes of investigation to ascertain compliance with such 

rules, regulations, and orders. 

(f) In the event of the AGENCY’s noncompliance with the nondiscrimination clauses of this contract or with any of such rules, regulations, or orders, this contract may be canceled, terminated, or suspended, in whole or 

in part, and the AGENCY may be declared ineligible for further Government contracts in accordance with procedures authorized in said amended 

Executive Order, and such other sanctions may be imposed and remedies 

invoked as provided in said Executive Order, or by rule, regulation, or order 

of the Secretary of Labor, or as otherwise provided by law. 

(g) The AGENCY will include the provisions of paragraphs (a) through 

(g) in every subcontract or purchase order unless exempted by the rules, 

regulations, or orders of the Secretary of Labor issued pursuant to Section 

204 of said amended Executive Order, so that such provisions will be binding upon each subcontractor or vendor. The AGENCY will take such action 

with respect to any subcontract or purchase order as may be directed by 

the Secretary of Labor as a means of enforcing such provisions, including 

sanctions for noncompliance: Provided, however, That in the event the 

AGENCY becomes involved in, or is threatened with, litigation with a subcontractor or vendor as a result of such direction, the AGENCY may request the UNITED STATES to enter into such litigation to protect the interests of the UNITED STATES. 

35

Compliance with Civil Rights Laws and Regulations 

19. (a) The AGENCY shall comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 

(42 U.S.C. 2000d), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-112, as 

amended), the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 6101, et seq.), Title II of 

the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 if the entity is a State or local government entity [Title III if the entity is a non-government entity], and any other applicable civil rights laws, as well as with their respective implementing regulations 

and guidelines imposed by the U.S. Department of the Interior and/or Bureau of 

Reclamation. 

(b) These statutes require that no person in the UNITED STATES shall, on the 

grounds of race, color, national origin, disability, or age, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under 

any program or activity receiving financial assistance from the Bureau of Reclamation. By executing this contract, the AGENCY agrees to immediately take any measures necessary to implement this obligation, including permitting officials of the 

UNITED STATES to inspect premises, programs, and documents. 

(c) The AGENCY makes this agreement in consideration of and for the purpose 

of obtaining any and all Federal grants, loans, contracts, property discounts, or 

other Federal financial assistance extended after the date hereof to the AGENCY 

by the Bureau of Reclamation, including installment payments after such date on 

account of arrangements for Federal financial assistance which were approved before such date. The AGENCY recognizes and agrees that such Federal assistance 

will be extended in reliance on the representations and agreements made in this article and that the UNITED STATES reserves the right to seek judicial enforcement 

thereof. 

(d) Complaints of discrimination against the AGENCY shall be investigated by 

the Contracting Officer’ s Office of Civil Rights. 

Certification of Nonsegregated Facilities 

20. The AGENCY hereby certifies that it does not maintain or provide for its employees any segregated facilities at any of its establishments, and that it does not 

permit its employees to perform their services at any location under its control, 

where segregated facilities are maintained. It certifies further that it will not maintain or provide for its employees any segregated facilities at any of its establishments, and that it will not permit its employees to perform their services at any 

location under its control, where segregated facilities are maintained. The AGENCY 

agrees that a breach of this certification is a violation of the Equal Employment Opportunity clause in this contract. As used in this certification, the term ‘‘segregated 

facilities’’ means any waiting rooms, work areas, rest rooms and wash rooms, restaurants and other eating areas, time clocks, locker rooms and other storage or 

dressing areas, parking lots, drinking fountains, recreation or entertainment areas, 

transportation, and housing facilities provided for employees which are segregated 

by explicit directive or are in fact segregated on the basis of race, creed, color, or 

national origin, because of habit, local custom, disability, or otherwise. The AGENCY further agrees that (except where it has obtained identical certifications from 

proposed subcontractors for specific time periods) it will obtain identical certifications from proposed subcontractors prior to the award of subcontracts exceeding 

$10,000 which are not exempt from the provisions of the Equal Employment Opportunity clause; that it will retain such certifications in its files; and that it will forward the following notice to such proposed subcontractors (except where the proposed subcontractors have submitted identical certifications for specific time periods): 

NOTICE TO PROSPECTIVE SUBCONTRACTORS OF REQUIREMENT FOR

CERTIFICATIONS OF NONSEGREGATED FACILITIES

A Certification of Nonsegregated Facilities must be submitted prior to the award 

of a subcontract exceeding $10,000 which is not exempt from the provisions of the 

Equal Employment Opportunity clause. The certification may be submitted either 

for each subcontract or for all subcontracts during a period (i.e., quarterly, semiannually, or annually). Note: The penalty for making false statements in offers is 

prescribed in U.S.C. 1001. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this contract as of the 

day and year first above written. 

36

RESOLUTION NO. 02-25 OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE PLACER 

COUNTY WATER AGENCY MAKING FINDINGS CONCERNING THE AMERICAN RIVER PUMP STATION PROJECT, ADOPTING THE MITIGATION 

MONITORING PROGRAM, AND APPROVING CONTRACT 02-LC-20-7790 

WITH THE UNITED STATES BUREAU OF RECLAMATION 

WHEREAS, the Final Environmental Impact Statement/ Final Environmental Impact Report (‘‘FEIS/FEIR’’) for the American River Pump Station Project has been 

presented to, reviewed and considered by the Board of Directors of the Placer County Water Agency; and 

WHEREAS, this Board has certified the Final Environmental Impact Report and 

Environmental Impact Statement prepared for the American River Pump Station 

Project to be in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental 

Quality Act (CEQA); and 

WHEREAS, this Board, in reviewing the FEIS/FEIR and taking tile action set 

forth in this Resolution is hereby exercising its independent judgment and analysis; 

and 

WHEREAS, this Board has considered all written and oral comments presented 

to it at its meeting held July 11, 2002 and at this August 1, 2002 meeting; 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF 

THE PLACER COUNTY WATER AGENCY that: 

1. The Board hereby makes and adopts each of the Findings set forth in the document entitled ‘‘CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations of Placer County Water Agency for American River Pump Station, July 2002’’ (‘‘Findings’’) 

attached hereto as Exhibit A; 

2. The commitments set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring Plan to be implemented by, the Placer County Water Agency, including the Conservation Measures 

described therein, are hereby accepted as binding on the Agency; 

3. The Board finds that in light of the mitigation measures that the Agency will 

undertake, all significant environmental effects that can feasibly be mitigated by 

Agency action will be mitigated; 

4. Some significant environmental impacts identified and described in the FEIS/

FEIR, cannot be mitigated by action of the Agency, but rather must be and are expected to be mitigated by actions of the United States Bureau of Reclamation and 

California Department of Parks and Recreation, or other public agencies, in implementing the American River Pump Station Project; 

5. The Board finds that each of the overriding considerations set forth in Section 

XII of the Findings justifies the decision to approve Contract No. 02-LC-20-7790 and 

authorize its execution despite the significant impacts identified in the FEIS/FEIR. 

Those overriding considerations are set forth in the Findings attached hereto and 

explain why the benefit of the American River Pump Station Project outweighs the 

potential for significant environmental effects; 

6. Contract No. 02-LC-20-7790, attached hereto as Exhibit B, is hereby approved. 

The foregoing resolution was duly passed at a regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the Placer County Water Agency held on August 1, 2002, by the following 

vote on roll call: 

AYES: DIRECTORS Ferreira, Lee, Roccucci, Wollan, and Chair Jarvis. 

NOES: DIRECTORS None. 

ABSENT: DIRECTORS None. 

Signed and approved by me after its passage this 1st day of August 2002.

LOWELL M. JARVIS, 

Chair, Board of Directors, Placer County Water Agency

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Maisch. 

Just a couple questions for you this afternoon, gentlemen. Mr. 

Dieker, when you mentioned the area that we’re talking about the 

transfer, you mentioned 9 acres and the buildings and offices that 

would be included with this transfer. Does the Yakima-Tieton Irrigation District currently perform the upkeep of these buildings at 

this time? 

Mr. MAISCH. Yes, they do. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. OK. So you’ve already factored in the cost 

of operation and maintenance. How much cost savings do you anticipate realizing with this transfer to the district? 

Mr. MAISCH. [Inaudible.] 

37

Senator MURKOWSKI. But really it’s more savings in terms of the 

administrative efficiency that would be gained? 

Mr. MAISCH. Possibly. I think it’s possibly more——

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you. Mr. Maisch, you had stated in 

your written testimony that the Placer County Water Agency is responsible for any construction costs for a pump capacity that exceeds 100 cfs. Is the agency constructing a facility that provides for 

more than that, more than a 100 cfs? And then, if they are, how 

do you pay for this cost? 

You mentioned a little bit about the cost sharing, but if you could 

just explain it a little bit more. 

Mr. MAISCH. [Inaudible.] 

Senator MURKOWSKI. What about the annual operation and 

maintenance costs of the new pump station; is the agency able to 

take those on? 

And you had also stated in your written testimony that Placer 

County is one of the fastest growing counties in California. How do 

you anticipate that this new pumping facility—pumping station 

will help to meet this area’s watering? 

Mr. MAISCH. [Inaudible.] 

Senator JOHNSON. Mr. Maisch, your testimony summarizes the 

construction costs associated with the pump project, and I understand that your agency is paying for capacity in excess of 100 cfs, 

which is $12.8 million. But there also appears to be a contribution 

of $17 million, and I’ll ask for a little elaboration of your response 

to Mr. Sherman’s questions. Is it correct that the PCWA is contributing then $29.8 million in 

total? And if that’s the case, could you explain to me then the additional $17 million, and what that’s for? 

Mr. MAISCH. [Inaudible.] 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. Mr. Dieker, the panel’s transfer process 

that you’ve worked on with Reclamation sounds like a successful 

one. Are you currently interested in or already pursuing the transfer of title to any other facilities that serve your District? 

Mr. DIEKER. No. We’re not interested in any. 

Senator JOHNSON. OK. Very good. 

Madam Chairman, that’s all that I have. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you for completing your questions 

and I appreciate the testimony of you gentlemen. Again, thank you 

for traveling the distance to come and present before the subcommittee. 

With that, we stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:30 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(39)

APPENDIX 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

STATEMENT OF ALEX WHITE PLUME, VICE CHAIRMAN, ON BEHALF OF THE OGLALA

SIOUX TRIBE, ON S. 3404

By resolution dated June 12, 2006, the Oglala Sioux Tribe fully supports the Reauthorization of the Mni Wiconi Rural Water Supply Project as proposed by S. 3404, 

which extends the completion date for construction from FY 2008 through FY 2012. 

The Oglala Sioux Tribe supports the extension recognizing that the history of appropriation levels for the project will not provide sufficient funding to complete the 

project in FY 2008 and that an additional four years of appropriations will be needed to provide the necessary funding. The need for extension of time is driven entirely by appropriations and not the capability of the Oglala Sioux Tribe or other 

sponsors to complete the project in FY 2008 if adequate funding were available. 

The concerns of the Oglala Sioux Tribe with respect to the additional four years 

necessary to fund the project are as follows:

1. Human health benefits on the Pine: Ridge Indian Reservation will be 

delayed. The Pine Ridge Indian Reservation has not yet received Missouri 

River. water to replace unsafe supplies, and the Oglala Sioux Tribe will be 

last to build its distribution system. 

2. Overhead costs of the project will increase due solely to the extension 

of the number of years required to complete construction and cause the 

project costs to exceed the currently authorized construction funding ceiling. 

3. Inflation will cause the remaining authorized construction funding 

needs to increase and create a moving target for future appropriation committees.

Delay in Human Health Benefits 

The Oglala Sioux Tribe has deep concerns that the project has not yet. delivered 

Missouri River water to the pine Ridge Indian Reservation after 12 years of construction. Residents in the No Flesh area and across much of the central and eastern areas of the reservation are waiting for a transition from groundwater to Missouri River water to relieve them of arsenic concentrations well above the EPA 

drinking water standard adopted this year. The arsenic. standards are taken seriously by the Tribal Council due to the connection between arsenic and the risk of 

lung and bladder cancer. 

The inability to deliver the Missouri River water to the Pine. Ridge. Indian Reservation after years of constructing the water treatment plant and Oglala off-Reservation core pipelines is due, in part, to the policy of the Bureau of Reclamation 

that required sequential construction of the pipelines. It has long been the policy 

of the Tribe to build pipelines from Pine Ridge toward the Missouri River while 

building concurrently from the Missouri River toward Pine Ridge. Had the Tribe 

been able to build pipelines as it proposed, all sponsors would have benefited from 

project water at the same time. 

Currently all sponsors are receiving Missouri River water except the Oglala Sioux 

Tribe. We are still waiting. Other sponsors have either finished their distribution 

systems or have completed most of their... system. The Oglala Sioux Tribe, however, has only been able to build 40% of the necessary pipelines, only those pipelines 

that deliver safe and adequate groundwater from our wells in the Arickaree formation of the Ogallala Aquifer. We will build the balance of our distribution system 

(60%) after Missouri River water reaches the Reservation near Wanblee. Because 

we are the last sponsor to be served and find ourselves largely alone to justify future appropriations, anxiety remains high that project support will diminish and 

that the distribution system on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation will never be 

40

1Letter of October 31, 2001, from EPA Administrator, Christine Todd Whitman, to The Honorable C. W. Young, Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, House on Representatives. 2Federal Register, Vol. 66, No. 194, Oct. 5, 2001, p. 50761.

3Subcommittee to Update the 1999 Arsenic in Drinking Water Report, September 2000, Prepublication Copy, Arsenic and Drinking Water: 2001 Update, Committee on Toxicology, National 

Research Institute, p. 12. 4Federal Register, October 20, 2000, National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Arsenic 

and Clarifications to Compliance and New Source Contaminants Monitoring, Vol. 65, No. 204, 

p. 63031, et seq. 5 Ibid. 

6 Ibid, p. 63032 7 Ibid.

built as expected by the Tribe and as foreseen by the congressional delegation in 

the early years. 

The arsenic problem is not to be taken lightly. Maximum contaminant level 

(MCL) for arsenic was reviewed by EPA and lowered, from 50 to 10 micrograms per 

liter (μg/l) on October 31, 2001.1 Water systems were to Comply by January 2006. 

The revision for arsenic followed a request for comment by EPA on 3 μg/l (feasibility 

level), 5 μg/l (proposed June 2000), 10 μg/l (January 2001 rule) and 20 μg/l.2 The 

National Research Institute concluded that: 

. . . The results of this subcommittee’s assessment are consistent with 

the results presented in the NRC’s 1999 Arsenic in Drinking Water Report 

and suggest that the risks for bladder and lung cancer incidence are greater 

than the risk on which the EPA based its January 2001 pending rule...3

Earlier concerns with arsenic that influenced the adoption of the older standard 

at 50 μg per liter were related to a risk assessment for skin cancer based on Taiwanese studies involving a low-income population with poor diets and low quality 

of medical care exposed to high concentrations of arsenic. More recently, studies 

have been conducted on the same Taiwanese population in combination with evidence from Chile and Argentina related to the risk of bladder and lung cancers. On 

the basis of a cost and benefit analysis, as reproduced in Table 1, EPA concluded 

that the feasible level for arsenic regulation was 3 μg per liter, but EPA proposed 

an arsenic MCL of 5 μg per liter. 

At the 3 μg per liter level (Table 1), total national costs to community water systems to remove arsenic were estimated by EPA to range between $643 and $753 

million.4 Bladder cancer benefits (reduced incidence and associated costs) were estimated to range between $43.6 and $104.2 million, and lung cancer benefits were estimated to range between $47.2 and $448 million.5 If the upper level of costs were 

used ($753 million) and the upper level of benefits in reduction of the cost of cancer 

incidence were used ($552.2 million), the benefit to cost ratio of removing arsenic 

would be calculated at .73 or the equivalent of $0.73 in benefits for each $1.00 in 

cost to remove arsenic. As shown in Table 1, the benefit to cost ratio increases for 

decreasing levels of arsenic removal. The EPA conclusion of feasibility at the 3 μg 

per liter level was based on a calculation of benefit to cost ratio using the upper 

limit of benefits and the lower limit of costs. 

Table 2 also presents the risk of lifetime incidence of bladder and lung cancer per 

100,000. members of the population for each of the arsenic MCL levels under consideration. There are numerous analyses presented by EPA of risk factors based on a 

variety of assumptions and methods, and only a single set of conclusions is presented in Table 2, The conclusions are illustrative of the benefits of lowering the 

arsenic MCL from 20 micrograms (μg) per liter with 84 lifetime incidences. per 

100,000 persons to 3μg per liter with 24 lifetime incidences per 100,000 persons.6

Note that the estimates of lung cancer incidence are comparable to those of bladder 

cancer, leading EPA to conclude that ‘‘. . . based upon this most recent risk 

information... the combined risk of excess cases of lung and bladder cancer attributable to arsenic in drinking water could be at least twice that of bladder cancer 

alone . . .’’ 7

41

Table 1.—ESTIMATED COSTS AND BENEFITS FROM REDUCING ARSENIC IN 

DRINKING WATER 

[1999 $ in millions] 

Arsenic 

Level

(μg/l) 

Total National Costs 

to CWSs 

Total Bladder Cancer 

Benefits 

‘‘What If’’ 

Lung Cancer 

Benefits 

Cost 

Upper 

Limit 

Benefit 

Upper 

Limit 

Benefit to 

Cost Ratio 

3 .......... $643.1–753 $43.6–104.2 $47.2–448 753.0 552.2 0.73

5 .......... 377.3–441.8 31.7–89.9 35.0–384 441.8 473.9 1.07

10 ........ 163.3–191.8 17.9–52.1 19.6–224 191.8 276.1 1.07

20 ........ 61.6–72.9 7.9–29.8 8.8–128 72.9 102.7 1.44

Based on EPA in Federal Register; October 20, 2000

Table 2.—LIFETIME INCIDENCE, RISKS PER 100,000 POPULATION, 90TH 

PERCENTILE 

[1999 $ in millions] 

Arsenic Level

(μg/l) 

Morales Risk 

Bladder Cancer 

Morales Risk 

Lung Cancer 

Upper Limit 

Combined 

Risk 

3 .............................................................. 10–12 10–12 24

5 .............................................................. 18–20 17–21 41

10 ............................................................ 26–31 27–31 62

20 ............................................................ 35–41 34–43 84

Based on EPA in Federal Register, October 20, 2000

Arsenic in groundwater in many parts of the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation is at 

concentrations between 20 and 50 μg per liter, and Missouri River water will reduce 

concentrations below 3 μg per liter. Therefore, the Tribal Council and membership 

are anxiously awaiting Missouri River water to lower cancer risks from arsenic 

alone by well over 60 lifetime incidences per 100,000 persons or 6 lifetime incidences 

per 10,000 members of our population. Our future generations will benefit greatly 

by the improvement in arsenic concentrations stemming from the delivery of Missouri River water. 

A similar analysis can be presented to demonstrate the human health impacts 

from uranium concentrations in our groundwater. Both uranium and arsenic are 

naturally occurring elements in our groundwater and are unavoidable absent delivery of water from the Missouri River as intended by the Mni Wiconi project. 

There are additional human health benefits to be derived from improvements in 

the quality of our drinking water and an adequate supply for economic development 

brought by the Mni Wiconi Project. The Mni Wiconi Project and the industry that 

will follow will raise our income levels, which, in turn, will lower the extraordinary 

rates of mortality among the Indian population of our Reservation. Information has 

been compiled in the Great Plains to show that high mortality rates are related to 

low income and that the present value of Indian health-care costs in our region over 

the next 50 years will be as much as $0.8 to $1.6 billion higher than non-Indian 

health care costs for heart disease, cancer and diabetes in each 24,000 members of 

the Indian population. Improvement in the economy of the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, coming from the Mni Wiconi Project, will lower these extraordinary costs. 

The Mni Wiconi Project has success stories on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. 

Before the project was authorized, for example, high nitrate contamination. and the 

risk to newborns was a concern of the Women of All Red Nations. Dr. Thomas Welty 

wrote extensively about water borne diseases and hepatitis-C on the Reservation. 

Upon project authorization, the (Vida Sioux Tribe immediately built the emergency 

pipeline from wells with good water quality to the community of Oglala. This was 

followed additional well development and pipelines to the areas around Slim Buttes, 

along American Horse Creek, north of Kyle, from Kyle to Sharp’s Corner, from 

Sharp’s Corner to Rocky Ford and Red Shirt, and to the communities of Manderson 

and Porcupine. This brought high-quality groundwater where it could be developed 

to many rural households and to several small communities. Since implementation 

of these projects, waterborne diseases have diminished or been eliminated, hepatitis-C has not occurred, and infants have not been lost to nitrogen contamination. 

There is much more to be done, but these steps have been effective. The delivery 

of Missouri River water as soon as possible to the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation 

42

8 Bureau of Reclamation Construction Cost Trends, http://www.usbr,gov/pmts/estimate/

costltrend.html. 

* Figure 1 has been retained in committee files. 

will alleviate other extreme health conditions and greatly improve the quality of life 

of our members, actions which are within the original goals of the Act. 

An Additional Four Years of Direct and Overhead Costs 

While we are fully supportive of the extension of the construction schedule from 

FY 2008 through FY 2012, each year of additional extension results in new costs 

for necessary activities that cannot be eliminated. These activities will be continued 

with minimal staff in numbers only adequate to continue necessary functions. Costs 

will include the following:

1) Salaries and fringes for personnel to: 

a) administer design and construction. contracts 

b) inspect construction 

c) acquire easements 

d) prepare as-built drawings for operation, maintenance and replacement 

e) coordinate with other sponsors, the Bureau of Reclamation, public and 

other federal agencies 

2) Non-salary costs for administrative functions 

a) utilities and communications 

b) travel and vehicles 

c) office costs (photocopy, mail, other normal office expenses) 

d) establish permanent record system consisting of electronic filing systems and project portfolios 

3) Reclamation Oversight Costs 

4) Indefinite quantities for interconnecting new homes to the Project distribution 

system after FY 2008. (The population on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation is increasing at a rate of 27% per decade, which is equivalent to about 1,650 persons 

in the period between 2008 and 2012. The new population during the period of construction extension will require connections to the Mni Wiconi Project for household 

uses).

The costs during an extended construction schedule-are real costs. Funds are necessary to retain staff and functions to carry on design and construction. The additional costs for the additional construction extension can only be estimated at this 

time at about $12 million. Actual costs will become more clear and definable by 

2009 and 2010. Without an amendment of the construction ceiling to include these 

costs, it will be necessary to reduce the miles of pipeline built to cover the unavoidable costs. There is a need to coordinate and implement strategic planning to ensure 

overall project activities are completed in a satisfactory manner. The Oglala Sioux 

Tribe will seek a future adjustment of the construction ceiling to ensure that the 

original intent of the Mni Wiconi Project Act and the Final Engineering Report, approved by the Secretary of interior, is realized and that the distribution system 

within the PiAe Ridge Indian Reservation is not left incomplete. 

Appropriation Levels after FY 2006 Must Increase to Complete the Project in FY 2012

A matter of serious concern to the Oglala Sioux Tribe, last sponsor to be served 

with water from the Missouri. River to replace toxic groundwater, is the need for 

an increased level of appropriations to complete the project by FY 2012. Irrespective 

of the degree of future inflation, the level of appropriations needs significant increase above the $23 million level in recent years if the project is to be completed 

by FY 2012. 

Table 3 presents construction cost indices compiled by the Bureau of Reclamation 

for several tracking items since 1992 (pumping plants, drains and laterals and a 

composite construction trend).8 Average construction cost increases for pumping stations for naming 5-years ranged from 1.81% (5-years ending in 2000) to 4.20% (5 

years ending in 2005). Average construction cost increases for pipelines in rural 

water systems (Bureau of Reclamation uses laterals-and drains to measure pipeline 

cost trends) ranged from 2.99% to 7.37%. The average annual rate of increase was 

lowest for the 5-year period ending in 2000 and 2001 and highest for the 5-year period ending in 2005 for all categories. Figure 1* displays the 5-year running cost 

trends from Table 3. 

The Oglala Sioux Tribe is extremely concerned about the construction cost trend 

in 2004 and 2005 with pipeline construction costs increasing at 5.65% and 6.60%, 

respectively. Bidding experience in 2006 is confirming a significant upward trend. 

Therefore, looking forward, construction cost increases trending above 7%, particuVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:23 Nov 27, 2006 Jkt 109677 PO 30834 Frm 00046 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 P:\DOCS\30834.TXT SENERGY2 PsN: PAULM
43

larly for pipelines, the largest component in the project, may be reasonably likely. 

Table 4 presents the impact of 7% inflation on levels of appropriation needed to 

complete the project by FY 2012, and demonstrates that an average annual appropriation of $29.8 million would be required. Table 5 summarizes the levels of appropriation, ranging from $280 miliion to $37.5 million on the average, needed to overcome inflation ranging from 5% to 15% respectively.

Table 3.—AVERAGE ANNUAL CONSTRUCTION COST INDEXING 

BASED ON RECLAMATION TRENDS 

Index Annual Increase, % Previous 5-Year Average, 

%

Pumping 

Plants 

Laterals 

& 

Drains 

Composite 

Pumping 

Plants 

Laterals 

& 

Drains 

Composite Pumping 

Plants 

Laterals 

& 

Drains 

Composite 

1992 ........ 188 169 188

1993 ........ 192 176 194 2.13% 4.14% 3.19%

1994 ........ 197 182 199 2.60% 3.41% 2.58%

1995 ........ 206 190 207 4.57% 4.40% 4.02%

1996 ........ 215 202 212 4.37% 6.32% 2.42% 3.41% 4.56% 3.05%

1997 ........ 218 216 218 1.40% 6.93% 2.83% 3.23% 5.25% 2.96%

1998 ........ 222 220 221 1.83% 1.85% 1.38% 3.03% 4.85% 2.66%

1999 ........ 226 226 227 1.80% 2.73% 2.71% 2.34% 4.43% 2.33%

2000 ........ 231 238 233 2.21% 5.31% 2.64% 1.81% 4.19% 2.39%

2001 ........ 235 243 236 1.73% 2.10% 1.29% 1.89% 2.99% 2.00%

2002 ........ 241 251 242 2.55% 3.29% 2.54% 2.07% 3.35% 2.30%

2003 ........ 247 262 250 2.49% 4.38% 3.31% 2.25% 3.76% 2.44%

2004 ........ 263 303 274 6.48% 15.65% 9.60% 3.30% 6.22% 4.14%

2005 ........ 277 323 288 5.32% 6.60% 5.11% 4.20% 7.37% 5.10%

Table 4.—APPROPRIATION LEVEL NEEDED TO COMPLETE THE MNI WICONI 

PROJECT IN FY 2012, 7% INFLATION 

Remaining Costs after FY 2006 ........................................................ $130,000,000

Added Direct and Overhead Costs after FY 2008, 2005 Dollars .... 12,000,000

Total Costs ................................................................................... 142,000,000

Historic Rate of Appropriations ........................................................ 22,900,000

Authorized Completion Date ............................................................. 2,008

Appropriations Schedule .................................................................... 6

Assumed Cost Indexing (inflation) .................................................... 7%

Fiscal 

Year 

Appropriations 

Remaining Amount Complete 2012 Uniform 

1 .................... 2007 $151,040,000 $24,987,943 $29,791,004

2 .................... 2008 130,699,426 26,737,099 29,791,004

3 .................... 2009 107,972,012 28,608,606 29,791,004

4 .................... 2010 83,653,679 30,611,305 29,791,004

5 .................... 2011 57,633,063 32,754,096 29,791,004

6 .................... 2012 29,791,004 35,046,883 29,791,004

7 .................... 2013 0 

Total ...... 178,746,021 178,746,021

44

Table 5.—ANNUAL APPROPRIATIONS AND TOTAL COSTS TO COMPLETE MNI 

WICONI PROJECT BY FY 2012 FOR RANGE OF INFLATION RATES 

Current Sunset Date .......................................................................... 2008

October 2006 Remaining Federal Cost ............................................. $142,000,000

Annual Cost Indexing (Inflation) Rate 

Appropriations Needed thru 2012

Total Average Annual 

5 ....................................................................... $167,859,000 $27,976,000

7 ....................................................................... 178,746;000 29,791,000

10 ..................................................................... 195,625,000 32,604,000

15 ..................................................................... 225,130,000 37,522,000

Additonal Concerns 

The declining performance of the Bureau: of Indian Affairs in the processing of 

easements is a concern to the Oglala Sioux Tribe and affects our ability to complete 

the project within the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. In the early years of the 

project the enthusiasm of the Bureau of Indian Affairs was high, and the processing 

of our easements had a priority. Today the processing of easements is extremely tedious and slow. The Tribe is currently waiting for Bureau of Indian Affairs to process easements for the Wanblee North powerline upgrade, the Wanblee to Hisle function pipeline and the Hisle Junction to Kyle pipeline. Construction will be delayed 

until these easements are processed. Designs have been approved. Bidding and 

award of construction projects should be ongoing, but our cooperative agreement 

with the Bureau of Reclamation requires that easements must be acquired throughout the construction area before bidding. 

Our Sincere Appreciation 

The South Dakota delegation has been highly supportive of the Oglala Sioux Tribe 

and other sponsors during the course of this-project, and their efforts are sincerely 

appreciated. We understand that the delegation supports (1) the formation of a task 

force to investigate the high rates of mortality and morbidity associated with. heart, 

cancer, diabetes and other prominent diseases on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation 

and (2) a congressional hearing to report the task force findings. The task force can 

hopefully be comprised of individuals from the National Institute of Health, Center 

for Disease Control or comparable organizations that have credentials and background to compare and correlate-the level of poverty, incidence of disease, human 

costs and costs to the United States Treasury for health care of populations on and 

off the Indian Reservations in the Great Plains. The Oglala Sioux Tribe intends to 

be heavily engaged in the implementation of the task force and preparation for the 

heating. 

The subcommittee’s action to extend the project from FY 2008 through FY 2012, 

the highest priority for successful completion of this project, is greatly appreciated 

by the 0glala Sioux Tribe. We are hopeful that the subcommittee Will examine our 

testimony carefully and can take cognizance of the additional steps needed to complete the project and realize the benefits intended and expected by Congress and 

the Tribe. 

STATEMENT OF DON CHRISTIANSEN, GENERAL MANAGER, CENTRAL UTAH WATER

CONSERVANCY DISTRICT, ON S. 1812

My name is Don Christiansen and as the General Manager of the Central Utah 

Water Conservancy District, I appreciate the opportunity to express my support for 

S. 1812 before this Subcommittee. The Central Utah Water Conservancy District, 

as a subdivision of the state of Utah, was designated in 1964 to be the local entity 

to manage the construction, operation and the financing for the Central Utah 

Project (CUP). The purpose of the CUP is to be sure that the state of Utah maximizes the use of water allotted from the Colorado River based on the Colorado River 

Compact. In addition, the District serves as a wholesaler of water to other cities and 

agencies. 

The Central Utah Project includes five specific units. Each unit consists of a series of dams, pipelines, reservoirs, tunnels, and aqueducts designed to assist in 

meeting the water needs of ten counties. The Bonneville Unit of the CUP was 

45

planned to develop and export water from the High Uinta Mountains in the eastern 

part of the state and bring it through a series of reservoirs, tunnels and pipelines 

to the populated Wasatch Front. Early on water was planned to be delivered as far 

south as the Sevier River Drainage through an Irrigation and Drainage delivery system. Under that early plan Juab County would have received a large amount of 

project water. 

However, the original planning requirements for the Bonneville Unit water have 

been altered over time. Millard and Sevier counties in central Utah have withdrawn 

from the Central Utah Water Conservancy District and now virtually all of the 

water is planned to remain along the Wasatch Front for use in Wasatch, Utah and 

Salt Lake Counties to meet the water needs of the increasing population growth in 

those areas. Utah, as a whole, grew nearly 30 percent in the last decade and some 

urban areas within those counties are growing at a rate of double digits per year. 

Juab County has remained part of the Central Utah Water Conservancy District 

and has paid about $3,000,000 in property taxes into the District and continues to 

pay property taxes each year with the expectation of receiving benefits from maintaining membership in the District. 

The Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 (Public Law 

102-575), which included the authorization of the Central Utah Project construction, 

has been a huge success in Utah. Completed projects include the Wasatch County 

Water Efficiency Project, Completion of the Diamond Fork System, thirty five water 

conservation projects which last year conserved over 90,000 acre-feet of water, a 

conjunctive use project in Salt Lake County, and the eleven million dollar East Juab 

Water Efficiency Project in Juab County. Projects currently under construction include’ the Uinta Basin Replacement Project, five additional water conservation 

projects, and ten local development projects under section 206 of P.L. 102-575. A 

Record of Decision has been signed for the Utah Lake System which when completed will deliver an additional 60,000 acre-feet per year of municipal water to the 

rapid growing parts of Utah in Salt Lake and Utah Counties. 

Passage of S. 1812 will give Juab County an additional opportunity to benefit 

from P.L. 102-575 by making Juab County eligible for participation in conjunctive 

use funding to enable the county to study and construct conjunctive use projects. 

This process of ‘‘conjunctive use’’ will allow Juab County to maximize surface water 

flows and groundwater sources in a coordinated manner by storing surplus surface 

flows in existing groundwater aquifers, which results in increasing the benefit of 

both their respective water resources. Currently, this program is limited to the 

Wasatch Front counties of Salt Lake, Utah, Davis, Wasatch, and Weber. Juab County should be made eligible to receive funds for projects to develop comprehensive 

conjunctive use water management in their county. 

In conclusion, as the second driest state in the nation, Utah faces unique challenges with inadequate existing water supplies compounded with high growth rates 

and widely varying annual precipitation. In light of these circumstances, the Central 

Utah Water Conservancy District fully supports the addition of Juab County to the 

conjunctive use program. The coordination of water resources is vital to developing 

an efficient system that will better utilize and maximize existing water resources. 

This bill will only enhance Juab County’s ability to meet the water needs of its citizens. 

Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF BILL JONES & THE C.W. ‘‘BILL’’ JONES FAMILY, ON H.R. 2383

Senators: 

Thank you for taking time to consider this recognition of a great leader that 

helped build California’s water infrastructure. As many of you are aware, the area 

of California water is a very difficult and often time’s contentious place to develop 

solutions. Yet our father was instrumental in bringing people together to generate 

consensus for all of California’s benefit. He had a great gift of always being able 

to put himself in the other parties’ position to try and understand problems when 

they occurred. We saw him many times sacrifice his own position for the good of 

California as a whole. 

He was a pioneer in the area of California Water and development in the San 

Joaquin Valley as well as the State for over 25 years. Our father was the President 

of the San Luis and Delta-Mendota Water Association/Authority for over 20 yrs. 

While serving as President of the San Luis and Delta-Mendota Water Authority, he 

was directly involved with the Central Valley Project as well as the State Water 

Project in numerous capacities. He was also President of the Firebaugh Resource 

Conservation District, the Las Deltas Mutual Water Company, the Silver Creek 

46

Drainage District and also Vice President of the Firebaugh Canal Water District. 

He was also appointed by Gov. Ronald Reagan to the California State Water Commission. In recognition of the years of dedicated and hard work performed by C.W. 

‘‘Bill’’ Jones, he was presented with California State Senate Resolution No. 1198 on 

August 22, 1997

We would appreciate Senator Domenici & the Committee’s support for this measure, which redesignates the facility of the Bureau of Reclamation located at 19550 

Kelso Road in Byron, California known as the Tracy Pumping Plant to be known 

as the ‘‘C.W. ‘Bill’ Jones Pumping Plant.’’

Thank You.

Æ