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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

76–519 PDF 2012

S. HRG. 112–588 

RURAL WATER PROJECTS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

TO

RECEIVE TESTIMONY ON S. 3385, A BILL TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO USE DESIGNATED FUNDING TO PAY 

FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AUTHORIZED RURAL WATER PROJECTS 

JULY 31, 2012 

( 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

MARK UDALL, Colorado 

JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

JOE MANCHIN, III, West Virginia 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

DANIEL COATS, Indiana 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

ROBERT M. SIMON, Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Chief Counsel 

MCKIE CAMPBELL, Republican Staff Director 

KAREN K. BILLUPS, Republican Chief Counsel 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS 

Page 

Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator From Montana .................................................. 3 

Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator From New Mexico ........................................ 1 

Bracken, Nathan, Legal Counsel, Western States Water Council, Murray, 

UT .......................................................................................................................... 32

Brumfield, Gayla, Chairwoman, Eastern New Mexico Rural Water Authority, 

Albuquerque, NM ................................................................................................. 24 

Connor, Michael L., Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation, Department of 

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

Larson, Troy, Executive Director, Lewis and Clark Regional Water System, 

Tea, SD ................................................................................................................. 21 

Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator From Alaska ............................................... 2 

Sunchild, Bruce, Chairman, the Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy’s 

Reservation, Box Elder, MT ................................................................................ 27 

APPENDIXES 

APPENDIX I 

Responses to additional questions .......................................................................... 43 

APPENDIX II 

Additional material submitted for the record ........................................................ 57 

(1) 

RURAL WATER PROJECTS 

TUESDAY, JULY 31, 2012 

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

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room SD– 

366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jeff Bingaman, chairman, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN, U.S. 

SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO 

The CHAIRMAN. OK, why do we not get started? Senator Murkowski will be here shortly but asked us to proceed. 

This morning, the committee will hear testimony on S. 3385, the 

Authorized Rural Water Projects Completion Act. This was introduced by Senator Baucus, who is here to be our first witness. This 

important legislation addresses the serious backlog in the construction of already authorized Bureau of Reclamation projects that are 

intended to provide domestic water supplies for rural and tribal 

communities. 

All of these projects have previously been studied and approved 

by the Congress. However, the funding for constructing the projects 

has lagged, causing a delay in providing for the delivery of potable 

water to rural and tribal communities. 

The ongoing drought in many parts of the West underscores the 

importance of rural water supply projects, such as the ones that 

would be covered by this bill. 

The Reclamation Fund was established in 1902 by Congress. It 

is to be used as a funding source to construct water projects in the 

West. It is funded through a variety of receipts, including Federal 

minerals leasing receipts. However, the use of moneys from the 

Reclamation Fund has been subject to appropriation, and, therefore, large balances have remained in the Fund and continue to increase. 

This chart here, which I think most of you cannot see because 

it is faced in the wrong direction, it makes the point. It shows that 

the balance in the Reclamation Fund in fiscal year 2011 was $9.6 

billion. It is estimated to continue to rise. While these funds were 

intended to be used for water project construction, they have not 

always been appropriated when needed. S. 3385 would direct that every year $80 million that would otherwise be deposited in the Reclamation Fund be made available 

without further appropriation for the construction of the authorized 

rural water projects. 
2 

According to Bureau of Reclamation analysis, an increase in funding for the construction of rural water projects to $80 million 

per year would reduce the total Federal appropriations needed to 

complete the projects by more than $1 billion. That is when 

projects costs and inflation are taken into account. So while the bill 

provides for spending, it actually results in savings to the Treasury 

over time. 

The bill also includes language that states that amounts may not 

be transferred for rural water projects pursuant to the legislation 

if to do so would raise the deficit. This is essentially a placeholder 

that indicates our intent to find an offset for the spending in the 

bill. 

The legislation provides that the Secretary may not expend any 

amounts until programmatic goals are developed that would enable 

completion of rural water projects as quickly as possible, that reflect the goals and priorities identified in the laws authorizing the 

rural water projects, and reflect the goals of the Reclamation Rural 

Water Supply Act of 2006. 

The bill does not direct that a particular project receive funding. 

Rather, it provides that the Secretary develop funding 

prioritization criteria to serve as a formula for distributing funds 

consistent with considerations set forth in the bill. 

The bill is important to our citizens in rural and tribal communities in the West. Adequate water supplies are fundamental to our 

way of life, and far too many Americans still live without adequate, 

safe drinking water. 

I want to thank Senator Baucus for introducing the legislation, 

and thank the witnesses for being here today. 

Before I introduce the witnesses, let me call on Senator Murkowski for any comments she would have. 

STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM ALASKA 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the 

opportunity to focus on water here this morning. 

We have a lot of water up North. But when it comes to providing 

for what I think most would consider to be pretty basic needs in 

my home State, we are seriously, seriously lacking in far too many 

areas. We have got about 280 isolated villages around the State. 

The average population of the villages is somewhere around 300 

people, not a lot and not accessible by road. 

Most of these villages are accessible only by air or by boat, subsistence lifestyle, very little economy. So when we are looking to install water systems, it is extraordinarily expensive. 

I have been working for about 8 years now to get a community 

hooked into water, just basic water, a flush toilet. I was in 

Buckland, Alaska back in 2000—I think it was 2005—and had a 

full community meeting with just about every resident in the village. As I was getting ready to leave, an elderly woman comes up 

to me, she grabs me by the arm, and she says, ‘‘Lisa, all I want 

before I die is a flush toilet.’’ 

We kind of chuckle at it, but it is pretty basic. If you don’t have 

flush toilets, it is tough to do other things. It is tough to have clean 

water. It is tough to wash your clothing. It is tough to be able to 
3 

just focus on basic health care needs. In too many of our communities, those basic needs are yet to be met. 

We have made some progress in Alaska. Back in 1994, only 37 

percent of our rural households had adequate sanitation. Today, 

the good news is we are up to about to 77 percent of our Alaskan 

homes that have running water and flush toilets. But still, that is 

only 77 percent. So what do the rest of the people do? 

In far too many of our communities, they haul their waste in a 

bucket down to the lagoon, or they have a honey wagon that comes 

around and basically pumps the stuff out. But it is an area that 

is ripe for disease, and it is simply not acceptable. Twenty-one communities have never had piped water or sewer. Many of them have 

just simply not been connected. So I think we recognize that we 

have made progress but there is so much more that needs to happen. 

As we address the bill before us today, I want to note that circumstances have changed since this committee passed several of 

the bills that were envisioned to be funded in this bill. Many of the 

projects that this bill would direct money to have not received 

much funding since they were originally authorized, mainly because they are not within the traditional mission or priorities of 

the BOR, the Bureau of Reclamation. In addition, with the budget 

and the deficit constraints, all of these projects face some grim statistics. 

But I am pleased that we are looking today at additional tools 

that we may have to help fund these rural projects. I also look forward to hearing from our witnesses in looking at some new and 

perhaps some innovative ways to approach funding them. But I 

think we recognize our budget resources are under more strain 

than ever, and the spending that this bill would mandate has to 

come from somewhere. 

I look forward to hearing from Commissioner Connor on how the 

Bureau of Reclamation intends to implement their water programs 

and the steps that it is taking to address the other larger, unmet 

water needs in this country. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Before we go to our two panels of witnesses, Senator Baucus is 

here. He is the sponsor on this legislation. Why do we not ask him 

to make any statement he would like to make? I know he has another important meeting that he has to get to. So thank you for 

being here, and thanks again for sponsoring the bill. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM MONTANA 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank 

you for holding this hearing today on our bill, the Authorized Rural 

Water Projects Completion Act, and thank you for your outstanding 

leadership to help find solutions for rural Americans who still lack 

good, clean water. 

As Ben Franklin said long ago, ‘‘When the well is dry, we learn 

the worth of water.’’ I might say as an aside, in parts of Alaska I 

am sure and New Mexico, and South Dakota, and Minnesota, and 

certainly my State of Montana where it does not rain near as much 
4 

as it does back on the East Coast here, it is especially an issue. 

In some of our States, because it does not rain, there are fewer people per square mile, which makes it very difficult to get water— 

good, clean drinking water out to people. 

It really doesn’t rain west of the 100th meridian and that is dictated—such the culture that we have in West United States because precipitation has just been so low compared with east of the 

100th meridian, where it rains just a lot more. 

The main point being that city people even in our part of the 

country, in western States, most of them, when they move into a 

house and turn the tap on, they just take for granted that there 

is water there. Just take it for granted. Turn the tap on, and there 

is drinking water. 

But that is not true for other parts of our States, as we have well 

known, particularly the more rural parts. In the more rural parts, 

there is often no municipal drinking water system. There just isn’t. 

You get your water from wells. Sometimes the wells work, sometimes they don’t. Sometimes you have to go down pretty deep. 

Sometimes the water is brackish. It is contaminated, it is unreliable, and there is not enough of it, good, clean water. For years, 

many of us have tried to find the resources so that people in our 

States—in the rural parts of our States can be served. 

The big issue clearly is lack of resources, lack of funding. Appropriations tend to be pretty slim around here. Mr. Chairman, and 

I, and others have come up with this idea of mandatory spending 

for some of these projects. We have listed the projects that are 

most needed. It is true that we have to then come up with the offsets to finance this mandatory spending. But we set it out at $80 million a year for these projects. It is 

a good start. We will keep working on it. We will keep improving 

on it, but I do believe very strongly this is extremely important. 

We in the Finance Committee will work very hard, do our level best, to help find the offsets so there is—that there is $800 million 

over 10 years to finance this. We are just going to have to do it. 

I cannot tell you what the source of that revenue will be. I don’t 

know at this point, but I do know that this approach makes a lot 

of sense because the old ways of doing things just hasn’t worked 

very well. There just has not been enough appropriations to complete some of these projects. In the current rate we are going, it 

is going to take a long, long time, maybe a generation, before some 

of these projects are finally completed. 

There are several in Montana. One that is especially important 

is the Fort Peck Dry Prairie Project, and we have two or three in 

Montana. A little later, we will hear from Chairman John 

Sunchild. John Sunchild is the chairman of the Rocky Boy’s Reservation in Montana. 

We all know, some Reservations are rich. They have got lots of 

resources. Some don’t. It just varies. In some parts of the country, 

it is casino revenue, and in our part of the country, there are not 

near enough people to have casinos. So we cannot have any casinos. In some parts of our State, reservations are rich in coal and 

gas. Other parts there is not much of anything and the Rocky Boy’s 

Nation, John Sunchild is chairman, is one of the reservations—they 

just do not have resources. They are small, and they just have a 
5 

hard, hard time of getting drinking water. It is just very, very difficult. So they have developed, and some money has been spent on 

the Fort Peck Dry Prairie project. 

Many communities in Montana, too, are further stressed because 

of the oil boom. The Bakken formation has put a lot more pressure 

on communities who otherwise had a hard enough time as it was 

to provide water. This makes it even worse. 

But I just thank you very much for your help here. Of course, 

Dry-Redwater is extremely important. I think you will be moved by 

the testimony of my good friend, Bruce Sunchild, when he testifies 

a little bit later, and he speaks movingly about the unsanitary 

groundwater wells that his people continue to use. 

I have a hunch that when he speaks, it will remind you, Senator 

Murkowski, of some of the problems you addressed in Alaska. They 

are not dissimilar. In fact, looking at all the members of this committee, I strongly suspect that each have communities that face 

these very same problems. 

But thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for taking up this bill, 

and it is very, very important for a lot of people who otherwise, you 

know, really are not in the most powerful position to find ways to 

address their basic needs. In this case, it is drinking water. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Baucus follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS, U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA

Thank you for holding this important hearing today on our bill, the Authorized 

Rural Water Projects Completion Act. And thank you for your outstanding leadership to find solutions for rural Americans who still lack good clean water. 

As Ben Franklin said long ago, ‘‘When the well is dry, we learn the worth of 

water.’’ 

Most Americans are lucky. They connect to city water systems that don’t run dry. 

But in rural Montana, we know the worth of water. The wells are dry. The wells 

are old. And they are salty, contaminated, and expensive. 

Today in eastern Montana, an oil boom is challenging small towns that barely 

meet their own water needs. Rural water projects like Fort Peck-Dry Prairie provide 

a basic service. They are a good investment. 

That project is now providing clean water to oilfield workers who have moved to 

the small town of Bainville. At the same time, the project is meeting our tribal trust 

responsibility. 

My bill will ensure that the Bureau of Reclamation program that provides potable 

water to rural Americans is a wise investment. At the current rate of appropriations, it will be twice as expensive as it should be to pay for projects like Rocky’s 

Boy-North Central and Dry Redwater. 

We can do better. 

We don’t have extra money floating around this place. We need to spend it on essentials. And clean drinking water is an essential. 

I am so pleased to introduce my good friend Chairman Bruce Sunchild to testify 

today. 

Chairman Sunchild has been a leader of the Chippewa Cree tribe for decades. His 

homeland in north central Montana is a beautiful stretch of the Great Plains. He 

speaks movingly about the unsanitary groundwater wells that his people continue 

to use. 

I urge you to listen closely to his wisdom. Thank you again. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, again, for your leadership on this 

legislation, and thank you for being here today to advocate for it. 

Senator BAUCUS. Senator, Bruce Sunchild is sitting behind me. 

He is back here, and you are going to hear from him later. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. All right. We will look forward to that. 
6 

Let me call first on our first panel, which is the Honorable Michael Connor, who is well-known to all of us here on this committee. He used to work with us and is now the Commissioner of 

the Bureau of Reclamation, and is the leading brain behind this effort, and we are glad to have him here to give us the Administration’s perspective on it. 

So, Mike, why do you not go ahead? 

OPENING STATEMENT OF THE MICHAEL L. CONNOR, COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, DEPARTMENT OF THE 

INTERIOR 

Mr. CONNOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, Ranking 

Member Murkowski, and members of the committee, I am Mike 

Connor, Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased 

to provide the views of the Department of the Interior on S. 3385, 

the Authorized Rural Water Projects Completion Act. I have submitted my written statement for the record. 

Like its sponsors, the Department supports the goals of S. 3385 

to encourage vibrant rural economies and safe, reliable drinking 

water for rural residents. Our objective has been to further those 

goals, while taking into account competing budget priorities 

through the annual budgeting process. 

The Obama Administration has supported Reclamation’s Rural 

Water Program over the last 4 years to a significant extent, allocating $231 million in the fiscal year 2010 through fiscal year 2013 

budgets for authorized rural water projects. In addition, we allocated $232 million for new construction activities through the Recovery Act. Notwithstanding the projects’ importance, current 

budget constraints have limited the ability to make Federal investments that match on-the-ground capabilities. 

The goal of S. 3385 is to provide a constant level of dedicated 

funding for construction of authorized rural water projects. The Department supports the goals of advancing the economic security of 

Americans living in rural areas, and constructing these projects 

will not only help provide the economic benefits of clean, reliable 

drinking water systems that most Americans take for granted, but 

will also create jobs through ongoing construction activity. 

Since the 1980s, Congress has authorized Reclamation to undertake the design and construction of specific projects intended to deliver potable water to rural communities located primarily in the 

17 western States. These projects exist in communities that are experiencing urgent needs for water due to poor quality of existing 

supply or the lack of a secure, reliable supply for the long-term. 

As you know, Mr. Chairman, in eastern New Mexico, the existing 

communities currently rely on the diminishing Ogallala Aquifer, 

and the current drinking water systems are projected to face significant shortages within the next 25 to 40 years, if not sooner. 

Reclamation’s Rural Water Program provides a resource to rural 

communities under those circumstances, and Congress has authorized Federal assistance to meet those needs. 

The Rural Water Supply Act of 2006 authorized the Reclamation 

to establish a program to work with the rural communities to assess water supply needs and conduct appraisal and feasibility studies without individual acts of Congress. 
7 

Pursuant to the Act, Reclamation created a rural water program 

to enable coordinated examination of the various options to address 

communities’ water supply needs through a cost-effective, prioritybased process. 

The 2006 Act also required the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with other relevant agencies, to develop a comprehensive 

assessment of the status of existing authorized rural water 

projects. In response, Reclamation recently issued a draft assessment report, which is available for public comment through September 10th of this year. 

As described in the assessment report, most congressional authorizations for the rural water supply projects required that the 

cost ceilings be indexed to adjust for inflation. The result of these 

indexing requirements is that the overall cost of authorized rural 

water projects has risen and continues to rise during the time 

needed for construction. The total estimated funding that would be 

required to complete these projects is now at $2.6 billion, substantially higher than the original authorization amounts, which are 

approximately $2 billion. 

Reclamation recognized the need to make meaningful progress in constructing authorized rural water projects and has budgeted $52 

million in fiscal year 2013 toward that effort, a substantial increase 

from the fiscal year 2012 budget. At the current budgeted level, 

however, it will still take decades to complete the construction of 

these projects. 

S. 3385 establishes a dedicated Reclamation Rural Water Construction Fund in the U.S. Treasury comprised of funds that would 

otherwise be deposited into the Reclamation Fund. Eighty million 

dollars per year will be deposited into the Fund and allowed as an 

expenditure from the Fund through 2034. This funding would help 

reduce the total cost associated with construction of authorized 

rural water projects and enable earlier completion of these projects. 

S. 3385 provides that the bill’s cost would be offset so as to not 

increase the deficit. The Department supports such language, but 

even if an equivalent and acceptable offset is identified, use of 

those funds must be weighed against other priorities across the 

Federal Government, including deficit reduction. For this reason, 

the Department continues to support achieving the goals of this 

legislation through the allocation of discretionary budget resources. 

As a final matter, I would note that State, local, and tribal governments are taking a greater leadership role in water resources 

investments, including financing projects the Federal Government 

would have done in the past. We expect that this trend will continue. Even with the additional resources that would be made 

available through S. 3385, the non-Federal entities will likely need 

to increase their share of funding to build these projects in the 

timeframes that they have envisioned. 

Mr. Chairman, I understand the importance of these rural water 

projects to New Mexico, as well as the other western States, and 

appreciate your leadership and support for Reclamation’s Rural 

Water Program. We stand ready to work with you to achieve the 

goals of S. 3385. 

This concludes my statement, and I am happy to answer questions. 
8 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Connor follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL L. CONNOR, COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF

RECLAMATION, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

1Chairman Bingaman, Ranking Member Murkowski and Members of the Committee, I am Mike Connor, Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). I am pleased to be here to provide the views of the Department of the Interior 

(Department) on S. 3385, the ‘‘Authorized Rural Water Projects Completion Act’’. 

Like the sponsors of this legislation, the Department supports the goals of encouraging vibrant rural economies and ensuring safe, reliable sources of drinking water 

for rural residents. Rural water projects help build strong, secure rural communities 

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

2013 Budget includes $52 million for new construction activity plus another $18 million for operating and maintaining existing projects. 

As a threshold matter, the Obama Administration has supported Reclamation’s 

rural water program over the last four years, allocating $231 million of funding, in 

the FY 2010-2013 budgets, to construct, operate, and maintain authorized rural 

water projects in addition to $232 million provided for these projects in the Recovery 

Act. Still, the rural water program must compete with a number of other priorities 

within the Budget, including aging infrastructure, Indian water rights settlements, 

environmental compliance and restoration actions, and other priorities intended to 

address future water and energy related challenges. Notwithstanding the importance of rural water projects, current budget constraints have limited the ability to 

make Federal investments that match on-the-ground capabilities. 

Despite such constraints Reclamation has made progress in promoting certainty, 

sustainability, and resiliency for those who use and rely on water resources in the 

West and in supporting the basic drinking water needs of rural communities, as directed by the Congress. S. 3385 provides a constant level of mandatory funding to 

support the construction of authorized rural water projects to deliver water to smaller, isolated communities. However, the Department believes Federal investments in 

such projects must recognize the current fiscal constraints and the need to make 

tough choices in prioritizing those investments. The Administration supports the 

goals embodied by S. 3385 of advancing the economic security of Americans living 

in rural areas, and constructing these important infrastructure projects will not only 

help provide the economic benefits of a clean, reliable, drinking water system that 

most Americans take for granted, but will also assist in creating jobs in the shortterm through ongoing construction, but the Administration supports discretionary 

funding for these projects. 

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

and construction of specific projects intended to deliver potable water supplies to 

rural communities located in North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, New Mexico, 

Minnesota and Iowa. These projects exist in communities that are experiencing urgent needs for water due to poor quality of the existing supply or the lack of a secure, reliable supply. For example, in rural Montana, some communities have, from 

time-to-time, been subject to ‘‘boil water’’ orders due to the unsafe conditions of the 

existing drinking water supplies. In Eastern New Mexico, the existing communities 

currently rely on the diminishing Ogallala Aquifer and the current drinking water 

systems are projected to be depleted within 40 years. Reclamation’s Rural Water 

Program provides a resource to rural communities under those circumstances and 

the Congress has authorized federal assistance to meet those needs. 

The Rural Water Supply Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-451) authorized Reclamation to establish a program to work with rural communities, including tribes, in the 17 Western States to assess rural water supply needs and conduct appraisal and feasibility 

studies without individual acts of Congress. Pursuant to the Rural Water Supply 

Act, Reclamation created a rural water program to enable coordinated examination 

of the various options to address rural communities’ water supply needs through a 

cost effective, priority-based process. 

In addition to authorizing appraisal investigations and feasibility studies, Section 

104 of the Rural Water Supply Act required that the Secretary of the Interior, in 

consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Director of the Indian Health Service, the Secretary 

of Housing and Urban Development and the Secretary of the Army, to develop a 

comprehensive assessment of the status of the existing, authorized rural water 

projects. Section 104 also directs Reclamation to describe its plans for completing 

the design and construction of the authorized rural water projects. 
9 

In response to Section 104, Reclamation issued a draft assessment report titled 

‘‘Assessment of Reclamation’s Rural Water Activities and Other Federal Programs 

that Provide Support on Potable Water Supplies to Rural Water Communities in the 

Western United States’’ which is posted on Reclamation’s website (www.usbr.gov/ 

ruralwater/docs/Rural-Water-Assessment-Report-and-Funding-Criteria.pdf). Comments on the draft report may be submitted through September 10, 2012. In addition to providing a report of the status of the existing authorized rural water 

projects, the assessment report describes how Reclamation’s Rural Water Supply 

Program will be carried out and coordinated with other Federal programs which 

support the development and management of water supplies in rural communities 

in the western states and to maximize efficiency of the various programs by 

leveraging Federal and non-Federal funding to meet the shared goals of the programs. 

As described in the assessment report, with the exception of Title III of P.L. 107- 

331 that authorized the Jicarilla rural water supply system, each of the Acts of Congress authorizing Reclamation’s involvement in the rural water supply projects required that the cost ceilings included in the original authorizing legislation be indexed to adjust for inflation which is estimated to be 4% annually. The result of 

these indexing requirements is that the overall cost of the authorized rural water 

projects has risen and continues to rise during the time needed for construction, 

such that the total estimated funding that would be required to complete these 

projects is now $2.6 billion, which is substantially higher than the original authorization amounts, which totaled $2.0 billion. 

Reclamation has recognized the need to make meaningful progress in constructing 

authorized rural water projects and has budgeted $52 million in FY2013 toward 

that effort. At the current funding level, and without additional non-Federal funding, progress would be made towards project completion, but some of the currently 

authorized projects would be completed much later, perhaps not until well after 

2063 despite close to $4.0 billion being invested by that time. It is estimated that 

as of 2063, an outstanding balance of approximately $1.1 billion would remain to 

complete construction of currently authorized projects. 

Across the country, state, local, and Tribal governments are taking a greater leadership role in water resources investments, including financing projects the Federal 

government would have in the past. Constrained Federal budgets do not preclude 

the ability of non-Federal parties to move forward with important investments in 

water resources infrastructure and the Department stands ready to support that effort. Even with the additional resources made available through S. 3385, we would 

expect that non-Federal entities will likely need to increase their share of funding 

to build these projects in the timeframes they have envisioned. 

S. 3385 establishes a dedicated Reclamation Rural Water Construction Fund in 

the United States Treasury comprised of funds that would otherwise be deposited 

into the Reclamation Fund established by the first section of the Act of June 17, 

1902 (32 Stat. 388, chapter 1093). This funding source would enable earlier completion of projects. Section 3(b)(3) of S. 3385 provides that the bill’s cost would be offset 

so as to not increase the deficit. The Department supports such language. However, 

even if an equivalent and acceptable offset is identified, use of those funds must be 

weighed against other priorities across the Federal government, including deficit reduction. 

Section 3 of S. 3385 provides that for each fiscal year from 2013 through 2029, 

$80,000,000 per year will be deposited into the Fund in addition to interest earned 

on invested money that is available in the Fund but not utilized for the current 

withdrawal. Section 3(c) of S. 3385 limits expenditures from fiscal year 2013 

through 2034 from the Fund to not more than $80,000,000 in addition to interest 

accrued in that same fiscal year, with an allowance for the use of funds carried over 

from prior years. 

S. 3385 also provides that if Reclamation has completed feasibility reports pursuant to Title I of the Rural Water Supply Act by September 30, 2012, recommending 

construction of additional rural water projects, and those projects are subsequently 

authorized by Congress, they may be eligible to receive funding through the Reclamation Rural Water Construction Fund. S. 3385 directs the Secretary of the Interior to develop programmatic goals enabling the expeditious completion of construction of the existing rural water projects and to establish prioritization criteria for 

the distribution of funds. Reclamation’s draft assessment report would meet these 

requirements when complete. Reclamation’s first goal is to advance the construction 

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

amount of time, given our current budget constraints. The second goal is to give priority to rural water projects that address Indian and tribal water supply needs. 
10 

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

projected funding levels may not be sufficient to expeditiously complete the federal 

funding portion of every project and that it must prioritize the allocation of available funding. The draft assessment report outlines prioritization criteria to guide 

Reclamation’s decision making to maximize the agency’s ability to meet its programmatic goals, to maximize water deliveries to rural communities in as short a 

period as possible, and to reflect the diverse needs and circumstances facing each 

individual project. The six criteria identified by Reclamation for rural water construction prioritization are: 

• Is there an urgent and compelling need for potable water supplies? 

• How close is the Project to being completed and what is the commitment of the 

project sponsors to making that happen? 

• What is the financial need of the communities and what is the relative economic 

effect of the Project? 

• Does the Project fulfill Reclamation’s authorized niche for taking a regional and 

watershed approach to rural water projects? 

• Does the project minimize water and energy consumption and encourage the 

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

etc., to meet local needs? 

• Does the project serve the needs of tribal communities and tribal members? 

The analysis outlined in the draft assessment report underscores that in times of 

constrained federal budgets, non-federal funding in excess of the minimum contributions originally contemplated will be required to expedite project completion and reduce the effects of indexing over the construction period. 

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

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much and thanks for your leadership and help with the development of the legislation. 

One obvious question is, is there sufficient funding in the Reclamation Fund to meet the needs of Department of Reclamation, 

even if we dedicate $80 million per year to addressing this construction backlog? In your view, is there still adequate funding in 

there for the other needs that the fund was established for? 

Mr. CONNOR. If the legislation were to be enacted and taking an 

additional $80 million from the Reclamation Fund for direct financing of these rural water investments, it is my view, having looked 

at the numbers, that there would still be substantial resources in 

the Reclamation Fund to fund our other priority programs. 

I say that based on, just on general, we are averaging about $2 

billion per year of revenues into the Reclamation Fund right now 

and through the annual appropriations process. The Reclamation 

Fund is used to fund a large percentage of Reclamation’s programs 

through the appropriations process on an annual basis and averages somewhere in the neighborhood of $900 million to $1 billion 

per year. So there is a surplus on a year-to-year basis, even taking 

into account the $80 million per year. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. As you know, a lot of my interest in 

this whole subject results from the problems that we have in eastern New Mexico with the depletion of the Ogallala Aquifer and the 

threat that that poses for the water supply for many of the communities in eastern New Mexico. We have, of course, the Eastern New 

Mexico Rural Water Supply Project, which we have authorized. 

Can you give us any information about the time horizon for construction of that project if this legislation does not get enacted? If 

something like this automatic funding is not provided for, do you 

have an idea as to how long it might take to accomplish the construction of the project? 
11 

Mr. CONNOR. I can look at that a little closer, but sitting here 

before you today, I do not have a good estimate of the time horizon 

that we would have. You know, we have had—even at the $52 million level for new construction activity, which is what we have got 

in our existing 2013 budget, we are looking at significant timeframes in the completion of these rural water projects. I think the 

estimate that we put in our draft rural water assessment report 

was at that level, about $52 million per year. We would still by 

2063 not have completed all of the existing authorized projects and 

there would be still something on the order of a $1.1 billion backlog 

at that point in time. 

The CHAIRMAN. That’s 2063, you—— 

Mr. CONNOR. 2063, that’s correct. 

The CHAIRMAN. I think I will probably have left the committee 

by then. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. CONNOR. I would just say that we are continuing to look at 

ways to increase the investments for these rural water projects. 

Certainly the Recovery Act helped greatly to reduce the backlog. 

We did substantially increase the resources in 2013 versus 2012, 

and we are having an active dialog about how we can continue to 

do that in the future through the appropriations process. 

The CHAIRMAN. Since at the current time these communities in 

eastern New Mexico are dependent primarily on the—on groundwater that they get from the Ogallala Aquifer, has the Bureau of 

Reclamation, to your knowledge, or any of the other Federal agencies done a calculation as to how long that underground aquifer, 

the Ogallala Aquifer, will remain a viable source of water for communities in eastern New Mexico? 

Mr. CONNOR. Not that certainly the Bureau of Reclamation has 

done. We have not done in-depth analysis of the Ogallala Aquifer 

and its ongoing viability for a supply that has certain levels of reliability on an annual basis. You know, I think our best information 

is that provided by the various entities that we work with, that it 

is a declining aquifer. Those problems have certainly been exacerbated over the last decade in certain areas of the country. 

I know there have been a number of studies that have been done 

by USGS and other entities. I am not aware of how comprehensive 

they are or how detailed the modeling is for the long-term. 

Mr. CHAIRMAN. All right. Senator Murkowski. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Mr. Connor, we know that there is many— 

well, I should not say many—but there are multiple Federal agencies that have funding availability for rural areas to construct and 

improve water and wastewater facilities. 

Can you describe what else is out there other than what you administer, and also the level of collaboration or how the different 

agencies are working together to address the need that clearly exists? 

Mr. CONNOR. I think through the legislation that was enacted in 

2006, the Rural Water Supply Act, which directed the Secretary to 

collaborate with 6 other agencies in defining the programs and to 

figure out ways to collaborate and—to the extent—of not merging 

those programs, but at least having them work better together so 

that we are not overlapping authorities and programs, that is tak-
12 

ing place increasingly. We have outlined that in our draft report 

that we just issued. There is something like ten programs out there 

that we identified through the 6 agencies. I have to say, whether 

it is rural water projects or some of the Indian Water Rights Settlements that we are doing, which are similar in nature, such as the 

Navajo-Gallup pipeline project, we have had enhanced collaboration of such. 

In Navajo-Gallup, we have got funding that was provided 

through the USDA’s Rural Water Utilities program to do distribution lines in association with the Navajo-Gallup pipeline project. 

The Indian Health Service, which has another major program for 

rural communities, is also participating in that effort and constructing some of the distribution lines. So we are trying to marry 

up our authorities and Reclamation’s role, which is generally the 

large water delivery systems, with these other programs like Rural 

Utilities or Indian Health Service that do distribution lines. 

So there is some synergy there. There are other programs that 

just are related to wastewater treatment, which is outside the purview of what we are doing in our Rural Water Program. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Let me ask you about prioritization because, as we recognize with the budget issues that we are facing, 

it is all a matter of priorities now. 

How are you going to ensure that the money that will be spent 

on these projects that are authorized within this proposed legislation are actually the most feasible and the most cost-effective? 

Mr. CONNOR. There’s two level of priorities. Let me put it that 

way. We prioritize our overall programs with Reclamation, and 

that results in a certain amount of money that we can apply toward the Rural Water Program in our annual budgeting process. 

Then I think the question that you asked was then, taking those 

resources, how do you ensure that we make the best investments 

possible? We have through the 2012 appropriations process in the 

funding that Congress provided for rural water programs and then 

our 2013 budget, we have revised our criteria for those— 

prioritizing our investments in rural water projects. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Are those then reviewed by OMB? 

Mr. CONNOR. They did participate in that effort. We work with 

them, and—— 

Senator MURKOWSKI. In the priority setting then. So they worked 

with you ahead of time? 

Mr. CONNOR. Yes, absolutely. We work with them as we apply 

those criteria in the budget process. We work with them as we release the draft Rural Water Program. We have got six, basically, 

prioritization criteria right now, and we are taking comments on 

those 6 criteria and figuring out how we may revise them before 

issuing a final report and then finalizing them. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Are those 6 criteria the same criteria then 

that OMB uses? My question is whether or not you are in sync 

with—— 

Mr. CONNOR. We are in sync, yes. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. OK. Let me ask then about what would 

happen if this bill were to be enacted. You have $80 million per 

year that will be disbursed to the fund. Do you think then that the 

Appropriations Committee is going to view this funding as an addi-
13 

tional amount to the allocation that traditionally comes to Bureau 

of Reclamation? 

My concern is that as an appropriator sitting on the committee, 

I am going to look at this and say, well, Bureau of Reclamation already is receiving $80 million a year. We do not need to worry 

about making sure that that budget allocation that we typically 

have seen is there. 

How have you factored this into the equation, because, as you 

know, we are all looking for dollars under every rock out there. 

Mr. CONNOR. Right. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. How do you make sure that these priorities 

that have been set with this legislation are addressed, while at the 

same time addressing the pent-up needs within the Bureau of Reclamation? 

Mr. CONNOR. That is a very good question, Senator Murkowski, 

and it is something that we would have to go through in our annual budgeting process. I think what we have tried to do in our 

draft report is basically start with laying out the facts and the figures so that we can assess those in our budget priorities, as well 

so as folks in Congress can assess those facts. 

So, for instance, the bill would make available $80 million per 

year in mandatory funding. Right now, our investments are about 

$52 million for construction activities, as we pointed out in the 

2013, and that still is going to leave a substantial backlog. We also 

identified that to optimize funding on the ground and to complete 

the projects in the timeframes contemplated, some of those projects 

are through I think the 2029 timeframe—we would need something 

on the order of $162 million per year, certainly over the next decade when we are doing a lot of construction activities. 

So you can see there, the $80 million would certainly allow for 

increased on-the-ground activity, more than the budget resources 

currently available. But it is not the optimum level of funding. 

So there is a mix or some judgments that have to be made. That 

is where our prioritization criteria comes in. What we are trying 

to do is take whatever resources we have, ensure we can make the 

most valuable investments so that we don’t have stranded assets, 

so that we can try and complete sections of these projects so that 

they serve communities and meet the most compelling needs that 

are out there. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Johnson. 

Senator JOHNSON. Welcome, Commissioner Connor. You testified 

that the current funding level of $50 million for construction, some 

of the authorized projects will extend well beyond 2063, with a substantial outstanding balance remaining. This is obviously not an 

acceptable timeline. How would starting with $80 million annually 

from Reclamation funding impact projects time lines and overall 

costs? 

Mr. CONNOR. I think going back to that range I just mentioned 

at the optimum $160-plus million funding levels, I think our projections are that we could complete the authorized projects, marrying 

up with the non-Federal cost shares that are out there, by the 2029 

time period. 
14 

You mentioned the $52 million and then the 2063 time horizon. 

I think our projections are at the $80 million per year range, if that 

is what it was through enactment of this legislation, we are looking 

at about a 2039 timeframe for completion of the authorized 

projects, assuming that the non-Federal cost shares are all in place. 

Senator JOHNSON. I appreciate that the investments of that the 

Administration made in rural water through the Recovery Act and 

certainly the Lewis and Clark’s Water Treatment Plant likely 

would not be coming online this week without it. 

Unfortunately, the regular budgeting process seems to be continuously under invest in these projects. For example, the Administration fiscal year 1912 budget would have provided just $20 million for construction across all projects, though Congress added 

back significant funds. 

During an appropriations hearing in April of last year, I asked 

about the disproportionate hit. You conceded that it was an area 

within BOR’s budget that perhaps took the largest cut. In the absence of this dedicated funding, what can we expect from budgets 

in the coming years? 

Mr. CONNOR. Senator, I don’t have to tell you that budgets are 

very tight, as we all know. We did look at the 2012 budget level. 

We did cut back the construction dollars significantly. Part of it 

was the tight budgets. Part of it was the investments that continued to be available as we were completing activity based on the Recovery Act investments, the substantial resources that were applied 

toward rural projects as part of that effort. 

So notwithstanding that, we did increase the 2013 budget. That 

is certainly our goal and preference is to try and maximize our investments through the discretionary budget process. But there are 

a number of competing programs that we have at Reclamation. 

Certainly it starts with our operating and maintaining our projects 

and the infrastructure, and then the legal obligations that we have, 

whether it be Indian water rights settlements, compliance with the 

environmental laws, court-ordered activity that we have to undertake and those are the highest priority levels, those two categories, 

within our budget. They do take up substantial resources. 

Senator JOHNSON. For communities like Madison, South Dakota, 

that are at the end of the line to be hooked up to rural water, can 

you provide any assurance that these projects will ever be completed? 

Mr. CONNOR. The assurance that I can make is that we are trying to make the best use possible of the resources we have through 

their prioritization criteria. Certainly, as you know, for some 

projects, when we get close to completion, that is another element 

of our priority criteria. We have certainly done that with the Mni 

Wiconi project as we have gotten close. Through our 2013 budget, 

we expect to then complete the current Federal investments authorized for that project. So we are systematically going through 

and completing the construction of these projects, albeit slowly. But 

that is part of our priority criteria. 

Senator JOHNSON. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 
15 

I just want to open my questions with—and thank you for coming—by just telling you that I do not support this bill. I don’t think 

this is the way to fund western water projects. This bill puts some 

water projects ahead of the line of other projects that I think where 

there are greater needs. I think the process that funds these 

projects lacks transparency and that the bill leaves key terms undefined and Secretarial authority vague. I think the bills says it is 

deficit-neutral, but it really does not explain where the offsets come 

from. The bottom line is that some States win under this bill; others simply lose. The public needs some clarity as to what this bill 

really does. 

So with that said, Mr. Connor, I look at the term in the bill 

‘‘rural water project’’ and what that is supposed to mean. I am just 

kind of interested in what your thoughts are, what that actually 

means, that definition? 

Mr. CONNOR. We would identify 12 rural water projects that 

have been authorized over time. Of that, we have completed 4 to 

date, and that leaves 8 projects, two more which we expect to complete soon. So there is a set number of projects that we have identified in our rural water report that we would apply to that term. 

That is how we would interpret it. There are other projects that are 

essentially rural water projects that we also need to think about, 

such as the Arkansas Valley Conduit, et cetera. So we do have in 

our mind what we would include under that term. 

Senator BARRASSO. OK. You know, there is a 2006 Rural Water 

Supply Act, and that is kind of different than rural water supply 

project, rural water project, and just kind of looking at the definition differences to see how that would be covered. 

You know, the Administration says it supports the goals embodied in this legislation, S. 3385, of advancing the economic security of Americans living in rural area. Yet nowhere in the testimony do you actually state that the Bureau of Reclamation or the 

Administration supports the bill. So I am just curious if the Bureau 

and the Administration support this bill as written? 

Mr. CONNOR. The Administration, as identified in the testimony, 

supports the goals of the legislation. We do have concerns with the 

mandatory funding aspect of it. 

Senator BARRASSO. It looks like many of the projects targeting 

for funding in the bill have been around for decades. It is my understanding that the Bureau of Reclamation has opposed some of 

these projects in the past. Is that correct? 

Mr. CONNOR. Yes. Testimony has opposed the enactment of some 

of this legislation. 

Senator BARRASSO. The next is that I frankly do not see the 

value in creating a new trust fund such as the one contemplated 

in this bill. Money goes in, but rarely does the money come out. 

Congress uses the funds as slush funds to cover deficit spending. 

What is held in trust is not cash. Instead, the so-called trust funds 

hold debt, debt that is never paid back. We see it time and again, 

and I think we see it in this bill. You say in your testimony that 

the bill creates a constant level of mandatory funding, and I don’t 

read it that way. 

The Secretary of the Treasury may only make the transfer if the 

transfer will not increase the deficit. Given that the current level 
16 

of deficit spending the Federal Government is at, you can imagine 

scenarios in which the transfer will not occur. 

I think it is also important to point out that, even if a transfer 

to the new fund occurs, the bill creates no obligation for the Secretary to spend the money. There is no obligation—on page 3, with 

regard to expenditures from the Rural Water Fund, it says, ‘‘The 

Secretary may expend from the fund not more than the sum of $80 

million.’’ In section 2 of page 4, it states again that, ‘‘The Secretary 

may use the amounts.’’ 

Do you agree this language gives the Secretary the ability not to 

spend the money on the authorized rural water projects in the bill? 

Mr. CONNOR. That may be the interpretation of the bill. Given 

the strong need on the ground and the investments and the capabilities that exist, I expect that the money would be expended. 

Senator BARRASSO. But it says, ‘‘may,′′ not ‘‘shall,′′ so just in 

terms of the legislation. 

Mr. CONNOR. Understood. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. With regard to page 3 under the 

section entitled, ‘‘Limitation,’’ it states that, ‘‘No amounts may be 

deposited in or made available from the fund.’’ Under those paragraphs, if the transfer or availability of the amounts would increase the deficit. I mean, this language is somewhat confusing. 

There is no process or method for determining whether or not a 

transfer would increase the deficit. 

I see in your testimony, the Administration supports this provision. In your written testimony, you also state that an equivalent 

and an acceptable offset must be identified. So I am wondering how 

you are going to implement this provision. Are you going to raise 

fees on other government operations, cut costs to pay for the transfers. How this—will allow power rates to be increased for hydro 

dam users in the west. So I am just kind of looking at that. What 

are the different ways the Secretary can use to make these transfers deficit-neutral, and should there not really be a formal process 

to ensure that the bill will be deficit-neutral? 

Mr. CONNOR. In the testimony and our contemplation is that the 

bill would be deficit-neutral when it is enacted by Congress. 

Senator BARRASSO. We will see how that turns out. 

Are you familiar with the GAO report in February 2006, entitled: 

Indian Irrigation Projects. Numerous Issues? The whole title is Indian Irrigation Projects. Numerous Issues Need to be Addressed to 

Improve Project Management and Financial Sustainability. 

Mr. CONNOR. It has been a long time, but, yes, I am familiar 

with the report. 

Senator BARRASSO. OK. We actually had hearings related to this 

in Wyoming in the Wind River Reservation. 

I just want to point out that the GAO study says that there were 

nearly 16 irrigation projects initiated in the late 1800s—because, 

I mean, you are talking about 2063m down in the future—that 

there were 16 irrigation projects initiated in the late 1800s and the 

early 1900s by the Department of Interior that were never completed, are not sustaining themselves, and all but one of these 

projects are now managed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The report says—and I apologize Mr. Chairman for running over. But I 

will just, if it is all right, just finish this one question. 
17 

Because of insufficient funding, project maintenance has been 

consistently postponed, resulting in an extensive and costly list of 

deferred maintenance. These are in Indian Reservations. You state 

that the projects funded through this bill must compete with other 

priorities of the Bureau of Reclamation budget, including aging infrastructure. 

The question is, why are we funding these new projects in this 

bill when authorized Bureau of Reclamation projects for Indian irrigation projects that are from a hundred years ago are still not 

completed and have severe deferred maintenance backlog? 

So I am just curious if you could talk about that and should fixing these projects not be a top priority of the Bureau of Reclamation and the Department of Interior as opposed to moving forward 

with something new? 

Mr. CONNOR. Actually for the vast majority of those projects that 

are currently within the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, we are not authorized to go and do rehabilitation activity. We 

have been specifically authorized for rehabilitation activity on Indian irrigation systems, for instance, with respect to the Crow 

Tribe’s irrigation system as a result of the Crow Water rights settlement. 

There are specific instances where we are responsible for rehabilitation. We do prioritize those activities in our budget. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Senator Franken. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Commissioner. 

Senator, Secretary Salazar testified here that he felt—and Senator Johnson mentioned the Lewis and Clark Project. He testified 

that that was a priority. 

Minnesota communities have paid 100 percent of their share 

years ahead of when they were told water was going to be there. 

But the project is being delayed. Minnesota communities are paying additional costs because they have no water. 

Lincoln Pipestone spent $6 million to secure an interim water 

supply. Rock County spent $1.75 million on system upgrades. 

Luverne spent $650,000 on a water reclamation system and a new 

well. Do you understand that the distrust that this builds in these 

communities about the Federal Government? 

Mr. CONNOR. I do understand that there is frustration at the 

lack of funding levels that would optimize the construction of the 

Lewis and Clark Project, yes, sir. 

Senator FRANKEN. I mean, these communities are losing economic development projects. They are losing—you know, we lost an 

ethanol plant in, the expansion of a pork processing plant in Worthington. Yet, these communities have now paid more really than 

their share. Do we know when Lewis and Clark will get completed? 

Do you have a date? 

Mr. CONNOR. I do not have a date off the top of my head. 

Senator FRANKEN. OK. These are not new projects. In other 

words, I support this legislation, and I would just say to the ranking—or not the ranking member, but Senator Barrasso, that these 

aren’t new projects. To say they are new project is just wrong. Is 

that correct? Lewis and Clark is not a new project, is it? 
18 

Mr. CONNOR. It has been authorized for a significant amount of 

time. 

Senator FRANKEN. Yes, since 2000, right? 

Mr. CONNOR. Since 2000, yes, sir. 

Senator FRANKEN. Yes and Minnesota has not gotten a drop of 

water from it, and these communities have paid 100 percent of 

their share. Now, what we are getting—so and the—you know, because of inflation, the amount that is being appropriated actually 

does not keep up with inflation. So the Federal share—let’s see. 

The inflation was more than the $5.5 million that the project was 

appropriated last year. 

So, under this level of funding, it is not going to get done by 

2063. It will just never get done. Now I am hoping the Chair—I 

know the Chair is leaving. Maybe he will take—get a second wind. 

He will stay out of the Senate for a few years and maybe he will 

be chairing this in 2063. 

But, I mean, what this does is just actually increase the cost of 

the projects, does it not? 

Mr. CONNOR. Certainly as we have pointed out, the indexing that 

occurs in the annual inflation figures are very significant in this 

program and to stay ahead of that aspect, it is somewhere in the 

$40 million range of construction activities to get ahead of the annual inflation. 

Senator FRANKEN. OK. So we got ourselves a problem here, do 

we not? We really do. 

Mr. CONNOR. Overall funding for these programs faces some significant challenges. 

Senator FRANKEN. OK. But I think what we should consider here 

is the commitment that was made to these local communities in 

Minnesota and in Iowa, which are not getting the water that they 

have paid for. These are local communities who cannot run a deficit. These are local communities that are seeing economic development not happen, that would have otherwise happened. 

If there is any—you know, we talk about return on investment 

in anything, in corporate, in private industry. The return on investment of this project would be tremendous in the sense that we 

would be building infrastructure. We would be creating jobs for the 

people that are—at a time when we do not have enough people 

working, when we have high unemployment, when, actually, the 

treasuries now are getting less—you know, have to pay out less 

than 1 percent interest, which is less than inflation. 

You know, essentially, you are being paid to borrow money. Let 

us do this work now. Let us do this work now so we can have the 

ethanol plant, so we can have the pork plant expanded, so we can 

have the dairies expanded, like the one in Hull. This is pennywise 

and pound foolish as far as I am concerned, and it is also creating 

a sense of distrust of the Federal Government. 

When the State of Minnesota and the communities in Minnesota 

have paid 100 percent of their share of this, and now, they are 

being told that this might not be done until 2063. I just think that 

we—you need to support more than the goals of this. If we need 

to figure out some changes in the language of this, I am all fine 

with that. But we need to fund these projects. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
19 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Wyden. 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I think we have 

seen how strong the passions are today about water. As Mr. Connor knows, in our part of the country in the west, water is our lifeblood. We need it for people, for drinking water. Our farmers need 

it at a crucial time for agriculture. It is an environmental priority 

in terms of fish. I just wanted to have a brief colloquy with you, 

Mr. Chairman, and I think our staffs have talked about this. 

In our State, in our part of the world, it is absolutely essential 

that we get a long-term solution to the Klamath. This has gone on 

and on for years, and I think Mr. Connor is familiar with this as 

well. I think these are good projects, and we have heard some very 

good arguments. Certainly, Senator Franken’s point about the fact 

so much has been done already, in terms of financing is compelling 

to me. 

I would just like your assurance, Mr. Chairman, that before 

these bills advance, you would commit to working with me so that 

we can get a long-term solution to the Klamath, and the Klamath 

does not fall further behind in terms of getting resources for an urgent need for my State. 

The CHAIRMAN. No, I am glad to work with you to see what can 

be done to resolve that issue and I think there have been several 

issues that have been brought up here that, obviously, we need to 

focus on, this being a major one. I certainly commit to work with 

you before we try to move forward with the legislation. 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is very helpful. 

Mr. Connor, your question, to start with, also deals with the 

Klamath. You have spent a lot of time on projects in Oregon. Can 

we have your assurance, much like I have asked Chairman Bingaman, that before this goes forward, you will commit also to a longterm solution on the Klamath? 

I and Congressman Walden, the Congressman from the area, 

Senator Merkley, a number of us from our State are talking to people on the ground, in the basin, actually getting out and talking to 

all of those concerned about the issue. We want to come up with 

a long-term solution. Will you commit to me today that before these 

projects go forward, you will work with us on a long-term solution 

on the Klamath Basin? 

Mr. CONNOR. Senator Wyden, I am delighted to make that commitment to you, to move forward and to help resolve these ongoing 

systemic conflicts that exist in the Klamath Basin because of the 

competing nature for the resources that are available. So we are 

systematically through our responsibilities through the Secretarial 

determination process. We are investing resources to support the 

goals of the KBRA itself, those broad goals. So, working with you 

to see how we can continue in the effort and move forward is a priority for Reclamation’s priority for the department. 

Senator WYDEN. I want to characterize this, and I do for a very 

specific reason, as working for a long-term solution because when 

you are out listening, you know, to people, getting their input, and 

getting their ideas, that is what they want. That is how they characterize it. They want a long-term solution. You have committed to 

me to work for something I characterize that way, and I appreciate 

it. 
20 

Last question for you is, will you also work with us to help reduce the cost of a long-term solution? I think there is a very strong 

sense that that is going to be a prerequisite to an effective approach here, an approach that works, that can get bipartisan support. Will you commit to work with us to help reduce the cost of 

a long-term solution in the Klamath? 

Mr. CONNOR. Yes, I will, Senator. 

Senator WYDEN. OK. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I appreciate 

your willingness to work with me, as well. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Thank you very much. We will let you 

go, Commissioner Connor. Thank you, again, for your involvement 

in this and your help, and in your testimony today. 

We will go on to the second panel. 

Mr. CONNOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I think Senator Barrasso may want—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Oh, did you have another question, Senator 

Barrasso? 

Senator BARRASSO. I did, Mr. Chairman—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Oh, I am sorry. I thought we were through with 

questions. Go ahead. 

Senator BARRASSO. Just briefly, because you allowed me to extend beyond in the last. It is just a couple of quick questions. 

I agree with the comments by Senator Franken about what has 

been built up and so much work still needs to be done. I mean, I 

am just looking at—and it wasn’t Bur Rec, but it was the Department of Interior that started these projects on the Indian Reservations in the 1800s, 1900s. You know, Blackfoot Irrigation Project, 

Colorado River Irrigation Project, Crow Irrigation Project, Fort 

Belknap Irrigation Project, Pine River Irrigation, San Carlos Indian Works Irrigation Project, San Carlos Joint Works Irrigation 

Project, go on and on, the Wind River Irrigation Project. 

We have things with pent-up demand for well over a hundred 

years, and I just—you know, I have problems with saying, well, we 

will do all these new things when we still have not done that, and 

it may have been shunted off to the Bureau of Indian Affairs now. 

But clearly, there are still areas that involve water and the Department of Interior with original commitments made by the Department that are not being met. 

One other thing. In your testimony, you state that a criteria for 

funding will be does the project minimize water and energy consumption and encourage the development of renewable energy resources, such as wind, solar, hydropower, to meet local needs. You 

specifically leave off oil, gas, coal development in the west. But isn’t 

it true that all the funding for the Reclamation Fund comes from 

oil, gas, and coal development? 

Mr. CONNOR. The large majority of it, but not exclusively. But 

you are correct that that is the vast majority of revenues into the 

Reclamation fund. 

Senator BARRASSO. It is also true then that the overwhelming 

amount of the money transferred to the Reclamation Fund over the 

years—actually more than 50 percent—comes from the mineral activity in just one State, and that State would be Wyoming? 
21 

So under this bill before the committee, not a single project intended to be funded in this bill is located in the State that has the 

greatest impact on the fund. Do you find that ironic? 

No further questions, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. CONNOR. Thank you, Senator Barrasso. 

Senator FRANKEN. May I just weigh in here? 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Franken, go right ahead. 

Senator FRANKEN. This is not a new project. I just want to repeat 

to the Senator from Wyoming. This is not a new project, and this 

is a project that has bipartisan support. Senator Thune, Senator 

Grassley, Congressman King from Iowa, Congresswoman Noem 

have all weighed in on this. This is a project that is not a new 

project, and to characterize it as a new project is just dead wrong, 

right? Am I right? 

Mr. CONNOR. No, as I mentioned, it has been a long, authorized 

project. 

Senator FRANKEN. OK. I just wanted to make that clear. This is 

not a new project. This is—and this is a project in which the local 

communities in Minnesota have paid 100 percent well in advance, 

and have not gotten one drop of water. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. We appreciate your testimony, and we 

will move on to the second panel. Thank you very much. 

Let me introduce the second panel as they are coming forward. 

The Honorable Bruce Sunchild, who is the chairman of the Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy’s Reservation in Box Elder, Montana. Appreciate you being here. 

Ms. Gayla Brumfield, who is chairwoman of the Eastern New 

Mexico Rural Water Authority. Thank you for being here. 

Mr. Troy Larson, executive director of Lewis and Clark Regional 

Water System in South Dakota—from Tea, South Dakota. 

Mr. Nathan Bracken, who is legal counsel with the Western 

States Water Council in Murray, Utah. Thank you for being here. 

Why do we not—usually we just go from the left to the right. If 

that is OK with everybody, we will just start with Mr. Larson, and 

then Ms. Brumfield, and then Mr. Sunchild, and then Mr. Bracken. 

Mr. Larson, go right ahead. If each of you will take 5 or 6 minutes and tell us the main things we need to understand about your 

testimony. We will include your full written testimony in the 

record. 

Go right ahead. 

STATEMENT OF TROY LARSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, LEWIS 

AND CLARK REGIONAL WATER SYSTEM, TEA, SD 

Mr. LARSON. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and members of 

the committee, my name is Troy Larson, executive director of the 

Lewis and Clark Regional Water System. On behalf of our board 

of directors, I voice strong support for the Authorized Rural Water 

Projects Completion Act. 

Lewis and Clark is a regional approach to address common problems of water quality and quantity in a more effective and cost-efficient way than each of the 20-member cities and rural water systems could do alone. The project will provide a desperately needed 

source of drinking water to an estimated 300,000 people in southeast South Dakota and northwest Iowa, and southwest Minnesota. 
22 

Authorized and signed into law in 2000, the project is currently 

65 percent complete. Just yesterday, we marked a huge milestone 

when we began delivering water from our treatment plant to 11 of 

our 20 members. 

Lewis and Clark is now an operational system, which is the good 

news. However, the bad news is the schedule to connect the remaining 9 members is entirely dependent upon a Federal funding 

stream that does not even cover inflation, let alone make any 

meaningful construction progress. 

Based on Federal funding levels, the last 2 years, the project 

would never be completed. Even if Lewis and Clark receives $10 

million a year, our engineers estimate the project would not be 

completed until 2050. The 3 States and 20 local members have prepaid over $153 million, representing 99.7 percent of the non-Federal cost share. Many members prepaid millions a decade before 

expecting to receive water, showcasing the strong local support and 

importance of Lewis and Clark to the region. 

By contrast, the remaining Federal cost share last year was 

$194.3 million, but has risen to $200.6 million this year, an increase of $6.3 million, because Federal funding is not keeping up 

with inflation. To put the remaining Federal cost share of $200.6 

million into perspective, when the project was authorized in 2000, 

the Federal cost share was $270.1 million. The Federal Government to date has appropriated just over $202 million, but because 

of the slow pace of funding, the balance has only been reduced by 

just under 70 million. 

This is a double whammy for taxpayers. Not only does the project 

become more expensive, but it takes longer to realize the economic 

benefits. Lewis and Clark would create thousands of jobs on the 

front end through construction and manufacturing and more importantly, many more long-term jobs on the back end through expanded economic development. As has been noted by our tri-State 

congressional delegation, Lewis and Clark will pay for itself many 

times over. 

We have a number of economic impact examples. A large pork 

processing plant in Worthington, Minnesota cannot expand because 

of the lack of water. Ethanol plants have been turned away in 

northwest Iowa and southwest Minnesota. Proposed dairies have 

been turned away in southwest Minnesota. 

The most striking example is in Hull, Iowa. Because of an emergency connection where Lewis and Clark is temporarily buying 

water from one member and reselling it to Hull, a large cheese factory opened in 2008. The plant employs 135 people and processes 

300,000 gallons of milk a day from area dairies. Company officials 

have flatly stated that without this emergency connection and the 

promise of future water, the plant have—would not have located in 

Hull. 

This cheese factory has been Lewis and Clark’s poster child for 

the economic development that can take place when there is 

enough water. Now the cheese factor is a poster child for how economic development can be curtailed because of the lack of water. 

The factor wants to double production and higher another 50 workers but cannot, because it needs more water than is available. The 
23 

emergency connection we have in place is maxed out. We need to 

get the pipeline to Hull and the other 8 members. 

When times are tough you go back to the basics. What is more 

basic than drinking water? It is the cornerstone of life and economic development. The 3 States and 20 local members have gone 

above and beyond by prepaying their share of the project. To be 

frank, the members are angry and outraged that the Federal Government is not honoring its commitment. They feel the Federal 

Government is leaving them high and dry at a time when they 

need water the most. 

The tri-State region is in the midst of the crushing nationwide 

drought. We have members who under—who are under a total 

water ban for any non-essential use. During a drought, people often 

ask the question, how can we solve our water needs? Here is a situation where we already have the solution, just not the funding to 

carry it out. 

Lewis and Clark greatly appreciates the strong bipartisan support it has enjoyed through the years, including from committee 

members Senator Johnson and Senator Franken. We respectfully 

urge Congress to pass this bill so Lewis and Clark and the other 

6 projects languishing on the Bureau of Reclamation’s plate can be 

completed in a timely manner, bringing much needed water to our 

Nation’s heartland. We strongly urge the Federal Government to 

honor its commitment and not leave Lewis and Clark’s members 

high and dry. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Larson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TROY LARSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, LEWIS AND CLARK

REGIONAL WATER SYSTEM, TEA, SD 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member and Members of the Committee: 

My name is Troy Larson, Executive Director of the Lewis & Clark Regional Water 

System. On behalf of our Board of Directors, I voice strong support for the Authorized Rural Water Projects Completion Act. Lewis & Clark is a unique regional approach to address common problems of water quality and quantity in a more effective and cost-efficient way than each of its 20 member cities and rural water systems could do alone. The project will provide a desperately needed source of quality, 

reliable drinking water to an estimated 300,000 people in southeast South Dakota, 

northwest Iowa and southwest Minnesota. 

Authorized and signed into law in 2000, the project is currently 65 percent complete. Just yesterday we marked huge milestone when we began producing treated 

water from our treatment plant, which is being delivered to 11 of our 20 members. 

Lewis & Clark is now an operational system, which is the good news. However, the 

bad news is the schedule to connect the remaining nine members is entirely dependent upon a federal funding stream that does not even cover inflation, let alone make 

any meaningful construction progress. Based on federal funding levels the last two 

years, the project will never be completed. Even if Lewis & Clark receives $10 million a year, our engineers estimate the project would not be completed until 2050. 

The three states and 20 local members have pre-paid over $153 million, representing 99.7 percent of the non-federal cost share. Many members pre-paid millions a decade before expecting to receive water, showcasing the strong local support 

and importance of Lewis & Clark to the region. By contrast the remaining federal 

cost share last year was $194.3 million, but has risen to $200.6 million this year— 

an increase of $6.3 million because federal funding is not keeping up with price increases caused by inflation. 

To put the remaining federal cost share of $200.6 million into perspective, when 

the project was authorized in 2000 the federal cost share was $270.1 million. The 

federal government to date has appropriated just over $202 million but because of 

the slow pace of funding the balance has only been reduced by just under $70 million. 
24 

This delay is a double-whammy for taxpayers. Not only does the project become 

more expensive, but it takes longer to realize the economic benefits. Lewis & Clark 

would create thousands of jobs on the front end through construction and manufacturing, and more importantly many more long-term jobs on the back end through 

expanded economic development. As has been noted by our tri-state congressional 

delegation, Lewis & Clark will pay for itself many times over. 

We have a number of economic impact examples. A large pork processing plant 

in Worthington, Minnesota cannot expand because of the lack of water. Ethanol 

plants have been turned away in northwest Iowa and southwest Minnesota. Proposed dairies have been turned away in southwest Minnesota. 

The most striking example is in Hull, Iowa. Because of an emergency connection 

where Lewis & Clark is temporarily buying water from one member and re-selling 

it to Hull, a large cheese factory opened in 2008. The plant employs 135 people and 

processes 300,000 gallons of milk a day from area dairies, which has an enormous 

impact to the area. Company officials have flatly stated that without this emergency 

connection and the promise of future water, the plant would not have located in 

Hull. This cheese factory has been Lewis & Clark’s poster child for the kind of economic development that can take place when there is enough water. Now the cheese 

factory is a poster child for how economic development can be curtailed because of 

the lack of water. The factory wants to double production and hire another 50 workers but cannot because it needs more water than is available. The emergency connection we have in place is maxed out. We need to get the pipeline to Hull and the 

other eight members! 

When times get tough you go back to the basics. What is more basic than drinking 

water? It’s the cornerstone of life and economic development. The three states and 

20 local members have gone above and beyond by pre-paying their share of the 

project. To be perfectly frank, the members are angry and outraged that the federal 

government is not honoring its commitment. They feel the federal government is 

leaving them high and dry at a time when they need water the most. 

The tri-state region is in the midst of the crushing drought. We have members 

who are under a total water ban for any non-essential use. During a drought people 

often ask the question, ‘‘How can we solve our water needs?’’ Here is a situation 

where we already have the solution, just not the funding to carry it out. 

Lewis & Clark greatly appreciates the strong bi-partisan support it has enjoyed 

through the years. We respectfully urge Congress to pass this bill so Lewis & Clark 

and the other six projects that are languishing on the Bureau of Reclamation’s plate 

can be completed in a timely manner, bringing much needed water to our nation’s 

heartland. We strongly urge the federal government to honor its commitment and 

not leave Lewis & Clark’s members high and dry. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Brumfield, go right ahead. 

STATEMENT OF GAYLA BRUMFIELD, CHAIRWOMAN, EASTERN 

NEW MEXICO RURAL WATER AUTHORITY, ALBUQUERQUE, NM 

Ms. BRUMFIELD. My name is Gayla Brumfield. I am a former 

mayor of the city of Clovis, New Mexico, and I currently serve as 

the Chair for the Eastern New Mexico Water Utility Authority. I 

am here to present testimony in strong support of Senate bill 3385, 

the Authorized Rural Water Projects Completion Act, which would 

resolve some of the most critical, potable water situations in the 

Western United States and specifically impacting the 7 Eastern 

New Mexico water utility member agencies. 

Mr. Chair, we applaud and deeply appreciate your recognition of 

the importance of rural water projects and the need for the Federal 

Government to provide an adequate level of funding dedicated each 

year to complete these projects in a timely manner. 

The Federal Government’s participation and funding capabilities 

are essential to making Eastern New Mexico Rural Water System 

a reality for our area residents. We are caught in a race against 

the failing Ogallala Aquifer and the time it will take for the Fed-
25 

eral Government to meet its commitment to complete this important project. 

If Federal funding continues along the trends and Senate bill 

3385 fails to become law, then our potable water supply will continue to decline at a rate that is outpacing our only viable alternative to meet our communities’ needs. In fact, we figured that it 

would be about 200 years on the same pace before we would actually have our situation taken care of. We believe this legislation 

will help us avoid costly delays in completing construction phases, 

limit long-term taxpayer obligations, and ensure a more predictable 

and cost-efficient ways of building the Eastern New Mexico Rural 

Water System, so we can realize a sustainable supply of water. 

This legislation is vital for eastern New Mexico to establish sustainable supply of water and ensure our socio-economic future. A 

sustainable supply of water is critical to the future of our region 

which supports, among other things, the 27th Special Operations 

at Cannon Air Force Base, which is a huge security for our country; 

a number of industries, including the dairy industry and the largest cheddar cheese plant in the world, large-scale food production 

and processing, colleges and universities. 

Providing a sustainable water supply for eastern New Mexico is 

our most significant challenge. Our communities rely solely on 

water reserves located in the Ogallala. Our member communities 

are investing millions of dollars basically chasing water, chasing 

water rights, wells, and transmission lines, just to keep up with 

the demand. Even with continuous investment in production facilities, pumping capacity is declining in double-digit percentages 

every year. 

The rate of decline of the aquifer is variable and it is hard to predict exactly how many more years we have. But we absolutely 

know that if we do not begin receiving substantial increases in Federal funding over the next several years, the outlook for our communities is dire. In fact, south of Clovis, right now, some of the 

wells have gone dry and they are hauling water in. 

Significant progress has been made since the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water System has received authorization. However, the 

majority of funding, more than $25 million to date, is just from the 

State. All of our communities have stepped up to the plate and 

have taken care of it and identified their funding sources. 

Last year, the project broke ground on phase one, building the 

intake structure at the Ute Reservoir. We are currently seeking 

Federal funding for our next phase, which is an interim groundwater pipeline, which could provide relief for a few additional 

years. 

We are at a critical point in the development of the project and 

appear before you today to please expeditiously pass Senate bill 

3385. We cannot emphasize strongly enough just how important 

this project is for our members and for our way of life, for our military, and for the citizens and businesses of Eastern New Mexico. 

While our situation is dire, we are well aware that 6 other critical 

regional rural water systems are languishing and this effort will 

assure a future for the West. 

As mayor, I realized how important it was to take care of our 

communities. I love Clovis, I love Eastern New Mexico, and our 
26 

people do, too. It is a way of life that we cherish. But, without 

water, we will not be able to do that. 

My grandchildren—two of my grandchildren live in Clovis, Kate 

and Nicolas, and this is for them. It is really not about me over 

the next few years, but it is for our children and it is for our grandchildren. 

So, Mr. Chair, I thank you for championing this effort, and 

please know that the Eastern New Mexico Water Utility stands in 

strong support of 3385 and will gladly assist you in moving this important legislation through Congress. 

I would also like to just take a minute, Senator Bingaman, to 

thank you for what you have done for our area, for New Mexico 

and for Clovis. We dearly will miss you. You have been a champion 

for us with Cannon Air Force Base and with this project. So I want 

to personally thank you for what you have done, and you will be 

very much missed. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Brumfield follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GAYLA BRUMFIELD, CHAIRWOMAN, EASTERN NEW MEXICO

RURAL WATER AUTHORITY, ALBUQUERQUE, NM 

Chairman Bingaman, Ranking Member Murkowski and Members of the Committee, my name is Gayla Brumfield. I am a former Mayor of the City of Clovis, 

New Mexico and I currently serve as the Chairwoman of the Eastern New Mexico 

Water Utility Authority (Authority). I am here to present testimony in strong support of S. 3385, the Authorized Rural Water Projects Completion Act, which would 

resolve some of the most critical potable water supply issues in the Western United 

States and those specifically impacting the seven Eastern New Mexico Water Utility 

member agencies. 

Mr. Chairman, we applaud and deeply appreciate your recognition of the importance of rural water projects and the need for the federal government to provide an 

adequate level of funding dedicated each year to complete these projects in a timely 

manner. The federal government’s participation and funding capabilities are essential to making the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water System a reality for our area 

residents. We are caught in a race against the failing Ogallala aquifer and the time 

it will take for the federal government to meet its commitment to complete this important project. 

If federal funding continues along current trends and S. 3385 fails to become law 

then Eastern New Mexico’s potable water supply will continue to decline at a rate 

that is outpacing our only viable alternative to meet our communities’ needs. We 

believe this legislation will help us avoid costly delays in completing construction 

phases, limit long-term tax payer obligations, and assure a more predictable and 

cost efficient means of building the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water System to realize a sustainable supply of water. 

This legislation is vital for Eastern New Mexico to establish a sustainable supply 

of water and assure our socio-economic future. A sustainable supply of water is critical to the future of our region which supports, among other things, the 27th Special 

Operations Wing at Cannon Air Force Base, a number of industries including dairy, 

large-scale food production and processing, and colleges and universities. 

Providing a sustainable water supply for Eastern New Mexico is our most significant challenge. Our communities rely solely on water reserves located in the 

Ogallala aquifer. Our member communities are investing millions of dollars each 

year in buying water rights, wells and transmission lines just to keep up with a demand that is essentially flat. Even with continuous investment in production facilities pumping capacity is declining in double digit percentages every year. 

The rate of decline of the aquifer is variable and it is hard to predict exactly how 

many more years we have. But, we absolutely know that if we do not begin receiving substantial increases in federal funding over the next several years, the outlook 

for our communities is dire. 

Significant progress has been made since the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water 

System received Congressional Authorization in 2009. However, the majority of 

funding, more than $25 million to date, has come from the state of New Mexico and 

our member communities. Last year the project broke ground on Phase I, building 
27 

the intake structure at Ute Reservoir. We are currently seeking federal funding for 

our next phase of construction, the building of an interim groundwater pipeline, 

which could provide relief for a few additional years while the rest of project is built. 

We are at a critical point in the development of the project and appear before you 

today to urge Congress to expeditiously pass S. 3385. We cannot emphasize strongly 

enough just how important this project is for our member entities, for our military, 

and for the citizens and businesses of Eastern New Mexico. 

While our situation is dire, we are well aware that six other critical regional rural 

water systems are languishing and this effort will assure a future for the west. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for championing this effort and please know that the 

Eastern New Mexico Water Utility Authority stands in strong support of S. 3385 

and will gladly assist you in moving this important legislation through Congress. 

The CHAIRMAN. That is very kind. Thank you for your great service to the city of Clovis as mayor. You did a great job, and are 

doing a great job as head of the Water Authority now. 

Chairman Sunchild, go right ahead, please. 

STATEMENT OF BRUCE SUNCHILD, CHAIRMAN, THE CHIPPEWA CREE TRIBE OF THE ROCKY BOY’S RESERVATION, 

BOX ELDER, MT 

Mr. SUNCHILD. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my 

name is Bruce Sunchild. I chair the Chippewa Cree Rocky Boy Reservation and I also co-chair the Coordinating Committee for North 

Central Water. 

I have submitted a more detailed statement for the record and 

will summarize my remarks. I want to extent my gratitude to 

Chairman Bingaman and the members of this committee for convening this hearing on such a timely basis, for allowing me to testify. I want to extend appreciation of thousands of Indians and nonIndian residents of north central Montana to Senators Baucus and 

Tester for—and others as—other sponsors of S. 3385. 

If I could leave this member—the members of this committee 

with one impression, it would be for you to understand how difficult life is when you have no assurances when you turn the water 

on in your house that water will in fact come out of the tap, or be 

potable and safe to drink. 

We have one particular community in my Reservation that was 

impacted by flood waters when 27 out of 30 homes testified positive 

for E. coli bacteria and for fecal coliform bacteria. In recent years, 

we have hundreds of cases of H. pylori, bacteria which causes stomach ulcers, extreme gastritis, and even stomach cancer. 

We have spent years in negotiating with the State of Montana, 

the United States, with our non-Indian neighbors to quantify our 

water rights to deal with water quality. President Clinton signed 

into—signed Public Law 106 to 163, our water rights, Settlement 

and Act, in 1999. Among other provisions, the act included a reservation of 10,000 acre feet of water in Lake Elwell, a Bureau of 

Reclamation Reservoir that is 50 miles west of our Reservation. 

The 1999 Act did not, however, provide a delivery system to 

withdraw, treat, convey the 10,000 acre feet of water to us. It was 

understood that the delivery of that water to my reservation would 

also—while also serving our neighbors and our—and a number of 

off-reservation communities would be authorized by subsequent 

pieces of legislation. 

The Federal Government was true to its word and President 

Bush signed the Rocky Boy’s North Central Montana Regional 
28 

Water System Act 2002. This act established a congressionally authorized water project to distribute drinking water from Lake 

Elwell to meet tribal, municipal, rural, industrial needs for the 

Rocky Boy’s Reservation, and 7 other communities—counties in 

Central Montana. 

Mr. Chairman, to date, 13 years after the United States signed 

a historic water rights agreement with my Tribe, and 10 years 

after the enactment of the Federal law to deliver water to us, less 

than 20 percent of the Federal appropriations required to construct 

this project has been received. 

When my people continue to suffer with waterborne illnesses, it 

is hard for them to believe that the U.S. kept its word when we 

settled our water rights in 1999 and we were told that drinking 

water was on the horizon. 

Many of neighboring communities in North Central Montana 

also have water problems and some have been placed on boil water 

orders by Department of Environmental Quality for having—that 

water does not meet standards—minimum standards. 

Since the its authorization in 2002, the funding ceiling for the 

Rocky Boy’s North Central Water System Project was increased to 

$229 million to over $350 million due to the application of annual 

indexing factors by Bureau of Reclamation. The receipt insufficient 

levels appropriations and the impact inflation on having a significant impact on our water project completion. If Federal appropriations do not exceed, at least offset the impact of annual indexing, 

the completion of the Rocky Boy’s North Central will be extended 

indefinitely. 

I direct your attention to the chart on the easel that is to my left 

here, which also supports—appended to my written statement. Not 

only does this delay hurt my people in the health and welfare of 

both reservation and off-reservation residents over a large swath of 

Montana, but increased costs associated with delays are adding unnecessarily to the Federal deficit. 

As you can see the attached chart, if we are not receiving the 

funding of $35 million a year, we could complete this project at a 

total cost of $418.6 million by year 2021. Were we to receive the 

Federal funding levels of $15 million a year, total cost—total 

project cost would be $647 million and we would not finish until 

2046. The latter would cost the United States an additional $228 

million—billion. 

Sadly, only twice in the last 9 years have we received funding 

that exceed over $10 million. We appreciate what has been done 

here and we appreciate your efforts to get an annual funding for 

The Chippewa Cree Tribe in our north central Montana. But we 

have been at this for a number of years. I go all the way back to 

Mike Connor in negotiating the water rights of The Chippewa Cree 

Tribe and I appreciate your attention. We definitely support this 

legislation. I thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sunchild follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BRUCE SUNCHILD, CHAIRMAN, THE CHIPPEWA CREE TRIBE

OF THE ROCKY BOY’S RESERVATION, BOX ELDER, MT 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, my name is Bruce Sunchild, Sr., and I serve as Chairman of the Chippewa 
29 

1SEC. 201. TIBER RESERVOIR. 

(a) Allocation of Water to the Tribe.— 

(1) In general.—The Secretary shall permanently allocate to the Tribe, without cost to 

the Tribe, 10,000 acre-feet per year of stored water from the water right of the Bureau of Reclamation in Lake Elwell, Lower Marias Unit, Upper Missouri Division, Pick-Sloan Missouri 

Basin Program, Montana, measured at the outlet works of the dam or at the diversion point 

from the reservoir. 

Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy’s Reservation and Co-Chairman of the Rocky Boy’s/ 

North Central Montana Regional Water System (NCMRWS) Coordinating Committee. I have also served as Co-Chair of the Joint Federal-Tribal Water Funding 

Task Force, which has been an ad-hoc group coordinated by the Western States 

Water Council, the Native American Rights Fund and the Secretary of the Interior. 

Our emphasis dealt with the funding of Indian water rights settlements. 

On behalf of the Chippewa Cree Tribe and Rocky Boy’s/NCMRWS Coordinating 

Committee, I extend our gratitude to Chairman Jeff Bingaman and the members 

of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee for the timely convening 

of this hearing and the invitation to testify on Senate Bill 3385, the Authorized 

Rural Water Projects Completion Act. This legislation authorizes the Secretary of 

the Interior to use designated funding to help pay for construction of authorized 

rural water projects, and for other purposes. 

Our thanks also goes out to our Senator Max Baucus who introduced the bill and 

to our Senator Jon Tester who co-sponsored the bill along with several other distinguished Senators including Jeff Bingaman and Tom Udall of New Mexico, Al 

Franken and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Tom 

Harkin of Iowa and Tim Johnson of South Dakota. It should also be acknowledged 

that former Senator Pete Domenici of New Mexico was keenly interested in finding 

a funding source for Indian water projects and spent a large of amount of time advancing concepts to do so. 

The passage of S. 3385 will provide the long-awaited secure funding mechanism 

for the completion of construction for authorized rural water projects, like the Rocky 

Boy’s/NCMRWS Project. The Act is consistent with the requirements of the Rural 

Water Supply Act of 2006 that authorized the Secretary of Interior to establish and 

carry out the Rural Water Supply Program with funding prioritization criteria to 

serve as a formula for distributing funds consistent with the authorizing language 

in each rural water project bill. 

Mr. Chairman and Committee members, I would like to briefly explain my tribe’s 

journey to ensure the continuity of clean water for our reservation. Water is sacred 

to our people and is the lifeblood for our permanent homeland, the Rocky Boy’s Reservation located in north central Montana. This is also true for the surrounding 

communities since water is the scarce common resource that connects us together. 

Without water, my tribe cannot survive on the permanent homeland held in trust 

by the United States on behalf of the tribe. This is certainly one of the reasons we 

chose to negotiate a settlement of the Tribe’s water rights claims against the United 

States. 

Our priority in the settlement negotiations was to have a source for clean drinking water since our groundwater is very limited in capacity and contaminated with 

naturally occurring arsenic from the underground Missouri River Ancestral channel. 

In fact, our groundwater resources are so limited that all outside water use (car 

washing, lawn watering) is prohibited, and indoor water use is never assured. 

In December of 1999, after many years of negotiations with our non-Indian neighbors, the State of Montana and representatives of Interior and Justice Departments, 

President Clinton signed the ‘‘Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy’s Reservation 

Indian Reserved Water Rights Settlement and Water Supply Enhancement Act of 

1999’’ into law as P.L.106-163. Among its provisions, that Act provided 10,000 acre 

feet of water to the Tribe from the Tiber Reservoir (also known as Lake Elwell), located 50 miles west of the reservation1. PL 106-163 did not include a water delivery 

system to withdraw, treat, and convey the 10,000 acre feet of tribal water right 

stored at Tiber Reservoir to the Rocky Boy’s Reservation. It was understood that 

the authorization for the delivery of that water to my Reservation, while also serving our neighbors in off-Reservation communities, would be accomplished in a subsequent piece of legislation. 

In the next Congress, on December 12, 2002, President Bush signed S. 2017, the 

Rocky Boy’s/North Central Montana Regional Water System (NCMRWS) Act of 2002 

(Title IX of PL 107-331, 116 Stat. 2859) into law. We were told that this would be 

the final step in the federal approval process and the beginning of a project to improve the quality of life for the Tribe and residents of north central Montana. This 

Act established a congressionally authorized water project to distribute clean drink-
30 

* Exhibit has been retained in committee files. 

ing water from Tiber Reservoir to meet tribal, municipal, rural and industrial needs 

for the Rocky Boy’s Reservation and seven (7) counties in north central Montana. 

It was an essential component of the implementation of our water rights settlement, 

as again, it was the delivery mechanism for 10,000 acre feet of water in Lake 

Elwell. 

Mr. Chairman, to date—13 years after the United States signed a historic water 

rights agreement with my Tribe and 10 years after the enactment of a Federal law 

to deliver that water to us—less than 20% of the Federal appropriations required 

to construct this project (approximately $60 million) has been received. 

Since its authorization in 2002, the funding ceiling for the Rocky Boy’s/NCMRWS Project has increased from $229 million to over $350 million due to the application 

of annual indexing factors by the Bureau of Reclamation. The receipt of insufficient 

levels of Federal appropriations and the impact of inflation are having a significant 

negative impact on realizing Project completion. If Federal appropriations do not exceed, or at least offset, the impact of annual indexing, the completion date for the 

Rocky Boy’s/NCMRWS Project will be extended indefinitely as shown in the attached graph depicting the effects of inflation versus the annual Federal funding 

levels. (Exhibit 1—Effects of Inflation vs. Annual Federal Funding Levels, dated 

March 2012).* Not only does this delay hurt my people and the health and welfare 

of both Reservation and off-Reservation residents over a very large swath of Montana, but the increased costs associated with these delays are adding unnecessarily 

to the Federal deficit. As you can see in the attached chart, if we were to receive 

funding at the level of $35 million a year we could complete this project at a total 

cost of $418.6 million by the year 2021. Were we to receive funding at a level of 

$15 million a year, total project costs would be almost $647 million and we would 

not finish until the year 2046. The latter would cost the United States an additional 

$228 million and that does not even take into account the impact of health care 

costs on my people, which as discussed below is considerable. Mr. Chairman I am 

loathe to report that we have not been receiving annual funding at even $10 million. 

As you can see from the chart, funding at that level does not allow us to keep place 

with the inflationary factors used by the Bureau of Reclamation and therefore the 

project would take an infinite period. 

Despite the limited funding received to date, we are extremely proud of the 

progress that has been made to address severe water shortages and surface water 

regulatory violations. The funding we received through ARRA was especially helpful. Average annual Federal appropriations of $30 to $38 million are needed to 

maintain anything resembling a reasonable implementation and construction 

timeline. 

The passage of the bill pending before you today, S. 3385, will provide a consistent 

funding stream and certainly will help us get to completion. S. 3385 creates the Reclamation Rural Water Construction Fund. It directs the Secretary of Treasury to deposit $80 million per fiscal years 2013 through 2029, funds that would otherwise 

be deposited in the Reclamation Fund, to be made available without further appropriation for the construction of authorized rural water projects. As Chairman Bingaman has noted, Reclamation’s analysis shows that an increase in funding for the 

construction of rural water projects to $80M per year would reduce the total Federal 

appropriations needed to complete the projects by more than $1B, due to project 

costs and inflation. This is a prudent use of the Reclamation Fund that your colleagues created back in 1902 to construct water projects in the West. Despite having 

senior water rights to much of the water used by Reclamation Fund dollars, Indian 

tribes have not benefitted by the establishment of that fund. Allowing us to access 

this fund is long overdue to put it nicely. It should also be noted that the Fund has 

increased from $3.8 billion in 2004 to over $9 billion in 2009. Even more noteworthy 

is the fact that it has carried a surplus of at least $960 million a year every year 

since 2005. Clearly there are sufficient surplus funds in this account to pay for this 

bill. 

I applaud the Act’s funding prioritization criteria that include authorized projects 

that address the needs of Indian tribes and its members along with other community needs or interests. This is consistent with the goals of our regional water 

project by serving the Rocky Boy’s Reservation and numerous off-reservation systems including municipalities, county water districts, Hutterite colonies and others. 

Our reservation has endured and overcome many hardships over the years. However, the devastation of two recent consecutive years of disastrous flooding required 

two declarations of disasters by President Obama in 2010 and 2011. Due to the catastrophic impact of multiple 100-year flood events we have endured significant damage across much of our Reservation, the worst being to our already archaic water 
31 

system. Our unsanitary drinking water conditions have resulted in numerous problems. 

1. Groundwater wells not being able to handle the tremendous surface water 

flows that resulted in infiltration of contaminating fecal coliform and Escherichia Coli (E. Coli) bacteria into our drinking water; 

2. Parker Canyon was one of the reservation communities impacted by the 

floods and 27 out of 30 homes tested positive for E. Coli and fecal coliform bacteria. Our Tribal Environmental Health Department had to provide bottled 

water to all the communities such as Parker Canyon that experienced similar 

groundwater well contamination; 

3. Regular water quality testing of the groundwater wells on the reservation 

has shown that 66 homes in 2011 still tested positive for E. Coli and fecal coliform bacteria. We have gotten consistent fecal coliform and E. Coli hits on 

monthly Bac-T testing; 

4. The extensive flooding of the Reservation watersheds are a direct cause of 

many Reservation residents’ septic drain fields being overwhelmed with flood 

water and the resulting over saturation causes fecal particulate transfers to the 

ground water drinking source. What this means is we have fecal coliform bacteria from the flooding of the septic drain fields resulting in an extreme public 

health emergency similar to what you find in third world countries. Construction funding is desperately needed to connect those reservation communities impacted by contaminated ground water wells to the on-reservation portion of the 

regional water project; and 

A direct result of the flooding and fecal coliform bacterial contamination of 

groundwater wells from septic tank effluent resulted in hundreds of cases of 

Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori). H. pylori is a bacterium that causes stomach inflammation and ulcers in the stomach and duodenum. This bacterium is the 

most common cause of ulcers and severe gastric discomfort and is acquired from 

contaminated food and water or through person-to-person contact. It is common 

in crowded populations with poor sanitation, such as third world countries that 

lack the water treatment facilities that we take for granted here in the U.S. 

Complications associated with H. pylori infection include: 

a. Ulcers: H. pylori can damage the protective lining of your stomach and 

small intestine. This can allow stomach acid to create an open sore (ulcer). 

b. Inflammation of the stomach lining: H. pylori infection can irritate 

your stomach, causing inflammation (gastritis). 

c. Stomach cancer: H. pylori infection is a strong risk factor for certain 

types of stomach cancer. 

Mr. Chairman and Committee members, as you can see, the completion of the 

construction of the Rocky Boy’s/NCMRWS must happen within the next decade or 

two in order to honor our water rights settlement by bringing clean drinking water 

to our reservation and more importantly to prevent the proliferation of H. pylori to 

our tribal members who suffer from its effects, similar to living in third world country without the means for clean treated water. 

It must also be noted that we cannot make progress against the high levels of 

unemployment that exist on our Reservation until we have this most basic aspect 

of infrastructure in place. No business is going to locate on an Indian Reservation 

if they cannot be assured of good drinking water. 

In closing, we fully support S. 3385 and respectfully request that provisions be 

included in the legislation that consider the impacts of project cost indexing applied 

by the Bureau of Reclamation and the corresponding completion timeline for all of 

the presently authorized Tribal and rural water projects. Such provisions include: 

1) increased funding levels on an annual basis to keep pace with project cost 

indexing; 

2) supplemental fiscal year contributions pending an improved state of the 

economy in the future; and 

3) the possibility of extending the duration of S.3385 in the event that the 

completion of currently authorized rural water projects is not achieved by year 

2034. 

Mr. Chairman and Committee members, I thank you again for allowing me to testify on this critically important legislation that will help us to complete the construction of our authorized regional water project on a more timely basis thereby 

increasing our standard of living on the Rocky Boy’s Reservation and surrounding 

communities in north central Montana to that of rest of the U.S. The ability to 

drink clean water is not too much to ask for. 
32 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Our final witness is Mr. Nathan Bracken, who is legal counsel 

for the Western States Water Council. 

Go right ahead. 

STATEMENT OF NATHAN BRACKEN, LEGAL COUNSEL, 

WESTERN STATES WATER COUNCIL, MURRAY, UT 

Mr. BRACKEN. Chairman Bingaman, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the committee, I am legal counsel for the 

Western States Water Council, which is a non-partisan advisory 

body on water policy issues that represents 18 Western Governors 

and their States. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss our support for 3385 and the importance of rural water projects in the 

West. 

Across the 17 Western States, rural and tribal communities are 

experiencing water supply shortages due to drought, decrease in 

groundwater supplies, and inadequate infrastructure. Those water 

supplies that are available are often of poor quality and many communities are struggling to comply with increasingly stringent Federal water quality and drinking water mandates. 

In 2009, the Council worked closely with the Bureau of Reclamation to identify sources of information on potable water supply 

needs in non-Indian rural areas of the West. Reclamation recently 

estimated that the identified need for potable water systems ranges 

from $5 billion to $8 billion, not including another $1.2 billion for 

specific Indian water supply projects. 

As Reclamation Commissioner Mike Connor recently said, his 

agency also estimates that it will cost about $2.6 billion to complete 

currently authorized projects, which is substantially higher than 

the $2 billion that Congress originally authorized. 

At current funding levels around $50 million per year for construction, Reclamation estimates that some projects could be delayed beyond 2063, despite the expenditure of almost $4 billion in 

Federal funds by that point. An additional $1.1 billion in Federal 

expenditures will be needed to complete those projects that are not 

constructed by 2063. 

The $80 million per year that S. 3385 would provide for authorized projects represents a relatively modest Federal investment 

when compared to the increased cost that will likely occur if Federal funding remains at current levels. 

We recognize that there are Federal budget constraints. Nevertheless, such constraints do not negate the Federal responsibility 

to complete authorized rural water projects, especially those 

projects intended to fulfill, in part, a solemn Federal promise and 

trust responsibility to compensate States and Tribes for lost 

source—lost resources as a result of the construction of Federal 

flood control projects. 

It is also important to note that the Federal expenditures provided under Senate bill 3385 would generate significant and actual 

returns on this investment. For example, a 2006 study by HDR, Incorporated on the economic impacts of constructing Lewis and 

Clark Rural Water System found that the total economic impact to 
33 

South Dakota, as well as Iowa and Minnesota, would total $414.4 

million, including the direct and indirect creation of 7,441 jobs. 

Other notable benefits of rural water supply projects include improved potential for economic development and improved health 

and quality of life in affected communities. 

The Council also supports S. 3385’s use of moneys that would 

otherwise accrue to the Reclamation Fund, to help finance the construction of authorized rural water projects. 

Congress established the fund in 1902 to be the principle means 

of financing Federal Western water and power projects, and its receipts are derived from water and power sales, project repayments, 

and receipts from public land sales and leases in the 17 Western 

States, as well as oil and mineral-related royalties. However, these 

funds are only available for expenditure, pursuant to annual appropriations. 

Over the years, rising energy prices and declining Federal expenditures from the fund for reclamation purposes have resulted in 

an increasing large unobligated balance, which is estimated to total 

around $12 billion by the end of fiscal year 2013. Contrary to Congress’ original intent, instead of supporting western water development, much of this money has gone instead to other Federal purposes at a time when funding for reclamation has been constrained. 

The Council has long supported using the Reclamation Fund for 

its intended purpose of financing Western water development, including the types of rural water projects that would receive funding 

under this bill. 

It is also important to note that the bill’s use of Reclamation 

Fund’s moneys would not be subject to further appropriation. It 

would be in addition to other amounts appropriated for the authorized projects and should not result in corresponding offsets to other 

critical reclamation or Department of the Interior programs. 

Last, the programmatic goals and funding priorities that S. 3385 

requires the Secretary of the Interior to develop should be created 

in a transparent manner, in consultation with the affected communities and States, and should consider existing State water plans 

and priorities. States in the affected communities have on-theground knowledge of the facts and circumstances associated with 

these projects and are, therefore, the most appropriate entities to 

assist the Secretary in this effort. 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify and urge the committee to 

approve S. 3385. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bracken follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF NATHAN BRACKEN, LEGAL COUNSEL, WESTERN STATES

WATER COUNCIL, MURRAY, UT 

I. INTRODUCTION

Chairman Bingaman, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the Committee, my name is Nathan Bracken and I am the Legal Counsel for the Western 

States Water Council (WSWC). The WSWC is a non-partisan advisory body on 

water policy issues that represents eighteen western states and their governors. Our 

members are appointed by their respective governors, and include senior state water 

managers and administrators. We are also closely affiliated with the Western Governors’ Association (WGA). I appreciate the opportunity to discuss our support for 

the ‘‘Authorized Rural Water Projects Completion Act’’ (S.3385) and the importance 

of rural water projects in the West. 
34 

* Attachments A and B have been retained in committee files. 

1 BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, ASSESSMENT OF RECLAMATION’S RURAL WATER ACTIVITIES AND OTHER FEDERAL PROGRAMS THAT PROVIDE SUPPORT ON POTABLE 

WATER SUPPLIES TO RURAL COMMUNITIES IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES, 8 

(July 9, 2012), available at: http://www.usbr.gov/ruralwater/docs/Rural-Water-Assessment-Report-and-Funding-Criteria.pdf. 2 Id. 3-4. 

3 Id. at 1-3. 

4 Id. at 5. 

As discussed below, the WSWC supports S. 3385 as authorizing a timely federal 

investment of modest amounts that will minimize long-term federal expenditures, 

create more jobs now, and fulfill long-standing promises and trust responsibilities 

to rural and Tribal communities, some of which date back decades. My testimony 

today is based primarily on WSWC Position #343 (attached as Attachment A),* 

which we sent to Chairman Bingaman and Ranking Member Murkowski in the form 

of a letter on June 8, 2012, expressing our support for legislative action to establish 

a dedicated funding source for the completion of federal rural water projects authorized by Congress for construction by the Bureau of Reclamation. Portions of my testimony are also based on WSWC Position #333 (attached as Attachment B), which 

sets forth the WSWC’s long-standing policy in support of using receipts accruing to 

the Reclamation Fund to finance western water development, including the types 

of rural water projects that would receive funding under S. 3385. 

II. THE NEED FOR RURAL WATER PROJECTS IN THE WEST

Across the West, rural communities are experiencing water supply shortages due 

to drought, decreasing groundwater supplies, and inadequate infrastructure. Some 

communities have had to haul water over substantial distances. Moreover, those 

water supplies that are available to these communities are often of poor quality and 

may be impaired by naturally occurring and man-made contaminants, including arsenic and carcinogens, which impacts their ability to comply with increasingly stringent federal water quality and drinking water mandates. At the same time, many 

rural and Tribal communities in the West are suffering from significant levels of unemployment and simply lack the financial capacity to pay for drinking water system 

improvements. 

Since the 1980s, Congress has authorized Reclamation to address this need by designing and constructing projects to deliver potable water supplies to rural communities in the 17 western states. Furthermore, Congress established Reclamation’s 

Rural Water Supply Program when it enacted the Rural Water Supply Act of 2006 

(Pub .L. 109-451), authorizing the agency to work with rural communities in the 

West, including Tribes, to assess potable water supply needs and identify options 

to address those needs through appraisal investigations and feasibility studies. 

In 2009, the WSWC worked closely with Reclamation to identify sources of information on potable water supply needs in non-Indian rural areas of the West. Reclamation recently released a draft assessment report on July 9, 2012 (‘‘Draft Report’’) that discusses the results of this effort, finding that the identified need for 

potable water supply systems in rural areas of the 17 western states ranges from 

$5 billion to $8 billion, not including another estimated $1.2 billion for specific Indian water supply projects.1

The Draft Report notes that there are currently eight active rural water projects 

located in Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, and South Dakota, including the 

Lewis and Clark Rural Water Supply Project, which is located mostly in South Dakota but encompasses parts of the non-Reclamation states of Iowa and Minnesota.2

The report also notes that of eleven rural water projects that Congress authorized 

Reclamation to undertake between 1980 and 2007 (when the Rural Water Supply 

Act was enacted), only four have been completed.3

According to Reclamation, the total amount of Federal funding needed to complete 

these eight authorized projects is now $2.6 billion, which is substantially higher 

than the $2 billion that Congress originally authorized. This increase is due in part 

to the rising costs of materials and labor as well as inflation. Nevertheless, Reclamation estimates that these authorized projects could be completed by 2029 at a 

total Federal cost of around $3 billion, so long as Federal funding reflects the estimates provided in the original final engineering reports for each of the authorized 

projects—about $162 million annually. However, at current funding levels of around 

$50 million for construction, Reclamation estimates that some projects could be delayed beyond 2063 despite the expenditure of almost $4 billion in Federal funds by 

that point. Moreover, an additional $1.1 billion in Federal expenditures would be 

needed to complete those projects that are not completed by 2063.4
35 

5THE U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS: MAYORS WATER COUNCIL, LOCAL GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT IN MUNICIPAL WATER AND SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE: ADDING 

VALUE TO THE NATIONAL ECONOMY, i (August 2008), available at: http:// 

www.usmayors.org/urbanwater/documents/ 

LocalGovt%20InvtInMunicipalWaterandSewerInfrastructure.pdf. 6 HDR, INC., THE ECONOMIC AND FISCAL IMPACTS OF CONSTRUCTING THE LEWIS 

AND CLARK RURAL WATER SYSTEM: 2004 STUDY AND 2006 UPDATE, 2—3, 63—64 

(March 2006), available at: http://www.lcrws.org/pdf/EconomicImpactStudy/ 

EconomicImpactStudy.pdf. See also BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, supra note 1 at 4 (discussing Federal costs for currently authorized rural water projects) 

III. FEDERAL FUNDING FOR RURAL WATER PROJECTS UNDER S. 3385

S. 3385 would provide $80 million per year for each of fiscal years 2013 through 

2029 to complete the construction of rural water projects that have already received 

Congressional authorization. Other projects may be eligible for funding if: (1) the 

Secretary of the Interior completes a feasibility report for the project by September 

30, 2012 that recommends its construction; and (2) Congress authorizes the project’s 

construction after S. 3385’s enactment. 

This funding represents a relatively modest Federal investment, compared to the 

increased costs that will likely occur if funding remains at current levels. We recognize that there are Federal budget constraints. Nevertheless, such constraints do 

not negate the Federal responsibility to complete authorized rural water projects, 

particularly those intended to fulfill in part a solemn Federal promise and trust responsibility to compensate States and Tribes for lost resources as a result of the construction of Federal flood control projects. It is also important to note that the Federal expenditures provided under S. 3385 would generate significant and actual returns on this investment, including but not limited to: 

• National Economic Impacts: According to a 2008 U.S. Conference of Mayors report, one dollar invested in water supply and sewer infrastructure increases private output, or Gross Domestic Product, in the long-term by $6.35. Furthermore, for each additional dollar of revenue generated by the water supply and 

sewer industry, the increase in revenue that occurs in all industries for that 

year is $2.62.5

• Economic Impacts and Job Creation in Rural Communities: Investments in 

rural water projects have a direct impact on the economies of the communities 

serviced by those projects. For example, a 2006 study by HDR, Inc. on the economic impacts of constructing the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System, which 

would receive funding under S. 3385, found that the total economic impact to 

South Dakota, Iowa, and Minnesota would total $414.4 million. The report also 

estimates that the project’s construction would directly or indirectly create 

7,441 jobs. On a yearly basis, this equals the creation of 533 direct and indirect 

jobs with average annual salaries ranging from $25,591 to $33,462. Approximately 72% of the economic impacts would be realized in South Dakota, with 

17% in Iowa and 11% in Minnesota.6

• Improved Potential for Economic Development in Rural Areas: The economy of 

every community, especially rural communities, requires sufficient water supplies of suitable quality. Such supplies depend upon adequate water infrastructure. Improving the water infrastructure of the rural and Tribal communities 

that would be affected by S. 3385 will improve their ability to develop their 

economies in ways that are not possible with their current water supplies. 

• Improved Quality of Life: The types of water projects that would receive funding 

under S. 3385 would meet the same water quality standards as public systems. 

These projects would therefore provide a higher quality of safe drinking water 

and associated health benefits than the water supplies upon which these communities currently rely. 

• Reduced Costs: Rural communities would no longer need to expend limited resources drilling and maintained wells, softening and treating water, or hauling 

water. In addition, such communities would see decreased electrical pumping 

costs. 

• Rural Fire Protection: Rural water systems provide access to water supplies for 

fire protection. 

• Livestock Use: Rural water projects provide a more reliable and better supply 

of water for livestock. They also have the potential to decrease the impacts of 

livestock grazing on riparian areas by allowing for the delivery of water away 

from these sensitive areas. 

• Increased Property Values: In some areas, the resale value of property may increase with a more reliable, safe, clean and adequate water supply. 
36 

IV. THE USE OF THE RECLAMATION FUND UNDER S. 3385

Section 3(a) of S. 3385 would provide funding for eligible rural water projects by 

establishing a Reclamation Rural Water Construction Fund (RRWCF) within the 

U.S. Treasury that would be financed from revenues that would otherwise be deposited in the Reclamation Fund. These funds would not be subject to further appropriation, would be in addition to other amounts appropriated for the authorized 

projects, and should not result in corresponding offsets to other critical Reclamation 

and Department of the Interior programs. The Secretary of the Interior would also 

invest the portion of these receipts not needed to meet current withdrawals, and the 

resulting interest and proceeds from the sale or redemption of any obligations would 

become part of the RRWCF. The RRWCF would terminate in September 2034, at 

which point its unexpended and unobligated balance would transfer back to the Reclamation Fund. 

Congress established the Reclamation Fund when it enacted the Reclamation Act 

of 1902 (P. L. 57-161) and it was intended to be the principle means of financing 

Federal western water and power projects in the 17 western states. As stated in 

Section 1 of the Reclamation Act, it provides monies ‘‘. . .reserved, set aside, and 

appropriated as a special fund in the Treasury.’’ 

The Reclamation Fund’s receipts are derived from water and power sales, project 

repayments, and receipts from public land sales and leases in the 17 western states, 

as well as oil and mineral-related royalties. However, the receipts that accrue to the 

Fund each year are only available for expenditure pursuant to annual appropriations acts. Over the years, rising energy prices and declining Federal expenditures 

from the Fund for Reclamation purposes have resulted in an increasingly large unobligated balance. 

According to the Administration’s FY 2013 budget request, actual and estimated appropriations from the Reclamation Fund are $953 million for FY 2011, $877 million for FY 2012, and $859 million for FY 2013. While these appropriations have 

decreased, the Fund’s unobligated balance has grown from an actual balance of $9.6 

billion in FY 2011 to an estimated $12.4 billion by the end of FY 2013. Contrary 

to Congress’ original intent, instead of supporting western water development, much 

of this money has gone instead to other Federal purposes. 

The WSWC has long supported using the Reclamation Fund for its intended purpose of financing western water development, including the types of rural water 

projects that would receive funding under S. 3385. As stated in WSWC Position 

#333, Congress and the Administration should: 

[F]ully utilize the funds provided through the Reclamation Act and subsequent acts for their intended purpose in the continuing conservation, development and wise use of western resources to meet western water-related 

needs—recognizing and continuing to defer to the primacy of western water 

laws in allocating water among uses—and work with the States to meet the 

challenges of the future. 

Unlike typical Congressional authorizations that often do not specify a funding 

source and may require more Federal monies in addition to current authorizations, 

the RRWCF would rely on the established stream of receipts and associated interest 

that already accrue to the Reclamation Fund. Furthermore, as required by Section 

3(b)(3) of S. 3385, no amounts may be deposited or made available to the RRWCF 

if the transfer or availability of the amounts would increase the Federal deficit. 

It is also important to note that the concept of using receipts accruing to the Reclamation Fund to establish a separate account to finance specific water projects is 

not new. Specifically, Congress established the Reclamation Water Settlements 

Fund (RWSF) under Title X of the Omnibus Public Lands Management Act of 2009 

(Pub .L. 111-11). Like the RRWCF, the RWSF consists of receipts transferred from 

the Reclamation Fund and provides specified levels of funding starting in FY 2020 

for a period of 10 years to help finance specified water infrastructure projects that 

are part of Congressional-authorized water settlements, especially Indian water 

rights settlements. The WSWC supports the RWSF for the same reason it supported 

the establishment of the RRWCF as proposed in S. 3385—the use of these funds 

furthers the construction of much needed water infrastructure in the West in accordance with the Reclamation Fund’s original intent and purpose. 

V. FUNDING PRIORITIZATION UNDER S. 3385

Before expenditures from the RRWCF could be made, Section 3(c)(3) of S. 3385 

would require the Secretary of the Interior to develop programmatic goals to ensure 

that the authorized projects are constructed as expeditiously as possible, and in a 

manner that reflects the goals and priorities of the projects’ authorizing legislation 
37 

and the Rural Water Supply Act of 2006. The bill would also require the Secretary 

to develop funding prioritization criteria that would consider: (1) the ‘‘urgent and 

compelling need’’ for potable water supplies in affected communities; (2) the status 

of the current stages of completion of a given project; (3) the financial needs of affected rural and Tribal communities; (4) the potential economic benefits of the expenditures on job creation and general economic development in affected communities; (5) the ability of a given project to address regional and watershed level 

water supply needs; (6) a project’s ability to minimize water and energy consumption and encourage the development of renewable energy resources, such as wind, 

solar, and hydropower; (7) the needs of Indian tribes and Tribal members, as well 

as other community needs or interests; and (8) such other factors the Secretary 

deems appropriate. 

As the WSWC stated in its June 8 letter, these programmatic goals and funding 

priorities ‘‘. . .should be developed in a transparent manner in consultation with 

the affected communities and States—and should consider existing state water 

plans and priorities.’’ States and the affected communities have on the ground 

knowledge of the facts and circumstances associated with the authorized projects 

that would receive funding under S. 3385, and are therefore the most appropriate 

entities to assist the Secretary in developing these goals and priorities. 

VI. CONCLUSION

The expedited construction of authorized rural water projects will save money in 

the long run as costs continue to rise, and fulfill Federal obligations in a more timely manner, including Federal tribal trust responsibilities. Postponing spending on 

this obligation through inadequate or insufficient funding levels only increases Federal costs and perpetuates hardships to rural and Tribal communities in the West. 

S. 3385 would not only fulfill solemn Federal obligations, but also provide needed 

economic development and job creation. 

Importantly, the bill would use receipts that are already accruing to the Reclamation Fund for their intended purpose of financing the construction of western water 

projects. 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify on behalf of the Council, and we urge the 

Committee to approve S. 3385 and work with the States towards its effective implementation. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

I am going to introduce into the record of the hearing, testimony 

from D.L. Sanders, who is chief counsel to the New Mexico State 

engineer, in strong support of the legislation we are considering 

today, and also a statement for the record from—signed by Mr. 

Chris Udall. I am not sure his exact relationship to our Member 

here and to my colleague, as well. But he is the Executive Director 

of the Agri-Business Council of Arizona, indicating their strong 

support for this legislation, as well. 

Let me just ask a few questions. 

Gayla Brumfield, let me ask you about—can you recall how much 

State and local money has been contributed toward construction of 

this project to date, and how that compares to what the Federal 

Government has done? 

Ms. BRUMFIELD. Yes, sir. In fact, the State of New Mexico, with 

the last loan, or groan, that we received, by the end of the year, 

will be close to 29 million. Right now, we sit at around 25, 26 million. 

The local communities have put forth everything that they have 

needed to, to date, or have made arrangements to make sure to 

fund their piece, which Clovis’, by the way, is a total of $34 million. 

We have put in a sales tax and some other entities on how we are 

going to fund that. 

So right now, to date, we have started the intake structure, 

phase one, which is about a $15 million project, I believe, on the 
38 

first phase, and we do have the funds for that, which most of that 

has come from the State of New Mexico. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. That is useful information. In addition 

to Clovis’ sales tax to pay its portion of it, are the other communities that stand to benefit from this construction, are they also 

making arrangements to be able to pay their portion? 

Ms. BRUMFIELD. Yes, sir, they have. They have been paying their 

portion to date, and every one of the 7 entities have taken care of 

what they need to do. They are ready to go, and so we have—in 

my opinion, the local communities have done their part. The State 

has stepped up and done their part. Now we are ready for the Federal Government to move forward and do their part. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me just ask any of the 4 of you if you have 

information about how—in my State, we are in, what is I guess 

meteorologists have characterized as a prolonged drought, and that 

is getting worse it seems. Are the projects that we are talking 

about constructing here and completing construction on, are they 

going to be able to help communities deal with this prolonged 

drought in a serious way? Chairman Sunchild, did you have a perspective on that? 

Mr. SUNCHILD. Yes. As we speak right now, a lot of my reservation is on a water restriction. If you could see a map, the agency 

lies up here and then our community is going down into Box Elder, 

which is 14 miles away. If you water your lawn out here Box Elder, 

I am out of water up here because that is at the top of the system. 

I am the chairman. I would not. No, that is a joke. 

But anyway, we are also in a big development stage. We just recently completed a detention center. We are now building a clinic 

because of our flood a couple of years ago destroyed our clinic, so 

we have to move it down further. So down further, as we construct—continue to construct, we are really water-short in that 

area. This coming from Tiber Dam, I think we have got 14 miles 

in as we speak. 

I would just like to make a comment here. Even more significant 

is that since 2005, the Reclamation Fund had a surplus of over 

$960 million every year in surplus funds alone. There was more 

than enough money available to pay for this bill without requiring 

any further appropriations, and I would support this bill. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. 

Mr. SUNCHILD. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me just ask one other question here. Maybe, 

Mr. Bracken, you could answer this. Your statement indicates that 

the unobligated balance in the Reclamation Fund is projected to increase from $9.6 billion to $12.4 billion by the end of 2013. Could 

you explain why that increase is scheduled to occur? 

Mr. BRACKEN. Sure. The fund requires that appropriations be 

made each year. Appropriations as you have mentioned have averaged a little bit under a billion dollars. At the same time, energy 

revenues and other sources of revenue to the fund have increased. 

So, quite frankly, the appropriators aren’t appropriating the 

amount of money that goes into the fund each year and that leaves 

an unobligated balance that grows. 

Importantly, this unobligated balance is growing at a time when 

funding to reclamation itself for these types of projects is con-
39 

strained. The Council has long supported using the revenues that 

accrue to the Reclamation Fund to support these types of projects, 

which is what the fund was originally created to do. 

The CHAIRMAN. As I understand it, the unobligated balance in the fund is growing much more rapidly than the $80 million we are 

considering in this legislation that would be automatically used to 

help with construction of these projects each year. Is that right? 

Mr. BRACKEN. Yes, Chairman, that is my understanding as well. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. 

Senator Johnson. 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First, I would like to welcome Troy Larson, Executive Director of 

the Lewis and Clark Regional Water System. Troy is a constituent 

of mine from South Dakota, and we have worked for many years 

together to advance this critical water system. 

I note that Red Arndt is also seated in the audience. He is the 

Chairman of the Board of Lewis and Clark, and he is from 

Luverne, Minnesota. 

Troy, you have testified that we have reached a historic milestone this week with our water treatment plant coming online. 

Lewis and Clark can now start delivering treated water to 11 of the 

20-member communities. Ten of those communities are in South 

Dakota, and we are grateful for that. 

At the same time, these members are going to have to pay quite 

a bit more until all other members are connected. Could you expand on the impacts to those communities? 

Mr. LARSON. Thank you, Senator for your support and that question. 

Yes, the 11 members that are receiving water are in much better 

shape obviously than those 9 members who do not—who are not 

connected at this point. But those 11 members certainly have plenty of skin in the game to make sure the project is completed. 

The reason I say that is, they are paying through their water 

rates 100 percent of the cost to operate a very large and expensive 

treatment plant. We do not get any funding for O&M, so any operations and maintenance comes from the water sales. Those members will be paying approximately 50 percent more for their water 

until all the members are connected. Obviously, as more members 

are connected, then they share in the cost to operate the treatment 

plant. 

Senator JOHNSON. The slow pace and uncertainty of construction 

funding has never—negative consequences, one of which is that we 

build the projects more inefficiently. Could you touch on some of 

those challenges? Also, how might the Authorized Rural Water 

Completion Act help alleviate these challenges and avoid unnecessary costs? 

Mr. LARSON. Thank you for that question. Yes, it would provide 

a more predictable source of funding for us, which would be a huge 

help. We spend so much time and money on what if scenarios, trying to jerry-rig the project, thinking of, well, if we can only do this 

many miles, how would we make that work? We just spend an 

enormous amount of time and money on that. 

One example is every time we slice a segment of pipe in half, if 

we wanted to do 12 miles, but we can only do 6 miles, our engi-
40 

neers estimate that adds a quarter million dollars to the cost. That 

just adds up over time. 

So what we find ourselves doing is either having to hold on to 

the money that Congress has appropriated and risk reprogramming, or spending it to build 3 or 4 miles of pipe when we know 

that is going to cost more in the long run. Our goal is to bring this 

project in under budget. Right now, we are right at budget. Every 

time we have to do something creative, that ends up spending more 

money in the long run. This bill would provide a much more predictable source of funding and allow us to plan accordingly. 

Senator JOHNSON. Mr. Bracken, you discussed the significant returns on investment from the rural water supply projects in the 

west. If Congress enacts this legislation to provide a minimum consistent funding level to advance these projects, what types of benefits could we expect to see in the local and regional economies this 

project has served? 

Mr. BRACKEN. I think the most significant benefit is that it allows business to take place. Any economy, regardless of where it 

takes place, specifically in rural areas, requires water of suitable 

quality and a certain amount. These systems will allow industries 

and businesses to have a certain amount of—or a greater amount 

of certainty to know that when they relocate or they build facilities 

in a certain area, that they will have the water that they need to 

conduct their operations. I think that is perhaps the biggest impact. 

There are a number of other related impacts to that. You also 

have added fire protection the water supplies provide through these 

systems. You have benefits relating to property value increases in 

homes that have a more reliable water supply. Obviously, someone 

is willing to pay more money for a home where you don’t have to 

haul water to it or haul waste away from it. 

So, I would say those are probably the most common benefits. 

Senator JOHNSON. My time has expired. 

Mr. CHAIRMAN. Senator Franken. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to all 

of you. 

Mr. Larson, in your testimony you noted that the States and 

local communities have prepaid 99.7 percent of their commitment. 

I know Minnesota, it is 100 percent. I heard from a number of the 

Minnesota communities that it was not easy to make the financial 

commitment, as Ms. Brumfield testified about the communities in 

New Mexico. 

But on top of that, there are communities in Minnesota that 

have had to make—and I suppose in Iowa—have had to make—and 

in South Dakota—have had to make additional investments because they do not yet have the water that they were counting on. 

Can you elaborate a bit on these communities and what these communities have had to pay over and above the 100 percent commitment that they met to Lewis and Clark? 

Mr. LARSON. Absolutely. Thank you for that question, Senator. 

This has been really insult to injury. These members have struggled mightily to come up with the money to prepay the project 

costs, the non-Federal costs, based on the promise of the Federal 

funding coming through. But the delays have been such that these 
41 

members just haven’t been able to wait any longer. They have had 

to make infrastructure improvements or changes that they simply 

didn’t plan for. The totals so far in Minnesota, Iowa, and South Dakota is $9.3 

million. The vast majority of that, as you noted earlier, actually 

has been the Minnesota members have—who have borne the biggest brunt out of that. Out of the $9.3, $8.3 million of that has been 

in Minnesota, and so, truly, it is insult to injury that this is money 

on top of what they have already spent to the project. Still, there 

is no idea when they are going to get water. 

Senator FRANKEN. OK. In the meantime, we are seeing economic 

development for stalled. 

Mr. Bracken, I noted in your testimony, you said that there is an estimated $414 million in economic development that would 

come from this project that is not happening? 

Mr. BRACKEN. Yes, that was my understanding from a 2006 report by HDR, Incorporated. 

Senator FRANKEN. We have this unobligated funds, this unobligated balance in the bureau. So there is money there to do this. 

Right now, basically our Treasury is paying private investors to 

borrow our money because the rate of return on the Treasury’s is 

less than inflation. 

So instead of paying other people to buy our debt, why do we not 

get these projects done and create economic development in these 

communities? I mean, it does not make sense. It is like, let us pay 

people to borrow our money. Or why do we not we invest in the 

infrastructure? We are borrowing it anyway. I mean, one way we 

are—and the other way we are investing it. I mean, either way, it 

is the same thing. 

This way, we meet our obligations to these local communities 

and to the States, and we invest in their ability to have a dairy 

in Hull, and expand the dairy in Hull to create 50 more jobs, and 

to build the ethanol plant in southwestern Minnesota, or a number 

of them, to expand the pork facility in Worthington, to create jobs 

all over the place. This is what we are supposed to be doing. 

To me, this just makes sense, this piece of legislation and it 

seems absurd to me that we are letting this money be unobligated, 

billions of billions of dollars be unobligated, and that this $80 million is—a year makes absolute makes perfect sense and it makes— 

in fact, to me, it is absurd not to use it. 

Any reaction to my tirade? 

Mr. CONNOR. Senator Franken, I believe our respective high 

school math teachers would be very proud of us that we have figured out this a no-brainer from a financial standpoint. 

The taxpayers are losing money on this. It is the example of— 

I have shared of, if you decide to take a year off paying your credit 

card thinking you are saving money, it is costing you more in the 

long run. The fees continue to accumulate. 

So, again, I believe our math teachers would be proud of us that 

we have figured this out, but hopefully this bill will pass and we 

will get back on track. 

Senator FRANKEN. OK. Obviously, my time is up. But, Ms. 

Brumfield, since you are from New Mexico, I think the Chairman— 

I see you wanting to say something, I think. 
42 

Ms. BRUMFIELD. No, I just could not agree with you more. 

Senator FRANKEN. Oh, OK. 

Ms. BRUMFIELD. Thank you for your comments today. 

Senator FRANKEN. I didn’t mean to try to fish for a ‘‘I couldn’t 

agree with you more.’’ 

Ms. BRUMFIELD. No, I just wanted to thank you for your comments, and that we support, absolutely, what you are saying and 

agree with that. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Any other questions? 

If not, let me thank the witnesses. I think it has been a useful 

hearing, and we hope very much we can get the support to move 

ahead with the legislation. That will conclude our hearing. Thank 

you. 

Mr. LARSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. BRUMFIELD. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 11:38 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 
(43) 

APPENDIXES 

APPENDIX I 

Responses to Additional Questions 

RESPONSES OF MICHAEL L. CONNOR TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BINGAMAN

NEED FOR RURAL WATER PROJECTS

Question 1a. There are many agencies involved in rural water matters. Can you 

please describe the particular niche that the Bureau of Reclamation’s program fills? 

Answer. Reclamation has, over its more than 100 years in existence, designed and 

constructed some of the largest and most important water supply projects in the 

Western United States including Hoover Dam, Grand Coulee Dam, and the Central 

Valley Project. Because of that expertise, rural communities have often sought Reclamation’s expertise and assistance to address their need for potable water supplies. 

Public Law 109-451 authorized Reclamation to investigate, identify, plan, design 

and oversee the construction of rural water projects that serve rural areas and small 

communities or Indian tribes in the Reclamation states and which meet certain criteria outlined in the statute such as promoting and applying a regional or watershed perspective to water resources management and addressing an urgent or compelling need. Reclamation’s recently completed draft assessment report titled ‘‘Assessment of Reclamation’s Rural Water Activities and Other Federal Programs that 

Provide Support on Potable Water Supplies to Rural Water Communities in the 

Western United States’’ (www.usbr.gov/ruralwater/docs/Rural-Water-Assessment-Report-and-Funding-Criteria.pdf) details the separate role played by various Federal 

agencies involved in rural water matters. Reclamation’s program complements these 

other Federal programs, as well as State programs established to support the construction of discrete water treatment facilities and/or water distribution systems for 

particular communities. 

Question 1b. What is the need for these projects? 

Answer. Many rural communities in the United States have an ongoing need for 

potable water supplies. Non-Federal parties have traditionally been responsible for 

constructing municipal water supply systems. The six ongoing congressionally authorized Federal rural water projects exist in communities that are experiencing urgent needs for a potable water supply due to poor quality of the existing supply or 

the lack of a secure, reliable supply. For example, in rural Montana, some communities have, from time-to-time, been subject to ‘‘boil water’’ orders due to the unsafe 

conditions of the existing drinking water supplies. In eastern New Mexico, existing 

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

drinking water supplies are projected by the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water Authority to be depleted within 40 years. 

Question 1c. Should we not build these projects because relatively few Americans 

will be served by them? 

Answer. Constructing these infrastructure projects will not only help provide the 

health and economic benefits of a clean, reliable, drinking water system that most 

Americans take for granted, but will also assist in creating jobs in the short-term 

through ongoing construction. 

COSTS OF THE PROJECTS

Question 2. Your testimony states that by building the projects at an accelerated 

rate we can actually save the Treasury money. How much will be saved? What is 

the basis for this analysis? 
44 

Answer. The cost of these projects is dependent upon the rate of completion. In 

general, the longer it takes to complete authorized rural water supply projects, the 

higher the cost ceiling for incomplete projects. Each of the Acts of Congress authorizing Reclamation’s involvement in rural water supply projects generally requires 

that the cost ceilings included in the legislation be indexed to adjust for inflation 

that includes the rising cost of materials and labor, which was estimated to be 4% 

annually. The result of this requirement is that the overall cost of rural water 

projects that are under construction has risen and continues to rise, and the total 

funding required to complete these projects is now $2.6 billion, which is substantially higher than the original authorizations, which totaled $2.0 billion. Increased 

non-Federal funding could also serve to contain these costs. 

The analysis conducted as part of the draft assessment report cited above determined that Reclamation would continue to make progress toward completion of authorized rural water supply projects at an annual funding level of approximately 

$50 million for construction. However, some of the currently authorized projects 

would not be completed until after 2063 despite close to $4.0 billion in Federal funds 

being invested by that time. It is estimated that as of 2063, an outstanding balance 

of approximately $1.1 billion in Federal funding would remain to complete construction of currently authorized projects at an annual funding level of$50 million. In 

contrast, at an annual funding level of $80 million, all currently authorized projects 

would be completed by 2039 at a total cost of approximately $3.4 billion. 

COMPETING NEEDS

Question 3a. Do you view these projects and the spending provided for by this bill 

as competing with other water needs in the West? 

Answer. Yes, The Rural Water Program must compete with other priorities within 

Reclamation’s budget, including aging infrastructure, Indian water rights settlements, environmental compliance and restoration actions, facilitating more sustainable water supplies, and other priorities intended to address future water and energy related challenges. 

Question 3b. Is there sufficient funding in the Reclamation Fund to meet these needs even if we dedicate $80 million per year to address the construction backlog 

for the authorized projects? Answer. Based on the incoming revenues, averaging $2 billion annually, the com- mitment in S. 3385 to dedicate $80 million per year to construction for Congressionally authorized projects would fit within the revenues available from the Reclamation Fund. However, any monies expended from this fund would require a PAYGO 

offset, and even if an equivalent and acceptable offset is identified, use of those 

funds must be weighed against other priorities across the Federal government, including deficit reduction. This is one of the reasons why the Administration supports 

discretionary funding for these projects. 

DROUGHT

Question 4. Many parts of the West are experiencing extreme weather and a prolonged period of drought. Will these rural water supply projects help in addressing 

drought? If so, how? 

Answer. Yes, completing infrastructure for a dependable potable water supply will 

help these communities to withstand some of the uncertainties associated with 

drought. While the vast majority of water use in rural areas is for agriculture, 

drought can also impact potable drinking water supplies. These projects would help 

to alleviate the severity of drought’s impact on potable water supply by providing 

local communities with clean, safe, reliable sources. 

OGALLALA

Question 5a. I believe you are familiar with the extremely serious situation in 

eastern New Mexico where several communities rely on the Ogallala Aquifer as 

their sole source of water supply for domestic use. Can you give us any information 

on the time horizon for construction of the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water Supply 

project without this legislation? 

Answer. The Eastern New Mexico Rural Water Supply project is the newest addition to the Bureau’s current portfolio of six ongoing, authorized rural water projects. 

At the 2012 enacted level of Federal funding (approximately $50 million for construction), and assuming no non-Federal funding beyond the minimum requirement 

of 25 percent, Reclamation would continue to make progress toward completion of 

authorized rural water supply projects and the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water 

Supply project would likely be completed sometime after 2063. However, constrained 

Federal budgets do not preclude the ability of non-Federal parties to move forward 
45 

with important investments in water resources infrastructure and the Department 

stands ready to support that effort. 

Question 5b. Do you have any information you can provide for the record of how 

long the Ogallala will remain a viable sole source of water for the communities in 

the eastern part of the state? 

Answer. Reclamation has not completed an in-depth analysis of how long the 

Ogallala aquifer will remain a viable source of water. Reclamation has been provided information by the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water Authority through a 

groundwater memorandum which indicates that, based on saturated thickness and 

drawdown rates, current drinking water systems reliant upon the aquifer are projected to be depleted within 40 years, with cost and water quality issues likely to 

arise before then. 

RESPONSES OF MICHAEL L. CONNOR TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR MURKOWSKI

Question 1. What do you consider is the main mission of the Bureau of Reclamation? Please describe whether projects that provide water for municipal and industrial (M&I) uses in rural areas-has evolved into a core mission of the BOR? Has this 

evolution been congressionally or administratively led? 

Answer. The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and 

protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound 

manner in the interest of the American public. Success in this approach will help 

ensure that Reclamation is doing its part to support the basic needs of communities, 

as well as provide for economic growth in the agricultural, industrial, energy and 

recreational sectors of the economy. Although Reclamation generally does not distinguish between Reclamation’s ‘‘mission’’ and ‘‘core mission’’, the Department supports 

the goals of encouraging vibrant rural economies and ensuring safe, reliable sources 

of drinking water for rural residents, as authorized by Congress through authorized 

rural water projects and the Rural Water Supply Program. For instance, the Administration has supported Reclamation’s rural water program over the last four years, 

allocating $231 million of funding, in the FY 2010-2013 budgets, to construct, operate, and maintain authorized rural water projects in addition to $232 million provided for these projects in the Recovery Act. Still, the rural water program must 

compete with a number of other priorities within the Budget, including aging infrastructure, Indian water rights settlements, environmental compliance and restoration actions, and other priorities intended to address future water and energy related challenges. At the direction of Congress, Reclamation is working on six ongoing authorized rural water projects to promote certainty, sustainability, and resiliency for those who use and rely on water resources in those project areas and to 

support the basic drinking water needs of those rural communities. 

Question 2. How has Reclamation addressed M&I water deliveries from a programmatic level prior to the rural water program that you recently released? Are 

these types of systems generally incidental to larger Reclamation project purposes? 

Answer. Prior to establishment of the Rural Water Supply Program authorization 

in 2006 (P.L. 109-451), Reclamation had no specific program to address rural water 

projects. Instead, Reclamation carried out individual Congressional directives, some 

that authorized M&I water deliveries from existing projects and some that directed 

our involvement in specific rural water projects. With only incidental participation 

in the technical and engineering aspect of the planning process for determining how 

to best meet the needs, Reclamation only became formally involved in aspects of 

each rural water project as authorized by Congress, typically after the design was 

already determined and authorized. Prior to P.L. 109-451, all of the options for addressing the water supply needs were not necessarily explored and therefore, the 

most cost effective and technically superior option may not have been selected. The 

establishment of the Rural Water Supply Program allowed Reclamation to formally 

coordinate with rural communities to explore all options through appraisal and feasibility studies—complying with the full scope of requirements that exist for all appraisal and feasibility studies carried out by Reclamation. 

Question 3. How many federal agencies have programs designed specifically for 

rural areas to construct or improve water and wastewater facilities? In addition, 

please describe the different program and requirements for eligibility within those 

programs? Are there any currently authorized rural water projects within the BOR 

that could meet the funding requirements of other agencies supporting similar 

projects? 

Answer. Reclamation issued a draft assessment report titled ‘‘Assessment of Reclamation’s Rural Water Activities and Other Federal Programs that Provide Support 

on Potable Water Supplies to Rural Water Communities in the Western United 

States’’ (www.usbr.gov/ruralwater/docs/Rural-Water-Assessment-Report-and-Fund-
46 

ing-Criteria.pdf) that provides in depth information related to federal rural water 

programs. This report was available for a 60-day public review with Reclamation 

seeking comments in order to ensure that it accurately and appropriately reflects 

these programs. 

In addition to the Reclamation Rural Water Supply Program and the information 

referenced above, there are a number of federal programs that provide assistance 

for drinking water and wastewater infrastructure to rural communities referenced 

in the April 2012 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report titled ‘‘Federally 

Supported Water Supply and Wastewater Treatment Programs.’’ The CRS report 

identified 10 programs located in the Departments of the Interior (Reclamation), Agriculture (Rural Utilities Services), Housing and Urban Development, Commerce 

(Economic Development Administration), the Army Corps of Engineers, and the Environmental Protection Agency. Further, in November 2001, the General Accounting 

Office (now the Government Accountability Office) reported that four agencies— 

EPA, USDA, HUD and Commerce accounted for 98% of the total Federal funding 

for drinking water and wastewater capital improvements. 

Each of the individual programs referenced above have unique authorities which 

require specific eligibility criteria and meet specifically authorized needs as defined 

by their Congressional mandates. Reclamation’s draft assessment report provides 

more detailed information related to the individual programs and requirements for 

eligibility within those programs. 

A component that is integral to Reclamation’s Rural Water Supply Program is the 

requirement that Reclamation coordinate with other Federal agencies to both minimize the overlap between its efforts and those of other agencies, as well as leverage 

the budgetary and financial resources of other agencies involved in the similar geographic area. This is discussed in detail in the publically available draft assessment 

report. 

Question 4. Please describe the repayment obligations for each project specified 

within the bill. How do these repayment obligations coincide with your programmatic goals and prioritization criteria for rural water projects? 

Answer. As we read the bill, S. 3385 does not enumerate individual projects nor 

specify particular repayment obligations. The legislation instead creates a Federal 

funding source for existing, already authorized projects which have varying levels 

of non-Federal cost share specified in their individual authorizations. As summarized in the testimony, the Department’s Rural Water Program assesses needs and 

studies particular projects to address those needs through a priority-based process. 

Question 5. Will the build out of these rural water projects have any direct impact 

on project power rates in their regions? 

Answer. The impact of rural water projects to power rates depends on a number 

of factors. There is not likely to be an immediate impact on rates, but as an increasing number of water systems are completed, more pressure will be placed on a limited resource. If the rural water projects were to grow significantly larger in size 

or quantity, Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) may have to withdraw 

federal power marketed to power customers, meaning the customers would in turn 

purchase power from supplemental suppliers, effectively raising their own rates. 

WAPA has not withdrawn any Federal power to date for this reason. Alternatively, 

if projects grow significantly, WAPA could purchase more power, a scenario that 

would also place upward pressure on rates. 

Question 6. Please describe how the prioritization and funding of your rural water 

activities are reviewed by the Office of Management & Budget? What type of controls does OMB require, as they review rural water funding? Are the authorized 

projects within the bill going to go through any additional review by OMB prior to 

receiving funding, if this legislation becomes law? 

Answer. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reviews Reclamation’s 

budget submittals each year to ensure that they are consistent with the goals, policies and priorities of the President’s budget government-wide. This includes ensuring that the Federal investment in rural water projects is the best and most cost 

effective investment and that it furthers the priorities of the Administration. It is 

our expectation that analysis would continue—to ensure that the investments best 

protect the taxpayer’s financial investment in these activities. 

Question 7. Of the currently authorized projects eligible for funding within the 

bill, what was or has been the involvement of Reclamation during project development? 

Answer. Prior to about 1980, Reclamation generally did not have congressional 

authorization to provide more than limited technical assistance in the scoping and 

development of rural water projects. Congress specifically authorized Reclamation’s 

involvement in certain projects to deliver potable water supplies to rural communities—generally not in the initial project scoping, but in the implementation and 
47 

construction of a project. The majority of rural water projects were authorized prior 

to passage of the Rural Water Supply Act. Because Reclamation did not have a 

rural water program at the time of these authorizations, our role and involvement 

in the planning and scoping was very limited. In most cases, the studies to determine the need and to evaluate the options for how to address the water supply 

needs of these communities were completed by non-Federal project sponsors. Reclamation did not direct or publish these early reports. 

In most cases, Reclamation’s full role was determined after the projects were 

scoped out, designs were mostly determined, and Congress enacted legislation for 

Reclamation to build those projects. Although Reclamation implemented the construction of these projects cost effectively, all potential options for how the needs 

could be met had not been explored. 

In 2006, the Rural Water Supply Act of 2006, (P.L. 109-451), authorized the Secretary of Interior to establish and carry out a rural water supply program in the 

17 western states to: 

(a) Investigate and identify opportunities to ensure safe and adequate rural 

water supply projects for domestic, municipal and industrial use in small communities and rural areas of the Reclamation States; 

(b) Plan the design and construction of rural water supply projects through 

the conduct of appraisal investigations and feasibility studies; and 

(c) Oversee, as appropriate, the construction of rural water supply projects 

that are recommended for construction by Reclamation in a feasibility report developed under the Rural Water Supply Program and subsequently authorized 

by Congress. 

Question 8. Of the authorized projects in the bill, given the competing budgetary 

demands among rural water projects and within Reclamation’s overall budget, how 

do you ensure that the money is spent on the most feasible, and cost effective 

project? Is it possible to work in the most cost effective manner when the BOR was 

not involved in the scope and complexity of these authorized rural water systems 

during the planning and the development stages of these projects? Which of the 

projects, if the bill becomes law, would meet your requirements to ensure projects 

provide sustainable water supplies at the least cost? 

Answer. Given current fiscal constraints, Reclamation must make tough decisions 

and set priorities across all investments, including rural water projects. Reclamation 

has developed a set of objective prioritization criteria to guide its decision making 

to maximize the agency’s ability to meet its programmatic goals, to maximize water 

deliveries to rural communities in as short a period as possible, and to reflect the 

diverse needs and circumstances facing each individual project. The draft criteria 

are publically available and were open for public comment through September 10, 

2012. 

Question 9. In developing your new rural water assessment program, what lessons 

have you learned from the authorized projects in the bill that you do not want to 

occur in the future? How will implementation of the Rural Water Supply Act enhance the likelihood of the success of projects? 

Answer. In most cases, the legislation authorizing the 11 rural water projects underway or constructed to date was adopted without Administration support, and 

prior to the completion of detailed feasibility studies for the projects. As a result, 

the non-Federal cost-shares, appropriation ceilings and other features were not consistent with the ‘‘beneficiaries pay’’ principle that underlies most traditional Reclamation water projects. Nevertheless, the Department is committed to completing 

the authorized projects as directed in as expeditious manner possible given existing 

budget constraints. Implementation of the Rural Water Supply Act, and the 

prioritization criteria referenced in the draft Assessment, will enhance the successful allocation of resources to the projects through application of six priority criteria. 

Question 10. If S. 3385 were to be enacted, and the $80 million per year disbursed 

to fund rural water project construction, how would OMB look at these types of 

projects within your budget submittal. In addition, do you believe that Congress 

would view these amounts as additional to annual appropriations allocations for the 

Bureau of Reclamation? If not, please describe your reasoning. 

Answer. S. 3385 creates a mandatory Federal appropriation for rural water 

projects which, under current law, receive Federal funding through discretionary appropriations. It is not possible to answer this question on how OMB may view future 

funding on behalf of prospective future Congresses or Administrations, or future 

budget requests. 

Question 11. If the Bureau is to get $200 million in mandatory spending, once the 

$120 million per year of mandatory funding for Indian water rights settlements 
48 

1Water Conference Before the S. Comm. on Energy and Natural Resources, 109th Cong. (April 

5, 2005) (statement of Craig Bell, Executive Director, Western States Water Council); Water 

Conference Before the S. Comm. on Energy and Natural Resources, 109th Cong. (April 5, 2005) 

(statement of Pat Tyrrell, Wyoming State Engineer). 2Maintaining and Upgrading the Bureau of Reclamation’s Facilities to Improve Power Generation, Enhance Water Supply and Keep Our Homeland Secure: Oversight Hearing Before the 

H. Comm. on Resources, Subcomm. on Water and Power, 109th Cong., 2 (July 19, 2005), statekicks in in 2020, do you perceive that you will continue to get your current $50 million appropriation on top of that? 

Answer. As stated in the answer above, S. 3385 creates a mandatory federal appropriation for rural water projects which, under current law, receive federal funding through discretionary appropriations. Discretionary funding levels in the Budget 

would continue to be determined on an annual basis. 

Question 12. Current appropriations for rural water project construction are not 

even close to this level of funding. If this were to occur, wouldn’t other projects funded in Reclamation’s appropriation be impacted by this reduction in discretionary appropriation levels? Is it possible that you will get more money overall, but lose your 

ability to direct funding to any new or different priorities? 

Answer. S. 3385 creates a mandatory federal appropriation for rural water 

projects which, under current law, receive federal funding through discretionary appropriations. This change would require a PAYGO offset. However, even if an equivalent and acceptable offset is identified, use of those funds must be weighed against 

other priorities across the Federal government, including deficit reduction. 

Question 13. The Reclamation Fund was designed to fund construction of new federal water projects in the West. There are many areas of the West in dire need of 

new storage facilities, renewable hydroelectric projects, and other infrastructure 

where the federal nexus is an existing federal project or restrictions due to federal 

law, such as the Endangered Species Act. Should these projects be allowed the ability to qualify for similar or greater funding levels from the Reclamation Fund in the 

same manner proposed by S. 3385? 

Answer. New storage facilities and other significant new infrastructure contemplated for an existing Federal project would require new Congressional authorization. S. 3385 would create a funding stream for already-authorized projects. As 

amended, the laws that created the Reclamation Fund were written to allow for a 

source of discretionary appropriations for authorized projects from the Fund. The 

Department’s testimony stated that the Administration supports the goals of encouraging vibrant rural economies and ensuring safe, reliable sources of drinking 

water for rural residents. However, the Department believes that Federal investments in such projects must recognize the current fiscal constraints and the need 

to make tough choices in prioritizing those investments and therefore, supports , the 

use of discretionary funding for these projects. 

RESPONSES OF NATHAN BRACKEN TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR MURKOWSKI

Question 1a. What is the magnitude of the need for infrastructure rehabilitation, 

modernization, and development necessary to support these and other water 

projects throughout the Reclamation States? 

Answer. The WSWC has made no independent assessment quantifying water resources infrastructure needs in the West, and the Bureau of Reclamation is in the 

best position to respond to this question with respect to authorized federal projects 

in the Reclamation States. However, the magnitude of the need for water infrastructure rehabilitation, modernization, and development in the Reclamation States and 

the nation as a whole is substantial. 

In April 2005, under the leadership of then Chairman Domenici, your Committee 

held a Water Resources Summit that included the participation of former WSWC 

Executive Director D. Craig Bell and Wyoming State Engineer and WSWC member 

Pat Tyrrell. Both addressed the need for funding for the Bureau of Reclamation, as 

well as Reclamation’s role in the West.1 At that time, Reclamation’s estimate of foreseeable future rehabilitation and betterment (R&B) costs totaled approximately 

$645 million. This figure included estimates from each region for facilities operated 

and maintained by project sponsors. With respect to dam safety, the Bureau estimated that it needed some $227 million to complete corrective actions. Spending 

under the Bureau’s Challenge Grant program, for water delivery system improvements, has been consistently oversubscribed and more than matched by non-federal 

dollars. The demands for dam rehabilitation and betterment, dam safety and water 

delivery system improvements at that time approached $1 billion.2
49 

ment of Tony Willardson, Deputy Director, Western States Water Council), http:// 

naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/willardsontestimony07.19.05.pdf 3W. STATES WATER COUNCIL, WESTERN WATER RESOURCES INFRASTRUCTURE 

STRATEGIES: IDENTIFYING, PRIORITIZING AND FINANCING NEEDS (June 2011), http:// 

www.westgov.org/wswc/infrastructure%20reportlfinalllowresolution.pdf. 4 Id. at 9. 

5 Id. at 2. 

6 Id. at 10. 

7 Id, at 11. 

8 AM. WATER WORKS ASS’N, BURIED NO LONGER: CONFRONTING AMERICA’S 

WATER INFRASTRUCTURE CHALLENGE, 6, 9, 11 (Feb. 2012), http://www.awwa.org/files/ 

GovtPublicAffairs/GADocuments/BuriedNoLongerCompleteFinal.pdf. 

In June 2011, the WSWC released a report on western water infrastructure needs 

entitled, ‘‘Western Water Resources Infrastructure Strategies: Identifying, 

Prioritizing and Financing Needs.’’ The report summarizes the findings and recommendations that emerged from a November 2010 symposium attended by over 

100 federal, state, and local officials, consultants, engineering firms and other stakeholders interested in water infrastructure needs in the West.3 Some of the notable 

findings that emerged from the symposium included: 

• The Environmental Protection Agency estimated that state and local governments had spent $1.1 trillion since the 1960s on water and wastewater infrastructure, with an additional federal investment of $140 billion, while EPA’s 

2002 analysis identified a continuing need for investment of $540 billion.4

• The most recent American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Report Card gives 

the nation’s drinking water and wastewater infrastructure a ‘‘D-’’ grade.5

• Of the $135 billion in construction-related federal stimulus spending, only $21 

billion was directed towards water and wastewater projects.6

• The Texas Water Development Board’s investment in water and wastewater infrastructure totaled $12.4 billion, including $1.5 billion in 2010.7

More recently, the American Water Works Association (AWWA) released a report 

in February 2012 that found that the cost of repairing and expanding buried U.S. 

drinking water infrastructure will exceed $1 trillion in the next 25 years (2011 to 

2035) and $1.7 trillion in the next 40 years (2011 to 2050). In general, the report 

found that the West and South will face the steepest investment challenges, with 

the West facing projected costs of $236.6 billion over the next 25 years and $409.2 

billion over the next 40 years. Notably, the AWWA report defines the West as excluding the Reclamation States of Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, 

South Dakota, and Texas, which means that the total for water infrastructure needs 

in the Reclamation States will be significantly higher than AWWA’s estimates for 

the West.8

Question 1b. Are the projects referenced in this bill projects that you would 

prioritize over other water needs throughout the West, if mandatory funding was 

made available? 

Answer. With the exception of support for completion of the Animas-La Plata 

Project in Colorado and New Mexico as part of the Southern Ute Water Rights Settlement, the WSWC has never taken a position regarding a specific project. It does 

not have a position on whether the projects referenced in S. 3385 should be 

prioritized over other water needs in the West if mandatory funding is made available. 

Prioritizing federal spending as it relates to water project investments has a long 

and storied history that continues with the current reevaluation of past principles 

and guidelines by the Council on Environmental Quality. It includes various 

changes to non-federal cost sharing requirements and the use of Congressional earmarks. In the past, the WSWC has stated that the project with the highest score 

from a National Economic Development (NED) view is not necessarily the best 

project, as there are other important considerations, including past federal promises. 

Consistency between authorized federal projects and state water plans is another 

such consideration. 

With respect to the authorized projects that would receive funding under S. 3385, 

all are supported by the respective states and some were authorized to fulfill solemn 

federal promises and trust responsibilities to rural and tribal communities. In particular, the Garrison Diversion Unit is intended to compensate the State of North 

Dakota for the loss of over 300,000 acres of prime farmland that was lost as a result 
50 

9GARRISON DIVERSION CONSERVANCY DISTRICT, HISTORY & FEDERAL LEGISLATION: THE PICK-SLOAN MISSOURI BASIN PROGRAM, http://www.garrisondiv.org/ 

aboutlus/historylfederalllegislation/. 10SENATE REP. NO. 105-146, 4 (1997) (accompanying S. 156 and describing the impacts of 

the Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin Program on the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe), http:// 

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-105srpt146/pdf/CRPT-105srpt146.pdf. 11 BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, ASSESSMENT OF RECLAMATION’S RURAL WATER ACTIVITIES AND OTHER FEDERAL PROGRAMS THAT PROVIDE SUPPORT ON POTABLE 

WATER SUPPLIES TO RURAL WATER COMMUNITIES IN THE WESTERN UNITED 

STATES, 10 - 17 (July 2012). 12 Id. at 4. 

of the construction of the Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin Program,9 which also inundated over 550 square miles of Native American land and displaced more than 

900 Native American families.10 Additionally, the North Central/Rocky Boys rural 

water project will implement the tribe’s water rights settlement (as codified in P.L. 

106-163) with the U.S. and the State of Montana. Authorizing the increased use of 

Reclamation Fund revenues to expedite completion these projects fulfills both a financial and moral obligation some of the beneficiaries have been waiting for decades 

to see fulfilled. 

The WSWC has long supported using funds accruing to the Reclamation Fund for 

their intended purpose of supporting water infrastructure development in the Reclamation states as directed by the Congress in 1902 when it passed the Reclamation 

Act. Any mandatory funding that would be made available for the projects referenced in S. 3385 should not come at the expense of other Reclamation projects. 

As stated in the WSWC’s testimony, the unobligated balance of the Reclamation 

Fund is expected to exceed $12 billion by the end of FY 2013. Providing $80 million 

per year from the Fund for these projects, with anticipated offsets to other federal 

programs, only appropriately spends a small amount of the unobligated balance that 

has been used for other federal purposes contrary to the vision of the Congress in 

1902. 

Question 2a. Please describe the characteristics of Reclamation that you believe 

make Reclamation a better agency to handle rural water projects than other existing federal water quality or water supply programs, such as the USDA’s Rural Utility Service or the EPA’s state revolving loan fund (SRFs). 

Answer. These specific projects are already authorized and under construction by 

Reclamation, which is well suited to handle these tasks given its long history of 

planning, designing, and constructing water infrastructure projects in the West. 

With respect to future projects, a careful evaluation of the appropriate federal role 

and agency responsibilities in meeting rural water needs is appropriate, given program specific abilities, eligibility requirements, and federal mandate. In contrast, 

other federal water programs (including the USDA’s Rural Utility Service and the 

SRFs) provide rural and tribal communities with loans, grants, or loan guarantees. 

However, many smaller and poorer rural communities lack the capacity and experience that Reclamation can provide to help assess needs, design, plan, and construct 

larger water infrastructure projects. 

Of note, Reclamation’s June 2012 assessment report for the Rural Program provides a detailed description of the types of federal programs that support rural 

water supply development.11 The report is available at: http://www.usbr.gov/ 

ruralwater/docs/Rural-Water-Assessment-Report-and-Funding-Criteria.pdf. 

Question 2b. In addition, would you prioritize rural water programs within Reclamation as the best use of their limited dollars? 

Answer. As noted in 1(B) above, the completion of these specific authorized 

projects is needed to fulfill legal, financial and moral obligations of the United 

States. Future rural water projects would continue to be subject to authorization 

and therefore Congress’ evaluation of appropriate priorities. 

Question 3a. Please describe the cost share mechanisms of the projects authorized 

to receive funding within this bill. 

Answer. Reclamation’s July 2012 assessment report describes the cost share 

mechanisms of the projects referenced in S. 3385 as follows:12
51 

13W. STATES WATER COUNCIL, SETTLEMENTS APPROVED BY CONGRESS, 10 (Aug. 

2011) (describing the federal, state, and local costs of Congressionally-authorized Indian water 

rights settlements), http://www.westgov.org/wswc/SETTABLE%202011%20%2808-15-11%29.pdf. 14 Id. at 13. 15W. STATES WATER COUNCIL, STATE/FEDERAL FINANCING AND WESTERN WATER 

RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT, 8-11 (May 1984) discussing federal cost sharing) (on file with 

author). 

PROJECT AUTHORIZED FEDERAL COST-SHARE

Garrison Diversion Unit (ND) 100% (tribal component) 

75% (non-tribal component) 

Mni Wiconi Rural Water System (SD) 100% (tribal component) 

80% (non-tribal component) 

Lewis and Clark Rural Water System 

(SD, IA, MN) 

80% 

Perkins County Rural Water System 

(SD) 

75% 

Fort Peck Reservation-Dry Prairie 

Project (MT) 

71% (tribal component) 

29% (non-tribal component) 

Rocky Boys/North Central Project (MT) 76% (tribal component) 

24% (non-tribal component) 

Jicarilla Apache Rural Water System 

(NM) 

ARRA funds were obligated at the end 

of FY 2010 to complete the federal 

share of the project. 

Eastern New Mexico Rural Water System (NM) 75% 

Question 3b. Are these any different than other cost share provisions for other traditional Reclamation projects? 

Answer. These cost share percentages are consistent with provisions of Reclamation law and policy, and may be compared to Title XVI water reuse project cost 

sharing, as well as WaterSMART project cost sharing. A project sponsor’s ability to 

pay is also a consideration. 

The 1986 Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) included new cost sharing 

requirements for most Corps project purposes, which also served as a guide for some 

Reclamation project purposes at the time. 

Given its trust responsibilities, the federal government has provided all or a significant portion of the funding needed to construct Congressionally-authorized infrastructure projects that are part of Indian water rights settlements, while also requiring varying levels of state and local contributions for components that provide 

non-tribal benefits. For example, under the Navajo Nation’s agreement with the 

U.S. and New Mexico (as codified by P.L. 111-11), the City of Gallup and the 

Jicarilla Apache Nation will reimburse the U.S. for up to 35% of the capital costs 

of the Navajo Gallup Water Supply Project.13 Additionally, the Taos Pueblo’s settlement agreement in New Mexico (as codified by 111-291) includes a 75% federal cost 

share for non-Pueblo projects benefited by the agreement.14

Consistency and flexibility with regard to non-federal cost sharing requirements 

is a difficult balance to achieve, and in some cases may seem somewhat arbitrary. 

Some factors that might be considered in evaluating the need for cost sharing include direct and indirect federal and non-federal benefits; the extent to which a 

project meets national economic development and social goals associated with economic stability and income or wealth redistribution; the extent to which the federal 

government has by statute or rule mandated requirements to achieve clean and safe 

water supplies; and/or fulfillment of federal trust responsibilities and other obligations as evidenced by previous commitments or promises in treaties, decrees, legislation, etc.15

Other factors to consider include the extent to which federal investments are repaid over time by project sponsors, or are otherwise financed from project revenues, 

such as hydropower, or dedicated revenues such as those accruing to the Reclama-
52 

16 Id. 

tion Fund, which again have been specifically designated by the Congress for use 

for authorized purposes, including these projects.16

RESPONSES OF GAYLA BRUMFIELD TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR MURKOWSKI

Question 1. In your experience, what are the typical water rates of both the community systems and wells within the areas that your project intends to serve? Are 

the rates for these projects higher than what you would find in the larger municipalities? 

Answer. Water rates among our members are tabulated below. Albuquerque is the 

largest municipality in New Mexico and is included for reference. The maximum, 

minimum, and average rates over all of New Mexico are also included. 

The rates are generally higher than for larger municipalities. What is more, the 

income disparity between our area and some of the larger municipalities means that 

the rates paid are also a higher proportion of our per-capita income. 

Question 2. Do you, or does Reclamation intend to pay for the operation and maintenance of the projects intended to be funded in this bill? If Reclamation does not 

pay for the O&M, are you financially capable of funding it? 

Answer. We intend to pay for the operation and maintenance (O&M) of our 

project. The authorization for our project specifically excludes federal assistance for 

operation and maintenance. We are financially capable of funding O&M. Our financial plan, which was approved by Reclamation, demonstrates the ability of our member local governments to fund the ongoing operations, maintenance and replacement 

of the system from rates and charges for water delivered from the project. Our member communities have already enacted user fees and additional gross receipts taxes 

as needed to meet their obligation. 

Question 3. Please describe your expectations on utilizing public power to operate 

the system. Do you know how much additional electricity will be needed in pumping, moving and treating the water? 

Answer. We will be using public power to operate our system. We anticipate that 

current energy use will be reduced when our system is in operation. 

Long-term energy use by project facilities would replace existing energy demand 

from existing facilities, and would consolidate a variety of services that currently 

are completed at a community-by-community basis. Well completion, individual community pumping, individualized water treatment, and other water services would be 

replaced with a consolidated regional system with efficiencies of scale. There are ongoing discussions surrounding harvesting energy from gravity-fed portions of the 

pipeline system, and those discussions will continue through the design process. 

Question 4. Please describe your current repayment obligations for your project, 

as well as the remaining Federal Funding needed to complete the project. 

Answer. There is not a repayment obligation as such. Rather, the Federal funding 

is 75% of the capital cost of the project and the matching costs are 15% from the 

State of New Mexico and 10% from the members. Additionally, the entire cost of 

O&M is paid by the members. 

The capital costs of the project are indexed and will increase over the time that 

it takes to complete this project. However, as of now, the cost of the project is approximately $500M. The Federal share of this (75%) is $375M, the State share 

(15%) is $75M, and the Member share (10%) is $50M. 

Today, we are expecting to receive approximately $1M from the Federal FY2012 

budget and $2M from the FY2013 budget. The remaining Federal funding needed 
53 

to complete this project today would be $372M. Expressed as a percentage, 99.2% 

of the Federal funding remains needed. They have met 0.8% of their obligation. 

Conversely, this year the State will have contributed a total of $25M which puts 

them at 33% of their obligation. The members have contributed $8.5M so far, which 

puts them at 17% of their obligation. 

Our members have already committed to meeting their total obligation by enacting user fees and gross receipts taxes for that purpose. 

RESPONSES OF TROY LARSON TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR MURKOWSKI

Question 1. In your experience, what are the typical water rates of both the community systems and wells within the areas that your project intends to serve? Are 

the rates for these projects higher than what you would find in the larger municipalities? 

Answer. It is important to note when talking about water rates that Lewis & 

Clark is a non-profit wholesale provider of water to our 20 member cities and rural 

water systems. Our members in turn sell the water to their customers. Lewis & 

Clark does not sell water directly to homes, businesses or industries. As a result, 

comparing Lewis & Clark’s wholesale water rates to those charged by a municipality 

or traditional rural water system would not be apples to apples. 

That being said, if I understand the question correctly Lewis & Clark’s water 

rates in the near future will be higher than the rates of communities and rural 

water systems in our region. The reason for that is because only 11 of our 20 members are receiving water at this time. These 11 members are paying the entire cost 

to operate the treatment plant and distribution system. There are a number of fixed 

costs that will be spread out over more members as they are connected, thereby 

bringing down the water rates. Given the large upfront investment by the local 

members in the construction of the System, it is expected that when all 20 members 

are connected Lewis & Clark’s wholesale water rates will be less than the water 

rates of neighboring cities and rural water systems. 

Question 2. Do you, or does Reclamation intend to pay for the operation and maintenance of the projects intended to be funded in this bill? If Reclamation does not 

pay for the O&M, are you financially capable of funding it? 

Answer. Lewis & Clark RWS does not receive any state or federal funding for 

O&M. All O&M expenses are covered by the water rates, which the members are 

financially capable of paying. 

Question 3. Please describe your expectations on utilizing public power to operate 

the system. Do you know how much additional electricity will be needed in pumping, moving and treating the water? 

Answer. As part of our congressional authorization, Lewis & Clark RWS will purchase electricity from the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) for the ‘‘irrigation season,’’ which runs May 1 through Oct. 31. For the other six months, we 

will purchase electricity from our local electric suppliers. No other power is needed. 

Question 4. Please describe your current repayment obligations for your project, 

as well as the remaining Federal Funding needed to complete the project. 

Answer. Lewis & Clark RWS as an organization has no debt. The 20 local members pre-paid their share of the project (just over 10% of the overall cost). In almost 

all cases, members borrowed money to pre-pay their share of the project and are 

now making payments on that debt. 

The remaining federal funding is $200.6 million, which is indexed each year for 

inflation by the Bureau of Reclamation. Last year the remaining federal cost share 

balance was $194.3 million, which shows that the current federal funding is not 

even keeping up with inflation. Consequently, as this rate the project will never be 

completed. 

RESPONSES OF BRUCE SUNCHILD TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR MURKOWSKI

Question 1. In your experience, what are the typical water rates of both the community systems and wells within the areas that your project intends to serve? Are 

the rates for these projects higher than what you would find in the larger municipalities? 

Answer. Water rates in north central Montana vary considerably but are generally higher than average for Montana and the upper mid-western United States. 

In January 2009, the North Central Montana Regional Water Authority (NCMRWA) 

compiled rate information for the community water systems to be served by the 

Rocky Boy’s/North Central Montana Regional Water System (RB/NCMRWS) Project. 
54 

* All graphics have been retained in committee files. 

As shown in the attached graphic,* the data indicate that most of the systems (all 

but four) are at or above the target rate established by the State of Montana for 

the six-county area to be served by the RB/NCMRWS Project. The target rate of 

$34.71/month, as defined by the Montana Department of Commerce, was calculated 

as 1.4 percent of the average median household income for counties represented in 

the project area. 

Regarding a comparison to larger municipalities, AE2S, our engineering consultant for the Tribal portion of the regional water system, completes a North Central 

Utility Rate Survey on an annual basis to present and compare rate information for 

communities in Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Wyoming. 

The attached graph* shows rate information for communities of population greater 

than 5,000 people from Montana and Wyoming that participated in the rate survey. 

By comparison to the rates provided in the graphic* prepared by the NCMRWA, the 

larger municipal water systems in Montana and Wyoming typically enjoy considerably lower monthly water rates. 

Question 2. Do you, or does Reclamation intend to pay for the operation and maintenance of the projects intended to be funded in this bill? If Reclamation does not 

pay for the O&M, are you financially capable of funding it? 

Answer. The Bureau of Reclamation is not responsible for operations and maintenance (O&M) costs for the RB/NCMRWS Project. The O&M costs associated with 

the RB/NCMRWS Project are to be provided from two sources of revenue. The O&M 

costs for the Core System of the RB/NCMRWS Project are to be provided from interest earnings from a trust fund established by authorizing legislation for the RB/ 

NCMRWS Project. The trust fund, which has been established, is administered by 

the Bureau of Indian Affairs with assistance from the Chippewa Cree Tribe. Beyond 

the scope of the RB/NCMRWS Project, the Chippewa Cree Tribe currently pays a 

monthly water rate for the distribution of water on the Rocky Boy’s Reservation, 

which will continue in the future. The O&M costs for the Non-Core System portion 

of the RB/NCMRWS Project will be paid via user rates charged by the NCMRWA 

to the participating water systems. Preliminary rates for the purpose of estimating 

the cost of water purchase have been presented to the participating water systems, 

and the participating water systems have signed commitment agreements based on 

that information. It should be noted that the response to this question is specific 

to the RB/NCMRWS Project. The payment of costs for O&M related expenditures 

for other rural water supply projects funded by the Bureau of Reclamation may deviate based on the authorizing legislation specific to those individual projects. 

Question 3. Please describe your expectations on utilizing public power to operate 

the system. Do you know how much additional electricity will be needed in pumping, moving and treating the water? 

Answer. The authorizing legislation for the RB/NCMRWS Project indicates preference for the use of power from the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA). 

Currently, it is anticipated that the power supply for the Core System Intake and 

Water Treatment Plant at Tiber Reservoir and the primary pumping facility located 

on the Rocky Boy’s Reservation will be provided by WAPA. The power requirements 

for these facilities were recently estimated and provided in the Operations, Maintenance, and Repair (OM&R) report prepared by AE2S. At full build-out, the annual 

Core System power requirements, provided in units of kilowatts (kW), are estimated 

as follows: 

Intake System: 102,000 kW 

Water Treatment Facility: 13,774,000 kW 

Core Pipeline: 7,200 kW 

On-Reservation System: 55,000 kW 

Total 13,938,200 kW 

Power requirements for the Non-Core System pumping facilities have been estimated on the basis of conceptual design information. A summary of the estimated 

horsepower requirements for pumping facilities anticipated for the Non-Core System 

is attached for reference. At this point in time, it is uncertain whether WAPA will 

provide power to the proposed Non-Core System pump stations. 

Question 4. Please describe your current repayment obligations for your project, 

as well as the remaining Federal Funding needed to complete the project. 
55 

Answer. In accordance with Tribal water rights settlement negotiations and authorizing legislation, the Tribal component of the Core System of the RB/NCMRWS 

Project is funded entirely by the Federal government. The non-Tribal component of 

the Core System and the Non-Core System are funded by the Federal government, 

the State of Montana, and the local water systems at a ratio of 80:10:10, respectively. Based on information provided by the Bureau of Reclamation for Federal Fiscal Year 2012, the estimated funding obligation for the local water systems is approximately $20.8 million. The NCMRWA intends to finance the local share of costs 

via loans from the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund program. Repayment of 

the loans will be included in the water rate structure developed by NCMRWA. Similar information provided by the Bureau of Reclamation indicates that, as of Federal 

Fiscal Year 2012, the remaining Federal funding required to complete the RB/ 

NCMRWS Project is approximately $272.4 million. 

(57) 

APPENDIX II 

Additional Material Submitted for the Record 

STATEMENT OF FLOYD AZURE, CHAIRMAN, ASSINIBOINE AND SIOUX TRIBES OF THE

FORT PECK RESERVATION

I am Chairman of the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation. 

I would like to thank Senator Bingaman and the Committee for the opportunity to 

submit this testimony for the record in support of S. 3385, the Authorized Rural 

Water Projects Completion Act. The goal of providing safe drinking water to all of 

the residents of the Fort Peck Reservation has been a primary goal of the Fort Peck 

Tribes for more than two decades. This bill would ensure that the Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water System will be completed in a timely manner and in way that 

could save the American taxpayer several million dollars. 

The Fort Peck Tribes are a large, land-based tribe located in northeastern Montana. The Fort Peck Reservation encompasses 2.0 million acres. The Reservation’s 

Indian population is approaching 8,000 and our Tribal enrollment is over 12,000 

members. Our greatest need is health care, infrastructure, economic development 

and public safety. The Tribes’ unemployment rate on the Reservation is 56%. Of our 

Tribal members who are working, four in ten live below the poverty level. The 

United States has a continuing trust responsibility to assist Tribes address the basic 

governmental services such as safe drinking water, public safety and healthcare. We 

view this bill as one way for the United States to fulfill its commitment to the 

Tribes. 

The water quality within the Fort Peck Indian Reservation and surrounding communities ranks among the poorest in the country. A Bureau of Reclamation Needs 

Assessment documented drinking water of the Project Area, including both an inadequate supply and unacceptable quality of our water. Specifically, the water exceeds 

the standards for total dissolved solids, iron, sulfates, nitrates, and in some cases 

for selenium, manganese, and fluoride. For example, iron levels in Poplar, Brockton, 

and Frazer are one and half to five times the standard. These contaminants make 

the available supplies unhealthy for drinking, cooking, and bathing. Most recently, 

a brine plum has contaminated some of the drinking water wells of the City of Poplar, which is the site of Tribal Government, schools, federal agencies, a hospital and 

an airport. 

The history of the Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water System dates back to more 

than two decades, with the Bureau of Reclamation undertaking the Needs Assessment. In 1993, following completion of the Needs Assessment; the Tribes began the 

arduous process of seeking authorization of the Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water 

System. We were soon joined by our neighbors surrounding the Reservation and the 

historic partnership of between the Fort Peck Tribes and Dry Prairie was formed. 

The Tribes and Dry Prairie worked for almost a decade to get final authorization. 

There were Congresses when we would get the bill through the House and not 

through the Senate or through the Senate and not the House. However, we persevered and finally on October 27, 2000, the Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water 

System Act become law. See, P.L. 106-382. 

The Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water System when completed will have a service population of approximately 30,000 people. The Fort Peck Reservation service 

population is approximately 14,000 and for Dry Prairie it is approximately 16,000. 

Total project investment to date has been $129 million. Currently, the Fort Peck 

Reservation Rural Water System Act is at 44% completion. This year the Project’s 

major milestone is the completion of the Wambdi Wahachanka Water Treatment 

Plant that happened this summer. Notwithstanding this major accomplishment, we 

still have almost sixty-percent of the Project that needs to be completed. This includes delivery of water to communities that are in the most desperate need of 

water. The cost to complete the remaining 56% is approximately $166 million, in 

today’s dollars. At the current rate of funding of $7.5 million per year, the Project 
58 

would not be completed for more than 20 years. Further, as this rate the indexed 

cost to complete this project would almost quadruple in excess of $400 million 

This is unacceptable. The Fort Peck Tribes entered into a Treaty with the United 

States. When we ceded our vast areas of land to the United States for our Reservation, it was with the promise that the United States would do all that it could to 

ensure that this Reservation would be a permanent homeland for the Fort Peck 

Tribes. This promise included the promise that our people would have access to safe 

drinking water, for you cannot have a permanent homeland without drinking water. 

Furthermore, if we have any hope of achieving any level of economic development 

on my Reservation, we need safe drinking water now. We cannot wait 20 more 

years. We need this Project completed as soon as possible, and this bill would afford 

the authorized projects in the BOR Rural Water Program this opportunity. Finally 

this bill is a great deal for the American taxpayer. It allows funding that is now 

sitting in the Bureau of Reclamation Fund to be used to further reclaim the west, 

which was the intent of the Reclamation Fund, and it will spare the American Taxpayer the burden of the increased construction cost of this Project if it is built over 

a twenty year period. 

I thank the Committee of the opportunity to submit this testimony. 

STATEMENT OF SCOTT J. BUSS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MINNEHAHA COMMUNITY

WATER CORP., DELL RAPIDS, SD 

On behalf of the Minnehaha Community Water Corporation, thank you for your 

leadership on S. 3385, the Authorized Rural Water Projects Act. We appreciate the 

role that you have taken in working to complete the seven Bureau of Reclamation 

rural water projects. As you know, timely funding of these seven projects will benefit all taxpayers nationwide by avoiding increased costs due to inflation. Locally, 

these projects will provide economic benefits by providing jobs, attracting new businesses, and allowing the expansion of existing businesses. 

As part ofthe Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee hearing on July 

31st regarding S. 3385, please accept this letter as testimony. in strong support of 

S. 3385. MCWC is a member of the Lewis & Clark Regional Water System and one 

ofthe 20 members who have prepaid their local cost share of the project. The states 

of Iowa, Minnesota, and South Dakota, along with the 20 members of the Lewis & 

Clark project, have prepaid over $153 million. This total represents 99.7% of the 

non-federal cost share. 

On July 30th, MCWC started receiving water from Lewis & Clark at our west 

connection. While the delivery of L&C water has helped us meet increasing water 

demands due to drought conditions, only one of our two connections to the Lewis 

& Clark System has been completed. Until more federal funding is allocated to complete the project, MCWC will pay a higher water rate for L&C water, and cannot 

plan on when our second connection will be finished. Current federal funding for 

the project has not even kept up with inflation. 

The Minnehaha Community Water Corporation strongly urges Congress to pass 

S. 3385. Timely completion of the seven Bureau of Reclamation authorized rural 

water projects is in the best interest of all Americans. Thank you again for your 

leadership on this important legislation. 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS F. DONNELLY, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL

WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION, ARLINGTON, VA 

On behalf of the membership of the National Water Resources Association 

(NWRA), I am writing in strong suppmt ofS.3385, the Authorized Rural Water 

Projects Completion Act. 

For over a decade NWRA has called on Congress and various Administrations to 

make rural water supply projects in the Reclamation West a high priority. 

The West’s rural water delivery needs have been largely ignored in over a century 

of Reclamation water development. It is now time that the Congress and this Administration focuses its resources and expertise on providing quality water supplies 

to the rural communities and Tribes throughout the West. Many of the congressionally authorized projects are under construction, but proceeding so slowly that costs 

are rising to an unacceptable level. It is vitally important for the Committee to specifically identify rural water supply as a primary focus of the Bureau of Reclamation. 

If there is anything NWRA can do to expedite the passage of S. 3385, do not hesitate to call upon us to assist the Committee. 
59 

STATEMENT OF JEANNE DUCHSCHER, FINANCE OFFICER, CITY OF PARKER, SD 

On behalf of the City of Parker, South Dakota,thank you for your leadership on 

S.3385,the Authorized Water Projects Completion Act. We applaud your efforts to 

complete the seven Bureau of Reclamation rural water projects that have been languishing for years due to the lack of federal funding. 

Please accept this letter as part of the testimony in strong support of S.3385. Our 

water system is part ofthe Lewis & Clark project. Lewis & Clark members and the 

three states have prepaid over $153 million,which represents 99.7 percent of the 

non-federal cost share. The City of Parker began receiving Lewis & Clark water on 

July 30, 2012. 

The federal funding the last two years has not even kept up with inflation,and 

under the current federal funding levels the project will never be completed, thereby 

leaving the remaining nine members high and dry. Many cities and rural systems 

have had to spend millions on infrastructure improvements on top of what that they 

pre-paid for the Lewis & Clark project because of these delays. Even though the 

City of Parker is currently receiving water it is crucial that the project is fully completed because until it is the eleven members will be paying for the o/m of the facility through our water rates at a higher rate. 

Completing projects such as Lewis & Clark as quickly as possible will benefit the 

taxpayers by avoiding inflationary price increases as well as the economic development benefits of towns and rural water systems having enough water to attract and 

expand businesses and industries. Not to mention the quality of life benefits by having a dependable source of high quality drinking water. The sooner Lewis & Clark 

is fully completed the better. Thank you again for your leadership on this important 

legislation. 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD H. GARCIA, MAYOR, EDINBURG, TX 

Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. I am Richard H. Garcia, honored to be the Mayor of the City of Edinburg, Texas, located in the 15th Congressional District of Texas. My testimony 

today is related to the federal waste water and sewer system programs. 

I am submitting this testimony to share with you some very important economic 

statistics from the City of Edinburg and tell you about some important jobs the City 

is creating even as we speak, and to seek your counsel regarding a dilemma that 

the City faces—how to fund the infrastructure upgrades needed to keep up with the 

City’s booming economy and service the 56 rural ‘‘Colonias’’ found both within and 

just outside the City limits that depend on our facilities. 

EDINBURG POPULATION AND ECONOMY BOTH ARE BOOMING

Edinburg is located deep in South Texas, approximately 15 miles from the Texas/ 

Mexican border. We are a city of 77,000 people. The City has grown to this population from less than 20,000 in 1960, and is now the fastest growing city in South 

Texas. 

This year, we are seeing the grand opening of two major manufacturing and 

produce facilities that will add over 1,600 jobs to the City’s employment rolls. 

These two new plants are of enormous importance not only to the City but to the 

Nation. They are two important examples of what a community can do in the face 

of the deepest economic recession our Country has faced in many, many years. 

First, there is the new plant being established by Santana Textiles, the largest 

denim manufacturer in the world. With grants from the State of Texas Enterprise 

Zone Program as well as tax breaks extended by the City of Edinburg, the company 

is having the grand opening of the plant this summer. This plant will hire 800 new 

employees to make denim in Edinburg, using US cotton and exporting the finished 

product all over the world. 

The other new plant houses a major Don Hugo produce operation formerly located 

in Chicago. It opened its doors in Edinburg on April 2012, and the Don Hugo Company is hiring 800 new employees to staff it. Don Hugo is a produce importer and 

is moving to Edinburg because of Edinburg’s proximity to the border of Mexico in 

re cognition of the fact that Mexico is shipping the lion’s share of its produce 

through South Texas, making our region the largest importer of Mexican produce 

in the USA. Don Hugo is also taking advantage of similar tax breaks from the City 

and will become one of the biggest employers in the area. 

Also, our airport, which previously was used as a military defense airport and was 

converted to general aviation after WWII, is slowly but surely becoming a commercial airport, which it will need to be to adequately service Edinburg’s business com-
60 

munity. In fact, Fed Ex Ground has opened a new ground station in Edinburg close 

to our airport. 

Edinburg also assists 56 essentially rural communities known as Colonias in 

South Texas. As described by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, Texas Colonias 

date back to at least the 1950s. Using agriculturally marginal land, land that lay 

in floodplains, or other rural properties, developers created unincorporated subdivisions. They divided the land into small lots, put in little or no infrastructure, then 

sold them to low-income individuals seeking affordable housing. Colonia residents 

generally have very low incomes. Per capita annual income for all Texas counties 

bordering Mexico—where most of the Colonias are located—tends to be much lower 

than the state and national averages. These communities clearly are overburdened, 

but they also provide many of the workers that fuel the growth of the Rio Grande 

Valley economy. Like it or not, many of the City’s services end up being provided 

to the residents of these Colonias. 

The City government provides to the City’s residents and the Colonias sewer and 

water treatment, fire fighting assistance, police assistance, emergency management 

assistance, and airport services in case of an emergency or natural disaster that requires people living in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas to seek a port of entry or 

egress, such as our airport and highways located north of the Texas/Mexican border. 

In short, during this period of growth, the City is working hard to make certain that 

its citizens, those who live in the Colonias, and the businesses that have located in 

our community continue to have the necessary services for a good quality of life as 

well as being able to attract even more jobs. 

EDINBURG’S CHALLENGES

I fully understand that the Congress is out of the earmark business. However, I 

am here today to share with you a major dilemma the City faces regarding its sewer 

plant and water plants, airport, and law enforcement funding. 

The City’s population continues to grow because the City is working hard to add 

jobs, fight off the devastating economic effects of the recession, and do our part to 

stimulate economic growth. Thus, my job today on behalf of the citizens of Edinburg, 

Texas, is to ask you what the federal government can do to assist the City with federal dollars other than earmarks to help us address the cost of building an $11 million sewer plant and an $8 million water plant. 

Do you have suggestions as to where the City might find the public resources to 

build these plants that will support our economic development? Unfortunately, the 

citizens of Edinburg cannot afford both to pay for more necessary improvements to 

the City’s utilities and also assist the other surrounding unincorporated communities as well as the Colonias. Yet, the City has been faced with fines from the federal Environmental Protection Agency because its burgeoning population is pushing 

the water and sewer facilities to their limits. 

This current state of affairs does not do any of us any good, and for certain, the 

City will have to either work with you to find federal dollars to help the citizens 

of Edinburg get through these rough spots, or the City will begin to turn away businesses that are eager to invest in bricks and mortar and jobs in Edinburg. 

The same goes for our airport, when FAA tells us that we need more volume in 

order to access money from the Airport Improvement Act to expand the runway, the 

City responds that it cannot get more volume with a runway that is too short for 

commercial planes. It’s the proverbial question of which comes first, the chicken or 

the egg. This is a good example of a government program that is not serving the 

communities it was designed to serve. 

Finally, because of our proximity to the Texas/Mexican border, we also need federal dollars to strengthen border security, due to the horrible problems that Mexico 

is allowing to spill over into the Texas side of our border with Mexico. This is a 

national problem, but part of that battle is being fought on the local level—by our 

City’s law enforcement officers. 

AN INVITATION FOR YOU TO SEE THE PROBLEMS FIRST HAND

Today, I invite this committee to hold a hearing in Edinburg, tour the airport, the 

local Colonias that Edinburg services and let us show you exactly why we need help 

from the federal government. The dollars that we need from the federal government 

will be used carefully to help the City continue to be able to support its population 

growth as well as prove to you that the City is doing its part to stimulate the economy. 

Come down to Edinburg, let me escort you to tour the Rio Grande Valley of Texas, 

see the Mexican border first hand, see the issues we face with drought and the need 

for irrigation, see the impressive farm land that produces sugar cane, feed grains, 
61 

cotton, citrus, vegetables, and cattle, hogs and sheep, as well as the oil and gas industry, solar energy and renewable fuel, and what these industries mean to Edinburg and South Texas in terms of jobs, jobs, jobs. 

CONCLUSION

Our area is one of the fastest growing areas in the USA, and we need help from 

the federal government to make certain we continue to grow, add jobs, and allow 

the people of Edinburg and South Texas to prosper. Thank you for the opportunity 

to submit this testimony to the Committee. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DENNIS DAUGAARD, GOVERNOR, STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA, 

PIERRE, SD 

I am writing in support of S. 3385, the Authorized Rural Water Projects Completion Act. In South Dakota, a number of our communities are dependent upon the 

Lewis & Clark Regional Water System to address current water quantity and quality issues. Fully funding the Lewis & Clark project will provide reliable drinking 

water to an estimated 300,000 people—not just in South Dakota, but in Southwest 

Minnesota and Northwest Iowa as well. 

To date, the states of South Dakota, Iowa, and Minnesota, as well as a number 

of communities, have pre-paid over $153 million toward the Lewis & Clark project, 

representing 99.7 percent of the non-federal share. Trus total includes $31.9 million 

in funding from the state of South Dakota. States and communities that have already made the investment to provide quality water for their residents await Congressional action to complete this vitally needed project. 

Thank you for your leadersrup in introducing S. 3385, and I hope the Congress 

will live up to the commitment it made more than a decade ago and fully fund the 

Lewis & Clark Regional Water System. r;;f; 

STATEMENT OF SCOTT HAIN, GENERAL MANAGER, WORTHINGTON PUBLIC UTILITIES, 

WORTHINGTON, MN 

On behalf of the City of Worthington, MN, thank you for your leadership on S. 

3385, the Authorized Rural Water Projects Completion Act. As part of the Senate 

Energy & Natural Resources hearing on July 31, please accept this letter as part 

of the testimony in strong support of S. 3385. We applaud your efforts to complete 

the seven Bureau of Reclamation rural water projects that have been languishing 

for years due to the lack of federal funding. 

Worthington became a charter member of the Lewis & Clark Regional Water System Project due to decades of failed local water exploration efforts. Although Minnesota is known as ‘‘the Land of 10,000 Lakes,’’ the glaciers missed southwest Minnesota and adequate water resources are scarce. All four of the Minnesota members 

of Lewis & Clark, including Worthington, have had economic development stifled for 

decades due to inadequate water resources. The same is true for our fellow Lewis 

& Clark members located in southeastern South Dakota and northwestern Iowa. We 

are located in a primarily agricultural area and ag related businesses, particularly 

production and processing, use significant amounts of water. 

We in Worthington, along with the other members of Lewis & Clark and the 

States of Minnesota, Iowa and South Dakota have prepaid over $153 million, which 

r presents 99.7 percent of the non-federal cost share. We made this investment 

based on the ‘‘promise’’ made by the federal government when the Lewis & Clark 

project was authorized and signed into law in 2000. These funds have been used 

to construct a treatment plant and water distribution: system that began delivering 

water to eleven of the twenty Lewis & Clark members on July 30 of this year. However, federal funding over the last two years has not even kept up with inflation.Under the current federal funding levels the project will never be completed 

leaving Worthington and eight other project members high and dry. In the 

me.antime, we have had to spend money we didn’t plan on spending on various 

other infrastructure improvements just to get by. To date, the four Minnesota have 

spent $8.3 million on these ‘‘band aids’’ which is on top of what we pre-paid for the 

Lewis & Clark project itself. In short, we’ve done our part and it’s time for the federal government to hold up their end of the bargain. 

Again, thank you for your leadership on S. 3385 and for you efforts toward getting 

these vital rural water projects completed. 
62 

STATEMENT OF TEX G. HALL, CHAIRMAN, MANDAN, HIDATSA AND ARIKARA NATION

OF THE FORT BERTHOLD RESERVATION

Chairman Bingaman, Ranking Member Murkowski and Members of the Committee, my name is Tex Hall. I am the Chairman of the Mandan, Hidatsa and 

Arikara Nation (MHA Nation) of the Fort Berthold Reservation in North Dakota. 

Our Fort Berthold Rural Water Project is a part of the Garrison Diversion Unit, the 

first authorized rural water project. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on S. 

3385, the Authorized Rural Water Projects Completion Act. 

The MHA Nation strongly supports S. 3385 and the funding the bill would provide 

to help ensure completion of authorized rural water projects. However, to make real 

progress toward completing these long overdue projects and avoid additional unnecessary costs to the Federal government, the amount of funding provided in the bill 

should be substantially increased. We should not be asked to wait any longer for 

clean water supplies. On my Reservation, our rural water project was promised 

more than 50 years ago when the Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin Project and the 

Garrison Dam flooded the heart of our Reservation and displaced our families, 

homes, infrastructure and our most valuable economic resources. 

CONGRESSIONAL ACTION IS NEEDED NOW

Congress and the Administration are having a serious problem completing already 

authorized rural water projects. This problem is resulting in substantial additional 

costs to the government. S. 3385 provides much of the solution, but its funding levels should be increased and it should be passed by Congress this year. 

It really is that simple. About 50 years ago, Congress began authorizing the Bureau of Reclamation to design and construct specific projects intended to deliver 

clean and secure water supplies to specific rural communities. Over this period, 12 

projects were authorized and only 4 have been completed. The cost to complete the 

remaining 8 projects keeps rising to keep pace with increasing construction costs. 

Reclamation estimates that the cost to complete these projects will double if nothing 

is done. We need a substantial and stable funding source to make real progress toward completing these projects. S. 3385 could provide that funding. 

I applaud Senator Baucus and all of the cosponsors of the legislation for drafting 

a simple and straightforward bill to address this problem. I also greatly appreciate 

the support of Senator Conrad from North Dakota as a cosponsor of this legislation. 

I will be working to seek the support of the rest of the North Dakota Congressional 

Delegation for S. 3385, including Senator Hoeven who sits on this Committee. 

However, the funding that the bill would provide needs to be tripled, at least, to $240 million per year to make any real impact and to avoid unnecessary additional 

costs to the Federal government. As it currently stands, the failure of Congress and 

the Administration to fully fund and complete these projects in a timely manner is 

resulting in additional costs to the Federal government. As you know, Reclamation 

estimated in a July 9, 2012 report, entitled ‘‘Assessment of Reclamation’s Rural 

Water Activities and Other Federal Programs that Provide Support on Potable 

Water Supplies to Rural Water Communities in the Western United States,’’ that 

at the current level of funding the eventual cost of the projects will be double their 

original authorization. Reclamation estimated that it will take about $4 billion to 

complete the authorized rural water projects compared to their original $2 billion 

in authorizations. 

Reclamation’s report seems to blame these additional costs on the cost indexing 

included in the original authorizing language. To the contrary, cost indexing is not 

the problem, the problem is the failure of the Congress and the Administration to 

adequately fund these projects on an annual basis. Cost indexing to keep pace with 

inflation is entirely appropriate, simply requires that annual project construction 

costs are based in reality and ensures that the projects will be completed as originally intended. 

Our Fort Berthold Rural Water Project, part of the Garrison Diversion Unit, provides a good example of the level of funding needed. S. 3385 would make $80 million 

available each year. If Garrison received $20 million of that amount, because it was 

the first authorized project and because of the large federal share remaining, this 

would not be enough funding to make a significant difference in completing the Fort 

Berthold Rural Water Project. From that $20 million, the State of North Dakota 

would keep $10 million and the tribes in North Dakota would split the remaining 

$10 million. Ultimately, the MHA Nation and our Fort Berthold Rural Water 

Project would end up with a few million dollars to keep construction moving along 

slowly. 

As explained in more detail below, even if the funding amount were tripled, or 

more, it would still only be one-quarter, about 24%, of the surplus that is available 
63 

in the Reclamation Fund each year. After all the other shares are taken, this level 

of funding would provide the MHA Nation about $10 million a year that could be 

devoted to Fort Berthold Rural Water Project construction. The MHA Nation has 

the staff and construction teams in place to easily use this level of funding on an 

annual basis. This is the level of funding needed to make a real impact and ultimately lower the cost to the Federal government by completing the project in a 

timely manner. 

CONGRESS SHOULD KEEP IT SIMPLE AND PASS THIS SIMPLE SOLUTION

Unfortunately, approval of S. 3385 does not appear to be the only issue on the 

table. Instead, we are also talking about the Rural Water Supply Act of 2006, P.L. 

109-451 that authorized Reclamation to establish a program to assess rural water 

supply needs which created additional work for Reclamation, and the convoluted 

process Congress has developed for managing costs and the federal budget. We need 

to put these two issues aside to complete the rural water projects Congress committed to long ago. 

First, the Rural Water Supply Act of 2006 has Reclamation reviewing priorities 

that Congress already expressed in the authorization for each project and conducting appraisal and feasibility studies for new rural water projects. Reclamation 

may need a new programmatic approach to manage future demand for rural water 

projects needed by deserving communities, but, before we take that on, we need to 

complete the projects that are already authorized and should have been completed 

long ago. While our authorized projects have languished for lack of funding, Reclamation reports that it has funded 17 appraisal investigations and 5 feasibility 

studies in just two years. Neither Congress nor Reclamation should create new work 

or reassess long-standing commitments while existing projects remain underfunded 

and uncompleted. 

Second, Congress should put an end to its convoluted process for managing costs 

and the federal budget. These processes effectively require legislation to pass Congress twice—first on the merits and then on cost. These processes also consolidate 

power in the hands of a few members with jurisdiction over revenues and expenditures. At a minimum, these rules should be waived for the kind of funding proposed 

by S. 3385. 

The funding identified for S. 3385, the Authorized Rural Water Project Completion Act, would come from what is known as the Reclamation Fund. The Reclamation Fund is an existing account within the Federal government that is running 

huge surpluses and which should be used for exactly these kinds of rural water 

projects. I understand that approximately $2 billion is paid into this fund each year. 

About $1 billion of that is spent on existing operations and there is about a $1 billion annual surplus. S. 3385 would commit $80 million, or about 8% of that surplus, 

to complete authorized projects that are getting more and more expensive to complete each year. Moreover, even if this amount is raised to $240 million, or 24% as 

discussed above, this is still a small amount to spend to lower the overall cost to 

the Federal government. 

Spending a small portion of the Reclamation Fund to complete authorized rural 

water projects is one of the smartest funding decisions Congress could make. It 

would use existing funds that should be spent on rural water projects and it would 

reduce the overall costs expected for completing these projects. However, instead of 

making this straightforward decision, S. 3385 and recent Congressional procedures 

would require that any of the Reclamation Funds used be paid for by cuts in other 

Federal spending or by increases in revenues. 

Instead of getting tied up in knots by its own procedures, Congress should simply 

provide the funding needed to complete the projects it has authorized. The $80 million that S. 3385 would provide would be a good start. Congress needs to do this 

in a timely manner so that the projects do not end up costing far more than originally planned. Each day we wait the costs only grow higher. We need straightforward action from Congress to fulfill the commitments made to our communities. 

COMPLETION OF THE GARRISON DIVERSION UNIT WOULD ADDRESS PAST WRONGS

While all of the remaining 8 authorized rural water projects need the funding that 

S. 3385 would provide, the promises the Federal government made to the MHA Nation deserve special attention. The Federal government committed to provide the 

MHA Nation and all of our homes with a clean and secure municipal and industrial 

water system. This promise was made because the construction of the Garrison Dam 

as a part of the Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin Project flooded the heart of our 

Reservation and displaced families, homes, churches, school and our very way of life. 
64 

Few communities have been asked to sacrifice to the extent the MHA Nation has 

been asked to sacrifice. 

In the 1950’s, the MHA Nation’s most abundant and fertile resources were flooded 

by the massive Garrison Dam, one of a number of dams constructed as a part of 

the Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin Project. Originally authorized by the Flood 

Control Act of 1944, Pub. L. No. 78-534, § 9, 58 Stat. 891 (1944), the Pick-Sloan 

Project was intended to fulfill national public purposes of flood control, navigation, 

irrigation, hydropower, municipal and industrial water supply, fish and wildlife, 

water quality and recreation. However, from the MHA Nation’s perspective the 

Project flooded our most valuable resources and devastated the economic and social 

systems that sustained us. 

The MHA Nation was pressured and steam-rolled into signing away our prime 

river bottom lands to make way for Garrison Dam. Other sites were available to 

construct the Dam, but the site that would flood the most Indian lands and have 

the least impact on non-Indian towns was selected. Even with tribal resolutions opposing the Dam, by May of 1948, MHA Nation Chairman George Gillette had little 

choice but to travel to Washington, D.C. to sign the final agreement with the Department of Interior. A photograph of that event shows Chairman Gillette weeping 

as Interior Department officials sign away our trust lands to be flooded for public 

purposes by Garrison Dam’s giant reservoir, Lake Sakakawea. Chairman Gillette 

said, ‘‘Right now, the future does not look too good for us.’’ I have attached to my 

testimony an article from a North Dakota historical foundation that describes those 

events and that includes this photograph. 

As a result of the Garrison Dam, the MHA Nation’s land and our traditional social and economic structures were devastated. The Garrison Dam flooded more than 

156,000 acres, the heart of our Reservation. It flooded much of our prime agricultural lands, 84 percent of our roads network, more than 400 homes, our Hospital, 

schools and churches, and 90 percent of our tribal membership was forced to relocate to higher, less hospitable ground. The Dam also flooded forests, the red willows 

that protected and nourished our stock, and displaced the wildlife that MHA Nation 

members harvested. 

Compensation provided to the MHA Nation was far too little to make up for what 

was lost and was not adequate compensation for the use of our lands to produce 

hydroelectric power and provide navigation. In addition, projects to make the MHA 

Nation whole were promised but not fulfilled, including: irrigation and drinking 

water systems, preferential electric power, financial assistance for Reservation 

farms, development of recreational shoreline opportunities, and replacement of infrastructure that was flooded. These promises remain unfulfilled and the new economy brought by Garrison Dam provides little benefit to the members of the MHA 

Nation, yet we live daily with the most impacts. 

After much study and discussion about how to begin making up for the losses that 

the MHA Nation suffered, our Fort Berthold Rural Water Project was authorized 

as a part of the Garrison Diversion Unit to make good on a decades old promise. 

Unfortunately, as a part of the Garrison Diversion Unit, by the time Reclamation’s 

funding reaches our project managers there is little for us to spend on construction 

each year. 

As I mentioned above, the State of North Dakota takes half of the Garrison funding and the other half is split among four tribes. As a result, in many years, the 

Fort Berthold Rural Water Project barely has the money to keep going. In contrast, 

the State currently enjoys a $1 billon dollar budget surplus and in recent years had 

a water budget between $200 and $400 million. Until the Fort Berthold and other 

tribal projects catch up to the State water project, the State of North Dakota should 

be required to waive its share of Federal funding. This needs to be done to shorten 

the overall timeline for completing the tribal projects and make good on the promises to the MHA Nation for the flooding of our lands. 

Because of the impacts the Pick-Sloan Project and the Garrison Dam had on the 

MHA Nation, our rural water project means more to us that just the promise of a 

clean and secure municipal and industrial water supply. The Fort Berthold Rural 

Water Project will help to address the devastating impact the Pick-Sloan Project 

had on our most valuable resources, our way of life and our homelands. We ask that 

Congress and the Administration increase the funding in S. 3385 and pass this bill 

so that promises made when our lands were flooded can finally be fulfilled. 

CONCLUSION

Thank you Chairman Bingaman, Ranking Member Murkowski and Members of 

the Committee for the opportunity to provide this testimony in support of S. 3385 

and its solution to the ongoing delays in completing authorized rural water projects. 
65 

We only ask that the funding levels in the bill be increased to a level that will ensure the completion of these projects and which will save the Federal government 

hundreds of millions of dollars. This needs to be done to complete these long promised rural water projects, and also to help address impacts to the MHA Nation from 

the Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin Project. 

STATEMENT OF MARY A. HELLER, GENERAL MANAGER, NORTH CENTRAL MONTANA

REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY, HAVRE, MT 

Members of the Senate Committee for Energy and Natural Resources, thank you 

for holding a hearing on Senator Max Baucus’ bill S.3385 on July 31, 2012. I was 

in attendance at this hearing as a representative of the North Central Montana Regional Water Authority which is partnering with the Rocky Boy’s Reservation of the 

Chippewa Cree Tribe to develop, construct, and operate the Rocky Boy’s/North Central Montana Regional Water System (RB/NCMRWS) Project. 

As you know, in 1999, President Clinton signed the Chippewa Cree Tribe of the 

Rocky Boy’s Reservation Indian Reserved Water Rights Settlement and Water Supply Enhancement Act into law. That settlement act provided 10,000 acre-feet of 

water for the Chippewa Cree Tribe via Tiber Reservoir. In 2002, President George 

W. Bush signed the Rocky Boy’s/North Central Montana Regional Water System Act 

into law. As a Congressionally authorized project, the RB/NCMRWS Project will distribute clean drinking water to meet tribal, municipal, rural and industrial needs 

for the Rocky Boy’s Reservation and seven counties in north central Montana. 

Since the signing of the authorized regional water project, the RB/NCMRWS 

Project partners have worked diligently to utilize the funds granted to them through 

the appropriation process. Our progress has been limited, however, due to the fact 

that the appropriated funds to date fall very short of the costs associated with construction of a project of this magnitude in a timely manner. Since its authorization 

in 2002, the funding ceiling for the RB/NCMRWS Project has increased from $229 

million to over $350 million due to the application of annual indexing factors by the 

Bureau of Reclamation. While we are appreciative of the funding received—to date 

approximately $60 million—we are nowhere close to receiving the funds necessary 

to complete the project. 

During the hearing, Senator Max Baucus and Rocky Boy’s Chairman Bruce 

SunChild testified that safe drinking water is scarce in north central Montana. 

Many of our public water systems and residents are faced with Administrative Orders from the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) due to regulatory violations. Some water systems are at risk of enforcement action because of 

recent and anticipated drinking water regulations administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Recently, I was told by a local water district operator that a customer came to him with a jar full of water that she had obtained 

from the tap at her kitchen sink. The water contained small worms and, obviously, 

was not safe for her family to drink. 

Anyone associated with public drinking water is familiar with the Safe Drinking 

Water Act and the regulations mandated by the EPA to enforce that Act. They do 

not have to be reminded of how stressed our aging infrastructure is when it comes 

to public drinking water supply systems here in Montana. Water treatment plants, 

storage facilities, and distribution systems that are, in many cases, well over 50 

years old are at risk of enforcement action by the DEQ because that infrastructure 

can no longer adequately protect human health. The reality is, however, our communities cannot afford to pay for the cost of updating and maintaining these individual, aging systems to comply with mandated EPA regulations. Regionalization, 

through the RB/NCMRWS Project, is the right solution. 

North central Montana is very rural and the economy here relies primarily on agriculture. Our towns and water districts that deliver public water are small compared to many of the areas across the United States. However, the EPA regulations 

for safe drinking water that are mandated for communities of 100,000-plus residents 

are predominantly the same regulations that a community of 100 residents must 

abide by. The costs associated with updating aging infrastructure simply cannot be 

passed onto our small rural communities. 

Try to imagine a day-to-day life that consists with the struggle to have clean 

drinking water in the home. The sources of water available to north central Montana residents are impacted by drought or require increased treatment to safeguard 

against contamination. Drinking contaminated water can pose significant health 

risks such as gastro intestinal illnesses, cancer, central nervous system problems, 

liver and kidney problems, and reproductive effects, including miscarriages. 
66 

As many Montana citizens face a daily struggle of obtaining safe drinking water 

at the front door, the DEQ and EPA are at the back door with additional compliance 

regulations that public water systems simply can’t afford. 

The RB/NCMRWS Project was signed into law with its authorization in 2002. 

However, the law has not been upheld by the US government as funding has been 

scarce, and we usually had to rely on Congressionally-directed funds to get any construction done. 

This is not only a great concern in regards to lack of funding, but we’re also concerned about the possibility of newly authorized projects. While we would not want 

to turn anyone away from clean drinking water, we also see the reality that currently authorized projects should receive all the funds necessary to complete and 

‘‘get the projects off the books.’’ 

Past federal appropriation dollars awarded to the RB/NCMRWS Project created 

numerous jobs. We witnessed a large spike in employment when funds from the 

American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) were obtained—it is estimated 

that over 550 jobs were created. This includes jobs in a wide variety of sectors including raw materials, manufacturing, transportation, suppliers, construction, engineering, management, administration, legal, easements acquisition, etc. This is the 

largest project occurring in north central Montana, and the livelihood for many hard 

working Montanans depends on it. 

Completed segments within the project area have provided North Havre County 

Water District (CWD), South Chester CWD, and Riverview Colony with water treated to current drinking water standards. Furthermore, the Rocky Boy’s Reservation 

has taken several steps towards receiving a reliable supply of clean drinking water. 

According to the 2010 Census, the Rocky Boy’s Reservation is the fastest growing 

reservation in Montana. However, infrastructure there is not expanding. As Chairman SunChild testified, current groundwater supplies are inadequate, and water rationing limits the quality of life and has prevented industrial and economic development opportunities. 

Off-reservation areas such as Shelby and Havre, Montana are also witnessing the 

potential for economic growth opportunities with oil and gas developments, biodiesel 

and wind power projects, agricultural centers and even homeland security. However, 

economic growth in these communities is also stifled unless additional clean drinking water can be provided. 

The federal government plays a significant role in this regional water system 

project. That role is to provide support for the growth of commerce, trade and the 

ability for citizens to strive for a prosperous future. 

As our nation prepares for another election season, the buzz words used with each 

candidate are strikingly familiar; ‘‘job creation’’ and ‘‘economic growth.’’ Regardless 

of political affiliation, all Americans seem to agree on one thing; the use of taxpayer 

dollars needs to be spent wisely on projects that will provide jobs, economic growth 

and positively impact America’s future. 

The RB/NCMRWS Project is a federally authorized project that provides solutions 

to the issues of human health, job creation and economic growth. We fully support 

Senator Baucus’ bill S. 3385—a Bill to Authorize the Secretary of the Interior to 

Use Designated Funding to Pay for Construction of Authorized Rural Water 

Projects. With the passage of this bill, we can obtain the necessary funding needed 

to provide a lifeline to our fellow citizens with clean, safe, and reliable drinking 

water. We cannot achieve future growth and prosperity without this most precious 

natural resource. 

Mr. Chairman and Committee members, on behalf of the RB/NCMRWS Project, 

I thank you for your hard work and support to bring clean drinking water to citizens of the United States. 

STATEMENT OF GENE HEXOM, MAYOR, CITY OF MADISON, SD 

On behalf of the City of Madison, thank you for your leadership on S. 3385, the 

Authorized Rural Water Projects Act. We applaud your efforts to complete the seven 

Bureau of Reclamation rural water projects that have been languishing for years 

due to the lack of federal funding. Completing these projects as quickly as possible 

will benefit the taxpayers by avoiding inflationary price increases, as well as realizing the economic development benefits of towns and rural water systems having 

enough water to attract and expand businesses and industries. Not to mention the 

quality of life benefits by having a dependable source of high quality drinking water. 

As part of the Senate Energy & Natural Resources hearing on July 31’’ regarding 

S. 3385, please accept this letter as part of the testimony in strong support of S. 

3385. Three rural water systems and eight communities in southeast South Dakota 
67 

are part of the Lewis & Clark project, as well as nine cities and rural water systems 

in southwest Minnesota and northwest Iowa. The 20 members and three states have 

prepaid over $153 million, which represents 99.7 percent of the non-federal cost 

share. 

Eleven of the 20 Lewis & Clark members just began receiving water on July 30. 

However, because federal funding the last two years has not even kept up with inflation, under the current federal funding levels the project would never be completed. This would leave the remaining nine members, including the City of Madison, high and dry, while the members who are receiving water will continue to pay 

higher than expected water rates because they are paying the entire cost to operate 

the treatment plant. In the meantime, the City of Madison is also facing tough decisions about potentially investing hundreds of thousands of dollars which would not 

have to be spent would the federal govermnent live up to their promise to Lewis 

and Clark and the citizens of the City of Madison. 

Lewis & Clark is critically important to the quality of life and economy of the City 

of Madison. The City of Madison strongly urges Congress to pass S. 3385. The sooner Lewis & Clark is completed, the better. Thank you again for your leadership on 

this important legislation. 

STATEMENT OF MIKE HUETHER, MAYOR, CITY OF SIOUX FALLS, SD 

On behalf of the City of Sioux Falls, thank you for your leadership on S. 3385, 

the Authorized Rural Water Projects Act. We applaud your efforts to complete the 

seven Bureau of Reclamation rural water projects that have been languishing for 

years due to the lack of federal funding. Completing these projects as quickly as possible will benefit the taxpayers by avoiding inflationary price increases, realizing the 

economic benefits by expanding and attracting new businesses, and providing a dependable source of high-quality drinking water. 

As part of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources hearing on July 31, 2012, 

regarding S. 3385, please accept this letter as part of the testimony in strong support of S. 3385. Sioux Falls is fortunate in that it is one of the 11 members who 

finally began receiving water from Lewis & Clark at the end of last month. However, it is critically important that the remaining 9 members be connected as soon 

as possible. All 20 members are in this project together. We cannot stop pressing 

forward until everyone is connected. In addition, the 11 connected members will be 

paying elevated water rates until all the members are connected. The 20 local members and 3 states have prepaid over $153 million, which represents 99.7 percent of the nonfederal cost share. However, because federal funding 

the last two years has not even kept up with inflation, under the current federal 

funding levels, the project would never be completed. In the meantime, members 

have had to spend additional funds on infrastructure improvements. This has not 

been the case fortunately for Sioux Falls, but I understand from Lewis & Clark officials that the other members have spent a combined $9.3 million, which is on top 

of what they prepaid for the Lewis & Clark project itself. This further highlights 

the need to complete this project in a timely manner. 

Thank you again for your leadership on this important legislation. 

JOINT STATEMENT OF DAN L. JANSSEN, CITY ADMINISTRATOR, AND JERRY L. 

JOHNSON, MAYOR, CITY OF SIBLEY, IA 

On behalf of the City of Sibley, Iowa a member of the Lewis and Clark Regional 

Water System, thank you for your leadership on S. 3385, the Authorized Rural 

Water Projects Act. We applaud your efforts to complete the seven Bureau of Recla 

mation rural water projects that have been languishing for years due to the l ack 

of federal funding. Completing these projects as quickly as possible will benefit the 

taxpayers by avoiding inflationar y price increase, as well as realizing the economic 

development benefits of towns and rural water systems having enough water to attract and expand businesses and industries. Not to mention the quality of life benefits by having a dependa ble source of high quality drinking water. 

As part of the Senate Energy & Natural Resources hearing on July 31 regarding 

S. 3385, please accept this letter as part of the testimony in strong support of S. 

3385. The City of Sibley is a member of the Lewis and Clark Regional Water System 

project. Other members of Iowa including Hull, Sioux Center, Sheldon and Rock 

Rapids are also members of the system. They and the other members and three 

states have prepaid over $153 million, which represents 99.7 percent of the non-federal cost share. Eleven of the 20 Lewis & Clark members just began receiving water 

on July 30. However, beca use federal f unding the last two years has not even kept 
68 

up with inflation, under the current federal funding levels the project would never 

be completed, thereby leaving the members in Iowa high and dry. In the meantime, 

because of the delays these cities and rural water systems have had to spend money 

they did not plan to on infrastructure improvements and have missed out on many 

lost economic development opportunities. 

The City of Sibley, Iowa strongly urges Congress to pass S. 3385. The sooner 

Lewis & Clark reaches northwest Iowa, the better. Thank you agai n for your leadership on this important legislation. 

JOINT STATEMENT OF STAN KNOBLOCH, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, AND JAMES E. 

HOYE, GENERAL MANAGER, ROCK RAPIDS UTILITIES, ROCK RAPIDS, IA 

Rock Rapids Municipal Utilities thanks you for your leadership on S. 3385, the 

Authorized Rural Water Projects Act. We appreciate your efforts to complete the 

seven Bureau of Reclamation rural water projects that have been in limbo for years 

due to the lack of federal funding. Completing these projects as quickly as possible 

will benefit the taxpayers by avoiding inflationary price increase, as well as realizing the economic development benefits of towns and rural water systems having 

enough water to attract and expand businesses and industries. 

As part of the Senate Energy & Natural Resources hearing on July 31 regarding 

S. 3385, please accept this letter as pat1of the testimony in strong support ofS. 

3385. Four rural water systems and seven communities in southeast South Dakota 

are part of the Lewis & Clark project, as well as nine cities and rural water systems 

in southwest Minnesota and northwest Iowa. The 20 members and three states have 

prepaid over $153 million, which represents 99.7 percent of the non-federal cost 

share. 

Rock Rapids is one of the eleven Lewis & Clark members that just began receiving water on July 30. Rock Rapids will be receiving water and will have to pay higher than expected water rates because we will be paying the entire cost to operate 

the treatment plant. In the meantime, because of the delays cities and rural water 

systems that are not connected have had to spend money they did not plan to on 

infrastructure improvements. To date, the members have spent a combined $9.3 million, which is on top of what they pre-paid for the Lewis & Clark project itself. 

Lewis & Clark is critically important to the quality of life and economy of the tristate region. Rock Rapids Municipal Utilities strongly urges Congress to pass S. 

3385. The sooner Lewis & Clark is completed, the better. Thank you again for your 

leadership on this important legislation. 

STATEMENT OF ROGER LAMP, PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD, LINCOLN COUNTY RURAL

WATER SYSTEM, INC. 

On behalf of Lincoln County Rural Water System,Inc.,thank you for your leadership on S.3385,the Authorized RuralWater Projects Act. We applaud your efforts to 

complete the seven Bureau of Reclamation ruralwater projects that have been languishing for years due to the lack of federal funding. Completing these projects as 

quickly as possible will benefit the taxpayers by avoiding inflationary price increase,as well as realizing the economic development benefits of towns and 

ruralwater systems having enough water to attract and expand businesses and industries. Not to mention the quality of life benefits by having a dependable source 

of high quality drinking water. 

As part of the Senate Energy & Natural Resources hearing on July 31 regarding 

S.3385, please accept this letter as part of the testimony in strong support of S.3385. 

Four rural water systems of which Linoln County Rural Water is one of them, and 

seven communities in southeast South Dakota are part of the Lewis & Clark project, 

as well as nine cities and rural water systems in southwest Minnesota and northwest Iowa. The 20 members and three states have prepaid over $153 million, which 

represents 99.7 percent of the non-federal cost share. 

Eleven of the 20 Lewis & Clark members just began receiving water on July 30. 

lincoln County Rural Water was fortunate to be one of the Lewis & Clark members 

receiving water. However, because federal funding the last two years has not even 

kept up with inflation,under the current federal funding levels the project would 

never be completed. This would leave the remaining nine members high and 

dry,while the members who are receiving water will continue to pay higher than expected water rates because they are paying the entire cost to operate the treatment 

plant. Because of the drought in our area, the lewis & Clark project is needed more 

than ever. Due to delays these cities and rural water systems that are not connected 

have had to spend money they did not plan to on infrastructure improvements. To 
69 

date,the members have spent a combined $9. 3 million, which is on top of what they 

pre-paid for the Lewis & Clark project itself. Lewis & Clark is critically important 

to the quality of life and economy of the tri-state region. Lincoln County Rural 

Water strongly urges Congress to pass S. 3385. The sooner Lewis & Clark is completed the better. It is time for the federal government to live up to it’s part of the 

bargain. 

Thank you again for your leadership on this important legislation. 

STATEMENT OF MARY MCCLUNG, FINANCE OFFICER, CITY OF HARRISBURG, SD 

On behalf of the City of Harrisburg, South Dakota, thank you for your leadership 

on S. 3385, the Authorized Water Projects Completion Act. We applaud your efforts 

to complete the seven Bureau of Reclamation rural water projects that have been 

languishing for years due to the lack of federal funding. 

Please accept this letter as part of the testimony in strong support of S. 3385. Our 

water system is part of the Lewis & Clark project. Lewis & Clark members and the 

three states have prepaid over $153 million, which represents 99.7 percent of the 

non-federal cost share. The City of Harrisburg is one of eleven of the 20 Lewis & 

Clark members that began receiving water on July 30, 2012. 

The federal funding the last two years has not even kept up with inflation, and 

under the current federal funding levels the project will never be completed, thereby 

leaving the remaining nine members high and dry. Many cities and rural systems 

have had to spend millions on infrastructure improvements on top of what that they 

pre-paid for the Lewis & Clark project because of these delays. Even though the 

City of Harrisburg is currently receiving water it is crucial that the project is fully 

completed because until it is the eleven members will be paying for the o/m of the 

facility through our water rates at a higher rate. 

Completing projects such as Lewis & Clark as quickly as possible will benefit the 

taxpayers by avoiding inflationary price increases as well as the economic development benefits of towns and rural water systems having enough water to attract and 

expand businesses and industries. Not to mention the quality of life benefits by having a dependable source of high quality drinking water. The sooner Lewis & Clark 

is fully completed the better. Thank you again for your leadership on this important 

legislation. 

STATEMENT OF DL SANDERS, CHIEF COUNSEL TO THE NEW MEXICO STATE ENGINEER

Chairman Bingaman, Ranking Member Murkowski and Members of the Committee, my name is DL Sanders and I serve as the Chief Counsel to the New Mexico 

State Engineer. I regret not being able to appear in person to present oral testimony 

in strong support of S. 3385, the Authorized Rural Water Projects Completion Act 

(Act). The Act will resolve some of the most critical potable water supply issues in 

the Western United States and those specifically impacting the seven Eastern New 

Mexico Water Utility member entities. 

Mr. Chairman, this bill is important to two of New Mexico’s rural water projects. 

My comments are limited to completion of the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water 

System (System) as it is critical to sustaining the population of Eastern New Mexico. As you know, Mr. Chairman, the water levels in New Mexico’s portion of the 

Ogallala Aquifer continue to decline at a rate that threatens the area’s potable 

water supply. The only viable alternative is this rural water system. 

By way of a brief history, the Canadian River Compact apportioned the surface 

waters of the Canadian River among the States of New Mexico, Texas, and Oklahoma in 1950. The compacting States provided for the storage of water. Accordingly, 

in 1955, the New Mexico Legislature authorized the New Mexico Interstate Stream 

Commission to investigate the potential for construction of a Dam to impound a portion of New Mexico’s share of Canadian River water. This investigation ultimately 

led to the construction of Ute Dam which was completed in 1964. 

In 1963, while the Ute Dam was under construction, the predecessor organization 

that evolved into the Eastern New Mexico Water Utility Authority (Authority) was 

formed by the municipalities of Tucumcari, Clovis, Portales, Elida, Roswell and 

Artesia. Today, the member entities of the Authority remain steadfast in their support of the completion of the System as it offers the only water supply alternative 

to the groundwater of the Ogallala Aquifer that is in rapid decline. Only through 

increased funding, as proposed by this bill, will Authority members be assured of 

not running out of water before the System is fully constructed. 

Since 1958, the United States has been a partner with New Mexico in the construction of Ute dam and the System. With respect to the System, the majority of 
70 

funding, more than $25 million, has come from the State of New Mexico and the 

Authority’s members. 

This legislation is vital for Eastern New Mexico to establish a sustainable and renewable supply of water and assure its socio-economic future. A sustainable supply 

of water is critical to the economy of Eastern New Mexico that is dependent on a 

diverse number of industries such as dairy, large-scale food production and processing, ethanol refining, a critical military presence at Cannon Air Force Base and 

colleges and universities. 

The completion of the System offers Eastern New Mexico the only viable means 

to overcome its most significant challenge: a lack of renewable water supply. Because Eastern New Mexico communities rely solely on the Ogallala Aquifer, Authority members invest millions of dollars per year to develop adequate production capacity to meet existing demand to replace existing pumping capacity as it continues 

to decline. 

I understand that each of you have heard time and again just how critical some 

project is to a particular state, nevertheless there are some that truly are a little 

more critical than some others and I believe this is one. I cannot emphasize enough 

just how critical completion of this System is to ensure a reliable uninterrupted 

water supply for the Authority’s members, the military, and the economy of Eastern 

New Mexico. 

I would like to include the statement that the state of New Mexico continues to 

support the Jicarilla Apace Tribe’s rural water project that also will benefit from 

passage of this bill. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for championing this effort and please know the State 

of New Mexico stands in strong support of S. 3385 and the State Engineer will gladly assist you in moving this important legislation through Congress. This concludes 

my written testimony. 

STATEMENT OF ROD SPRONK, CHAIRMAN, LINCOLN PIPESTONE RURAL WATER

On behalf of Lincoln Pipestone Rural Water (LPRW), thank you for your leadership on S. 3385, the Authorized Rural Water Projects Act. We applaud your efforts 

to complete the seven Bureau of Reclamation rural water projects that have been 

languishing for years due to the lack of federal funding. Completing these projects 

as quickly as possible will benefit the taxpayers by avoiding inflationary price increases, as well as realizing the economic development benefits of towns and rural 

water systems having enough water to attract and expand businesses and industries. Not to mention the quality of life benefits by having a dependable source of 

high quality drinking water. 

As part of the Senate Energy & Natural Resources hearing on July 31 regarding 

S. 3385, please accept this letter as part of the testimony in strong support of S. 

3385. Our neighboring rural water system, Rock County Rural Water District, is 

part of the Lewis & Clark project, as well as the communities of Worthington and 

Luverne. They, LPRW, and sixteen other members and three states have prepaid 

over $153 million, which represents 99.7 percent of the non-federal cost share. Eleven of the twenty Lewis & Clark members just began receiving water on July 30. 

However, because federal funding the last two years has not even kept up with inflation, under the current federal funding levels, the project would never be completed, thereby leaving the members in Minnesota high and dry. In the meantime, 

because of the delays, these cities and rural water systems have had to spend 

money they did not plan to on infrastructure improvements. To date, the four Minnesota members have spent $3.3 million, which is on top of what they pre-paid for 

the Lewis & Clark project itself. 

Although Minnesota is known as ‘‘the Land of 10,000 Lakes,’’ the glaciers missed 

southwest Minnesota. The lack of water has caused ethanol plants and dairies to 

be turned away. A large pork processing plant in Worthington bas wanted to expand 

for over ten yems, but cannot because of the lack of water. This has an adverse impact on the pork producers in the region. 

Lincoln Pipestone Rural Water strongly urges Congress to pass S. 3385. The sooner Lewis & Clark reaches southwest Minnesota, the better. Thank you again for 

your leadership on this important legislation. 

STATEMENT OF CHRIS UDALL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AGRI-BUSINESS COUNCIL OF

ARIZONA, INC., MESA, AZ 

On behalf of the membership of the Agri-Business Council of Arizona (ABC), I 

want to extend our support of S. 3385, the Authorized Rural Water Projects Comple-
71 

tion Act. Focusing attention on quality water supplies for rural communites, agribusiness and Tribes throughout the west and in particular, Arizona, are extremely 

important priorities for our members. 

ABC serves as Arizona’s Reclamation Representative to the National Water Resources Association (NWRA). We appreciate our association with NWRA which provides the opportunity to work collectively on water issues of importance throughout 

the west such as S. 3385. We also support the Bureau of Reclamation’s efforts to 

provide quality water supplies and delivery infrastructure throughout the west. 

Please let us know how we can assist further in moving S. 3385 toward passage 

in the Senate and beyond. 

STATEMENT OF ROGER VIS, MAYOR, CITY OF HULL, IA 

The City of Hull, as a member of the Lewis and Clark Regional Water System, 

would like to thank you for the introduction of S. 3385, the Authorized Rural Water 

Projects Act. Economic development is not possible without an adequate water supply and the City of Hull appreciates your efforts in securing funding to complete 

the seven Bureau of Reclamation’s existing rural water projects. 

The 20 members and three states have pre-paid over $153 million, almost 100% 

of the non-federal cost share. Passage ofS. 3385 will greatly improve the ability of 

the federal government to fulfill its commitment. 

The City of Hull is the epitome of the kind of economic benefits a completed Lewis 

and Clark System can provide a community. In 2007, the City of Hull successfully 

recruited a cheese and whey facility to locate in Hull. The promise of a future secure 

water source (Lewis & Clark) was one of the major reasons the facility chose the 

City of Hull. The facility employs over 125 individuals and over 2.5M pounds of milk 

(300,000 gallons) are processed daily. Future expansion, including the addition of 45 

jobs, is currently being discussed and the City of Hull is competing against other 

locations, including Canada, for the expansion. At the present time, the City would 

not be able to accommodate the future water needs of the expansion, and we are 

unable to afford the millions of dollars it would take to build the additional infrastructure needed. 

Again, thank you for your foresight in seeing the benefit of completing the existing rural water projects. Hull strongly urges Congress to pass S. 3385. 

JOINT STATEMENT OF DENNIS WALSTRA, MAYOR, AND MURRAY HULSTEIN, LEWIS & 

CLARK VICE-CHAIRMAN, AND SIOUX CENTER UTILITIES MANAGER

The City of Sioux Center, Iowa, as members of the Lewis & Clark Regional Water 

System would like to thank you for introduction of S. 3385, the Authorized Rural 

Water Projects Act. We appreciate your efforts to have a bill passed which complete 

the seven Bureau of Reclamation rural water projects, which are unable to be completed due to lack of federal funding. Sioux Center realizes that these projects are 

important to their local economies, providing jobs, and allowing for economic development. As you know, completing these projects as quickly as possible also avoids 

inflationary increases and allows us to meet our growing needs. 

As part of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing on July 

31 regarding S. 3385, please accept this letter as part of the testimony in strong 

support of S. 3385. Lewis & Clarks executive director, Troy Larson, indicated in his 

testimony that the 20 members and three states have pre-paid over $153 million 

which represents 99.7% of the non-federal cost share. These payments indicate our 

commitment to this project and we respectfully request the federal government fulfill its commitment of its cost share as soon as possible. We believe passage of S. 

3385 will enhance the federal government’s ability to meet its commitment. 

The recent drought in the area has magnified the need for Lewis & Clark. On 

July 30, 11 of the 20 Lewis & Clark members began receiving water. Almost immediately, members were taking much more water than anticipated due to heavy demand and decreasing supplies. Those of us not connected to Lewis & Clark also 

need this critical source. We are forced to invest in infrastructure which would not 

be needed should Lewis & Clark be completed. 

Sioux Center sees Lewis & Clark as a critical component to our quality of life and 

to economic development in our area. We also see Lewis & Clark as a critical contributory towards the economic viability of the tri-state region. Sioux Center strongly urges congress to pass S. 3385. Thank you again for introduction of this bill. 
72 

STATEMENT OF SCOTT WYNJA, CITY MANAGER, CITY OF SHELDON, AND LEWIS AND

CLARK BOARD OF DIRECTORS

On behalf of the City of Sheldon, Iowa a member of the Lewis and Clark Regional 

Water System, thank you for your leadership on S. 3385, the Authorized Rural 

Water Projects Act. We applaud your efforts to complete the seven Bureau of Reclamation rural water projects that have been languishing for years due to the lack 

of federal funding. Completing these projects as quickly as possible will benefit the 

taxpayers by avoiding inflationary price increase, as well as realizing the economic 

development benefits of towns and rural water systems having enough water to attract and expand businesses and industries. Not to mention the quality oflife benefits by having a dependable source of high quality drinking water. 

As part of the Senate Energy & Natural Resources hearing on July 31 regarding 

S. 3385, please accept this letter as part of the testimony in strong support of S. 

3385. The City of Sheldon is a member of the Lewis and Clark Regional Water System project. Other members of Iowa including Hull, Sioux Center, Sibley and Rock 

Rapids are also members of the system. They and the other members and three 

states have prepaid over $153 million, which represents 99.7 percent of the non-federal cost share. Eleven of the 20 Lewis & Clark members just began receiving water 

on July 30. However, because federal funding the last two years has not even kept 

up with inflation, under the current federal funding levels the project would never 

be completed, thereby leaving the members in Iowa high and dry. In the meantime, 

because of the delays these cities and rural water systems have had to spend money 

they did not plan to on infrastructure improvements and have missed out on many 

lost economic development opportunities. 

The City of Sheldon, Iowa strongly urges Congress to pass S. 3385. The sooner 

Lewis & Clark reaches northwest Iowa, the better. Thank you again for your leadership on this important legislation. 

Æ