70–010

Calendar No. 793

106TH CONGRESS REPORT

2d Session " ! SENATE 106–403

UPPER COLORADO RIVER AND SAN JUAN RIVER BASINS

SEPTEMBER 7, 2000.—Ordered to be printed

Mr. MURKOWSKI, from the Committee on Energy and Natural

Resources, submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany S. 2239]

The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, to which was

referred the bill (S. 2239) to authorize the Bureau of Reclamation

to provide cost sharing for the endangered fish recovery implementation programs for the Upper Colorado River and San Juan River

basins, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with

an amendment and recommends that the bill, as amended, do pass.

The amendment is as follows:

On page 15, strike lines 10 through 15, and insert the following:

‘‘No provision of this Act nor any action taken pursuant thereto or

in furtherance thereof shall constitute a new or supplemental benefit under the Act of June 17, 1902, (32 Stat. 388, chapter 1093),

and Acts supplemental to and amendatory thereof (43 U.S.C. 371

et seq.)’’.

PURPOSE OF THE MEASURE

The purpose of S. 2239 is to authorize funding for the Bureau of

Reclamation to continue the implementation of the endangered fish

recovery implementation programs for the Upper Colorado River

and San Juan River basins in order to accomplish the objectives of

the programs within an established timeframe.

BACKGROUND AND NEED

Upper Colorado River Basin

The Upper Colorado River basin, which is composed of the Colorado River and its tributaries upstream of Lake Powell, is home to

14 native fish species, four of which are now endangered. These

four fish—the Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker, bonytail

2

and humpback chub—evolved in the Colorado River basin and exist

nowhere else on earth.

In 1988, a coalition of agencies and organizations came together

to recover endangered Colorado River basin fish and provide for future water development for agricultural, hydroelectric, and municipal uses. Called the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program, this effort involves federal, state, and private organizations and agencies in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming. The program complies with all applicable laws, including the Federal Endangered Species Act, State water law, river law and interstate

water compacts. Recovery strategies include conducting research,

improving river habitat, providing adequate stream flows, managing non-native fish, and raising endangered fish in hatcheries for

stocking.

Endangered Colorado pikeminnow, razorback suckers, bonytail

and humpback chub will be considered recovered when there are

self-sustaining populations of each fish species and when there is

natural habitat to support them.

The following organizations and agencies are represented on the

Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program: U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Western

Area Power Administration, State of Colorado, State of Utah, State

of Wyoming, The Nature Conservancy, Environmental Defense

Fund, Colorado Water Congress, Utah Water Users Association,

Wyoming Water Development Association, and Colorado River Energy Distributors Association.

Annual program expenditures have ranged from about $2 million

to $13 million. On an average basis, Recovery Program participants

have contributed the following amounts each year:

Where the money goes Cost Percent of

total cost

Upper Basin Water Users ................................................................................................................ $91,400 .9

State of Wyoming ............................................................................................................................ 30,200 .3

Bureau of Reclamation (Capital Funds) ......................................................................................... 5,914,200 58.7

Bureau of Reclamation (Regular Funds) ........................................................................................ 1,956,300 19.4

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services ....................................................................................................... 1,124,000 11.2

State of Colorado ............................................................................................................................. 858,200 8.5

State of Utah ................................................................................................................................... 95,200 1

Costs include habitat development, habitat management, instream flow acquisition, non-native fish management, hatchery

construction and operation, endangered fish stocking, research,

public information and education and program management. On an

average basis, Recovery Program funds have been distributed as

follows:

Where the money goes Cost Percent of

total cost

Non-native fish management .......................................................................................................... $204,300 2.0

Information and Education .............................................................................................................. 189,600 1.9

In-stream flow identification and protection .................................................................................. 3,345,700 33.2

Habitat restoration (wetlands, fish passage) ................................................................................. 2,605,800 25.9

Endangered fish stocking ................................................................................................................ 2,071,800 20.6

Program management ..................................................................................................................... 1,266,300 12.6

Research, monitoring and data management ................................................................................ 386,000 3.8

Recovery efforts include:

3

Research—Researchers from various universities and State and

Federal agencies independently began gathering information on

these fish in the 1960’s. In 1979, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Colorado River Fisheries Project began coordinating research

on endangered fish. These early research projects provided background information necessary to guide current research studies.

Since 1988, all research and capital construction projects in the

Upper Colorado River Basin have been coordinated by the Upper

Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program.

Through a coordinated, multi-State effort, biologists now collect

data used to monitor sizes of populations of endangered and nonnative fish and recommended stream flows that are best for endangered fish, their food supply and riverside habitat. Data from all

studies are being compiled in a centralized database.

Providing adequate stream flows—This aspect of endangered fish

recovery involves acquiring adequate stream flows and altering operations of Federal dams to re-create more natural flow patterns.

This strategy mimics natural stream flows, providing high flows

during natural spring runoff, and lower, more stable flows the rest

of the year. Large volumes of water carve out the riverside nooks

and crannies, or ‘‘backwaters and side channels,’’ that endangered

fish need to feed, grow and survive.

Managing non-native fish species—The Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery program is working to recover endangered

fish while also working to minimize the impact on non-native sport

fishing. In general, stocking non-native fish species in the upper

Colorado River basin has been confined to areas where there is little potential conflict with endangered fish. But trout tend to live

in different parts of the river, and are not considered competitors

with endangered fish. Trout are cold-water fish that prefer temperatures 10 to 15 degrees cooler than those in downstream sections of the river where endangered fish are found.

In the fall of 1996, Federal and State wildlife agencies in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming finalized an agreement on stocking of

non-native sort fish. The agreement specified the circumstances

under which certain species of non-native fish can be stocked without harming endangered fish, specifying when non-native fish species can be routinely stocked, when stocking is prohibited, and

when case-by-case reviews are required. These guidelines allow

widespread stocking of trout and stocking of a variety of warmweather fish species in seven Western Slope reservoirs totaling

more than 10,000 surface acres.

Hatcheries and stocking—Hatchery facilities and ponds for raising endangered fish now are available in five different sites in

Utah and Colorado. Each of the facilities was established to meet

specific objectives necessary to recover endangered Colorado River

fish.

Before this Recovery Program existed, thousands of endangered

Colorado River fish were stocked in the upper and lower Colorado

River basins, but most did not survive. Biologists believe that the

lack of sufficient wetland areas and slow-moving ‘‘backwaters’’ decreased the fishes’ ability to survive and reproduce. Also, many of

the hatchery fish were offspring of a small number of adult parents

and, as such, had very limited genetic diversity. In addition, young

endangered fish may become ‘‘imprinted’’ to a specific site in the

4

river and may spawn in that site only. Unless properly imprinted,

the hatchery-raised fish may not have known where to go to spawn

in the wild.

Improving the river habitat—One strategy being used to improve

river habitat is to make river-side flood plain property accessible to

endangered fish. In some cases, this involves breaking down or removing dikes along the river to allow the fish to swim into the wetland. In situations where no dikes exist, the approach may be to

protect the property from development, ensuring it will continue to

be available to the fish.

River habitat also is being improved by building fish passageways and ladders around dams and other in-stream barriers, enabling endangered fish to migrate upstream and down. Fish ladders

are being used successfully in several areas of the United States,

including for salmon in the Pacific Northwest’s Columbia River.

San Juan River Basin

The San Juan River is a major tributary of the Colorado River

Basin. In 1922, the seven basin States of Utah, Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, and California signed a compact dividing the Colorado River between the Upper and Lower

Colorado River basins. In 1948, the Upper Basin States (Wyoming,

Colorado, Utah, and New Mexico), together with Arizona, signed an

agreement apportioning the upper basin share between the States.

Arizona was apportioned 50,000 acre-feet in that agreement. Each

of the States and the Bureau of Reclamation under the authority

of the Colorado River Storage Project Act (CRSP), initiated the development of the waters of the Upper Colorado River basin. The

passage of the CRSP Act allowed for the construction of many large

mainstem impoundments on the Colorado River and various tributaries including Navajo Dam on the San Juan, Flaming Gorge on

the Green River, and the Aspinall Unit on the Gunnison River.

While the construction of these impoundments was essential for

the development of water storage and flood control and to allow the

Upper Basin states to develop their water resources, their construction and operation altered natural river ecosystems and, thereby,

the native floral and faunal communities of the Colorado River. As

a result, natural riverine habitats were altered and migration

routes were blocked.

The purpose of the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program is to protect and recover endangered fishes in the

San Juan River basins while water development proceeds in compliance with all applicable Federal and State laws. Endangered

species include the pikeminnow and razorback sucker. It is anticipated that actions taken under this Program will also provide benefits to other native fishes in the Basin and prevent them from becoming endangered in the future.

The specific goals of the Program are: (1) To conserve populations

of the pikeminnow and razorback sucker in the Basin consistent

with the recovery goals established under the Endangered Species

Act; and (2) to proceed with water development in the Basin in

compliance with Federal and State laws, interstate compacts, Supreme Court decrees, and Federal trust responsibilities to the

Southern Utes, Ute Mountain Utes, Jicarillas, and the Navajos.

5

Specific species recovery goals will be developed for the San Juan

River basin using information developed as part of this Program.

Established goals will reflect the need to protect endangered fishes

in the San Juan River and will recognize the value, contribution,

and roles of these populations in recovery of the species throughout

their ranges.

The Program was developed as a cooperative effort among agencies of the Department of the Interior, tribes, states and water development interests and includes the following: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Ute Mountain Ute Indian Tribe, Southern Ute Indian Tribe, Jicarilla Apache Indian

Tribe, Navajo Nation, State of New Mexico, State of Colorado, and

State of Utah.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

S. 2339 was introduced by Senators Allard, Bennett, Bingaman,

Campbell, and Hatch on March 9, 2000. The Subcommittee on

Water and Power held a hearing on the bill on April 25, 2000. At

the business meeting on June 7, 2000, the Committee on Energy

and Natural Resources ordered S. 2239, as amended, favorably reported.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION AND TABULATION OF VOTES

The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, in open business session on June 7, 2000 by a unanimous voice vote with a

quorum present, recommends that the Senate pass S. 2239, if

amended as described herein.

COMMITTEE AMENDMENT

During the consideration of S. 2239, the Committee adopted an

amendment to section 4 that ensures that any actions taken in furtherance of this program do not result in the application of Reclamation law if characterized as a ‘‘new or supplemental’’ benefit.

In particular, this provision will ensure that exempt districts shall

not become subject to the provisions of the Reclamation Reform Act

based on their participation in the recovery program or due to the

overall improvements in the conditions of the Basin.

SECTION-BY-SECTION

Section 1 describes the purposes of the Act.

Section 2 defines key terms used in the Act.

Section 3(a) provides authorization of $46 million in appropriated

funds to the Secretary of the Interior (acting through the Commissioner of Reclamation) to be utilized for capital projects as defined

in the Act. Further, the subsection provides that such funds are a

nonreimbursable Federal expenditure. This authorization, as well

as any other authority for the implementation of capital projects

terminates for the Upper Colorado River Basin projects on September 30, 2005, and on September 30, 2007 for the capital projects

in the San Juan River Basin.

Subsection 3(b) limits the total costs (Federal and non-Federal)

of the capital projects to $100 million; $82 million for the Colorado

projects and $18 million for the San Juan projects. Beginning in

6

the fiscal year following enactment, the capital project costs shall

be adjusted for inflation by the Secretary based on an appropriate

economic index.

Subsection 3(c) authorizes the Secretary to accept contributed

funds not to exceed $17 million from the States of Colorado, Wyoming, Utah and New Mexico as outlined in separate agreements,

and authorizes the Secretary to expend such contributed funds as

if appropriated for that purpose.

The Secretary of Energy, acting through the Western Area Power

Administration (WAPA), is authorized to use power revenues not to

exceed $17 million for capital projects. The power revenues are

treated as a non-Federal contribution, are collected by WAPA pursuant to the Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP) Act of April 11,

1956, and are treated as reimbursable costs assigned to power for

repayment under section 5 of the CRSP Act. Subsection (c)(2)(D)

provides that the power revenue funding and State funding shall

match on a rolling two-year basis. Power revenue funding may

come from a loan provided to WAPA from the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) Construction Fund established pursuant

to Colorado law.

Subsection 3(d) details the source of ‘‘base funding’’, or non-capital funding which is utilized for the operation and maintenance of

the capital projects, implementation of recovery actions other than

capital projects (such as land, water or facility lease, reintroduction

of endangered fish stocks, or the removal or translation of non-native fishes). Base funding also is provided pursuant to the Cooperative Agreements (as described in section 2 of the bill). The Secretary is authorized to utilize power revenues pursuant to the

CRSP Act of 1956, which power revenues are non-reimbursable and

returned to the general fund of the Treasury as costs assigned to

power for repayment under section 5 the CRSP Act. Base funding

shall not exceed $4 million per year for the Upper Colorado River

Basin program and $2 million per year for the San Juan River

Basin program, each amount having been adjusted for inflation annually. Authorization for the use of power revenues terminates on

September 30, 2011, except that ongoing funding shall be provided

for the limited purpose of operation and maintenance of the capital

projects and monitoring. WAPA and Reclamation are to maintain

sufficient revenues in the Upper Colorado River Basin Fund to

meet the base funding obligations contained in this Act. If the

agencies determine that there are insufficient revenues in that

Fund to meet such obligations for a three-year period, then the

agencies are required to seek Federal appropriations to meet the

base funding obligations.

In relation to the intended termination date for base funding,

there is also required a report to Congress not later than September 30, 2008, on the use of power revenues for base funding,

as well as a recommendation regarding ongoing use of power revenues after fiscal year 2011.

Nothing in this Act affects any agreement regarding base funding and depletion charges for the Recovery Implementation Program.

Subsection (e) authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to enter

into agreements with Federal and non-Federal entities, to acquire

7

and transfer interests in land, water and facilities, and to accept

or give grants to carry out the provisions of this Act.

Subsection (f) requires that nothing in this Act restricts the Interior agencies (Reclamation and the Bureau of Indian Affairs) from

meeting their Indian trust responsibilities.

Subsection (g) terminates all spending authorities on the expiration dates of the 1988 and 1992 Cooperative Agreements among the

states and federal agencies, unless at least one year prior to such

expiration dates, those Cooperative Agreements are extended to

conform with the Act.

Section 4 provides that any facilities, land or water rights acquired or constructed pursuant to the Act as part of the Recovery

Implementation Project are not subject to the provisions of the Reclamation Act or any associated acts thereto, such as the Reclamation Reform Act.

COST AND BUDGETARY CONSIDERATIONS

The following estimate of costs of this measure has been provided

by the Congressional Budget Office.

U.S. CONGRESS,

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE,

Washington, DC, July 28, 2000.

Hon. FRANK H. MURKOWSKI,

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 2239, a bill to authorize the

Bureau of Reclamation to provide cost sharing for the endangered

fish recovery implementation programs for the Upper Colorado

River and San Juan River basins.

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Rachel Applebaum.

Sincerely,

STEVEN M. LIEBERMAN

(For Dan L. Crippen, Director).

Enclosure.

S. 2239—A bill to authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to provide

cost sharing for the endangered fish recovery implementation

programs for the Upper Colorado River and San Juan River

basins

Summary: S. 2239 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior

to participate in fish recovery programs in the Upper Colorado

River and the San Juan River basins. For planning, construction,

and other capital projects, the bill would authorize the appropriation of $46 million to the Bureau of Reclamation. The bill also

would allow the use of up to $17 million from states participating

in these programs. It would authorize the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) to borrow an additional $17 million from the

state of Colorado to help fund these projects, and it would authorize the use of about $6 million annually from certain proceeds from

WAPA’s electricity sales to fund specified operations and maintenance activities. Finally, the bill would authorize WAPA to repay

8

the loan from Colorado by increasing electricity sales rates over the

2012–2057 period.

Assuming appropriation of the authorized amounts, CBO esti- mates that implementing S. 2239 would cost $40 million over the

2001–2005 period. In addition, CBO estimates that enacting S.

2239 would increase direct spending by $44 million over the 2001–

2005 period and $78 million over the 2001–2010 period. (Some of

those costs would be offset over the 2012–2057 period by increases

in the rates WAPA charges to electricity customers.) Because enacting S. 2239 would affect direct spending, pay-as-you-go procedures would apply.

S. 2239 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Bill (UMRA).

State and local governments would probably incur some costs as a

result of the bill’s enactment, but these costs would be voluntary.

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of S. 2239 is shown in the following table. The costs

of this legislation fall within budget function 300 (natural resources

and environment).

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Estimated authorization level ................................................................................. 10 10 10 10 6

Estimated outlays ................................................................................................... 8 8 8 8 8

CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING

Estimated budget authority .................................................................................... 23 6 6 6 7

Estimated outlays ................................................................................................... 8 8 10 9 9

Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes S. 2239 would

be enacted by early in fiscal year 2001. Outlay estimates are based

on information from the Bureau of Reclamation and historical

spending patterns for similar programs. In addition to the $46 million that the bill would authorize to be appropriated, the legislation

would authorize three other sources of funds for fish recovery programs: up to $17 million in contributions from states that are participating in this fish recovery program, up to $17 million in a loan

from the state of Colorado (that is subject to repayment), and about

$6 million annually from certain receipts from WAPA’s electricity

sales.

CBO estimates that the receipt and spending of funds contributed by participating states would have no significant net effect on

the budget. But over the 2001–2005 period, CBO estimates that

funding from the loan and spending some of the receipts from

WAPA’s electricity sales would increase direct spending by $44 million. Direct spending would increase by $78 million over the 2001–

2010 period. Over the 2012–2057 period, some of these costs would

be offset as WAPA would increase its electricity rates to repay the

loan from Colorado.

Contributions from States

CBO expects that the participating states (Colorado, Wyoming,

Utah, and New Mexico) will contribute the full $17 million that

would be authorized by the bill for the construction of capital

9

projects for fish recovery. We expect that states would contribute

funds at approximately the same rate that they are needed to complete capital projects, so that net spending and receipts from this

provision would not be significant in any year.

Borrowing from Colorado

S. 2239 would authorize WAPA to borrow and spend up to $17

million form the Colorado Water Conservation Board Construction

Fund (a fund of the state government). We expect these funds

would be borrowed in 2001 and that outlays would total $13 million over the 2001–2005 period, with the remaining $4 million

spent over fiscal years 2006 and 2007. Under the provisions of the

bill, the $17-million loan would be repaid to the state of Colorado,

with interest, starting in 2012. (The receipt of these funds and the

subsequent loan principal repayment to Colorado would be treated

in the budget as a means of financing, and would not affect spending.) The bill would direct WAPA to raise electricity rates for certain customers by a sufficient amount to repay this loan over the

2012–2057 period. Therefore, this provision would cause a small

net annual change in direct spending beginning in 2012 as funds

are collected and interest payments are made to repay this loan

over a 45-year period.

Spending certain WAPA electricity receipts

S. 2239 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to spend

about $6 million a year from the proceeds of certain WAPA electricity sales to pay for the operations and maintenance costs, and

other noncapital costs of endangered fish recovery programs in the

Upper Colorado and San Juan River basins. The bill would authorize the Secretary to adjust such spending for increases in inflation,

and to continue this spending until 2011. After this date, spending

would be authorized to continue, but only for operations and maintenance costs. CBO estimates this provision would increase direct

spending by $31 million over the 2001–2005 period and by $61 million over the 2001–2010 period. Under the bill, this spending would

not be offset by increases ion the price of electricity sold by WAPA.

Pay-as-you-go considerations: The Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act sets up pay-as-you-go procedures for legislation affecting direct spending or receipts. The net changes in

outlays that are subject to pay-as-you-go procedures are shown in

the following table. For the purposes of enforcing pay-as-you-go

procedures, only the effects in the current year, the budget year,

and the succeeding four years are counted.

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Changes in outlays ........ 0 8 8 10 9 9 8 8 6 6 6

Changes in receipts ....... (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1)

1 Not applicable.

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: S. 2239 contains no

intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA.

Under the terms of this bill, part of the costs of the authorized capital projects would be paid by state governments and by water and

10

power users, some of which are public entities. These costs would

be voluntary.

Previous cost estimate: On July 28, 2000, CBO transmitted a cost

estimate for H.R. 2348, an act to authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to provide cost sharing for the endangered fish recovery implementation programs for the Upper Colorado River and San Juan

River basins, as passed by the House of Representatives on July

25, 2000. The two versions of the legislation are very similar and

the estimated costs are the same.

Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Rachel Applebaum. Impact

on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Majorie Miller. Impact on

the Private Sector: Natalie Tawil.

Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

REGULATORY IMPACT EVALUATION

In compliance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing

Rules of the Senate, the Committee makes the following evaluation

of the regulatory impact which would be incurred in carrying out

S. 2239. The bill is not a regulatory measure in the sense of imposing Government-established standards or significant economic responsibilities on private individuals and businesses.

No personal information would be collected in administering the

program. Therefore, there would be no impact on personal privacy.

Little, if any, additional paperwork would result from the enactment of S. 2239, as ordered reported.

EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS

On June 8, 2000, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources requested legislative reports from the Department of the

Interior and the Office of Management and Budget setting forth

Executive agency recommendations on S. 2239. These reports had

not been received at the time the report on S. 2239 was filed. When

the reports become available, the Chairman will request that they

be printed in the Congressional Record for the advice of the Senate.

The testimony provided by the Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation at the Subcommittee hearing follows:

TESTIMONY OF ELUID L. MARTINEZ, COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

INTRODUCTION

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank

you for the opportunity to appear today to discuss the Administration’s views on S. 2239, a bill to authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to provide cost sharing for the Upper

Colorado River and San Juan River Basins Endangered

Fish Recovery Implementation Programs. The Administration supports this legislation, with amendments to address

concerns discussed below, and would like to thank Senator

Allard for introducing the bill.

11

BACKGROUND

The States administer the development and use of water

resources within their boundaries in accordance with State

law, interstate compacts and international treaty, and are

responsible for management of fish and wildlife resources

within their boundaries. The Bureau of Reclamation operates Federal reservoirs on the Upper Colorado River and

San Juan River Basins which regulate water deliveries

under interstate compacts and ensure a reliable supply of

water for beneficial use, incidental to which is the production of hydropower. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is

responsible for administering the Endangered Species Act

(ESA). The involved Tribes have jurisdiction over water,

land and wildlife on their respective tribal properties. The

complexities of managing water and meeting the needs of

endangered species led the parties to develop recovery programs for each river basin.

The Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery

Implementation Program, established in 1988, is a cooperative effort involving the states of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, environmental representatives, water and power

user organizations, the Colorado River Energy Distributor

Association, the Western Area Power Administration, the

Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service. The Recovery Implementation Program’s goal is to

recover four species of fish, listed as endangered under the

ESA, while enabling the states to continue to develop

water in accordance with their Colorado River compact entitlements. The four species are Colorado pikeminnow, razorback sucker, humpback chub and bonytail.

A similar program was initiated in 1991 in the San Juan

River Basin. Program participants are the States of Colorado and New Mexico, the Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Southern Ute,

Ute Mountain Ute, Jicarilla Apache, and Navajo tribes. In

addition to recovering two species of endangered fish—the

Colorado pikeminnow and razorback sucker—the San Juan

program meets the need to proceed with water development in the Basin in compliance with Federal and State

laws, interstate compacts, Supreme Court decrees and

Federal trust responsibilities to the Tribes.

S. 2239

The legislation would authorize funding for capital construction, operations and maintenance, and additional

funding to implement other aspects of the Recovery Programs, which include building fish ladders, acquiring

water, constructing hatchery facilities, and acquiring and

restoring floodplain habitats used by endangered fish. It

sets out the cost sharing relationships among the program

participants for the completion of the recovery actions. The

partners recognize that needed capital construction funds

for the Programs through fiscal year 2007 may be as much

12

as $100 million. S. 2239 would apportion responsibility for

the funding of capital projects between the Federal and

non-federal partners. It would authorize $46 million of

Federal funds to the Bureau of Reclamation. The Department’s ability to provide funding is subject to existing

budget constraints. The remaining $54 million would be

generated from the following non-federal sources: State

contributions of cash, land, and water interests, or in-kind

services not to exceed $17 million; contributions from

power revenues up to $17 million, which are defined as reimbursable by power customers; and an additional $20

million dedicated from the flows from Flaming Gorge Dam

in Utah and the Colorado Water Conservation District’s

Wolford Mountain Reservoir. S. 2239 recognizes the agreement brokered between the Colorado Water Conservation

Board, the Western Area Power Administration, the Bureau of Reclamation, and the State of Colorado to allow

the Board to provide a low-interest loan to the power users

to minimize any rate increase resulting from capital expenditures. The legislation would differ from current practice were 100 percent of the costs of capital projects for the

Programs are being provided by Federal appropriations.

The legislation would allow the Western Area Power Administration and the Bureau of Reclamation, through fiscal year 2011, to use power revenues up to $6 million per

year for base funding to operate both programs including

operation and maintenance of capital projects, research,

monitoring, information and education and program management. After 2011, power revenues may only be used to

operate and maintain the capital projects and for monitoring, unless Congress authorizes additional funding.

The Administration has concerns regarding repayment

of Federal debt and PAYGO impacts. The Administration

has policy concerns with allowing non-Federal interests to

write off debt to the Treasury so as to redirect repayment

funds to new investments. Additionally, technical changes

are needed to clarify that power revenues provided on a reimbursable basis to fund capital project activities will be

offset through rate changes resulting in increases over existing power revenues as necessary to avoid PAYGO impacts. We would like to work with the Committee to address these concerns.

FISH ARE RECOVERING

Both Recovery Implementation Programs have made significant progress toward recovering the endangered fishes.

In the past 12 years, the Upper Colorado River Recovery

Implementation Program has recorded population increases for the Colorado pikeminnow in both the Green

and Colorado rivers. The number of adults being caught in

the Green River has tripled, while adult catches in the

Colorado River have increased nearly eightfold. The humpback chub populations in the Blackrocks and Westwater

Canyon areas of the Colorado River have gone from declining to stable populations.

13

Since the beginning of the Programs, more than 207 favorable biological opinions have been issued under section

7 of the ESA, allowing more than 500 projects resulting in

a total water depletion of nearly 600,000 acre-feet to go

forward. Another biological opinion, nearing completion,

will address more than one million acre-feet of water depletions. The unprecedented partnerships under the Programs have been instrumental in enabling water development to continue while providing for the long-term survival and recovery of the endangered fish. These partnerships have also enabled the Federal agencies to streamline

the section 7 consultation process and provide timely responses to water users.

Because of the success with Colorado pikeminnow and

humpback chub, the Upper Colorado River Recovery Implementation Program is now emphasizing razorback sucker and bonytail recovery actions. This year, more than

60,000 razorback suckers were stocked. For the first time

in the Green River, fish stocked from previous years are

appearing in the spawning areas in reproductive condition.

In addition, new young adult fish are being captured, indicating that successful reproduction in the wild is occurring.

In 1999, 10,000 bonytails were stocked at each of two

sites. Another 70,000 bonytails are being reared for release

at a third site in the spring of 2000. Previously stocked

fish are being captured in the wild and are demonstrating

strong growth.

Other Recovery Implementation Program accomplishments are being made in flow enhancement and habitat

development. Both Bureau of Reclamation and private

dams on the Colorado River are being operated to provide

high spring releases for fish without impacting the ability

to supply irrigation, municipal, and industrial water. The

Program continues to successfully restore the floodplain in

areas that do not negatively impact landowners. This

floodplain habitat provides nursery areas for young fish

during spring snowmelt runoff. To date, the Program has

removed dikes and levees along the river to restore natural

flooding of more than 2,000 acres. Acquisition of an additional 1,600 acres of flood easements to restore habitat is

in progress.

The Upper Colorado River Recovery Program has identified several priorities for the immediate future. Topping

the list is construction of two additional fish passages on

the Colorado River which will open another 50 miles of

historic habitat for the fish. Another priority is to improve

efficiency of operations on the Government Highline

Canal—a canal that provides water to farmers in Colorado.

This project will enable water users to reduce diversions

by more than 28,000 acre-feet per year, making water

available to help recover the endangered fish.

The San Juan River Recovery Implementation Program

is also making significant progress toward recovering the

razorback sucker and Colorado pikeminnow. Following

14

nearly seven years of research and modeling, the Program

adopted flow recommendations that provide water for

other uses while also recovering the fish. This program has

been a highly successful effort of the States, the Tribes,

Federal agencies and water development interests. It has

combined good scientific research with practical applications, resulting in successes for water development interests and endangered species.

The program provides section 7 compliance for 700,000

acre-feet per year of existing water depletions and for

121,000 acre-feet per year of future depletions for the Navajo Indian Irrigation Project. It supports tribal water development in the San Juan Basin, including 57,000 acrefeet of depletions for the Animas-La Plata Project. It will

also provide future ESA compliance for the Department of

the Interior to meet its trust responsibilities to the tribes.

We want to emphasize that much of the potential water

development in the San Juan River Basin and in the

Duchesne River Basin, a sub-basin of the Green River in

the Upper Colorado River Basin, is for the benefit of Indian Tribes. Most of the Federally designated critical habitat for the endangered fish species in the San Juan River

Basin is on Indian trust lands, and 21⁄2 miles of critical

habitat on the Duchesne River is on Indian Trust land.

The Department of the Interior strongly supports the Recovery Implementation Programs’ continued activities in

accordance with the Federal Government’s Indian trust responsibilities.

COST-SHARE PARTNERSHIP

S. 2239 affirms the Federal government’s commitment to

continued implementation of the Recovery Programs as

possible under current budget constraints and acknowledges the critical role of the states and power users in accomplishing species conservation while meeting the future

needs of water users. With the authorization of base funding, this legislation also affirms the commitment to provide

for the operation and maintenance of capital improvements

and conduct important monitoring to ensure that recovery

accomplishments are achieved and sustained into the future.

The States of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming

support the cost share and have apportioned the costs

among themselves. Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming have

successfully secured the funding needed for their portion of

the cost share through State budgeting processes. The Recovery Programs also receive significant benefit from local

organizations, such as water from the Wolford Mountain

Project in Colorado.

The Department of the Interior believes that long-term

funding support of the Upper Colorado River and San

Juan Recovery Implementation Programs is in the best interest of all citizens. A significant financial investment of

both public and private funds has been made to conduct

research, construct and manage facilities, and implement

15

other measures to recover the endangered fish, as required

by the ESA. These model programs have demonstrated

success in recovering the fish while enabling water and

power development and recreational water use to continue.

The Programs are fully supported by private water and

power users, environmental organizations and Federal,

State and local agencies.

CONCLUSION

It is critical to the continued recovery of the four species

of endangered fish and to future successful water management for multiple uses, that funding of both Programs continue at this juncture. S. 2239 provides a unique opportunity to sustain partnership that combines Federal and

non-federal funding in an effort to recover endangered species while recognizing and meeting the water needs of local

communities. The Department of the Interior would like to

thank Senator Allard for sponsoring this legislation, and

with the addition of any needed amendments, we urge passage of S. 2239. We believe that the programs addressed

in this legislation can serve as a model to other regions of

the country for how partners can work collaboratively to

achieve water development and species conservation goals.

That concludes my remarks, and I would be happy to answer any questions.

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing

Rules of the Senate, the Committee notes that no changes is existing law are made by the bill S. 2239, as ordered reported.

Æ