U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

25–979 WASHINGTON : 2018

S. HRG. 115–38 

PENDING LEGISLATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

WATER AND POWER 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON

S. 440 

S. 677 

S. 685 

S. 930 

S. 1012 

S. 1029 

S. 1030 

JUNE 14, 2017 

( 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

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

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

LUTHER STRANGE, Alabama 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia 

MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER

JEFF FLAKE, Chairman 

JOHN BARRASSO 

JAMES E. RISCH 

MIKE LEE 

BILL CASSIDY 

ROB PORTMAN 

LUTHER STRANGE 

ANGUS S. KING, JR. 

RON WYDEN 

BERNARD SANDERS 

AL FRANKEN 

JOE MANCHIN III 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH 

COLIN HAYES, Staff Director 

PATRICK J. MCCORMICK III, Chief Counsel 

LANE DICKSON, Professional Staff Member 

ANGELA BECKER-DIPPMANN, Democratic Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Democratic Chief Counsel 

MELANIE STANSBURY, Democratic Professional Staff Member 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Page 

Hoeven, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from North Dakota ...................................... 1 

King, Jr., Hon. Angus S., Subcommittee Ranking Member and a U.S. Senator 

from Maine ........................................................................................................... 3 

WITNESSES 

Cameron, Scott, Acting Assistant Secretary—Water and Science, U.S. Department of the Interior ............................................................................................. 5 

Gabriel, Mark A., Administrator, Western Area Power Administration ............ 22 

Sell, Hon. Jeff, Mayor, City of Harlowton, Montana, and Board Member, 

Central Montana Regional Water Authority ..................................................... 27 

Davis, Tom, General Manager, Yuma County Water Users’ Association ........... 45 

Fisher, Tom, President, Patterson Lake Homeowners Association ..................... 51 

Hamman, Mike A., Chief Executive Officer, Middle Rio Grande Conservancy 

District .................................................................................................................. 56 

Wynn, Christopher, Vice President, Northeast Operations, Brookfield Renewable ........................................................................................................................ 63

ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 

American Rivers: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 99 

Audubon New Mexico: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 106 

Cameron, Scott: 

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

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 7 

Responses to Questions for the Record ........................................................... 96 

City of Dickinson (North Dakota): 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 80 

Daines, Hon. Steve: 

Photo from Roundup, Montana ....................................................................... 85 

Davis, Tom: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 45 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 47 

Dickinson Parks & Recreation: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 79 

Dry-Redwater Regional Water Authority: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 109 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC): 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 73 

Fisher, Tom: .............................................................................................................

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 51 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 54 

Gabriel, Mark A.: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 22 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 24 

Hamman, Mike A.: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 56 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 58 

Hoeven, Hon. John: 

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

IV 

King, Jr., Hon. Angus S.: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 3 

(The) Nature Conservancy: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 126 

North Dakota Game & Fish Department: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 78 

Ohkay Owingeh (New Mexico): 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 129 

Pueblo de Cochiti (New Mexico): 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 133 

Pueblo of San Felipe (New Mexico): 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 138 

Sell, Hon. Jeff: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 27 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 29 

Stark County (North Dakota) Board of Commissioners: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 81 

Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 141 

Trout Unlimited: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 145 

Wynn, Christopher: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 63 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 65 

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

Committee’s website at: https://www.energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2017/6/subcommitteelegislative-hearing-to-receive-testimony-on-various-bills. 
(1) 

PENDING LEGISLATION 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 14, 2017 

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

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:25 p.m. in Room 

SD–366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Hoeven, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN HOEVEN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA 

Senator HOEVEN [presiding]. This hearing will come to order. 

This is a hearing of the Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power. 

I am joined by Senator King, the Ranking Member, and also Senator Heinrich. Thank you both for being here. 

I am filling in, of course, for Senator Jeff Flake, who is the 

Chairman on this Subcommittee. For obvious reasons, he is unable 

to be here. He, his family and our other associates, certainly Representative Scalise and the staff are tremendous. The U.S. Capitol 

Police and all law enforcement are in our thoughts and prayers 

during this very sobering day here on Capitol Hill. 

We thank all of you for being with us. There is a vote going on, 

which is not unusual around here. There is always a lot, it seems, 

going on at the same time. We will have people coming and going 

based on that vote, but we will go ahead and proceed with the 

hearing. We know, in some cases, that you had to come back due 

to schedule changes in earlier hearings. We apologize for the fact 

that you had to come back, but we appreciate it very much and 

thank you again for being here. 

The purpose of today’s hearing is to receive testimony on seven 

bills pending before the Subcommittee, and I am Chairing, as I 

said, in place of Senator Flake. 

The jurisdiction of the Subcommittee ranges from the Bureau of 

Reclamation, agencies that market federal hydropower, and our 

Ranking Member just informed me that he was formerly in the federal hydropower business so I would think he has a very good perspective on it. Of course, the Subcommittee’s jurisdiction also covers the Bureau of Reclamation projects throughout the Great 

Plains, dams in the Pacific Northwest and hydropower facilities in 

the Northeast. 

After the unfortunate cancellation of this hearing last month, 

today we will hear about a number of bills that cover the full range 
2 

of this Subcommittee’s jurisdiction including S. 440, which is my 

legislation related to land surrounding Patterson Lake. I am also 

very pleased to have the support of my colleague from North Dakota, Senator Heitkamp, on that bill as co-sponsor. 

S. 440 is a result of a lot of work by landowners, excuse me, we 

hope soon-to-be landowners, homeowners around Patterson Lake 

who have gotten together and worked in a cooperative way to come 

up with, what I think, is a very good, common sense solution. Our 

role is to help support our citizens around the country, and this is 

a great example of where we have that opportunity to empower 

them because they have been able to work together and come to 

a very good solution. I have had the privilege to attend some of 

their meetings, listen and really understand what their concept is 

and provide some feedback, but again, commend them on their 

ability to come together with a good solution. 

This bill is a result of various stakeholders looking at all aspects 

of the land conveyance and coming to a workable solution, recognizing that it has to work not only for them but for the City of 

Dickinson, for Stark County where they live, the State of North 

Dakota and for the Federal Government who, of course, represents 

all of the other citizens of this great nation of more than 300 million people. 

In addition to the primary water supply purpose of this project 

based on its original construction, the Dickinson Reservoir, which 

is Lake Patterson, has a public recreation purpose and lands on the 

south side of the reservoir were leased to individuals for part-time 

or full-time cabin construction. The City of Dickinson has 

transitioned to obtaining their drinking water from the Southwest 

Water Authority, but the recreation and residential uses of the contiguous lands remain a viable benefit to the citizens of Dickinson 

and the surrounding area. 

Since 1953, the Dickinson Parks and Recreation has worked cooperatively with the Bureau of Reclamation to manage the Patterson Lake Recreational Area. Over several decades they have 

worked hard to increase and enhance recreational opportunities as 

well as support public accessibility. 

I have been there and I have seen the area. It really is a beautiful area and an example of where the Federal Government coming in and actually building a dam has really created not only a 

beautiful lake, but just a beautiful surrounding area that is used 

for many purposes—not only residential but recreational and really 

an asset for the community and our state. 

We will also hear testimony on a bipartisan bill, the Western 

Area Power Administration (WAPA) Transparency Act. There have 

been financial challenges at WAPA and they have made some 

progress with transparency but more needs to be done. The bill directs WAPA to continue those efforts that their customers deserve. 

Also on the agenda today is the reintroduced Water Supply Permitting Coordination Act. Although we were fortunate to have 

healthy snowpack this year, the prolonged drought we have just experienced should illustrate the need for water storage and supply 

infrastructure. This bill sets out a streamlined process led by the 

Bureau of Reclamation to aid the construction on water supply 

projects. 
3 

We have two hydropower bills from Senator King that shed light 

on additional opportunities to produce clean, renewable hydropower 

and to speed up the permitting process for hydropower projects. 

The New Mexico delegation introduced a drought bill that we will 

also consider. 

From the challenges of building new water supply projects across 

the West to the hydropower issues faced by customers from the 

West to Northern Maine, these bills provide a good example of the 

range of issues that this Subcommittee deals with. 

I would now turn to Senator King for any remarks that he might 

like to make. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ANGUS S. KING, JR., 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MAINE 

Senator KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am delighted to see 

all of you, and I thank you and appreciate your coming back so 

that we can hold this important hearing. 

As the Chairman stated, the breadth of issues that this Committee deals with is quite broad, and it is clear from the range of 

witnesses here who have come from across the country to provide 

information that there are unique needs in each region of the country, but some common areas of agreement. 

I especially want to thank Mr. Wynn for being here. Brookfield 

has a very large presence in Maine, where hydropower is nearly 25 

percent of our total energy production. I appreciate Brookfield’s 

perspective on the matters we are going to cover today as we talk 

about important hydropower issues, both in the Northeast and 

across the country. 

I do not want to start the Subcommittee hearing without acknowledging the leadership of Senator Flake and the idea that we 

intend to operate in a totally bipartisan—I should say since I am 

neither Democrat nor Republican—non-partisan way. I look forward to working with Chairman Flake. We are already the co-sponsors of each other’s bills before this Committee today. 

Hydropower, I think, is often forgotten as one of America’s most 

important energy sources and most important renewable energy 

sources. Conventional hydropower, as we all know it, accounts for 

six or seven percent, which is significant, of our total energy production in the country, and it is something that is important, both 

in terms of critical renewable baseload power, but also in terms of 

the fact that it is renewable and sustainable. 

Hydropower can be expensive, however, particularly in the capital area. I think that is one of the things we are going to talk 

about today—that hydropower, like wind power, is capital intensive 

but operationally cheap. Once the capital is advertised and supported then the power is there into the indefinite future. Part of 

that capital cost, however, is licensing and permitting costs, and 

that has to be recognized as a significant part of what is, ultimately, the price of the power. Therefore, what we have to try to 

manage is to maximize environmental protection and environmental benefit and minimize costs and time involved so that we 

can achieve important renewable energy benefits from hydropower 

at a cost that customers can afford and also in a time that makes 

sense for getting these important resources on the grid. 
4 

As some of you may know, I spent some of my first professional 

years in the hydropower business in New England. In 1983, I 

worked with a small company that developed hydropower around 

New England. Later we did biomass and later on in my career I’ve 

done wind power and also conservation. So I may be one of the few 

people around here who has actually applied to the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission (FERC) for a permit—and actually, I think 

it was for an exemption. But I do understand the process and look 

forward to working with all of you and with my colleagues in order 

to make that process as efficient as possible while emphasizing the 

importance of our regulatory process in terms of environmental 

protection. 

I have to pause at this moment and tell a story that I think some 

of you may appreciate. I was once working on the licensing of a 

hydro project somewhere in the Northeast—and I won’t identify the 

state—but we were sitting around the table discussing this project 

and the head of the environmental agency was talking about his 

concerns about the project. It suddenly dawned on all of us sitting 

around the table, both staff and people working on the project, that 

this fellow thought that once water went into a turbine it never 

came out. 

[Laughter.] 

That we were, in fact, using up the river. It was one of those situations where nobody knows how we are going to break this to 

him, but we did. That is an absolutely true story. 

Senator HOEVEN. Like a black hole. 

Senator KING. Yes, that is right. 

So, I really appreciate, again, your being here today. I look forward to your testimony and am delighted to be working on, what 

I consider, one of our most important energy issues. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I will turn it back to you. 

Senator HOEVEN. Senator Heinrich, any opening statement you 

might have? 

Senator HEINRICH. I think the problem was that Senator King 

used steam turbine. 

[Laughter.] 

No. I want to welcome Mr. Hamman from New Mexico who has 

joined us today. He’s got a great perspective, having been on multiple sides of some of these issues and now represents the conservancy district but previously was at the Bureau and knows the 

level of cooperation and coordination it takes to solve some of these 

issues. 

I am looking forward to hearing their testimony. 

Senator HOEVEN. Alright, then we will begin the panel with Mr. 

Scott Cameron, the Acting Assistant Secretary for Water and 

Science in the Department of the Interior. We appreciate, Mr. Cameron, the work that you have been doing in the water and science 

function of the Department, especially on the Colorado River, and 

look forward to your confirmation. Go ahead and proceed. 
5 

STATEMENT OF SCOTT CAMERON, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY—WATER AND SCIENCE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE 

INTERIOR 

Mr. CAMERON. Mr. Chairman, Senator King, Senator Heinrich, I 

want to thank you, first of all, for the opportunity to testify before 

you today on four of the bills pending before the Subcommittee. I 

am Scott Cameron, Acting Assistant Secretary for Water and 

Science at the Department of the Interior. 

In the interest of time, I will summarize the Department’s views 

on these four bills and submit my full testimony on each bill for 

the record. 

S. 440, as the Chairman knows, would provide a path for permitted cabin owners in the Dickinson Parks and Recreation Department to take ownership of certain federal lands in the State of 

North Dakota. The legislation will allow for flexible management 

of the lands to meet local needs and alleviate the administrative 

cost of oversight and management of the land. 

I would like to reemphasize the Secretary’s staunch commitment 

against the sale or wide-scale transfer of federal lands. As he stated at this Committee throughout his confirmation process, the Secretary firmly holds that our treasured public lands are to be maintained and preserved for the benefit and enjoyment of the people. 

The Department is quite willing to work with Congress to ensure 

proposals like S. 440 preserve access and recreation for future generations. My written testimony recommends a few changes to S. 

440 to provide additional clarity and protections. 

S. 677 directs the Secretary of the Interior to coordinate federal 

and state permitting processes related to the construction of new 

surface water storage projects on lands managed by the Interior 

and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

We welcome efforts to streamline and expedite the approval of 

new surface water storage projects. The President’s 2018 budget request includes an infrastructure initiative aiming to explore longterm reforms on how infrastructure projects are regulated, funded, 

delivered and maintained. In particular, the initiative acknowledges the current environmental review and permitting processes’ 

lack of cohesiveness, often making infrastructure projects more 

costly, unpredictable and time-consuming, all while adding little 

environmental protection. This initiative dovetails into the goals 

set forth in S. 677. The Department supports the goals of S. 677 

and recommends a few amendments which are detailed in my written statement. 

S. 685 would authorize construction of the Dry-Redwater Regional Water Authority System and the Musselshell-Judith Rural 

Water System in the states of Montana and North Dakota. The Department supports the goals on encouraging a vibrant, rural economy and ensuring safe, reliable sources of drinking water. Given 

the past history and future prospects of funding for the rural water 

program, we are cautious not to raise unreasonable expectations for 

future federal funding should this bill become law. The Department 

has concerns about adding to the backlog of Reclamation’s alreadyauthorized rural water projects that are in queue for federal construction funding already. While the Department acknowledges the 

critical functions rural water projects offer to communities across 
6 

the West, we have concerns with S. 685 as written and we would 

like to work with the Committee to address those concerns. 

Last, S. 1012 aims to enhance coordination from water acquisition, encourage water conservation, authorize and provide for studies and support efforts to provide an annual spring peak flow for 

the Middle Rio Grande in New Mexico. Congress has encouraged 

Reclamation to pursue efforts to facilitate agricultural water leasing. In response, Reclamation has started a pilot project for leasing 

and is planning a grant opportunity to build and begin testing the 

framework for a leasing program in collaboration with the Middle 

Rio Grande Conservancy District. S. 1012 would provide Reclamation and the District with increased flexibility to implement and effectively manage such a program. S. 1012 would authorize a National Academy of Sciences study of water and reservoir management and operation. The study would likely provide water managers along the Rio Grande in New Mexico with useful information; 

however, there may be ways this study can build on the work of 

other prior studies. The Department supports many elements of S. 

1012 but has, again, a few concerns which are detailed in my written statement. We would like to work with the sponsors and the 

Committee to address those particular concerns. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member King, for 

the opportunity to present these views. I would be happy to answer 

questions at the appropriate time. 

[The prepared statements of Mr. Cameron follow:] 
7 

Statement of Scott Cameron 

Acting Assistant Secretary- Water and Science 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Before the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Water and Power Subcommittee 

On 

S. 440, a bill to establish a procedure for the conveyance of certain Federal property 

around the Dickinson Reservoir in the State of North Dakota. 

June 14, 2017 

Chairman Flake, Ranking Member King, and members of the Subcommittee, I am Scott 

Cameron, Acting Assistant Secretary for Water and Science at the Department of the Interior. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide the views of the Department of the Interior 

(Department) on S. 440, a bill to establish a procedure for the conveyance of certain Federal 

property around the Dickinson Reservoir in the State ofNorth Dakota. The intent of the 

legislation is to provide a path for current permitted cabin owners and the Dickinson Parks and 

Recreation Department to take ownership of certain Federal lands, allowing flexible management 

of the lands to meet local needs and alleviate the administrative oversight and management of the 

land. 

Before I discuss our views on S. 440, I wanted to note the Secretary's staunch commitment 

against the wide-scale sale or transfer of federal lands. He finnly holds that our treasured public 

lands are to be maintained and preserved according to the inscription on the Yellowstone 

National Park Arch that reads 'for the benefit and enjoyment of the people.' The Secretary is 

willing to work with Congress to ensure proposals of this nature preserve access and recreation 

for future generations to come. Therefore, we recommend the following changes to provide 

additional clarity and protections. 

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

(Project) as part of the Dickinson Unit, Heart Division, Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program. 

Federal lands were acquired for Project purposes which include municipal water supply, 

irrigation with flood control, and recreation benefits. The Project provided municipal water to 

the City of Dickinson until 1991 when the City switched its water supply to the Southwest 

Pipeline Project. There are currently two water service contracts associated with the Project, one 

with Dickinson Parks and Recreation and one with an irrigation district downstream of the 

Reservoir. 

The current management agreement between Reclamation and Dickinson Parks and Recreation 

for operation and maintenance of the majority of lands around the Reservoir includes the area for 

41 permitted exclusive use cabins occupied year round (approximately 25 acres) as well as 

additional lands dedicated to recreation, and wildlife management (approximately 2,434 acres). 

In addition to lands managed by Dickinson Parks and Recreation, Reclamation leases a 10 acre 

parcel to the North Dakota Game and Fish Department (NDG&F) for the Southwest District 

Headquarters. In 2013, Reclamation's Dakotas Area Office (DKAO) requested a fair market 

1 
8 

appraisal of the rates for the exclusive use cabins be conducted pursuant to the Code of Federal 

Regulations related to Use of Bureau of Reclamation Land, Facilities, and Waterbodies (43 CFR 

429). As required by Department policy, the appraisals were conducted by the Department of 

the Interior's Office of Valuation Services for all reservoirs with exclusive use under the 

administration of DKAO, resulting in the need to raise rates at all areas to recover fair market 

value. The results of the appraisal were presented to the respective managing partners in 2016. 

Section !(b) of S. 440 would provide for conveyance of land permitted to cabin owners and land 

managed by Dickinson Parks and Recreation. However, some Project land is not included in the 

Management Agreement with Dickinson Parks and Recreation (i.e., I 0 acres currently under 

lease to NDG&F) and is not included in the legislation. This would result in fractionated 

ownership with continued Reclamation oversight responsibilities and costs. The Department will 

work with the sponsor of the bill and the Committee to revise the language to include those lands 

acquired for the Project with the exception of the footprint of the Dam, auxiliary spillway, and 

any realty interest necessary to operate and maintain the Dam. 

Section !(b) of S. 440 would also allow permittees two years following the date of enactment of 

this legislation to purchase a property. The Department has concerns with the timeline in the 

legislation as drafted given that surveys of land could take up to two years to complete. A third 

party appraisal, which can take a year or longer to complete, can only begin once the survey is 

complete. Once the appraised value is determined, additional time may be required for the 

permittee to seek financing or resolve any appraisal disputes if necessary. The Department 

recommends that permittees be allowed up to five years or "as reasonably practicable after 

enactment of the Act" to allow sufficient time for the pre-sale activities and to arrange financing. 

Section 1 (b )(2)(A) of S. 440 provides for the fair market value of a property to be determined by 

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

all improvements. A third party appraisal would involve a contract between the permittee and 

the appraiser with the permittee responsible for direct payment to the appraiser. If Reclamation 

were to pay for the appraisal upfront, the contract would shift to an agreement between the 

United States and the appraiser, meaning it would no longer comply with the language in S. 440 

as currently drafted. The Department recommends clarification of this language to ensure that 

permittees understand the cost requirement. The Department recommends that Section 

l(b )(2)(A) be revised so that the fair market value of a property shall be determined by an 

appraiser using the Office of Valuation Services' third party appraisal process, valuing the 

property as unimproved residential property, excluding all improvements. The Department also 

recommends that the bill be amended to include a requirement for review of the third party 

appraisal by the Office of Valuation Services as specified in section 2201.4 of title 43, Code of 

Federal Regulations (or successor regulations) to ensure that the third party appraisal credibly 

represents the fair market value of the property being conveyed. The Department further 

recommends that all costs paid for by the permittee shall have no effect on the appraised value 

and the cost for the third party appraisal shall be the responsibility of the permittee. 

Section I (b)( 4) provides for the transfer of Federal land currently managed by Dickinson Parks 

and Recreation, without cost, subject to the requirements in Section l(c) with no protections 

2 
9 

required to ensure lands acquired for public purpose will remain available for public use in the 

future. The Department recommends that the deed transferring land to Dickinson Parks and 

Recreation shall provide that all property transferred to Dickinson Parks and Recreation be used 

and maintained for public access and recreation purposes. Currently, opportunities to recreate 

within this area include walking trails, boating ramps, golfing, and modern and primitive 

camping. According to Dickinson Parks and Recreation, camping spots on the property average 

2,158 rentals between mid-May and mid-September alone. Given the Secretary's firm 

commitment to protecting public lands, it is of critical importance that Dickinson continues to 

manage the parcels with recreational interests in mind. That is why the Department recommends 

that if the property ceases to be used or maintained for that purpose, the jurisdiction of the land 

would then revert back to the United States. 

As drafted, S. 440 does not specifically address the land within Dickinson Parks and 

Recreation's Management Agreement located under the Reservoir. The Department would be 

happy to work with the sponsor and the Committee on language to minimize future confusion 

and/or oversight by the U.S. on land under the reservoir. 

Section l(c) ofS. 440 provides that each conveyance pursuant to subsection (b) is made subject 

to two protections. The Department believes additional protections are necessary to safeguard the 

interests of the United States and the public to operate the dam as authorized. The Department 

recommends the following protections be added: the prohibition of any conveyance of 

subsurface or mineral rights, (2) the inclusion oflanguage to maintain a flowage easement for 

flood control purposes, and the allowance for the Secretary to make necessary terms, 

reservations, restrictions, and conditions to safeguard the interests of the United States. The 

Department is willing to provide work with the Committee to amend the bill to ensure these 

protections are put in place. 

Section 1 (d) of S. 440 provides that the liability and taking provisions only apply to the 

pennittees, not any other transfer of federal land or to any future owners. In addition to technical 

recommendations, the Department recommends amending the definition of Permittee in Section 

l(a)(3) to include future assignees of the current owners of the cabin sites. 

Section l(e)(2) of S. 440 requires that not later than 180 days after enactment, the Secretary to 

provide legal descriptions to Dickinson Parks and Recreation of the land to be conveyed. This 

will require Reclamation to contract with a registered Land Surveyor to survey the lands and 

develop the legal descriptions, access, utility, and flowage easements and individual lot surveys. 

The Department does not believe it will be reasonable to complete this work within 180 days and 

suggests increasing the time to no later than 2 years or "as reasonably practicable after enactment 

of the Act". 

Section l(e)(3)(A) of S. 440 provides the elevation above which any new improvements can be 

constructed is currently listed as 2,430 feet. This elevation is incorrect and ought to be changed 

to 2,430.6 feet to correctly locate the design maximum water surface elevation. 

3 
10 

Section l(f) of S. 440 provides that any revenues from a sale ofFederalland pursuant to this 

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

the Secretary of carrying out this section. Because revenues are not generated until the 

properties are transferred to the permittee, the United States would need to use appropriated 

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

to transfer cabin properties, as well as Reclamation's process for Use Authorization requests, it is 

the responsibility of the permittees/requestor to pay for the required pre-sale work, including all 

administrative costs to convey Federal property to private individuals/beneficiaries rather than 

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

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

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

language based on our recommendations. This concludes my written statement. I am pleased to 

answer questions at the appropriate time. 

4 
11 

Statement of Scott Cameron 

Acting Assistant Secretary- Water and Science U.S. Department of the Interior 

before the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Subcommittee on Water aud Power 

on 

S. 677, the Water Supply Permitting and Coordination Act 

June 14,2017 

Chairman Flake and members of the Subcommittee, I am Scott Cameron, Acting Assistant 

Secretary for Water and Science at the Department of the Interior. I am pleased to provide the 

views of the Department of the Interior (Department) on S. 677, the Water Supply Permitting 

and Coordination Act 

Before I discuss our views on S. 677, I wanted to emphasize the importance of infrastructure 

investments in strengthening our economy and ensuring our Nation's competitiveness. The 

construction of infrastructure has the potential to create jobs and reduce the cost of goods and 

services for American families and consumers. The Department supports efforts to streamline 

and expedite, in a manner consistent with law, environmental reviews, and approvals for all 

infrastructure projects, including new surface water storage projects. Surface water storage 

projects are an important component of our Nation's infrastructure that create multiple benefits, 

including reliable water supplies, flood control, hydropower, and water quality improvements. 

The Department supports the goals of S. 677, but we would like to point out that for major 

infrastructure projects, projects likely to exceed $200 million in total investment, many of the 

concerns that the bill is intended to address are being addressed through implementation of Title 

41 of the FAST Act. Title XLI creates a more efficient permitting process and offers enhanced 

agency coordination and transparency and predictability through tracking of project milestones 

on a public website. If S.677 should move forward, we recommend some amendments which we 

believe will aid in the coordinated implementation of the bilL 

S. 677 directs the Secretary of the Interior to coordinate federal and state permitting processes 

related to the construction of new surface storage projects on lands managed by Interior and the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Section 3(a) of the bill would establish the Bureau of 

Reclamation (Reclamation) as the "lead agency for purposes of coordinating all reviews, 

analyses, opinions, statements, permits, licenses, or other approvals or decisions required under 

Federal law to construct qualifying projects." Section 4 establishes deadlines and timelines for 

notifying and consulting with cooperating agencies, completing environmental reviews, and 

determining project schedules. The bill allows for contributed funds from non-federal entities, 

an important tool in order to allow communities to leverage federal funds to build drought 

resiliency. 

S. 677 improves on previous legislation by appropriately limiting the scope of"qualifying 

projects" to new surface storage projects located in the 17 Western states where Reclamation has 

typically had jurisdiction under Reclamation law. We appreciate the Committee and sponsors of 

S. 677 working with Reclamation to revise the bill to appropriately narrow the scope of 

Reclamation's authority. 
12 

WhileS. 677 would authorize Reclamation to coordinate the review of new surface storage 

projects, the bill does not grant Reclamation any authority to ensure cooperating agencies meet 

their proposed timeframes in Section 5 or the project schedules under Section 4. We also note 

that there may be fewer efficiencies where Reclamation is the coordinating entity for projects on 

lands managed by other bureaus or USDA, where Reclamation has no action or decision 

authority. We look forward to working with the Committee to clarify language to ensureS. 677 

achieves the sponsor's goal of streamlining the approval of surface water storage projects. 

Also, Section 4(b)(4) requires Reclamation to coordinate a "unified environmental review 

document." We would interpret this provision as applicable to the National Environmental 

Policy Act process, as opposed to other permitting obligations under the Endangered Species 

Act, Clean Water Act or other statutes. The bill also does not include additional federal funding 

for these activities, which could result, at least in the case of other bureaus and USDA lands, in 

Reclamation diverting resources from its other programs for this activity. We would like to work 

with the Committee to ensure this bill reduces the time necessary to establish the merits of 

pr(ljects and does not establish unrealistic time frames for approval, inadvertently resulting in a 

decrease in favorable recommendations. 

The President's 2018 budget request includes an infrastructure initiative aiming to explore longterm reforms on how infrastructure projects are regulated, funded, delivered, and maintained. In 

particular, the initiative acknowledges the current environmental review and permitting process 

lacks cohesiveness, often making infrastructure projects more costly, unpredictable, and timeconsuming, all while adding little environmental protection. The Administration is looking into 

pilot programs to enhance the environmental review and permitting process, designate a single 

federal entity to coordinate between other federal agencies, and allow state and local entities to 

be responsible for pennitting where appropriate. This initiative dovetails into the goals set forth 

inS.677. 

The President's infrastructure initiative applies to the permitting of new surface water storage 

projects. Reclamation recognizes that streamlining permitting and associated environmental 

reviews is necessary. However, we would be remiss not to note the importance of other factors 

essential to the success of new surface storage projects. Other factors include a strong base of 

project repayment, market conditions and economics, the presence of local consensus on the 

project from the community around the proposed site, and an adequate potential water market 

associated with the given facilities. In other cases, environmental, safety, or geologic challenges 

can come to light during a project's development, and create challenges for construction, 

completion, or operation. We continue to look at ways to streamline and expedite the approval 

of infrastructure projects, and in doing so, aim to quickly identify new and viable surface storage 

projects. 

Additionally, we would like to work with the Committee on Sections 2(4), 3(b)(2) and 

4(b)(4)(A) and (B), the definition of"cooperating agency," establishment of cooperating 

agencies, and timelines for cooperating agency approvals to ensure this definition, involvement, 

and timelines are consistent with established regulations ( 40 C.F.R. § 1500-1508) and judicial 

interpretations. For example, it is inconsistent with the definition under the National 

2 
13 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and its implementing regulations which identify federal, 

Tribal, State, and local governmental entities as potential cooperating agencies and further allows 

those governmental entities with subject matter expertise to be designated cooperating agencies. 

Further, under current NEPA regulations, an agency with jurisdiction or special expertise can 

decline to be a cooperating agency, yet still issue a permit or other approval. Finally, we 

understand the intent of Section 6( c) is to prohibit the Secretary of the Interior from accepting or 

expending funds contributed by a non-federal entity to conduct additional reviews of permits 

reviewed by the pertinent Reclamation Regional Director. We look forward to working with you 

to ensure that intent is clear in S. 677. 

In conclusion, we welcome the opportunity S. 677 provides the Department to work with this 

Committee to streamline and expedite the approval of new infrastructure projects. While the 

underlying economic issues that prevent some projects from being built remain, we look forward 

to working with you on meeting Reclamation's challenge of rehabilitating existing infrastructure 

where such decisions are warranted water and power infrastructure. Reclamation will continue 

to consider surface storage as one of many options to meet water demands in the West. 

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

time. 

3 
14 

Statement of Scott Cameron 

Acting Assistant Secretary- Water and Science 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Before the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Water and Power Subcommittee 

On 

S. 685, a bill to authorize the Dry-Redwater Regional Water Authority System and the 

Musselshell-Judith Rural Water System in the States of Montana and North Dakota, and 

for other purposes. 

June 14, 2017 

Chairman Flake, Ranking Member King, and members of the Subcommittee, I am Scott 

Cameron, Acting Assistant Secretary for Water and Science at the Department of the Interior. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide the views of the Department of the Interior 

(Department) on S. 685, the Clean Water for Rural Communities Act, which would authorize 

construction of the Dry-Redwater Regional Water Authority System and the Musselshell-Judith 

Rural Water System in the States of Montana and North Dakota. 

In the I 14th Congress, Reclamation provided testimony on S. 2902 and S. 1552, which contained 

language identical to S. 685. My testimony today will update Reclamation's previous statements 

on these projects to include recent events; however, the Department's position overall on funding 

has not changed from these earlier testimonies. 

Like the sponsors of this legislation, the Department supports the goals of encouraging a vibrant 

rural economy and ensuring safe, reliable sources of drinking water in Montana and North 

Dakota. Rural water projects help build strong, secure communities and are important to 

supporting the livelihood of local economies. Public Law 109-451, which expired September 30, 

2016, authorized Reclamation to establish a Rural Water Supply Program to help rural 

communities and Tribes in the western United States analyze and develop options for meeting 

water supply needs through the completion of appraisal investigations and feasibility studies. 

While the Department acknowledges the important functions rural water projects offer to 

communities across the West, we have concerns with S. 685 as currently written. We request the 

opportunity to work with the Committee to adequately address our concerns, as identified below. 

The legislation authorizes construction of two separate projects and my statement will speak to 

each of those projects separately. 

Dry-Redwater 

Section 4(a)(l) of S. 685 applies to the planning, design, and construction of the regional 

Dry-Redwater Rural Water Authority System in eastern Montana and a small service area in 

northwest North Dakota, and would authorize the Federal Government to provide up to 75 percent 

of the System's overall construction cost. Reclamation estimates that this authorization would 

amount to Federal appropriations of at least $200 million dollars. The Department last testified 

before this Subcommittee on legislation related to the Dry-Redwater Project in May of2016, and 
15 

prior to that, in June 2015, May 2011, and July of2009. Since 2016, two things have occurred; the 

Dry-Redwater Regional Water Authority (Authority) changed their project plans from that 

provided in the initial study by adding the cities of Sidney and Glendive, Montana, to the 

Authority's service area which changed the population served from 15,000 to over 26,500; and 

secondly, Reclamation's authority to continue work on rural water appraisal and feasibilities 

studies under P.L 109-451 expired. Reclamation did not receive a feasibility study that was 

evaluated and determined to be economically feasible for the new project envisioned by the 

Authority. 

The Department is concerned about language in the legislation authorizing a project for 

construction without a complete Feasibility Study. Specifically, the potential strain on 

Reclamation's budget that could come about from this authorization, the cost share requirement 

proposed in the bill, and the proposed use of power from the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program 

(P-SMBP) for non-irrigation purposes are a problematic issues. 

In 2012, the Authority submitted a Feasibility Study to Reclamation for review. Upon initial 

review of the Feasibility Study, Reclamation was unable to identify a technically viable water 

supply alternative that presented a National Economic Development (NED) plan with net 

positive benefits to the nation. Reclamation informed the Authority that the Feasibility Study 

could not be supported as being financially or economically feasible under the requirements of 

Reclamation's Rural Water Supply Program. Consequently, there are significant review findings 

and recommendations that must be addressed to bring the Feasibility Study up to 

Reclamation's standards. Since project costs have not been fully developed by the Sponsor and 

reviewed by Reclamation, there is also the potential for this project to be financially 

unsustainable for the project sponsors. 

Because of the importance of this issue, a Reclamation Design, Cost Estimating, and 

Construction (DEC) review further evaluated the Feasibility Study in 2012 in order to provide an 

independent analysis. The estimated cost to address the DEC Report Findings and 

Recommendations in 2012 was in excess of $5.5 million. Neither Reclamation nor the Authority 

had sufficient funding to revise the Feasibility Study to address the DEC Report Findings. The 

authority for Reclamation to further review the feasibility study expired in 2016. In order to 

maintain their original service area and related project benefits, the Authority ruled out a scaled 

down approach. 

As a result of this decision, Reclamation entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 

with the Authority on April27, 2015, with the objective of completing a summary report that 

documented the current status of the draft Feasibility Study and identified the additional level of 

effort needed to revise the Feasibility Study technically in order to meet the requirements of 

Reclamation's Rural Water Supply Program. However, before a final summary report could be 

completed, Reclamation's authority under the program expired and Reclamation was required to 

generate a Feasibility Study Concluding Report (Concluding Report) since the Feasibility Study 

was not completed. The Concluding Report was completed in September 2016 and provided an 

overview of the Feasibility Study up to the point of concluding it, and identified the reasons for 

ending the Feasibility Study. The Concluding Report provided findings that primarily due to the 

economics of the proposed alternative and the incomplete level of the Feasibility Study, 

Reclamation is not in a position to support the project as financially viable or able to verify that 

2 
16 

the total project cost estimate is economically sound. 

The Department is also concerned about the non-Federal cost share for the System. As stated 

above, S. 685 contemplates that the United States would fund 75 percent of the cost of 

constructing the System for the benefit of Montana citizens of Dawson, Garfield, McCone, 

Prairie, Richland Counties, and North Dakota citizens of McKenzie County. While this has been 

the cost share level proposed in other rural water projects enacted into law, it represents the 

maximum Federal cost share previously allowed under Title I of the Rural Water Supply Act of 

2006 (PL 109-451, now expired), which included a requirement for a Feasibility Report that 

comprised an analysis of the sponsor's capability-to-pay and identified an appropriate 

contribution by the local sponsors. 

Section 5 of S. 685 authorizes the delivery of 1.5 megawatts of P-SMBP pumping power to be 

used and delivered between May 1 and October 31 for the benefit of this System at the firm 

power rate. Section 5(b)(2)(A) of the bill requires that the System be operated on a 

"not-for-profit basis" in order to be eligible to receive power under those terms. 

Reclamation is not certain of the impact the bill's requirements could have on Western Area 

Power Administration's existing contractual power obligations. In addition to those concerns 

mentioned above, we have yet to verify whether or not water rights issues associated with the 

System have been adequately addressed. 

Reclamation's authority to continue work on rural water appraisal and feasibilities studies has 

expired. At this time, there is no general programmatic authority for continued work by 

Reclamation on rural water appraisal and feasibility studies. Reclamation's review of Dry--

Redwater Authority's proposed system was conducted under the authority of the Rural Water 

Supply Act of2006 (Title I of Public Law 109-451) and this authority expired on 

September 30, 2016. Reclamation generated a Concluding Report which provided an overview of 

the Feasibility Study up to the point of concluding it and identified the reasons for ending the study. 

If legislative authority is granted, we suggest System sponsors work with Reclamation to 

evaluate the System for scale and economic viability in an effort to refine the National Economic 

Development accounting such that the ratio of total benefits exceeds costs. The System should 

meet appropriate guidelines and be updated to include new infrastructure required to 

accommodate the large increase in population served. S.685 allows the Authority to acquire 

property and existing systems. Details of these systems should be fully identified and 

incorporated into the new evaluation and the evaluation should incorporate recommendations 

from the DEC review or, if necessary, require a new DEC review be conducted. It should 

address all federal environmental compliance activities. There are substantial costs believed to be 

in the millions of dollars associated with these efforts that are outside of any costs projections 

previously considered. We also recommend that they work with the Western Area Power 

Administration and their contractors on the issues related to the System's pumping power 

needs. 

Musselshell-Judith 

Section 4(a)(2) of S. 685 would authorize the planning, design, and construction of the 

Musselshell-Judith Rural Water System in central Montana and would authorize appropriations 

3 
17 

of75 percent of total project costs. Since the total estimated construction cost of the project is 

$87,102,000, Reclamation estimates that the total Federal contribution of 75 percent would 

equate to $65,327,000 (2014 dollars). While a 75 percent cost share level has been proposed in 

other rural water projects enacted into law, this represents the maximum Federal cost share 

previously allowed under the Rural Water Supply Act of 2006. 

In 2015, the Central Montana Rural Water Authority's (Authority) Musselshell-Judith Rural 

Water System Feasibility Study (Feasibility Study) was submitted to Reclamation for technical 

review under Public Law 109-451. The Department found the proposed project to be feasible 

and to meet the broad criteria of the program, however, the Department is concerned about our 

ability to fund even currently authorized rural water projects, and does not want to unreasonably 

raise expectations that new authorized projects would receive the desired federal funding. 

Common- Both Water Systems 

Section 7(b) of S.685 addresses the cost indexing for the authorization of appropriations. As 

previously testified, Reclamation is not aware of a specific rationale for the differing indexing 

dates prescribed in the legislation. For the Dry-Redwater System, appropriations are to be 

indexed to January 1, 2008. For the Musselshell-Judith, the appropriations are to be indexed to 

November 1, 2014. 

Authorized rural water projects compete with a number of priorities within Reclamation's Budget, 

including aging infrastructure, Indian water rights settlements, environmental compliance, 

restoration actions, developing sustainable water supply strategies, and other priorities intended to 

address future water and energy related challenges. 

The Department has concerns about adding to the backlog of Reclamation's authorized rural 

water projects seeking Federal construction funding. Discretionary rural water funding has 

enabled Reclamation to make progress in promoting certainty, sustainability, and resiliency in 

support of basic drinking water needs of rural western communities. However, Reclamation's 

ability to make Federal investments that match on-the-ground capabilities has its limitations. Of 

Reclamation's six currently authorized rural water projects under construction or funded at some 

level today, all of the projects pre-date Title I of the Rural Water Supply Act of2006 (now 

expired). Authorizing additional rural water projects may delay rural water projects that are 

already under construction. 

Conclusion 

The Department recognizes that the people who would be served by S. 685 have legitimate needs 

for better quality drinking water. We are concerned, given the past history and future prospects 

of funding for the rural water program, not to raise unreasonable expectations for future federal 

funding should this bill become law. 

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

4 
18 

Statement of Scott Cameron 

Acting Assistant Secretary- Water and Science 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

before the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Subcommittee on Water and Power 

On 

S. 1012, the New Mexico Drought Preparedness Act 

June 14,2017 

Chairman Flake, Ranking Member King and members of the Subcommittee, l am Scott 

Cameron, Acting Assistant Secretary for Water and Science at the Department of the Interior. 

am pleased to provide the views of the Department of the Interior (Department) on S. 1012, the 

New Mexico Drought Preparedness Act. This bill aims to enhance coordination for water 

acquisitions, authorize projects to assist with water conservation, authorize the study of the lower 

reaches of the Middle Rio Grande, support efforts to provide an annual spring peak flow for the 

Middle Rio Grande, and provide for a study of Rio Grande reservoirs. The Department supports 

many elements of the New Mexico Drought Preparedness Act of2017, but has concerns with 

some of the new authorizations and with the language of Section 6 of the bill as detailed later in 

my statement. 

Although this bill mentions the Upper, Middle, and Lower Rio Grande basins, as well as the 

Lower Pecos, Gila, Canadian, San Francisco and San Juan River basins, the primary focus is on 

work in the Middle Rio Grande in New Mexico. The 2016 biological opinion for water 

operations, river infrastructure restoration, maintenance, and conservation activities in the 

Middle Rio Grande defines the Middle Rio Grande as the entire width of the 100-year floodplain 

of the Rio Grande basin and its tributaries from the Colorado/New Mexico state line to Elephant 

Butte Dam. The Bureau of Reclamation's (Reclamation) Middle Rio Grande Project (Project) 

extends from the Velarde area of northern New Mexico south to the backwaters of Elephant 

Butte Reservoir. The irrigation features of the Project divert water from the river to irrigate 

between 50,000 and 70,000 acres ofirrigable land, including an approximate 20,000 acres of 

Pueblo Indian land. 

Reclamation has been leasing water on the Pecos River and from San Juan-Chama Project 

contractors for over a decade to supplement river flows for endangered species, consistent with 

the language of Section 3 of S. 1012. Taxpayers have spent tens of millions of dollars acquiring 

San Juan-Chama Project water and relinquished Rio Grande Compact credit water in recent 

years to augment flows in the Middle Rio Grande. However, other than the relinquished Rio 

Grande Compact credit water, Reclamation has yet to lease and make use of more-than-nominal 

volumes of native Rio Grande water in New Mexico due to the administrative, legal, and 

institutional complexities involved. In the explanatory statement printed December 11,2014, for 

the Congressional Record, in reference to P.L. 113-235, the Consolidated and Further Continuing 

Appropriations Act, 2015, Congress encouraged Reclamation to pursue efforts to facilitate 

agricultural water leasing along the Middle Rio Grande and San Juan-Chama Projects. In 

response, Reclamation has started a pilot leasing program of pre-1907 water rights and is 

planning a grant opportunity to solicit the services of outside experts to build and begin testing 
19 

the framework for a leasing program in collaboration with the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy 

District (District). This bill would provide Reclamation and the District with increased 

flexibility to implement and effectively manage such a program. 

For years, Reclamation has provided funding and technical assistance for irrigation districts and 

water utilities in New Mexico and west Texas to develop sustainable water supplies under 

various water conservation programs. Examples of such assistance include improving efficiency 

and conservation under the WaterSMART Program through Water and Energy Efficiency Grants 

to entities such as the Elephant Butte Irrigation District and funding for the Albuquerque 

Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority's water recycling and reuse (Title XVI) project, and 

through the Native American At1'airs Program. Reclamation is also working with partners to 

carry out various landscape-scale efforts through the Basin Study Program. Reclamation, the 

District, and fifteen other non-Federal partners, including Tribal partners, have been working on 

a plan of study for a Rio Grande New Mexico Basin Study. In addition, the six Middle Rio 

Grande Pueblos participate in the Rio Grande Pueblos Irrigation Infrastructure Improvement 

Project. Reclamation also provided funding under the Cooperative Watershed Management 

Program to expand the Rio Chama Watershed Group in 2014 to include the lower Rio Chama 

Basin, and provided funding to the Upper Rio Grande Watershed District in 2016 to establish a 

watershed group to bring together ranchers, environmental interests, and land management 

agencies in the Espanola Basin. Reclamation has provided Drought Response Program funding 

in 2016 to the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District for both drought contingency planning 

and implementation of a drought resiliency project to install a pumping facility to increase the 

predictability of water supplies for District water users. Any water conservation actions by the 

District and Pueblos that would result in more efficient use of the available water supply is 

welcome by Reclamation. However, as indicated previously, existing programs are available to 

provide the opportunity to cost-share conservation actions that will benefit the Rio Grande 

system. 

Section 5(a) of S. 1012 contains provisions granting five years of a temporary deviation in the 

operation of Cochiti Reservoir by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Such deviations, if found 

to be hydrologically beneficial, allow for creation of a spike flow in the Middle Rio Grande 

through the impoundment and regulation of spring flows. However, in the past 67 years of 

record, conditions for deviation would only have occurred in five of those years. The 

Department supports a feasibility study in partnership with the Army Corps of Engineers and 

Cochiti Pueblo to assess maximized operational flexibilities if the concerns of Cochiti and Santa 

Ana Pueblos are addressed. The ability to stage water in the spring to augment the native flows 

in the Middle Rio Grande is an important cue to the endangered Rio Grande silvery minnow to 

reproduce. 

Section 5(b) ofS. 1012 authorizes a comprehensive study and a series of projects in the Isleta 

and San Acacia reaches of the Middle Rio Grande aimed at giving Reclamation and other 

partnering agencies a better understanding of this area, which is designated as critical habitat for 

the Rio Grande silvery minnow. The Middle Rio Grande below Cochiti Dam is divided into four 

reaches defined by locations ofmainstem irrigation diversion dams. The Cochiti Reach extends 

from Cochiti Dam to Angostura Diversion Dam. The reach from Angostura Diversion Dam to 

Isleta Diversion Dam is called the Albuquerque Reach. The Isleta Reach is bound upstream by 

2 
20 

Isleta Diversion Dam and downstream by San Acacia Diversion Dam. Finally, the reach below 

San Acacia Diversion Dam to the headwaters of Elephant Butte Reservoir is the San Acacia 

Reach. The study would also assist with development of a plan for moving forward with 

coordinated water conservation measures. 

Reclamation and Department policy require scientific information considered in our decision 

making to be robust and of the best available quality. Stakeholders must be able to trust the 

information. Section 6 of S. I 012 authorizes a National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Study of 

the water and reservoir management and operation from Heron and El Vado down to Abiquiu, 

Cochiti, and Jemez Canyon dams and reservoirs. A full evaluation of the legal authorities of 

each of these reservoirs weighed against the basin's hydrology would likely provide water 

managers all along the Rio Grande in New Mexico with useful information that could prove 

important as we struggle to meet growing needs with a decreasing water supply. A study of this 

magnitude, however, is not anticipated in Reclamation's budget, and would have to compete for 

funding against numerous existing priorities. Therefore, while we see the NAS study as the most 

comprehensive review of Reclamation operations, we recommend evaluation of ways that this 

project can build on the work of other studies, such as the proposed Rio Grande- New Mexico 

Basin Study, if it is selected for funding, and the Rio Chama Pilot Study, which is a review of 

river and reservoir operations on the Rio Chama. The Department would seek to secure costshare partners for the review, consistent with the requirements for Basin Studies. This approach 

would achieve the study objectives outlined inS. 1012, allow for independent scientific input, 

and limit duplication of efforts and resources. 

New Mexico has endured almost a decade of drought. An above average snowpack this spring 

will allow Reclamation and its stakeholders to start rebuilding storage in nearly empty reservoirs. 

Reclamation is currently in the process of leasing all of the water that is available at a reasonable 

price (i.e. excluding what would be covered under the pilot leasing program described above). 

The Department generally supports language in Sections 8 and 9 of S. 1012 relating to the 

authorizations for the WaterSMART Program and under the Reclamation States Emergency 

Drought Relief Act. We note, however, that if the sponsor's aims is to reauthorize the 

Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief Act, Title I of that Act (Section I 04(c)) should 

also be reauthorized to mirror Title III. There are some technical changes we would suggest to 

ensure that the language can be implemented through Reclamation's existing programs (e.g., the 

Department supports retaining a required non-Federal cost share contribution which allows 

Reclamation to leverage Federal and non-Federal funding to construct projects with far more 

significant benefits than would otherwise be possible, in the WaterSMART Drought Response 

Program and other WaterSMART programs). We are willing to work with the sponsors and the 

Committee to refine those sections, and to ensure that the additional financial assistance 

authorities included in Section 7 do not duplicate other existing authorities. In addition, the 

legislation should ensure that any drought relief wells funded should be in response to a critical 

need and prioritization process, and do not add to existing problems associated with groundwater 

depletion. 

Section 10 ofS. 1012 provides additional time for completion of the study originally authorized 

under Section 9106 of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of2009 (PL. 111-11). The 

3 
21 

purpose of the study is to assess the feasibility of projects to repair, rehabilitate, reconstruct, or 

replace Pueblo irrigation facilities recommended to be implemented from fiscal years 2010 

through 2019. The study was to be submitted to Congress in March 2011; however, Reclamation 

was delayed in starting the study. Reclamation is currently scheduled to complete the study in 

2017. 

All 18 New Mexico Rio Grande Pueblos have agreed to participate in the project. Reclamation 

supports the language inS. 1012 to extend the study period until December 31, 2018, and extend 

the ten-year construction period through 2024. Funding for construction will be dependent on 

availability. Because not all projects can be built, Reclamation will prioritize the projects based 

on the cost-effectiveness of the proposed investments. 

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

4 
22 

Senator HOEVEN. Thank you, Secretary Cameron. 

Next we will have Mr. Mark Gabriel, Administrator and CEO of 

the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA). 

STATEMENT OF MARK A. GABRIEL, ADMINISTRATOR, 

WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION 

Mr. GABRIEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

Subcommittee. I am Mark Gabriel, Administrator of the Western 

Area Power Administration, one of four power marketing administrations within the Department of Energy, whose role is to market 

and transmit wholesale electricity from 56 hydropower dams. 

For the past 40 years WAPA has supplied at-cost electricity to 

hundreds of municipalities, rural electric cooperatives, public utilities, irrigation districts, federal and state agencies, military installations and Native American tribes. Forty million people benefit 

from the federal hydropower and transmission services that WAPA 

provides. They depend on us to provide reliable service, not only 

today, but also into the future. 

Low-cost federal hydropower was a cornerstone in the development of the West and remains a key element of the economic life 

in maintaining strong communities. WAPA serves a diverse customer base across a 15-state territory the size of Paris to Moscow 

and Athens to Oslo. We are a complex organization with 10 ratesetting systems and more than 17,000 miles of transmission line. 

We do this offering the lowest-cost rates consistent with sound 

business principles. 

WAPA is committed to transparency, and so am I. In the four 

years that I have served as head of the organization, we have 

proactively taken multiple steps to evolve and increase our transparency efforts and we will continue to do so. 

I believe what has prompted this proposed legislation is that 

some of our customers want access to more information that informs our planning and operations at our Headquarters office and 

an understanding of how it relates to our annual budget and, ultimately, their rates. This is a reasonable request, and we are working toward that end with many of our customers through multiple 

processes. 

I understand the customer concern for rates. Our rates, however, 

are extremely competitive. For example, our customers in Arizona 

benefit from rates that are significantly less than comparable 

wholesale rates. In our Upper Great Plains Region, customers will 

be seeing rate reductions in 2018 for the second year in a row. 

Now back to our growth. Our Headquarters staff and budget has, 

in fact, grown over the past decade. It is bringing value to our organization and customers and keeps us well-positioned amid 

changing times in our dynamic industry. It is aligned with our 

commitment to business excellence and sound business practices 

and enables us to continue delivering on our mission and maximize 

the value of hydropower for all of our customers. 

Our growth in headquarters staff has allowed us to build a Continuous Process Improvement Program that has resulted in $34 

million in cost avoidance and cost savings, a 217 percent return on 

the program’s investment. 
23 

Some of our ‘‘growth,’’ however, is not growth at all, but an organizational realignment and shifting of the budget that has resulted 

in increased efficiencies. These changes allow us to improve our 

ability to adhere to mandatory compliance standards and laws, 

such as Critical Infrastructure Protection and the Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act. Some of our customers 

may not agree with these changes that we have made. I believe it 

is, in part, because we did not do a good enough job communicating 

early and sufficiently. 

We have already begun to increase transparency, specifically regarding our Headquarters budget. I am very proud of these efforts 

that we began three years ago to address transparency and communication gaps. Customers have stated they are already seeing 

improvements in how we engage with them on budget issues. We 

are working well with the Mid-West Electric Consumers Association, our California customer base and the Colorado River Energy 

Distributors Association. Thanks to our customers in Arizona, we 

are now partners in a Customer Technical Committee to address 

a number of improvement opportunities including financial transparency. 

We’ve developed a more consistent 10-Year Planning process 

across our regional offices, have been hosting annual all-customer 

meetings since 2014, and last year opened up our Headquarters 10- 

Year Planning process to customers with more engagement in the 

coming year. Additionally, we host or attend more than 300 meetings with customers annually to share information and answer 

questions. 

Just over a year ago we launched ‘‘The Source,’’ a space on our 

website dedicated to sharing operational and auditable financial 

statements. Much of that information was already available on our 

website, but we brought it into one convenient location and put it 

front and center. It includes annual reports, presentations, a 

searchable index of power system data, rates information, key topics and customer news. 

We have produced and made available reams of data. We have 

memorandums of understanding with many customer groups, 

agreeing to share and discuss financial information. We are more 

transparent than any organization for which I have worked and we 

are exploring ways to further expand our engagement. Our transparency efforts are consistent with the spirit of the proposed transparency legislation. We are committed to sharing information openly and honestly and providing a mechanism for feedback. 

As a public servant charged with leading a federal organization, 

a very large utility, I am ultimately responsible for the safe and reliable operation of our large, interconnected generation and transmission system. I take my responsibility in earnest. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. I look 

forward to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gabriel follows:] 
24 

STATEMENT OF 

MR. MARK A GABRIEL 

ADMINISTRATOR 

WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

JUNE 14,2017 

S. 930, THE WESTERN AREA POWER ADMINISTRATION TRANSPARENCY ACT 

Mr. Chainnan and members of the subcommittee, I am Mark A Gabriel, Administrator of 

Western Area Power Administration (W AP A)-one of four power marketing administrations 

within the Department of Energy whose role is to market and transmit wholesale electricity from 

multi-use Federal water projects. 

For the past 40 years W APA has supplied at-cost electricity to hundreds of municipalities, rural 

electric cooperatives, public utilities, irrigation districts, Federal and state agencies, military 

installations, and Native American tribes across 15 states. Forty million people benefit from the 

Federal hydropower and transmission services WAPA provides. 

They depend on us to provide reliable service, not only today, but also into the future. Low-cost 

Federal hydropower was a cornerstone in the development of the West, and it remains a key 

element of the economic life in maintaining strong communities. 

W APA serves a diverse customer base across a 15-state territory the size of Paris to Moscow and 

Athens to Oslo. We are a complex organization with l 0 rate-setting systems. Our employees 

work tirelessly to maximize the value of the hydropower we market We do this by offering the 

lowest-cost rates consistent with sound business principles. 

Let me begin by saying that WAPA is committed to transparency, and so am L In the four years I 

have served as the head of the organization, we have proactively taken multiple steps to evolve 

and increase our transparency efforts, and we will continue to do so. 

Now, I would like to address what I believe has prompted this proposed legislation: Some of our 

customers want access to more information that infonns our planning and operations at our 

Headquarters office and an understanding of how it relates to our annual budget and ultimately, 

their rates. This is a reasonable request and we are working toward that end with many of our 

customers through our multiple processes. 

I understand customer concern for rates. As consumers, they are right to ask questions. Our rates, 

are extremely competitive. For example, our customers in Arizona benefit from rates that are 

1 
25 

significantly less than comparable wholesale and retail rates. In our Upper Great Plains Region, 

due to partnership and forward-looking planning, customers will be seeing rate reductions in 

2018, the second year in a row. 

Now back to our growth. Our Headquarters staff and budget has, in fact, grown over the past 

decade. It is bringing value to our organization-and customers-and keeps us well-positioned 

amid changing times in our dynamic industry. It is aligned with our commitment to business 

excellence and sound business practices, and enables us to continue delivering our mission and 

maximize the value of hydropower for all of our customers. 

Our growth in headquarters staff has allowed us to build a Continuous Process Improvement 

Program that has resulted in $34 million in cost-avoidance and cost-savings-a 217-percent 

return on investment Some of our "growth," is not growth at all, but an organizational 

realignment and shifting of budget that resulted in increased efficiencies, and allows us to 

improve our ability to adhere to mandatory compliance standards and laws, such as Critical 

Infrastructure Protection and the Federal Information Technology Acquisition Reform Act 

Some of our customers may not agree with the changes that we have made. 1 believe it is, in part, 

because we did not do a good enough job communicating early and sufficiently. 

We have already begun to increase transparency specifically regarding our headquarters budget. 

I am proud of the efforts that began three years ago to address transparency and communication 

gaps, and the incremental progress we have since made. 

Customers have stated they are already seeing improvements in how we engage with them on 

budget issues. We are working well with the Mid-West Electric Consumers Association, our 

California customer base, and the Colorado River Energy Distributors Association. Thanks to 

our customers in Arizona we are now partners in a Customer Technical Committee to address a 

number of improvement opportunities including financial transparency. 

We developed a more consistent 10-Year Planning process across our regional offices, hosted 

annual all-customer meetings since 2014, and, last year, opened up our Headquarters 10-Year 

Planning process to customers with more engagement in the coming year. Additionally, we host 

or attend more than 300 meetings with customers every year to share information and answer 

questions. 

Just over a year ago we launched The Source-a page on our website dedicated to sharing 

operational and auditable financial statements. Much of the information was already on our 

website, but we brought it to one convenient location and put it front and center. It includes 

annual reports, presentations, a searchable index of power system data, rates information, key 

topics and customer news. 

We have produced and made available reams of data. We have memorandums of understanding 

in place with many customer groups, agreeing to share and discuss financial information. We are 

exploring ways to further expand our engagement 

2 
26 

Our recent transparency efforts are consistent with the spirit of the proposed transparency 

legislation. 

We are committed to sharing information openly and honestly and providing a mechanism for 

feedback. As an organization, we are accountable for delivering on our mission and responsible 

for the stewardship of our program and resources for all of our region's customers. 

As a public servant charged with leading a federal organization-a utility-lam ultimately 

responsible for the safe and reliable operation of our large and interconnected generation and 

transmission system. I take my responsibility in earnest. 

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. I look forward to answering your 

questions. 

3 
27 

Senator HOEVEN. Thank you, Administrator. 

Next we will hear from the Honorable Jeff Sell, Mayor of 

Harlowton, Montana. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SELL, MAYOR, CITY OF 

HARLOWTON, MONTANA, AND BOARD MEMBER, CENTRAL 

MONTANA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY 

Mr. SELL. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member King and members 

of the Subcommittee on Water and Power, my name is Jeff Sell and 

I serve as a Board Member of the Central Montana Regional Water 

Authority (CMRWA) which has been working on the MusselshellJudith Rural Water System project in Montana for over 12 years. 

I also serve as the Mayor of the City of Harlowton, Montana. 

On behalf of the CMRWA and the City of Harlowton, I wish to 

thank the Chairman and the Subcommittee for the opportunity to 

testify on behalf of Senate bill 685, the Clean Water for Rural Communities Act. This bill will authorize two regional drinking water 

projects in different areas of our vast State of Montana. 

We want to thank Senator Steve Daines and his dedicated staff, 

who have helped us craft this important legislation. We wish to 

thank bill sponsor Senator Jon Tester and his staff, who have provided valuable guidance to our organization over the years during 

the planning of this project. We also want to thank Secretary of the 

Interior, Ryan Zinke, as he was the author of this same legislation 

in the 114th Congress. It is our hope that, under his leadership, 

the Bureau of Reclamation will continue to work with us to actually build the Musselshell-Judith Rural Water System. 

We turn to you, the United States Congress, to pass Senate bill 

685 into law and allow us to construct this regional water system. 

The Bureau of Reclamation has deemed our project feasible, yet 

Reclamation told us last year it will not recommend the water system for authorization. After 12 years of working with Reclamation 

and finally securing approval of our feasibility study from Reclamation, we feel the Federal Government’s commitment to bringing 

safe drinking water to our community will only be continued if 

Congress authorizes this water system. 

Let me tell you about our project need. The CMRWA is a coalition of eight incorporated communities, several unincorporated 

communities and the rural areas within six counties in central 

Montana with a long legacy of poor water quality and limited quantity. 

The water system will provide communities and rural residents 

in the region with a reliable supply of high-quality drinking water 

from the Madison aquifer groundwater. The groundwater meets all 

primary and secondary federal drinking water standards. Delivering this drinking water will improve the health and quality of life 

of Americans in a large area of Montana. 

The CMRWA has already spent nearly $3 million of state, local 

and federal funding on the project to date for test well construction, 

engineering, planning and administration of the project. With this 

investment the CMRWA has completed several major milestones 

including completing its 2,200-foot deep test well at Ubet which 

demonstrated that the adequate quantity of high-quality water is 

available at the preferred well site; obtained all the water rights 
28 

needed for the project; demonstrated to the Federal Government 

that the project has a benefit-to-cost ratio of 1.28 to 1; demonstrated that the project complies with the National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act and the National Historic Preservation Act; and completed and received Reclamation approval for the project feasibility report. 

Further, the project area has one of the lowest median household 

incomes in Montana. The low income of this region combined with 

the lack of dense population centers makes it very difficult for 

rural areas to afford drinking water infrastructure compared to 

urban areas. 

We have all heard of the drinking water problem faced in the big 

City of Flint, Michigan, but small towns, ranching communities in 

the West, face similar water problems. Federal authorization of 

this project is absolutely necessary, not only to provide safe drinking water but to make the project affordable for our residents in 

Montana. 

In conclusion, the residents, institutions and businesses of this 

region face significant deficiencies with the existing water supplies. 

These deficiencies impact the health and safety of residents across 

this region of Montana. The deficiencies with the water supplies 

also have a significant economic impact on these communities that 

have median household incomes among the lowest in Montana. 

We have worked for 12 years with the Bureau of Reclamation to 

become a federally-authorized project; however, after being deemed 

feasible by Reclamation, we were told we must secure authorization from Congress to continue. 

We began work on this project system, excuse me, we began 

work on this water system before the Rural Water Supply Act was 

passed in 2006 and implemented in 2008, but we adhered to the 

stipulations outlined in the Act and completed the process. Reclamation reports that our project is only one of two projects that 

have successfully completed the feasibility process and that is out 

of 20 applicants that started the process under the Act; therefore, 

we need Congress to authorize our project to ensure Reclamation 

continues to work with us through construction. 

Thank you for allowing me to testify on behalf of the CMRWA 

and the City of Harlowton for this critical legislation for our region. 

An adequate quantity of safe drinking water is a basic human need 

that most Americans take for granted. Please support our efforts 

to secure a system that will deliver that same promise to our citizens. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sell follows:] 
29 

Jeff Sell, Board Member 

Central Montana Regional Water Authority 

Testimony Supporting 

Senate BillS. 685, Clean Water for Rural Communities Act 

U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power 

Wednesday, May 10, 2017 

Chairman Flake, Ranking Member King, and members of the 

Subcommittee on Water and Power, my name is Jeff Sell, and I serve as a 

Board Member of the Central Montana Regional Water Authority (CMRWA) 

which has been working on the Musselshell-Judith Rural Water System 

project in Montana for over twelve years. I also serve as the Mayor for the 

City of Harlowton, Montana. 

On behalf of the CMRWA and the City of Harlowton, I wish to thank the 

Chairman and the Subcommittee for the opportunity to testify on behalf of 

Senate Bill 685, the Clean Water for Rural Communities Act. 

We want to thank Senator Steve Daines and his dedicated staff who have 

helped us craft this important legislation. We also wish to thank bill 

cosponsor Senator Jon Tester and his staff, who have provided valuable 

guidance to our organization over the years during the planning of this 

project. 
30 

We also want to thank Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke, as he was the 

author of this same legislation in the 114th Congress. It is our hope that, 

under his leadership, the Bureau of Reclamation will continue to work with 

us to actually build the Musselshell-Judith Rural Water System. 

The photo above shows the current quality of our drinking water. S. 685 is 

necessary to authorize two rural water systems in Montana and provide our 

citizens with safe, clean drinking water. 

The Central Montana Regional Water Authority began working with the 

Bureau of Reclamation 12 years ago to gain approval for this MusselshellJudith Rural Water System. After two years of work, the Rural Water 

Supply Act of 2006 was passed to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to 

establish a Rural Water Supply Program. This Program was then 

implemented in 2008 - after we had been working with Reclamation for 

approximately four years. The Rural Water Supply Act requires the 

completion of a comprehensive planning process including an Appraisal 

Report and Feasibility Report and we abided by all requirements. The 

Musselshell-Judith project received approval for its Appraisal Report in 

2010 and then received Reclamation approval for its Feasibility Report in 

January 2015. A copy of Reclamation's approval is attached. This is 

significant because, out of 20 projects that started the Rural Water 

Supply Program process, our project is one of only two that 

successfully completed the Feasibility process. 

However, even though the Bureau of Reclamation deemed our project 

feasible, it told us last year it will not recommend the water system for 

authorization. Therefore, we turn to you, the United States Congress, 

to pass S. 685 into law and allow us to construct this regional water 

system. After twelve years of working with Reclamation and finally 

securing approval from Reclamation, we are left at the mercy of 

Congress to finalize the federal authorization of our water system. 

Reclamation funding availability aside, federal authorization will allow our 

approved project to "get in line" at the Bureau of Reclamation for future 

funding and, more importantly, it will allow the State of Montana and our 

local communities to commence construction of the project - as our state 

and communities are responsible for part of the funding for this project. 

Page2of9 
31 

Project Need 

The Central Montana Regional Water Authority (CMRWA) is a coalition of 

eight incorporated communities, several unincorporated communities and 

many rural families areas within six counties in central Montana. 

l\lusselshell Judith Rural Water Project 

Examples of drinking water challenges currently faced by members of the 

Authority include the following: 

• The City of Roundup obtains its water from a coal mine and the water 

is so mineralized that it is nearly undrinkable. Iron content is nearly 

five times the Safe Drinking Water Act standard. Almost all residents 

buy bottled water and/or use costly in-home reverse osmosis units 

(over 95% of residents in Roundup purchase bottled water). The multi 

community survey indicated that 69% of residents within the regional 

water system area purchase bottled water. In addition, residents are 

forced to operate water softeners because the water is so corrosive to 

appliances. Recent flood damage included losing the water main 

beneath the river connecting the wells to the infiltration gallery requiring 

costly emergency repairs to the system. With the wells and infiltration 

gallery being within the flood plain, this is an issue that the City will 

continue to deal with in the future. 

Page3of9 
32 

• The Town of Melstone has nearly run out of water several times in the 

last decade as flows in the Musselshell River approached zero. They 

have recently decided to decommission their surface water treatment 

plant and rely solely on their groundwater wells. They constructed two 

new wells in 2011 with moderate capacities; however both are 

contaminated with iron bacteria which will require ongoing treatment. 

• The Town of Broadview has historically operated two deep, low 

production, and poor quality wells. If either well were to go out of 

service, the Town would not be able to meet the average day flow 

needs of the community which is a significant public health and safety 

threat to the residents. The two newest wells are also deep (over 1,000 

feet) and low production (15 and 20 gpm) and were completed in 2014. 

While this has added additional capacity to the system, it is not 

sufficient. The water is extremely mineralized and corrosive so most 

residents drink bottled water. 

• The Town of Harlowton has wells with high sulfate content that make 

the water very difficult to drink without treatment. Additionally, in recent 

years one of the town's main production wells (Pritchard Well) began 

delivering a high volume of black particulate forcing the Town to shut it 

down and only use it when needed to meet maximum day demands. 

The Town also had to take one well (South Well) offline during the 2011 

flood because of surface water flooding at the well site. Finally, the only 

other well the city owns (Thompson Well) is threatened by an 

underground storage tank leak which has resulted in detectable levels 

of benzene in the well. 

• The Town of Hobson has transient non-community public water 

systems and residents utilizing groundwater from a shallow aquifer 

with high levels of nitrates. Frequently, these concentrations have 

exceeded the enforceable standards. 

• The Town of Lavina has a history of autonomous non-community 

public and private water systems which have been identified as 

containing high levels of nitrates. 

Page 4 of9 
33 

Health Effects of Existing Water Quality 

A summary of some of the existing water quality issues and the 

corresponding impacts on health faced by members of the CMRWA 

include: 

Nitrates. High levels of nitrates in drinking water present a significant threat 

to public health and safety, especially to infants less than 6 months of age. 

Infants that ingest drinking water with nitrates above the EPA's primary 

maximum contaminant level could contract a serious illness and, if 

untreated, may die. Known symptoms include shortness of breath and blue 

baby syndrome. 

Iron. Although iron represents a vital mineral in every healthy individual's 

diet, the level of iron ingested should be controlled. Indeed, a sustained 

long-term heavy dose can be detrimental to one's health. People with a 

condition known as Hemochromatosis are the most susceptible to potential 

harmful effects caused by the long-term exposure to high concentrations of 

iron in drinking water. Early symptoms of the disease include hair loss, 

impotence, abdominal pain and shortness of breath. Symptoms become 

increasingly severe as the disease progresses, causing diabetes, heart 

failure and even death. It was estimated in a CDC publication from 2002 

that approximately 1 in every 250 to 300 people suffer from the symptoms 

of Hemochromatosis. There are no known cures for Hemochromatosis and 

once the liver or heart has been damaged due to the progression of the 

disease, treatment can stop additional damage but cannot reverse it. 

Sulfate. High concentrations of sulfate in drinking water contribute to a 

poor aesthetic quality and can also produce a laxative effect for those who 

ingest it. Some individuals can, however, overcome this condition after 

becoming acclimated to the water. Most of the communities within the 

region have documented levels of sulfate of at least twice the 

recommended limit. 

Sodium. Most of the water supplies in the planning area have very high 

concentrations of sodium. Acute effects of excessive salt intake include 

nausea, convulsions, muscular twitching and rigidity, cerebral and 

pulmonary edema and can aggravate people suffering with chronic 

congestive heart failure 

Page5of9 
34 

Reliability of Water Supplies 

In general, the reliability of the existing water supplies of member 

communities is questionable. Several of the communities have 

experienced water shortages or are very susceptible to that situation due to 

the precarious condition of their supply infrastructure. Lack of access to a 

reliable water supply obviously represents a significant public health and 

safety risk to the residents of this region. 

Financial Need 

Reclamation prepared a Socioeconomic Study on the planning area as part 

of the final Feasibility Report. The study shows that the area has a very 

low Median Household Income (MHI). The MHis of member communities 

ranged from $21,838 to $43,750 per year. This is significantly below both 

Montana's and the federal MHI, which points to a very strong need for 

federal financial assistance on this project. 

The low income of this region combined with the lack of dense population 

centers make it very difficult for rural areas to afford drinking water 

infrastructure compared to urban areas. 

We have all heard of the drinking water problems faced in the big city of 

Flint, Michigan. But small towns and ranching communities in the West 

face similar water problems. Federal authorization of this project is 

absolutely necessary, not only to supply safe drinking water, but to make 

the project affordable for our residents in Montana. 

Project History 

The CMRWA was formed in 2004 to address the significant drinking water 

issues in the region. The CMRWA has been planning the Musselshell 

Judith Rural Water System for eleven years with the goal to provide 

communities and rural residents in the region with a reliable supply of high 

quality drinking water from the Madison Aquifer groundwater. 

The project will utilize a 250-mile piping system to deliver water to users. 

Once water is pumped out of the proposed wells the entire system will be 

fed by gravity except one area (Broadview) which requires a small booster 

Page6of9 
35 

pumping station. The system design is simple yet very efficient for energy 

use and operations since no treatment plant is required. The groundwater 

meets all Primary and Secondary Federal drinking water standards. The 

water will require no treatment except chlorination. 

The CMRWA completed its first test well in 2005 which demonstrated that 

an adequate quantity of high quality water could be developed from the 

Madison Aquifer for the CMRWA members. The CMRWA initiated work on 

the Appraisal Report in 2007 and obtained approval for the Appraisal 

Report from Reclamation in 2010. Evaluation of water supply alternatives 

completed during the first phase of the Feasibility Report recommended 

that the wellfield be developed northwest of Judith Gap, Montana called 

Ubet. The CMRWA completed a test well at this site in 2012 with State, 

Federal and local funds. The test well demonstrated that an adequate 

quantity and quality of water was available at this site. 

Based on the Ubet test well information, the CMRWA filed for and received 

the full water rights for the project in 2014 from the State of Montana. The 

test well information also allowed for the completion of the first draft of 

Feasibility Report, which was submitted to Reclamation in July 2013. After 

working through a vigorous and multi-level review process by Reclamation, 

the CMRWA was able to obtain final approval for the Feasibility Report in 

January 2015. 

In a subsequent August, 20161etter, Reclamation affirmed that the water 

project meets the requirements outlined in Reclamation's Directives and 

Standards, meets the requirements outlined in the Economic and 

Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Resources 

Implementation Studies (Principles and Guidelines), meets the National 

Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act, and National Historic 

Preservation Act, and the project has a benefit cost ratio of 1.28:1 which 

meet the Principles and Guidelines requirements for wise federal 

investment under the National Economic Development (NED) assessment. 

However, Reclamation is not recommending the project for Congressional 

authorization of construction and claims Congressional authorization is 

necessary to continue. 

Monies Spent 

The CMRWA has already spent nearly $3 million dollars of State, local and 

Federal funding on the project to date for test well construction, 

Page 7 of9 
36 

engineering, planning and administration of the project. With this 

investment the CMRWA has completed several major milestones including: 

• Completed a 2200-foot deep test well at Ubet which demonstrated 

that an adequate quantity of high quality water is available at the 

preferred well site. 

• Obtained all the water rights needed for the project. 

• Demonstrated to the federal government that the project has a 

benefit/cost ratio of 1.28:1 

• Demonstrated that the project complies with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

and National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). 

• Completed and received Reclamation approval for the project 

Feasibility Report 

We certainly want to ensure that the 12 years and $3 million of federal, 

state and local funds are not wasted. Help us build this Water System. 

Conclusion 

In conclusion, Chairman Flake, Ranking Member King and subcommittee 

members, it is obvious that the residents, institutions and businesses of this 

region face significant deficiencies with the existing water supplies. These 

deficiencies impact the health and safety of residents across this region of 

Montana. The deficiencies with the water supplies also have a significant 

economic impact on these communities, which have Median Household 

Incomes among the lowest in Montana. The CMRWA has already spent 

nearly $3 million dollars of State, local and Federal funding on the project to 

date for test well construction, engineering, planning and administration of 

the project. We sincerely hope this proves to be a wise investment with the 

continuation and ultimate completion of this project. 

I thank you for allowing me to testify on behalf of the CMRWA and the City 

of Harlowton for this critical legislation for our region. An adequate quantity 

of safe drinking water is a basic human need that most Americans take for 

granted. Please support our efforts to secure a system that will deliver that 

same promise to our citizens. 

Page8of9 
37 

For more information please visit CMRWA's website at http://www.centralmontanawater.com/ or 

contact the project engineer, Bob Church, at rchurch@qreatwestenq.com or the project 

administrator Monty Sealey at pmservices@midrivers.com. 

Central Montana Regional Water Authority 

P.O. Box 175 

Roundup, MT 59072 

Page9of9 
38 

United States Department of the Interior 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION 

MT-700 

PRJ-28.00 

Mr. Monty Sealey 

Project Administrator 

Great Plains Region 

Montana Area Office 

P.O. Box 30137 

Billings, Montana 59107-0137 

22 

Central Montana Regional Water Authority 

P.O. Box 175 

Roundup, MT 59072 

Subject: Status Update for the Musselshell Judith Rural Water System Feasibility Report and Next Steps 

Under the Bureau of Reclamation's (Reclamation) Rural Water Supply Program for Feasibility 

Reports 

Dear Mr. Sealey: 

The Feasibility Report for the Musselshell Judith Rural Water System is being transmitted to you 

conveying the understanding that the Feasibility Report has been approved by the Great Plains 

Regional Director and Policy and Administration (Policy Director) and is being forwarded to the 

Commissioner of Reclamation (Commissioner). The letter from the Policy Director to the 

Commissioner is also included for your records. 

The Bureau of Reclamation Manual Directive and Standard (D&S) CMP 09-03, Reclamation Rural 

Water Supply Program, provides guidance on the review and approval of rural water feasibility reports 

prepared by Reclamation. Section 9.C (2) outlines the procedures for the review and approval by the 

Regional Director, Policy Director, Commissioner, and the Department of Interior (Department) prior 

to sending a feasibility report to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The following section 

of CMP 09-03 is pertinent to the approval process: 

Section 9.C (2)- Feasibility Reports. 

(a) Review by Directors. Completed. 

(b) Review by the Commissioner. If the Commissioner approves the feasibility report, the 

Commissioner will sign a memorandum transmitting the report to the Department. 

(c) Review by the Department. The Department will review the report and transmit it to 

OMB. 

(d) Finalize Report. Once approved by OMB, Reclamation will finalize the feasibility report 

(e) Notify Project Sponsor of Status. The Regional Director will notify the Project Sponsor 

whether the feasibility report was approved by OMB. 

(f) Notice of Availability of the Repmt. The Policy Director will publish a notice in the 

Federal Register about the availability of the report. See§ 404.52(d) of the Rule. 

(g) Submit Report to Congress. The Commissioner will prioritize and transmit approved 

reports to the Assistant Secretary for Water and Science for submission to Congress. 

Note: Project not being recommended for funding Subsection (g) may not apply 
39 

The proposed project has been considered feasible by the Great Plains Regional Director and the Policy 

Director, has a cost-benefit ratio of 1.28:1. and meets the criteria of D&S CMP 09-03. However, it is not 

recommended for Congressional authorization of construction. If the proposed project is authorized 

by act, prior to construction, Reclamation will compare the final project design to the 

findings the Environmental Assessment and determine if ti.rrther action under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is required. ll is also recommended that prior to project construction, 

construction and operation, maintenance, and replacement cost estimates be updated to reflect tina! design 

quantities and current price levels. 

This feasibility report still requires review and approval from the Commissioner, Department, and OMB. 

This version of the feasibility report may change; therefore, be cautioned not to rely on this version as 

being the final position of the Administration. I will keep you apprised of when the report is transmitted 

to the Depar1ment. You will be notified by the Regional Director whether the feasibility report was 

approved by OMB as outlined in subsection (e) above. 

If you have ar1y questions, please contact me a\406-247-7298 or Mr. Jerry Benock, Planning and Pr()ject 

Development Division Manager, at ghenock(cilusbr.gov or at 406-247-7331. Thank you for your patience 

in processing this report. 

Enclosures 

cc: Mr. Bob Church 

Great West Engineering 

P.O. Box 4817 

Helena, MT 59604 

Sincerely, 

Steven Davies 

Area Manager 
40 

United States Department of the Interior 

BUREAU OF RECLAMATION 

Washington, DC 20240 

IN REPLY REFER TO: JAN 10 2017 

The Honorable Shaun Donovan 

Director, Office of Management and Budget 

Executive Office Building 

Washington, DC 20503 

Dear Mr. Donovan: 

Pursuantto Executive Order 12322, dated September 17, 1981, and Title 43 Code of Federal 

Regulations Part 404.51, the Musselshell Judith Rural Water Supply System Feasibility Report is 

enclosed for your review. 

The Feasibility Report was prepared under authority of the Reclamation Rural Water Supply Act 

of 2006, Title I of Public Law 109-451. This law authorized the Secretary to carry out a rural 

water supply program to 1) investigate and identiJ'y 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, and 2) plan the design and construction, through the 

conduct of appraisal investigations and feasibility studies, of nrral water supply projects in the 

Reclamation states. 

Central Montana's water supply system in the study area faces numerous challenges that could 

be addressed by the proposed project. The proposed project was found to be feasible and met the 

criteria of Title 43 Code of Federal Regulations Part 404, and Reclamation Manual Directives 

and Standards CMP 09-03. However, I am not recommending Congressional authorization of 

construction at this time because of existing constraints on Reclamation's program resources and 

rural water project construction conunitrnents. 

Should your staff have any questions during its review of the report, please contact Mr. Robert 

W. Wolf, Reclamation's Director ofProgram and Budget, at 202-513-0640. 

Sincerely, 

Enclosure 
41 

May 5, 2017 

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 

AND CONSERVATION 

Honorable Lisa Murkowski, Chair 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

709 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Honorable jeff Flake, Chair 

Senate Subcommittee on Water and Power 

413 Russell Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

RE: S. 685- Clean Water for Rural Communities Actof2017 

Dear Senator Murkowski and Senator Flake: 

POBQ.Xl0l601 

Hf.U:.,"iA, MO:\l'A.~A :S96ltH60l 

Montana Senator Steve Daines, with co-sponsorship from Senator jon Tester and working 

with the Central Montana Regional Water Authority (CMRWA), has recently introduced 

legislation in the U.S. Congress for the authorization of the Musselshell-judith Rural Water 

System. 

The CMRWA is a coalition of eight incorporated communities, several unincorporated 

communities, and many rural families within six counties in the geographic center of 

Montana. Reliability of existing water supplies for member communities is questionable, at 

best. Lack of reliable water supply represents a significant public health risk to the 

residents of this region. Depth to decent quality potable water for wells is great, and 

surface water supplies run low in summer as agricultural users divert significant in-stream 

flows. 

We know that reliable water supply is a substantial driver of the economy. Several of the 

communities which would be served by this regional system are within an hour's drive of 

Billings, a regional economic hub. Greater opportunities for sustainable growth would 

arrive with a regional drinking water supply. 

Passage of S. 685 would provide for federal support and funding of the regional system. 

The Rural Water Supply Act of 2006 authorized the Secretary of the Interior to establish 

and implement a Rural Water Supply Program. The Musselshell-judith project received 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation approval for its Appraisal Level Study in 2010 and approval for 

DIRECTOR'S 

OFFICE 

( 406) 444· Z074 

CONSERVATION & RESOURCE 

DEVELOPMENT DIVISION 

(406) 444·6667 

O!L&GAS 

DIVISION 

(406) 444·6675 

TRUST LAND 

DIVISION 

(406) 444·2074 
42 

its Feasibility Report in january 2015. Significantly, this project was the first to complete 

the planning process prescribed under the Rural Water Supply Act. 

The State of Montana has supported the planning and administration of the proposed 

Musselshell-Judith Rural Water System with appropriations and grants totaling over $3 

million, to date. Most of this fiscal support originated from natural resource tax-based 

funds, established to fulfill the State's commitment to regional water authorities for 

assistance in financing the non-Federal portions of authorized regional drinking water 

projects. 

Thank you for the opportunity to offer commentary in support of S. 685. 

J n E. Tubbs 

Dlrector, Department of Natural Resources and Conservation 

cc Governor Steve Bullock 

The Honorable Steve Daines 

The Honorable jon Tester 

CMRWA Chairman jim Kalitowski 

Monty Sealey 

jennifer johnson 
43 

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 

AND CONSERVATION 

May 5, 2017 

Honorable Lisa Murkowski, Chair 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

709 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Honorable jeff Flake, Chair 

Senate Subcommittee on Water and Power 

413 Russell Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

RE: S. 685- The Clean Water for Rural Communities Act of 2017 

Dear Senator Murkowski and Senator Flake: 

POBOXltll601 

HEL£NA. MQ,'If!A.,~A 5%2G-11SQI 

Montana Senator Steve Daines, with co-sponsorship from Senator jon Tester and working 

with the Dry-Redwater Regional Water Authority (DRWA), has introduced legislation in the 

U.S. Congress for the authorization of the Dry-Redwater Regional Water System. 

Development of this rural water project will bring a dependable supply of safe drinking 

water to more than 15,000 people in eastern Montana and western North Dakota, between 

the Missouri River and the Yellowstone River. 

The State of Montana has supported the planning and administration of this regional water 

project with appropriations of over $1,130,000 to date. For the upcoming biennium 

beginning July 1, 2017, the 2017 Montana Legislature appropriated funding of over $4.9 

million for the state's portion of the non-federal cost share on regional water system 

construction projects. The DRWA is eligible to apply for a portion of those funds. The 

natural resource tax-based fund which provides the basis for State of Montana 

participation in federally authorized regional water projects was renewed through 2031 by 

the legislature in its most recent session. 

Drinking water resources in the proposed regional service area are both ofinsufficient 

quantity and poor quality. Providing safe and adequate supplies of drinking water to this 

region of Montana will protect human health and stimulate further economic activity in the 

area. The proposed Dry-Redwater regional water system is critical to the future of eastern 

Montana. 

DIRECTOR'S 

OFFICE 

(406) 444-2074 

CONSERVATION & RESOUHCE 

DEVELOPMENT DIVISION 

(406}444-6667 

OIL&GAS 

DIVISION 

(406}444·667S 

TRUST LAND 

DIVISION 

(406) 444-2074 
44 

Your committee's support of this legislation is critical for the success of this project and the 

long-term viability of the economy of eastern Montana. The State of Montana would 

appreciate the support of your committee for S. 685, to authorize regional water supply 

system which will be vital to the state. 

Thank you for this opportunity to offer support of S. 685. 

jo E. Tubbs 

Director, Department of Natural Resources and Conservation 

cc Governor Steve Bullock 

The Honorable Steve Daines 

The Honorable jon Tester 

DRWA Chairman jerry Meissner 

jennifer johnson 

Mandi Nay 
45 

Senator HOEVEN. Thank you, Mayor Sell. 

Now we will turn to Mr. Tom Davis, the General Manager of the 

Yuma County Water Users’ Association in Southwestern Arizona. 

Mr. Davis. 

STATEMENT OF TOM DAVIS, GENERAL MANAGER, 

YUMA COUNTY WATER USERS’ ASSOCIATION 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member King 

and other members of the Subcommittee. My name is Tom Davis, 

and I’m the Manager of the Yuma County Water Users’ Association. We’re the oldest and the last diverter of Colorado River water 

in the State of Arizona, and we’re also a customer of Western Area 

Power Administration. 

I’m here to testify on both Senate bill 930 and Senate bill 677— 

930 being the Western Area Power Administration Transparency 

Act, and Senate bill 677, the Water Supply Permitting Coordination Act. 

I am in support of Senate bill 930 that requires Western to establish within 120 days a public accessible database that will provide its customers transparency into the planning, budgeting, rate 

setting, purchasing, staffing, contracting process at Western. 

And I want—Mr. Gabriel did a fine job of laying out Western’s 

core mission, and I just want to emphasize part of that is the fact 

that Western is required by law to transmit, market and transmit 

power to its customers at the lowest possible rate with sound business practices. And now some of the customers have witnessed six 

percent increases in their power rates each year for the last five 

years. We feel that a lot of those rate increases aren’t due to capital project increases but, in fact, is due to probably the operation 

and maintenance, staffing needs in some of the offices. 

The Yuma County Water Users’ Association is a priority use 

power customer of Western. We’re not a large customer of Western 

and we’re not a large entity, but we’re 100 percent dependent on 

Western Power. A lot of our uses of that power is to pump water 

into Mexico, into Sonora, Mexico, as part of the 1944 Treaty between the U.S. and Mexico to supply Mexico its proportional share 

of the Colorado River water. 

This transparency is good for the customers, but the thing the 

customers really want is more input into where these costs are 

going and input into selection of capital improvement projects, 

input into looking at the staffing needs that Western has. 

One of the things we’ve done in the Southwestern office of 

WAPA, out of Phoenix, the customers have formed, as Mr. Gabriel 

mentioned, a Customer Technical Committee. We’re working real 

close over Western with the new staff there in Phoenix to actually 

have some valuable input into analyzing the staffing needs, the 

capital improvement projects and both the capital and the O&M 

budgets of Western and that’s working out really well. We’re just 

beginning that process. I think that has a good future. It lets the 

customers have an understanding of the need of Western. And so, 

I think that’s going to be a good process. 

One thing I want to mention. This Administration’s 2018 budget 

proposes the sale of assets of Western and other PMAs to private 

interest. If you recall, that’s come up in previous Administrations 
46 

since the 1980s. Congress has always rejected that because it’s not 

favorable to the customers. And I recommend the same position 

taken by Congress this time. It’s not in the customer’s interest for 

these assets to be privatized. We bought and paid for those already 

once in the past. 

In regards to Senate bill 677, that’s basically the Water Supply 

Permitting Coordination Act—it sets up the Bureau of Reclamation 

as a one-stop shop for new water supply diversion projects that’s 

going to be coming up in the West. And the Bureau then is in 

charge of wrangling all the other federal agencies that’s going to 

be involved in the NEPA process and the permitting process, to 

give them a timeline to respond to their permitting needs. It favors 

those advocates that are needing to get these projects constructed 

because it sets a time limit and it doesn’t run us around the horn 

of having to deal with a half a dozen different federal agencies. The 

Bureau is in charge of getting that done, so we really support that 

bill. And also, the main thing that bill does, it allows the states to 

be a player in that process. So it allows the Western states to pay 

into the cost of that process, of the permitting process, and also to 

provide important data and science into the process. 

So I’m in favor of both of these bills, and I think there’s a lot 

of citizen support in the West, particularly for construction of new 

water and diversion projects. And I hope this process can be 

streamlined to be able to allow those projects to be constructed in 

the next 20 years or so. 

Appreciate you giving me an opportunity to give you my 

thoughts, and I’ll be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Davis follows:] 
47 

Testimony ofT om Davis 

General Manager of Yuma County Water Users' Association 

President of the Agri-Business and Water Council of AZ 

Board Member of the National Water Resources Assoc. 

Member of the Family Farm Alliance Advisory Council 

United States Senate 

Senate Water and Power Sub-Committee 

June 14,2017 

Chairman Flake, Ranking Member King, Members of the Sub-Committee thank you for 

allowing me to provide testimony on: 

S.930 Western Area Power Administration Transparency Act and 

S.677 Water Supply Pcnnitting Coordination Act 

S.930 requires the Western Area Power Administration (Western) to establish 

within 120 days a publicly accessible database providing its' customers and the public 

transparency into Western's planning, budgeting, rate setting, purchasing, staffing and 

contracting processes. Western's core mission is the marketing and transmission of costbased federal hydroelectric power generated at federal dams within a 15 state region of 

the Central and Western United States. Under the Reclamation Project Act and Flood 

Control Act, Western is required to market and transmit power at the lowest possible 

rates to its' customers consistent with sound business practices. Due to many of 

Western's recent practices, its' customers are concerned that Western has strayed from 

it's core mission requirements. As customer's rates have increased by as much as 30% 

over the past 5 years. I question if Western's rates are consistent with sound business 

practices. This legislation will give Western's customers, and the public, insight and 

oversight into Western's business processes to insure compliance with its' core mission. 

The Yuma County Water Users' Association is a priority use power customer of 

Western. We are not a large customer nor do we have a large operational budget, but we 

are 100% dependent on federal power delivered by Western. Among other uses, we use 

this power to pump water into Sonora Mexico to satisfy the United States' obligations 

under the 1944 Treaty to provide Mexico its' annual portion of Colorado River Water. 

Our annual budget is significantly strained by Western's rate increases. 

Page 1 of 4 
48 

Western's customers are also concerned that in recent years Western has been the focal 

point for many renewable energy initiatives such as solar and wind. Western's 

hydropower customers would like to know if, through Western's increasing expenditures, 

they are subsidizing these renewable industries. 

W AP A's Desert Southwest Office (DSW) customers have formed a Customer 

Technical Committee (CTC) to explore with the DSW office as to how customers can 

have transparency and meaningful input into all ofDSW's spending and rate decisions. 

The DSW personnel and customers are striving to have an open and shared partnership in 

supporting Western in meeting its' statutory and authorized mission. The transparency 

afforded by S.930 will make that partnership possible and ensure Western and its' 

customers viability. 

The Administration's 2018 Budget proposes the divestiture of the assets of the 

Department of Energy's Power Marketing Administrations (PMA's) to private interests. 

As you will recall, proposals to sell or rc-purpose the PMA's have been proposed by 

every Administration except one since the 1980's. Each time Congress has rejected 

divestiture as being harmful to the PMA customers. I along with other PMA customers 

continue to oppose divestiture for a number of reasons. Primarily, the PMA customers 

have and continue to pay for all capital improvements and annual operation & 

maintenance of these government owned assets. Additionally, appraising the present 

value of these assets would be very difficult and there is a risk to the future reliability of 

the electrical system in rural areas if in private control. Lastly, the rate paying customers 

would lose the transparency and oversight opportunities, and cost control the W AP A 

Transparency Act will provide, I am convinced the energy costs of the customers will 

increase as a result. I encourage Congress to remove this proposed divestiture from the 

2018 Budget. 

In regards to S.677, the ''The Water Supply Pennitting Coordination Act." This 

legislation provides a critical tirst step towards addressing current regulatory and 

bureaucratic challenges that delay or even halt the development of new water supply and 

delivery projects in the Westem United States. 

l along with the entities I represent, are in full support ofthis bill and encourage 

this Sub-Committee to move the legislation forward to enactment. 

Page 2 of 4 
49 

This bill seeks to streamline the current multi-agency pennitting processes that 

delay the construction of new water storage and delivery projects by creating a "one-stopshop'' pennitting process through the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). This bill 

sets a schedule and time lines for agencies to consult and cooperate to complete 

environmental compliance. This bill also allows third parties to pay into the costs of such 

permit processing. 

Reclamation is directed to identifY all federal agencies with permitting 

responsibilities or authority, notify them of pending applications. and set a schedule by 

which all cooperating agencies must complete and submit their reviews and pennits. 

Cooperating agencies are required to adhere to the coordinated schedule and use one 

unifYing document for all environmental review. This provision is intended to 

significantly reduce the time, cost, and inefticiencies associated with the current multitrack NEP A analyses in which each reviewing agency compiles its own data and reviews 

it separately in a vacuum. 

This bill also takes significant steps to strengthen the voice of Western states in the 

review process by allowing willing states to participate as cooperating agencies. By 

allowing states to be involved at their discretion to contribute financially in a review 

process that could also allow states to assist in development of science, data, and 

technical materials. S.677 also requires that, consistent with existing law, all relevant 

project data and materials be made publicly available online in a timely manner. 

I believe this bill could be improved by adding provisions that require the 

Reclamation to submit to the participating non-federal entity an estimate of the total cost 

of the federal administrative permitting process for the proposed projects and to provide a 

scheduled update on the actual administrative costs with an appropriate explanation of 

any major cost differences. 

Water conservation and water transfers are important tools for improving 

management of increasingly scarce water supplies. However, it is well known that new 

storage delivery systems will be necessary for long term solutions to future water 

demands in the West. We must streamline the existing slow, burdensome and expensive 

federal regulation compliance process to allow this necessary infrastructure to be 

constructed within the next 10 to 25 years. 

Page 3 of 4 
50 

There is strong citizen support in the West for constructing new water storage and 

delivery prqjects. S.677 will streamline the existing federal permitting process and will 

still fully comply with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) and other federal laws. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present my thoughts. I will be happy to answer 

any questions. 

Page 4 of 4 
51 

Senator HOEVEN. Thank you, Mr. Davis. 

Now we will turn to Mr. Fisher, who is President of the Patterson Lake Homeowners Association. Thanks for your leadership and 

thanks for coming back—sorry that you had to make two trips— 

but it is great to have you here. 

Mr. Fisher. 

STATEMENT OF TOM FISHER, PRESIDENT, 

PATTERSON LAKE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION 

Mr. FISHER. Good afternoon. My name is Tom Fisher. I am President of the Patterson Homeowners Association. I am here today 

representing the 41 permit holders who have permanent homes 

along the shores of Patterson Lake near Dickinson in southwest 

North Dakota. We wish to be recorded in strong support of Senate 

bill S. 440. 

The Patterson Homeowners Association would also like to thank 

Senator John Hoeven for his sponsorship and support for this important legislation. I would also like to thank the fellow members 

of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee for the opportunity to speak to you today about the Senate bill S. 440. 

As a brief history, the Dickinson Dam was completed by the Bureau of Reclamation in May 1950 which impounds the Heart River. 

The dam, amongst the rolling hills and prairies, created the Edward Arthur Patterson Lake, which covers nearly 1,200 surface 

acres and 22 miles of shoreline. 

The original purpose of the dam and lake was as a municipal 

water source for the City of Dickinson, with recreation and irrigation as secondary usages. In 1991, the City of Dickinson began getting their water from Lake Sakakawea through the Southwest 

Pipeline Project and in 1996, the Southwest Water Authority was 

established to take over the management of the Southwest Pipeline 

Project. 

Since that change in 1991, the dam and lake are no longer utilized for the primary original purpose of construction. Patterson 

Lake is now used primarily for recreation and adds a tremendous 

quality of life to the City of Dickinson and to the surrounding communities. 

Speaking of the quality of life, in the last 15 months I have gotten to know all of the homeowners on a very personal level. I have 

heard many stories of barbeques, holiday gatherings, graduations 

and wedding receptions that have taken place in our neighborhood. 

I’ve also had non-association members ask me on a daily basis 

whether or not we have come up with a solution. Those conversations usually end up with me hearing about a breathtaking sunset 

that they have witnessed on the lake. Many others have told me 

about stories of being on the lake and how wonderful it is to have 

a resource like that just only minutes from town. 

Patterson Lake and the surrounding area has always been a 

major outdoor recreation destination for the residents of Dickinson, 

Stark County and the region, so continuing public access to the 

lake is important to everyone in the area. 

In our many discussions and interactions with the elected members of the Dickinson Park Board and the employees, maintaining 

that public access has always been paramount to those discussions 
52 

and everybody in the community looks forward to continuing the 

usage of the lake, parks, golf course and other activities currently 

available. 

Patterson Lake homeowners have been trying to purchase the 

lots around this lake for over 30 years. Over those years, the Patterson Homeowners Association has worked with and had many 

discussions with the local park board, city and county officials, 

along with the North Dakota Game and Fish Department and our 

local state legislators, Governor, as well as both the prior and current congressional delegation. 

During that time, each of these individuals has expressed support for our efforts. This bill is the culmination of those efforts and 

discussions. We have worked with and met with the Bureau of Reclamation, the Park Board Department and officials and city and 

county elected and appointed individuals to discuss how we can 

move forward in a positive manner. Those meetings have included 

the Executive Board of the homeowners association, the entire 

homeowners association membership, multiple meetings with staff 

of our congressional delegation and two meetings with Senator 

Hoeven himself. 

The Patterson Lake Homeowners Association takes very seriously the varied interests and concerns of all stakeholders, which 

is why it has been a priority to have transparent and constructive 

meetings to allow for full and open discussions. 

The homeowners take significant pride in not only the ownership 

of our homes, but the manner in which we maintain the land 

where our homes sit, as well as the other surrounding federal lands 

bordering our homes. We pay property taxes to Stark County and 

to the Dickinson School District for the assessed value of our 

homes, as well as a small usage tax for the land. Additionally, we 

pay an annual permit fee to the park board and these funds have 

been used to help maintain the public lands around the lake. If this 

bill is approved, we will pay additional further property taxes to 

the county and schools for the assessed value of the land, which 

will further benefit the community. 

With the passage of Senate bill S. 440, the homeowners will be 

given the option to buy the land under their permanent homes. For 

most of us, our home is our greatest investment and asset. This bill 

would allow financial lenders to use the land and all the improvements the homeowners have made over the years as securities. By 

doing so, this will open the opportunities so we can make improvements to utilize the equity for whatever purpose we deem necessary and appropriate. For example, lenders have now advised us 

that we can no longer take out home improvement loans for our 

homes or access the equity due to not owning the land underneath 

the structures. Passage of S. 440 will not only provide us the opportunity to make improvements to our homes, but it will also eliminate financial uncertainties. 

We are not asking for a giveaway as this bill will require that 

the land and the purchase price of the land to be established based 

on fair market value through a third-party appraiser in the same 

manner as the value for all other properties appraised. 

The Patterson Lake Homeowners Association members are very 

active in the community. Most have been on numerous volunteer 
53 

committees and boards and helped with countless city and county 

projects. The members are tax paying, productive, hardworking 

people who are excellent stewards of the lake and land that we 

choose to enjoy as homeowners. 

We, as homeowners, support the Senate bill S. 440. With this 

bill’s passage we too will have the chance to experience the American Dream of home ownership and security. 

Thank you for your time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fisher follows:] 
54 

Testimony of Tom Fisher 

President, Patterson Lake Homeowners Association 

Before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Subcommittee on Water and Power 

United States Senate 

June 14,2017 

Good Afternoon, my name is Tom Fisher. I am President of the Patterson Lake 

Homeowners Association. I am here today representing the 41 permit holders who have 

permanent homes along the shores of Patterson Lake near Dickinson in southwest North 

Dakota. We wish to be recorded in strong support of Senate Bill S.440. 

The Patterson Lake Homeowners Association would like to thank Senator John Hoeven 

for his sponsorship and support for this important legislation. I would also like to thank the 

fellow members of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee for the opportunity to speak to 

you today about the Senate Bill S .440. 

As a brief history, the Dickinson Dam was completed by the Bureau of Reclamation in 

May of 1950, impounding the Heart River. The dam, amongst the rolling hills and prairies, 

created the Edward Arthur Patterson Lake, which covers nearly 1,200 surface acres and 22 miles 

of shoreline. The original purpose of the darn and lake was as a municipal water source for the 

city of Dickinson, with recreation and irrigation as secondary usages. In 1991, the City of 

Dickinson began getting their water from Lake Sakakawea through the Southwest Pipeline 

Project, and in 1996, the Southwest Water Authority was established to take over the 

management of the Southwest Pipeline Project. Since that change in 1991, the dam and lake are 

no longer utilized for the primary original purpose of construction. Patterson Lake is now used 

primarily for recreation and adds a tremendous quality of life to the City of Dickinson and the 

surrounding communities. 

Speaking of the quality oflife, in the last 14 months, I have gotten to know all of the 

homeowners on a very personal level. I have heard many stories ofbarbeques, holiday 

gatherings, graduations and wedding receptions that have taken place in the neighborhood 

throughout the years. I also have had non-association members ask me on a daily basis whether 

we have come up with a solution. Those conversations usually end up with me hearing about a 

breathtaking sunset that they have witnessed out at the lake. Many others tell me stories about 

being on the lake and how wonderful it is to have a resource like that only minutes from of town. 

Patterson Lake and the surrounding area has always been a major outdoor recreation 

destination for the residents of Dickinson, Stark County, and the region, so continuing public 

access to the lake is important to everyone in the area. In our many discussions and interactions 

with the elected members of the Dickinson Park Board and the employees, maintaining that 

public access has always been paramount to those discussions and everyone in the community 

looks forward to continuing the usage of the lake, parks, golf course and other activities currently 

available. 

Page 1 of 2 
55 

Patterson Lake homeowners have been trying to purchase the lots around this lake for 

over 30 years. Over those years, the Patterson Lake Homeowners Association has worked with 

and had many discussions with the local park board, city and county officials, North Dakota 

Game and Fish Depa11ment, our local state legislators, Govemor, as well as both the prior and 

current congressional delegation. During that time, each of these individuals has expressed 

support for our efforts. This bill is the culmination of those efforts and discussions. We have 

worked and met with the Bureau of Reclamation, the Park Department Board and officials, and 

city and county elected and appointed individuals to discuss how we can move forward in a 

positive manner. Those meetings have included the executive board of the homeowners 

association, the entire homeowners association membership, multiple meetings with staff of our 

congressional delegation, and two meetings with Senator Hoeven himself. The Patterson Lake 

Homeowners Association takes very seriously the varied interests and concerns of all 

stakeholders, which is why it has been a priority to have transparent, constructive meetings to 

allow for a full and open discussion. 

The homeowners take significant pride in not only the ownership of our homes, but the 

manner in which we maintain the land where our homes sit, as well as the other surrounding 

federal lands bordering our homes. We pay property taxes to Stark County and the Dickinson 

School District for the assessed value of our homes, as well as a small usage tax for the 

land. Additionally, we pay an annual permit fee to the park department and these funds have 

been used to help maintain the public lands around the lake. If this bill is approved, we will pay 

additional property taxes to the county and schools for the assessed value of the land, which will 

further benefit the community. 

With the passage of Senate Bill S.440, the homeowners will be given the option to buy 

the land under their permanent homes. For most of us, our home is our greatest investment and 

asset. This bill would allow financial lenders to use the land and all the improvements the 

homeowners have made over the years as securities. By doing so, this will open the 

opportunities so we can make home improvements or utilize the equity for whatever purpose we 

deem necessary and appropriate. For example, lenders have now advised us that we can no 

longer take out home improvement loans for our homes or access the equity due to not owning 

the land under the structures. Passage of S.440 will not only provide us the opportunity to make 

improvements to our homes, but it will also eliminate financial uncertainties. We are not asking 

for a giveaway as this bill will require that the value and purchase price for the land be 

established based on market value through a third-party appraiser in the same manner as the 

value for all other properties is established. 

The Patterson Lake Homeowners Association members are very active in the 

community. Most have been on numerous volunteer committees and boards and helped with 

countless city and county projects. The members are tax paying, productive, hardworking people 

who are excellent stewards of the land and lake that we choose to enjoy as homeowners. We, as 

homeowners, support the Senate Bill S.440. With the bill's passage, we too will have a chance 

to experience the American Dream of home ownership and security. 

Thank you for your time. 

Page 2 of 2 
56 

Senator HOEVEN. Thank you, Mr. Fisher. 

Now we will turn to Mr. Hamman, Chief Engineer and CEO of 

the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District in New Mexico. 

STATEMENT OF MIKE A. HAMMAN, CHIEF EXECUTIVE 

OFFICER, MIDDLE RIO GRANDE CONSERVANCY DISTRICT 

Mr. HAMMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member King 

and members of the Subcommittee for the opportunity to testify on 

the New Mexico Drought Preparedness Act (the Act). I am Mike 

Hamman, the Chief Executive Officer of the Middle Rio Grande 

Conservancy District (the District) and have served in this capacity 

for two and a half years. I have over 32 years of public service in 

Western water resources management including 18 years with the 

Bureau of Reclamation, culminating in five years as the Area Manager in the Albuquerque area office, working primarily on Rio 

Grande issues. 

This Committee received our detailed written testimony for the 

record supporting this legislation, so I will focus my testimony on 

the very positive developments that have occurred in the Middle 

Rio Grande since this Committee last heard our testimony in October 2015. 

I’m very pleased, Mr. Chairman, to inform the Subcommittee 

that along with our partners, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the State 

of New Mexico, we have successfully negotiated a new Biological 

Opinion (BO) for the Middle Rio Grande that moves us away from 

the highly prescriptive measures of the 2003 BO toward a performance-based strategy that will use sound science and adaptive management process. 

The four objectives of this 15-year, non-jeopardy, Biological Opinion are to: operate the reservoir system to create more spring 

spawn and recruitment flows for the endangered silvery minnow; 

acquire water for summer survival flows to help minimize river 

drying; create and maintain more in-river habitat that increases 

flood plains at lower flows; and construct fish passage structures 

at three district diversion dams. Each of these requirements is well 

supported and enhanced by this bill, with these proposed changes 

and authorities for federal partners in the basin. 

Section Five of the Act requires that additional authority be afforded to re-operate Cochiti Dam in order to provide needed flexibility to meet the first and most important objective toward species 

recovery, particularly during drought years. The District strongly 

supports this critical action necessary for long-term survival of the 

silvery minnow and to meet human needs during times of shortage. 

We urge that Cochiti Pueblo will be consulted with early on so that 

any impacts to their lands are addressed thoroughly. 

We also recommend that all six Middle Rio Grande Pueblos be 

consulted regarding this legislation. 

The District is the lead agency engaged in four WaterSMART 

Grants with Reclamation under the 50/50 cost share requirements 

for these programs. We are: developing a drought contingency plan 

with basin stakeholders; performing a pilot on-farm efficiency 

project to encourage more farmers to improve irrigation practices; 

investing $700,000 in cost share for a water salvage pumping sta-
57 

tion that will provide water to support river marine habitat and to 

also supplement irrigation during low flow periods, it will be completed by 2018; and we have also joined with Reclamation to lead 

an Upper Rio Grande Basin Study from the Colorado border to Elephant Butte Dam involving a broad group of basin stakeholders. 

This bill will enhance these types of projects. However, given 

that a Rio Grande Basin Study will be underway soon, we suggest 

that under Section Six, the National Academy of Sciences be asked 

to serve as an independent science panel to peer review basin study 

work in the Rio Grande Basin in lieu of conducting its own study 

as they are restricted from including Elephant Butte Reservoir operations that is critical for a comprehensive study. 

Reclamation is also partnering with the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and the District to create a pilot Water Banking 

Program for willing lessors of pre-1907 water rights within the District. This would be consistent with Section 3 of the Act. 

The District fully supports reauthorizing the Secure Water Act, 

and we strongly support reauthorization of the Rio Grande Pueblos’ 

Irrigation Infrastructure Improvement Act that will continue to 

provide resources to our Pueblo partners to improve inefficient irrigation systems as they receive water from the District works. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman and Committee members, the District 

believes that passage of this legislation will assist in providing additional tools for federal agencies to use in helping state, tribal and 

local partners prepare this region for extended drought. 

The evidence is clear that drought conditions will persist given 

that during the last 15 years we have seen above normal snowmelt 

runoff in only five of those years and having experienced an unprecedented five consecutive years of below to well-below normal 

runoff in the Rio Grande Basin. 

We thank Senator Udall and Committee member Heinrich for 

their work in introducing this bill and this Committee for this 

hearing on drought preparedness so critical to the future of New 

Mexico. 

I stand ready for any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hamman follows:] 
58 

Written Testimony 

Submitted to the 

United States Senate 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

on 

s. 1012 

New Mexico Drought Preparedness Act of 2017 

Respectfully Submitted By Mike A. Hamman, PE 

Chief Executive Officer 

Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District 

Rio Grande Water Development in New Mexico 

The Upper Rio Grande originates in the San Juan and Sangre de Cristo mountain ranges in southern 

Colorado and northern New Mexico. It bisects the San Luis Valley in Colorado and the entire state of 

New Mexico with this reach culminating at Fort Quitman, Texas. This portion of the Rio Grande is 

administered under the Rio Grande Compact by a federal appointee and three Commissioners from 

Colorado, New Mexico and Texas with support from the United States Geological Survey, the Bureau of 

Reclamation, and the Army Corps of Engineers. The annual mean flow as measured at the Otowi gage in 

New Mexico is 1 million acre-feet with wide variation, ranging from 250,000 to 2.5 million acre-feet. 

Irrigated agriculture consists of approximately 600,000 acres in Colorado, 200,000 acres in New Mexico, 

100,000 acres in Texas. Additionally, up to 60,000 acre-feet is delivered to lands within the Republic of 

Mexico via the Rio Grande Project under the 1906 Convention between the United States and Mexico. 

The predominate crop due to climate, water supplies and labor considerations is alfalfa. Other crops 

include potatoes, chile, corn, fruit, onions and pecans. There is an improving 'farm to table' market 

serving a demand for locally produced agricultural products ranging from lettuces to melons as well as 

organically grown products particularly near and in municipalities. 

Due to rapid development in Colorado in the late 1800s, water shortages occurred in New Mexico and 

Texas on lands that had been irrigated dating back to the 1600s. Native American pueblo farmers, of 

course, irrigated even earlier. Litigation and international concerns led to the development of 

Reclamation's Rio Grande Project that built Elephant Butte and Caballo dams as well as a federal 

embargo against water development in Colorado and New Mexico pending the negotiation of the 1939 

Rio Grande Compact (Compact). Since that time, there have been significant legal challenges raised by 

the states during drought periods that led to amendments to the Compact. There is currently a 

Supreme Court case whereby Texas alleges that New Mexico's water administration rules within the 

Mesilla Bolson are allowing excessive groundwater pumping that limits surface water deliveries through 

the riverbed to Texas, and by extension, to the Republic of Mexico. This case has been assigned to a 

Special Master and is proceeding at significant cost to the litigants and the United States. The Special 

1 
59 

Master has issued his first report to SCOTUS recommending that New Mexico's motion to dismiss based 

on jurisdictional grounds be denied. 

The upper Rio Grande differs significantly from the Colorado River Compact. On the Colorado River the 

Secretary is the river master and can mediate differences between the seven states given the United 

States' ownership of main-stem and tributary reservoirs serving all seven states. There are only two 

main-stem reservoirs on the upper Rio Grande, Elephant Butte/Caballo dams above Las Cruces and 

Cochiti Dam 60 miles north of Albuquerque, which is operated only as a flood control feature by the 

Corps of Engineers. Federal reservoirs were developed case-by-case for specific purposes with narrow 

authorities; they were not planned for use in administering the entire Rio Grande. This means that the 

upper states of Colorado and New Mexico have minimal storage options and must survive on the whims 

of the climate through a "run-of-the-river" type operation while meeting downstream delivery 

requirements as determined by the Compact. There have been a number of water short (drought) 

periods that have tested the resilience of the Compact. The 1950s was the worst, until the drought that 

began in the late 1990s and persists today. This has been the first period in recorded history where 

there has been far below average spring runoff for five consecutive years. 

The Middle Rio Grande Valley and the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District 

The Middle Rio Grande Valley begins at the base of Cochiti Dam and extends some 160 miles south to 

Bosque del Apache National Wildlife Refuge. Approximately 65,000 acres are currently being irrigated in 

the Middle Rio Grande by the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District (District). The District operates 

and maintains over 1,200 linear miles of canals, laterals, ditches and drains to meet the needs of its 

irrigators within six Native American Pueblos (Cochiti, Santo Domingo, San Felipe, Santa Ana, Sandia, 

and Isleta) and four counties. The District serves the irrigation needs of the six middle Rio Grande 

Pueblos, which include 8,847 acres of lands with prior and paramount water rights and an additional 

11,951 acres of reclaimed irrigated lands. 

The District is a surface water management entity and does not hold any ground water permits for its 

operations. The middle valley water supply system is a "run-of-the-river" operation, meaning that the 

spring runoff and summer monsoons provide the predominant flows to four diversion dams in the 

middle valley. There is some upstream storage on the Rio Chama at El Vado Dam (maximum of 186,000 

acre-feet) to supplement late summer base flows. El Vado Reservoir storage is also limited by the terms 

of the Rio Grande Compact, making the middle valley subject to frequent shortages late in the season. 

During the drought of the 1950s, the State Engineer "closed" the Middle Rio Grande basin to further 

unpermitted ground water appropriations. This required that new ground water wells be permitted and 

that their depletions be "offset" through the retirement of existing surface water associated with pre1907 water rights. New Mexico and Colorado also incurred significant under deliveries to the Rio Grande 

Project during this period that severely restricted the District's use of El Vado Reservoir. This situation 

helped motivate completion of the San Juan-Chama Project to harness New Mexico's share of the 

Colorado River Compact, bringing an additional 96,000 acre-feet of water to the middle valley. This 

provided some relief but with shortages being experienced on the San Juan-Chama Project for the first 

2 
60 

time in 2014 and 2015, the climatic conditions and Compact restrictions are severely limiting the 

District's abilities to manage shortages during this prolonged drought. This year and last the basin 

experienced average and above average runoffs. These conditions have occurred in only five years since 

2001. 

Endangered Species Act litigation led to a 2003 Biological Opinion for Middle Rio Grande water 

operations. This solidified the Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Collaborative Program that 

authorized Reclamation to acquire San Juan-Chama project water from "willing" lessors to address 

habitat needs and set up a scientifically based adaptive management approach to conserve endangered 

species. The District is a prominent member of the Collaborative Program along with three federal 

agencies and twelve other state, tribal and local entities. The District has made significant commitments 

to off-set its actions and implemented conservation measures to advance the recovery of the silvery 

minnow, southwestern willow flycatcher, the yellow-billed cuckoo, and the meadow jumping mouse. 

The added conservation actions associated with the District's and Reclamation's operations have 

significantly enhanced the in-river conditions within the system but have reached their limitations based 

on water availability and the relative inflexibility of the federal reservoir system. The 2003 Biological 

Opinion was prescriptive and inflexible. The District, and its Biological Assessment partners (US Bureau 

of Reclamation, US Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission), 

consulted collectively with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and successfully completed the 

2016 Biological Opinion. The new Opinion (BO) has four major objectives: 1) Produce as many annual 

spring peak and overbank flows that produce silvery minnow spawn and recruitment conditions as 

available water and operational flexibilities allow; 2) Utilize system optimization and available summer 

flows to minimize river drying increasing the chances of summer survival; 3) Increase available habitat 

by lowering bank lines and creating backwater areas at for lower flow rates; and 4) Design and construct 

fish passage structures at the three District diversion dams. These four major objectives will be coupled 

with increased monitoring, continuing propagation as needed, and the implementation of a strong 

science program that will be based upon sound adaptive management strategies. It is envisioned that 

the Collaborative Program will be reinvented to become the core planning and science oversight 

mechanism for BO implementation and support for the agencies providing ESA compliance for the 

middle Rio Grande. 

The New Mexico Drought Preparedness Act of 2017(the Act), sponsored by both Senators Udall and 

Heinrich, is principally designed to build upon, enhance and reauthorize the Secure Water Act of 2009. 

It will enhance agency authorities to allow for resources and operational flexibilities necessary to 

address changing climatic conditions in the desert southwest and help agencies, irrigation districts, and 

other water users to better cope with the wide variations in water supplies while meeting the 

requirements of the Endangered Species Act. We also note that the Pueblo Indian water users in the 

middle Rio Grande will be affected by many sections of the Act and thus encourage significant 

consultation and coordination with those tribal governments to assure their interests are adequately 

protected. 

Section three of the Act proposes the establishment of a water acquisition program that is designed to 

assist in providing voluntary leasing options for farmers and other water right holders. This will allow for 

3 
61 

additional water to remain in the river to support endangered species and to assist the District with 

water management and efficiency improvements. The District generally supports this effort with the 

understanding that leasing actions are only useful if there is actual water available for the purpose 

identified. Taken in concert with other sections ofthe bill, this water-leasing program can be a useful 

but limited tool for promoting agricultural and ecological resiliency. The District is uniquely positioned 

to sponsor a "pilot" leasing program for assuring that pre-1907 water rights remained tied to the land, 

while affording an opportunity for a targeted water supply to be available to sustain important habitat 

areas located south of Isleta Diversion Dam. The District recommends that the language in this section 

be made clearer that the Secretary must consult with the Six MRG Pueblos about this program. 

Section four of the Act provides funding to address efficiency and conservation measures in areas the 

District and the MRG Pueblos believe are necessary for water management in the long-term, particularly 

in reaches of the river where summer drying is a common occurrence even in "good" water years. 

Actions already taken by the District to strategically deliver water to the river can be significantly 

enhanced by investments in efficiency measures focused on enhancing habitat where water is 

consistently available. The additional focus on the Isleta and San Acacia reaches of the river where it is 

most difficult to minimize river drying is welcome and the District has obtained a WaterSMART grant to 

build a pumping station at Neil Cupp that will replace a temporary pumping plant operated by 

Reclamation to allow for salvage drain returns to be used for in-river habitat maintenance, 

supplementing irrigation shortages, or both. The District is investing $600,000 as cost-share on this 

project. 

Section five of the Act addresses the need to provide critical flexibility within the federal reservoir 

system, with a particular emphasis on Cochiti Dam and Reservoir given that it is on the main-stem at the 

top of the Middle Rio Grande. Having the appropriate degree of authority provided to the Corps and/or 

Reclamation for managing a "conservation" pool for operational purposes will allow for spring pulse reregulation to more accurately meet fish spawn and recruitment flows, preserve in-system flows during 

monsoon events, and generally assist with Compact delivery needs (assuming the three states can agree 

on needed adjustments to the Compact). If the Army Corps of Engineers cannot deviate from current 

operations and retain the ability to modify operations in the long-term, spawning of the silver minnow 

will be difficult and the species may not be recovered. We fully recognize the potential impacts that any 

changes to Cochiti authorization, including temporary deviations in operations, may have to Cochiti 

Pueblo and we fully support any action necessary to address the Pueblo's concerns and request that the 

Pueblo be brought in at the very beginning of the process through formal government-to-government 

consultation. This is especially important given the physical and social damage that the construction of 

Cochiti Dam inflicted on the people and lands of Cochiti Pueblo. We also recommend consultation be 

extended to the other five MRG Pueblos who are downstream of Cochiti Dam and Reservoir and are 

affected by its operation. 

Section six of the Act addresses the need for a comprehensive review of the upper Rio Grande that 

includes federal reservoir authorities, the Rio Grande Compact, and water management practices within 

the basin. We support such a study and have become a primary local partner with Reclamation in the 

development and completion of such a basin-wide study (Upper Rio Grande Basin Study) that is already 

4 
62 

funded through Reclamation's Basin Study authority under the Secure Water Act. The District 

recommends that funding from this bill be dedicated to an independent science panel to provide a peer 

review process to help guide the Upper Rio Grande Basin Study process and provide assurance that it 

will have a scientifically-based focus with a sound and comprehensive review of policy matters with 

meaningful participation by agencies, Pueblos and other interests. As written, the Act has the NAS 

Study moving forward independently of the Basin Study process and we suggest this may be redundant 

and may fall short of what the Basin Study will be looking at given that the NAS Study would not be 

allowed to look at the reservoirs (Elephant Butte and Caballo) within the Rio Grande Project missing 

impacts of Rio Grande Compact requirements imposed on the upper basin. 

The District supports section seven as emergency drought funding during severe water shortages would 

be welcome assistance for water users within the District including the six MRG Pueblos. Sections 8, 9 

and 10 are also fully supported by the District with particular emphasis on the reauthorization of the Rio 

Grande Pueblo Irrigation Infrastructure Act. This is very important to the six MRG Pueblos and the 

District as we are strong partners in working together to leverage District, BIA, Tribal and Reclamation 

funds to construct and rehabilitate irrigation features to improve irrigation expand Pueblo irrigation 

features, improve efficiencies and provide drought resiliency. We also urge the Secretary of Interior, 

through the BIA and Reclamation, to consult frequently with our Pueblo partners in implementing this 

Act as well as the NM Drought Preparedness Act once it becomes law. 

The basin has experienced a brief relief as there was an above average snowpack in 2016 and now in 

2017 but long-term indications are that persistent drought may be the new normal in the southwest so 

the District and its partners will be working diligently to leverage all available resources to prepare for 

warmer and dryer years. These bills are designed to provide resiliency in times of drought and to 

maximize scarce resources for these purposes. The Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District will 

continue to do its part within its capabilities to achieve long-term and continuous improvements to 

preserve the agricultural and cultural uses of water while preserving the outstanding natural resources 

of the Middle Rio Grande Valley. 

5 
63 

Senator HOEVEN. Finally we will hear from Christopher Wynn, 

the Vice President of Northeast Operations for the Brookfield Renewable Group which has a significant portfolio in the State of 

Maine. 

STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER WYNN, VICE PRESIDENT, 

NORTHEAST OPERATIONS, BROOKFIELD RENEWABLE 

Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member King, members of 

the Subcommittee, good afternoon and thank you for the opportunity to appear today. My name is Todd Wynn, and I’m the Vice 

President of Northeast Operations at Brookfield Renewable. In that 

role, I oversee operations of all Brookfield’s hydroelectric and wind 

facilities in Maine, New Hampshire and Massachusetts. 

Brookfield Renewable is one of the largest, independent hydropower producers in the United States. Our portfolio is comprised 

of 88 percent hydroelectric generation. We operate these resources 

with an embodying global commitment to safety, environmental responsibility and community engagement. 

In the United States, we own and operate nearly 140 hydropower 

facilities and seven wind farms across 13 states. These facilities 

generate approximately 14 terawatt hours of clean, renewable and 

reliable energy, enough to supply one million homes and making us 

intimately familiar of the challenges of relicensing small and large 

hydropower facilities alike. 

Today, I’m here to support two bills proposed by Senator King 

that we believe will help support hydro owners and operators—the 

Small Dam Exemption Act and the Small Dam Information Act. 

Hydropower is a proven, long-life and reliable, renewable resource providing critical, baseload power and delivering a variety 

of important benefits to the electrical grid. As America’s first indigenous, renewable energy source, it contributes valuable fuel diversity and security to our domestic energy portfolio. It is also highly 

flexible, able to quickly ramp up and down to support fluctuating 

grid demands. This flexibility is critical for liability and helps to accommodate the increasing penetration of intermittent generation 

such as wind and solar. 

While hydropower facilities appear to operate nearly self-sufficiently, they’re actually a capital-intensive resource requiring continuous monitoring and re-investment to ensure reliable, efficient 

and safe operation. This investment helps stimulate local economies and sustain nearly 517 Brookfield Renewable jobs nationally. 

In Senator King’s home state, where we operate 39 small-scale 

facilities, we invested nearly $16 million last year. By creating an 

opportunity to streamline the FERC permitting process for small 

hydropower assets, Senator King’s Small Dam Exemption Act is an 

important initial step toward better acknowledging the value and 

importance of these resources. 

Although the FERC relicensing process is defined as five to six 

years, a hydropower relicensing sometimes takes eight to ten years 

to complete. Over 500 projects nationwide will begin their relicensing process between 2017 and 2030, representing about half of 

all hydropower projects licensed by the Commission. The vast majority of these projects are very small with a median install capacity of two and a half megawatts. 
64 

The cost to relicense a project is not directly tied to a facility’s 

energy output. A one megawatt project is forced to file the same 

licensing process as a 1,000 megawatt project. The cost of a single, 

hydro licensing process can vary considerably and can run to millions of dollars in certain cases. The challenge is especially acute 

with smaller dams and for smaller hydro operators. Small projects 

earn less revenue, making it more difficult for small projects to absorb or recover the costs associated with licensing and any protection mitigation enhancement measures. This is leading some small 

hydro operators to surrender licenses and/or decommission smaller 

projects. 

Providing FERC with the discretion to exempt certain small 

hydro projects from the relicensing process while still providing 

prudent and necessary environmental oversight is an important 

step toward streamlining the licensing process and recognizing the 

values that these resources provide. 

We applaud Senator King’s leadership on relicensing for small 

scale hydro and also wish to speak briefly on the Small Dam Information Act. While not directly impacting the majority of our portfolio we understand this Act seeks to study how requiring FERC 

licensing of small, non-powered dams balances with the challenges 

and burdens of the licensing requirements. 

As we noted previously in our testimony, FERC licensure can impose significant economic challenges. We believe to understand the 

various costs and options available to license non-powered dams 

can only be helpful to policymakers and regulators who might consider future legislation on this topic. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I welcome 

questions from the Committee. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wynn follows:] 
65 

Prepared testimony of Christopher Wynn, 

Vice President, Northeast Operations, Brookfield Renewable 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources' Subcommittee on Water and Power 

June 14, 2017 

Introduction 

Chairman Flake, Ranking Member King and Members of the Subcommittee, good afternoon and 

thank you for the opportunity to appear before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources' 

Subcommittee on Water and Power. My name is Todd Wynn and I am the Vice President of 

Northeast Operations at Brookfield Renewable. In that role, I oversee operations of all 

hydroelectric and wind facilities in Maine, New Hampshire and Massachusetts. 

Brookfield Renewable is one of the largest renewable power companies in the world, as well as 

one of the largest independent hydropower producers in the United States. Our portfolio is 

comprised of 88% hydroelectric generation, with the remainder coming from wind. We 

operate these resources with an abiding global commitment to safety, environmental 

responsibility and community engagement. In the United States, we own and operate nearly 

140 hydropower facilities and 7 wind farms across 13 states, including Maine, Louisiana and 

West Virginia. We are also an active participant in all FERC regulated markets. Our U.S. 

portfolio encompasses generation of approximately 14 TWh of clean, renewable and reliable 

capacity, enough to supply 1 million homes and making us intimately familiar with the issues 

and challenges of relicensing small and large hydropower facilities alike. 
66 

Today I am here to support two bills proposed by Senator King that we believe help support 

hydro owners and operators like Brookfield Renewable, S. 1029, The Small Dam Exemption Act, 

and S. 1030, the Small Dam Information Act. 

Role of Hydropower 

Hydropower is a proven, long-life and reliable renewable resource, providing critical, base load 

power and delivering a variety of important benefits to the electric grid. As America's first 

indigenous renewable energy source, it contributes valuable fuel diversity and security to our 

domestic energy portfolio. It is also highly flexible, able to quickly ramp-up and down to 

support fluctuating grid demands. That flexibility is critical for reliability and helps to 

accommodate the increasing penetration of intermittent generation, such as wind and solar, 

which is becoming increasingly important in power markets across the nation. An example of 

this is the use of existing hydropower to pair with wind or solar generation, creating a clean, 

firm energy product that can be delivered directly to the electricity load-centers that require it. 

Given its baseload and flexible profile, hydropower is uniquely suited to provide these sorts of 

optimized energy solutions. 

Hydropower also delivers considerable benefits to local communities, including low flow 

augmentation, flood control, irrigation and water supplies, as well as recreational opportunities 

such as fishing, swimming and boating. In many smaller or rural communities, hydro facilities 

are a significant community taxpayer, often providing a large percentage of municipal revenues 

and, in many cases, the majority of these revenues. 
67 

And while hydro power facilities appear to operate nearly self-sufficiently over many decades, 

they are actually a capital intensive resource, requiring continuous monitoring and 

reinvestment to ensure reliable, efficient and safe operation. For example, in Senator King's 

home state, where we operate 39 small scale facilities, we spent nearly $16 million dollars in 

2016 on regular facility maintenance and investments. This is a markedly different investment 

profile relative to other renewable energy sources, and it provides ongoing economic activity 

for host states and communities that, in turn, help stimulate local economies and sustain nearly 

570 community-based jobs. 

Yet despite the clear value and benefits hydropower brings to the grid, the environment and 

local communities, the resource is frequently an afterthought, afforded differential or 

discriminatory treatment under both state and federal policies. For example, right now, 

existing U.S. hydropower resources are not considered renewable under federal energy 

procurement standards. We note, however, that this concept was included in last year 

comprehensive energy bill and is again included in early versions of potential bills in this 

Congress. Existing hydropower is also typically considered a "Tier 2" resource in state 

Renewable Portfolio Standard programs, despite delivering an identical, if not superior, clean 

energy product. 

In short, we believe that hydropower is an undervalued resource under existing public policies 

and within regional energy markets. By creating an opportunity to streamline the FERC 

permitting process for small hydropower assets, Senator King's Small Dam Exemption Act is an 
68 

important initial step toward better acknowledging the value and importance of these 

resources. 

Relicensing Challenges 

Although the FERC licensing process is defined as 5-6 years, a typical hydropower relicensing 

actually takes 8-10 years to complete. Over 500 projects nationwide will begin the relicensing 

process between 2016 and 2030, representing about half of all hydropower projects licensed by 

the Commission, and about 30 percent of the total hydropower licensed capacity under the 

Commission's jurisdiction) The vast majority of these projects are very small, with a median 

installed capacity of 2.5 MW. However, the cost to relicense is not directly tied to a facility's 

energy output. A 1 MW project is forced to follow the same licensing process as a 1000 MW 

project. 

The relicensing process is complex and resource intensive for all the parties involved, including 

the licensee, state and federal jurisdictional agencies and stakeholders. The cost of a single 

hydro licensing process can vary considerably, but can run to tens of millions of dollars in 

certain cases- and this is in addition to the significant ongoing costs of maintaining the 

hydropower resource itself. The single largest cost driver associated with the relicensing of a 

project is environmental studies, which cover an array of topics including recreation, 

endangered species, cultural resources, fish passage and protection of aquatic and terrestrial 

resources. Brookfield Renewable typically spends $750k to $1.SM for the entire process costs 

Testimony of Ann Miles, FERC, before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Subcommittee 

on Energy and Power, May 13, 2015. 
69 

to relicense a single project and currently has 12 active relicensing. By 2020, that number will 

climb to 25 active relicensing projects. We estimate that Brookfield Renewable will incur $3.3M 

to $4.8M annually in relicensing process costs over the next five years. Additionally, a new 

license usually results in operating restrictions which lower generation output, while 

simultaneously increasing environmental enhancement costs. To that end, data compiled by 

the National Hydro Association since 1986 shows that relicensing project generation has 

declined by 10.7%; following mandated Protection, Mitigation and Enhancement Measures. 

The challenge is especially acute with smaller dams and for smaller hydro operators. Small 

projects bring in less revenue compared to projects that generate more power, making it more 

difficult for small projects to absorb or recover the costs associated with licensing and any 

Protection, Mitigation and Enhancement Measures. The prospect of incurring relicensing 

process costs as well as increased operational costs and lost revenue resulting from the 

relicensing process, is leading some hydro operators to surrender licenses and/or 

decommission smaller projects. The associated reduction in capacity or project retirements 

reduce the country's renewable energy baseline, increase carbon and other air pollutant 

emissions, and eliminate the benefits these facilities deliver to the grid and local communities 

alike. 

Providing FERC with the discretion to exempt certain small hydro projects from the relicensing 

process, while still providing prudent and necessary environmental oversight, is an important 

step towards streamlining the licensing process and recognizing the value these resources 
70 

provide. S. 1029 provides reasonable accommodation for resources that have no appreciable 

difference in their operations and are not within sensitive fish habitat. 

We applaud Senator King's leadership on relicensing for small scale hydro and also wish to 

speak briefly to S. 1030, the Small Dam Information Act. 

The Small Dam Information Act 

While not directly impacting the majority of our portfolio, we understandS. 1030 seeks to stud' 

how requiring FERC licensing of small, non-powered dams balances with the challenges and 

burdens of the licensing requirements. As we noted previously in our testimony, FERC licensurE 

can impose significant economic burdens. This is especially true for non-power producing 

dams, whose managers might choose to suspend ownership rather than progress through the 

licensing process. Such decisions have the potential to jeopardize the ecological and 

recreational value non-powered dams have provided to local communities and regions for 

generations. We understand this was an issue of particular concern for a dam manager in 

Senator King's home state. Again, while not directly impacting the majority of Brookfield 

Renewable's assets and operations, we believe understanding the barriers, costs and options 

available to licensed, non-power producing dams can only be helpful to policy makers and 

regulators who might consider future legislation on this topic. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today and I welcome questions from the committee. 
71 

http://envirostewards.rutgers.edu/Lecture%20Resource%20Pages/Energy%20resources/Smaii%20Hydr 

o/Nationai%20Hydropower%20Association.htm 
72 

Senator HOEVEN. Thank you, Mr. Wynn. 

I would also add that we received written testimony from FERC 

on Senator King’s two bills, S. 1029 and S. 1030. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
73 

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, DC 20426 

May 9, 2017 OFFICE OF THE CHAiRMAN 

The Honorable Lisa Murkowski, Chairman 

Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Chairman Murkowski: 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on S.l 029, a bill to amend the Public 

Utilities Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) to exempt certain small hydroelectric 

projects, and S.l030, a bill to require the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to 

submit to Congress a report on certain hydroelectric projects. 

Section 405 ofPURPA allows the Commission, by rule or order, to grant an 

exemption, in whole or in part, from the requirements of Part I of the Federal Power Act 

(FPA) to small hydroelectric projects having a proposed installed capacity of 10 

megawatts (MW) or less. Although the term used in the statute is "exemption," an 

exemption does not represent complete deregulation, but rather is a simpler form of 

license. The Commission has issued regulations implementing the small project 

exemption authority. Currently, in order to qualify for an exemption, a project, whether 

proposed or existing, must result in increased capacity. 

S.l 029 would amend section 405 to provide that the Commission may issue 

exemptions to small projects that: are subject to a license issued after June J 9, 1991; are 

located in an area that has not been determined to be critical to a species that has been 

listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act; and have an 

installed capacity of 15 megawatts or less. New exemptions would take effect after the 

expiration of current licenses and would be subject to existing statutory limitations and 

environmental conditioning authority. The bill appears to allow the Commission to issue 

exemptions to these types of projects regardless of whether they increase capacity. 

I have consulted with Commission staff and we are not aware that the inability of 

currently licensed projects to obtain exemptions at relicensing is a major issue for small 

project operators. Nonetheless, the expanded exemption authority could give added 

certainty and possibly improve the economic outlook for some licensees. I have one 

question about the bill. It appears to indicate that the Commission could continue to issue 

original exemptions to projects of l 0 MW ofless, but could issue exemptions on 

relicensing to projects of 15 MW or less. I am not certain why there should be a 
74 

-2-

distinction between new exemptions and licensed projects that are seeking to switch to 

exemptions; perhaps Congress could apply the 15-MW limitation in both instances. 

While most of the hydropower projects licensed by the Commission include 

generating facilities, there are some reservoirs included in licensed projects, and some 

stand-alone projects, that do not include such facilities, but rather serve the purpose of 

storing and releasing flows to facilitate downstream generation. 

S.l030 would require the Commission to submit to Congress, not later than 180 

days from the date of enactment of the bill, a report that: identifies non-powered storage 

projects; analyzes the value of generation and non-generation aspects of those projects; 

describes the ranges of options with respect to surrender or transfer of licenses; identifies 

barriers to surrender or transfer; and identifies the cost of license requirements relating to 

environmental protection, human safety, electric reliability, recreation, cultural resources, 

flood control, navigation, irrigation, and other matters. 

The Commission will be pleased to submit to Congress any information it 

requires. It would be helpful to obtain clarification regarding some oftbe items to be 

covered by the report prior to the Commission gathering the information from our 

licensees. For example, is Congress seeking information about projects consisting solely 

of storage reservoirs, or also about storage reservoirs that are part of licensed generation 

projects? With respect to the analysis of non-power values, is Congress seeking the cost 

of environmental and recreational measures or their financial value? The latter may not 

be easy to establish. given the difficulty in placing an absolute value on environmental or 

other matters. For example, the value of a fish or of a recreational opportunity is 

generally considered to be highly subjective. In identifying barriers to license surrender 

or transfer, is Congress looking for general or project-specific information? Projectspecific intorrnation may be difficult to obtain, since it will depend, in large part, on 

financial and other considerations faced by each licensee, which will vary from case-tocase and be best understood by licensees. 

As to costs incurred by licensees, the Commission does include in licenses the 

estimated costs of environmental measures, recreation, cultural resource protection, and 

Commission-imposed flood control measures. The Commission does not impose electric 

reliability measures in licenses and so could have difficulty determining the costs of such 

measures. Likewise, the Commission does not typically require irrigation measures, 

which are usually governed by state water rights, and so we would not have information 

on this topic. Finally, as to measures to protect human safety, the Commission requires 

licensees to undertake whatever measures are required to ensure public safety at the time 

these issues are identified through the Commission's ongoing, thorough dam safety 

inspection program. These measures are required whenever they are necessary and are 
75 

·3· 

imposed separately, rather than being determined during the licensing process and 

included in a license. 

I hope that these comments have been helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact 

me ifi can be of further assistance on this or any other Commission matter. 

Sincerely, 

Cheryl A. LaFleur 

Acting Chairman 
76 

Senator HOEVEN. At this point we will go to questions. I am 

going to start the questions. I do have to go preside on the Floor 

at 3:30, so I am going to try to get through. I might go a little bit 

over my time, so I will ask the indulgence of the Committee. Thank 

you. 

Senator Barrasso will be here to preside so that there will be 

plenty of time for all of you to ask any and all questions that you 

want to ask. 

Mr. Fisher, I am going to start with my questions for you. Public 

access to public lands is an important issue to all of us and certainly it is important to Secretary of Interior Zinke. We know that. 

You mentioned in your testimony the community’s usage of the 

lake and other activities. Can you tell the Committee here today 

a little bit more about the public access the community currently 

enjoys at Patterson Lake and will continue to enjoy if this bill is 

enacted? 

Mr. FISHER. Currently there are three main public access areas 

around Patterson Lake. Two areas are on the north side which include picnic areas, two boat ramps and a public beach. On the 

south side of the lake there is a picnic area, a boat ramp and then 

also access to the water for fishing. Fishing on the lake is actually 

a year-round thing. 

The community also enjoys miles of natural and paved walking 

paths around the edges of Patterson Lake, and with those walking 

paths those are also used year-round. 

Senator HOEVEN. Talk for a minute about the Dickinson Parks 

and Recreation Department and their continued commitment to 

public access and recreation. 

Mr. FISHER. Just from the meetings with the Dickinson Parks 

and Recreation Department, they have addressed, in their letter of 

support, their efforts to enhance the access for the public there 

while they also talk about what they have managed for the Bureau 

of Reclamation over the years and how they have enhanced the opportunities and support for the public accessibilities. 

Senator HOEVEN. They have submitted that letter for the record, 

correct? 

Mr. FISHER. They have. Correct. 

Senator HOEVEN. Which details their support. 

In your testimony you mentioned that the Patterson Lake Homeowners Association currently pays permit fees to the Dickinson 

Parks and Recreation to help maintain public lands around the 

lake. In addition to local property taxes, if this bill was to successfully pass and the homeowners are able to purchase their lots, they 

will no longer pay the permit fees to Dickinson Parks and Recreation. So you will be paying increased property tax fees as owners 

then of the property to support the county and the school, but you 

will not be paying the permit fees. I know you are not part of the 

Dickinson Parks and Recreation Department, but do you know 

what their plan is to cover the costs without revenue from the fees? 

Mr. FISHER. In the discussions I’ve had with the Park Director 

and the Board, they’ve planned to incorporate the operation and 

maintenance of Patterson Lake Recreation Area with their regular 

operating funds. 

Senator HOEVEN. Okay, so they have that covered? 
77 

Mr. FISHER. They’ve been planning this for years. 

Senator HOEVEN. Okay, is there anything else that you want to 

elaborate on as far as the history or anything else regarding the 

homeowners and the lots that are on Patterson Lake in their development? Any other thoughts? 

Mr. FISHER. Yeah. The original cabins and structures, they were 

originally built in the 1950s and 1960s and they were all constructed being seasonal use structures. Over the years, as the 

homeowners have lived there and the homes have changed hands, 

you know, people have added on to the actual cabin lots and sites 

by planting trees, establishing lawns. They’ve also helped maintain 

the shorelines to help slow the causes of erosion. 

And over those years, as things have happened, we had a chance 

many years ago to actually choose to become full-time, permanent 

residents which, unanimously, everybody chose to be full-time, permanent residents. And with that choice, over the years, those 

structures have grown into being beautiful, beautiful homes which 

you’ve seen when you were out there. 

Senator HOEVEN. I have been there. I have seen the homes, they 

are very nice homes. An incredible amount of improvements around 

the lake from riprap, trees, yards, like you are saying—really a 

beautiful place. And these are full-time, permanent residences, no 

question. 

Some questions for Secretary Cameron. Secretary Cameron, you 

mentioned in your testimony the Bureau of Reclamation acquired 

the lands needed to construct the Dickinson dam and reservoir and 

fulfill the authorized project purposes. My question, is the Bureau 

property under consideration in this bill necessary to fulfill the 

project purposes of the Dickinson unit? 

Mr. CAMERON. Senator, we don’t see any problem in terms of impairing the future operations of the Reclamation project or this legislation to move forward. We’ve got a very good, long-standing relationship with local residents, with Dickinson Parks and Recreation, 

and we don’t see any impediment to our operations. 

Senator HOEVEN. Secretary, I want to thank you for being here 

today. Thank you for your testimony on S. 440. I appreciate your 

feedback on the bill and will continue to work with you on your 

suggestions. 

I want to note that at the introduction of S. 440 we were contacted by the North Dakota Game and Fish Department regarding 

the land that it leases from the Bureau. We have taken that feedback into consideration and have worked with North Dakota Game 

and Fish to produce language that would also allow them to be conveyed the land that they currently lease. So we will work with the 

full Energy and Natural Resources Committee to include the updated language. 

I also am submitting a letter from the North Dakota Game and 

Fish Department in support of this legislation, S. 440. I also would 

like to make note of letters of support for S. 440 from the Dickinson Parks and Recreation, the City of Dickinson, and the Stark 

County Board of Commissioners and want to make them part of 

the record as well. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
78 

"Variety in Hunting and Fishing" 

May2, 2017 

The Honorable Ryan Zinke 

Secretary of the Interior 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

1849 C Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20240 

RE: $.440 

Dear Mr. Secretary: 

GOVERNOR, Dou,_q Burgum 

DIRECTOR, Terry Steimvand 

DEPUTY, Scott A. Peterson 

A number of months ago, it came to our attention that there was action underway to convey U.S. 

Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) lands to private landowners and local park districts around Patterson 

lake near Dickinson, North Dakota. During that process, there was concern that properties under lease 

from the USBR by the State of North Dakota (State), and through the North Dakota Game and Fish 

Department (Department) for purposes of providing offices, shop, and storage space for staff, might be 

affected if the lands were purchased by a private entity or transferred to the local park district Contact 

was made with Senator John Hoeven's office, and he and his staff were gracious in receiving input, then 

amending the bill to ensure the proposed transfers meet the intended purposes. 

As a result of the amendment, the Department supports S. 440 and, in particular, Section 4 (B), which 

allows transfer to the land currently under lease from USSR to the State without cost. This transfer 

would not affect any local taxes since the Department pays full taxes on properties owned and managed 

through our in lieu oftax program. 

Thank you in advance for your support of this bilL 
79 

Parks & 

Xecreation Endless possibilities ... 

May 3, 2017 

Honorable Ryan Zinke 

Secretary of Interior 

US Department of the Interior 

1849 C Street NW 

Washington, DC 20240 

Dear Secretary Zinke: 

701-456·2074 

Tax 701-456·2073 

2004 Talrwav Street 

Dickinson. NO 58601 

www.dicklnsonparks.orq 

On behalf of Dickinson Parks and Recreation, I submit this letter of support for Senate Bill S. 

440. We have worked closely with the Bureau of Reclamation, Patte1·son Lake Homeowners 

Association, and Senator Hoeven's Office during this process and support their efforts. 

Dickinson Parks and Recreation has worked cooperatively with the Bureau of Reclamation since 

1953 to manage Patterson Lake Recreational Area. We have worked hard over the years to 

increase and enhance recreational opportunities as well as support public accessibility. 

Patterson Lake has three boat ramps, beach, modern and primitive campgrounds, 1.8 miles of 

paved shared use path, 8 miles of nature trail, a championship disc golf course, numerous picnic 

shelters and acres of wildlife and greenspace. This facility is a tremendous resource to Dickinson 

and Southwest North Dakota, and we look forward to continuing that for many years to come. 

Dickinson Parks and Recreation is a political subdivision separate from the City of Dickinson 

with its own tax levying authority. The Board of Park Commissioners are elected to four year 

terms by the citizens of Dickinson. The Board administers the mission of the Department which 

is to ''P1'ovide recteational opportunities to enhance the quality of life for the community and its 

visitors.'~ This bill, sponsored by Senator Hoeven, will further enhance the mission of the 

Department and maintain, or increase, public access to the Patterson Lake Recreation Area. 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit this letter of support for Senate Bill S. 440. I would he 

happy to provide you with any additional information or answer any questions you may have. 

James Kramer, CPRP 

Director of Dickinson Parks & Recreation 
80 

• Administution 

o Assessing 

o Fin.mce 

o Information Technology 

.. CityAttomcy 

' o Hun~.t!l Resources 

www.dickinsonftre.tom 

\I'WW.dickinsonlibmy.org 

• Museum 

701-456-6225 

w\vw.did::insonmusenmccntcr.org 

701-456-7039 

CITY oF DICKINSON 99 2ND STREET EAST" DICKINSON,ND 58601 

701.456.7744 ""'v.dickinsongov,com fax 701.456.7723 

Honorable Ryan Zinke 

Secretary of Interior 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

1849 C Street NW 

Washington, DC 

RE: 5.440 

Dear Secretary Zinke: 

May 4, 2017 

On behalf of the Dickinson Board of City Commissioners, I am writing to express my support 

for the bill introduced by Senator Hoeven which wll! having a hearing before the Senate Energy and 

Natural Resources Committee on May 10, 2017. 

This bill will allow the home/cabin owners around Patterson Lake the opportunity to 

purchase the land under their residences, transfer lands managed by the Dickinson Parks & 

Recreation Department to their ownership, and also transfer !and to the State of North Dakota where 

an office for the NO Game & Fish Department is situated. The passage of this bill will provide more 

security for the home/cabin owners in that they can secure loans to make improvements on their 

homes and/or sell them to other individuals, who could then obtain mortgage financing, The transfer 

of the lands to the Park Department will provide more flexibility to them as they continue to provide 

recreational services to the citizens of Dickinson, Stark County, and the surrounding region. The 

additional transfer of the land to the State of North Dakota will also relieve the U.S. Bureau of 

Reclamation from the responsibJHty of being an ongoing landlord, something I understand they 

would love to get out of. 

Patterson Lake and the surrounding land falls within the City of Dickinson Extra-Territorial 

Jurisdiction and, as such, the City already has zoning and building code jurisdiction for that area. The 

city took the lead in the development of the Crooked Crane Trail, immediately north of Patterson 

Lake. The city has a vested interest in seeing the area is properly maintained and will work with the 

Park and Recreation to ensure the continued recreation activities at and around the lake that our 

citizens have long enjoyed. Based on my knowledge of the community, there has been no opposition 

to this/and transfer and as such, I express my strong support for this bill. 

• PublicWorks 

701-456· 

o Buildulg&SitesjConetery 

7979 

~ 

Sincerely, ~ 

· o Forestw Scott Decker, President 

o Street ,;nd Fleet City of Dickinson Board of City Commissioners 

o So!id Waste 

Senator John Hoeven 

Shawn Kessel, City Administrator 

t:Kebook.comjcityofdickinsmmd • £Kebook.com/dickinson-fire-dcpartment • faceb{)ok.com/dickinsonlibra.ty • faccbook.com/dickinsonpJ 

Mission 
81 

Honorable Ryan Zinke 

Secretary of the Interior 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

1849 C Street NW 

Washington, DC 20240 

RE: 5.440 

Dear Secretary Zinke: 

May 3, 2017 

At the formal meeting of the Stark County, North Dakota Board of Commissioners on Tuesday, 

May 2, 2017, the Board voting unanimously to support the bill sponsored by Senator John Hoeven that 

would allow the homeowners around Patterson Lake in Stark County, ND to purchase the lots under 

their homes. It is our understanding that this bill will also transfer the lands managed by the Dickinson 

Parks & Recreation Department to them as well as a small parcel to the State of North Dakota where the 

North Dakota Game & Fish Department has an office and shops, 

We have been aware of the issue and concerns of the homeowners at Patterson Lake for a 

number of years and fully support their efforts and the bill sponsored by Senator Hoeven. It is my 

understanding that there will be a hearing before Senate Energy and Natura! Resources Committee on 

May 10, 2017 and we want to make sure that you are aware of and understanding of our position. 

Based on information provided to the Commissioners by the homeowners at Patterson lake and 

other stakeholders, we feel that this bill is a win-win. The homeowners will be able to have certainty 

and stability through the purchase of the land under their homes and the sale to the homeowners and 

the transfer of the other lands to the Park Department and the State will have no adverse impact on the 

citizens of Stark County or the region. The lake, recreation areas, and golf course are heavily used by the 

public and there will be no adverse impact on the public as a result of this bill. Furthermore, Stark 

County and the Dickinson School District will also receive direct benefit from the bill. The homeowners 

already pay ad valorem taxes to Stark County and the School District based on the assessed value of the 

structures, plus a small possessory interest tax for the land. Once they own the land, they will be fully 

taxed on the assessed value of the land, in addition to the structures, and this will provide some 

additional revenue for both Stark County and the School District. 

As we have not received any negative feedback regarding this proposed action and as it will be a 

benefit to all parties, on behalf of the Stark County Board of Commissioners, I am in full support of SA40 

as sponsored by Senator Hoeven. 
82 

Senator HOEVEN. Does the amended language I mentioned which 

would provide conveyance of land permitted to cabin owners and 

land managed by the Dickinson Parks and Recreation to extend to 

the North Dakota Game and Fish Department alleviate your concerns regarding, ‘‘fractionated ownership with continued Reclamation oversight responsibilities and costs,’’ that you referenced in 

your testimony regarding the North Dakota Game and Fish leased 

land? 

Mr. CAMERON. Yes, Mr. Chairman, that would be very helpful 

and we appreciate your doing that. 

Senator HOEVEN. Okay. I would also note that the concern raised 

in your testimony regarding liability is also addressed in the 

amended language, and I welcome any feedback that you may have 

on it once you and whoever at Interior needs to take a look at it 

does so. 

Again, you have been absolutely fantastic to work with in this 

process. We will continue to make sure that we address anything 

that you bring forward to us, but I do want to thank you very 

much. 

Mr. CAMERON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We appreciate your response on this and your willingness to move ahead 

here to benefit the community and the homeowners. 

Senator HOEVEN. Also, Mr. Fisher, thank you for being here and 

for your good work. 

I do have other questions from Chairman Flake, but I am going 

to turn those over to Senator Barrasso as well as the gavel at this 

point and turn to Senator King for his questions. 

Again, thanks to all of you. 

Senator KING. Mr. Chairman, I understand that Senator Heinrich has a commitment in a short time, so I am going to yield my 

first round of questions to him. 

Senator Heinrich. 

Senator HEINRICH. Thank you, Senator King. I will point out 

that the Acting Chairman has said how beautiful this lake is, but 

he said nothing about the fishing and I find that very much out 

of character, but we will solve that later. 

I want to turn back to S. 1012 and really start by thanking Senator Udall for the incredible work that he and his staff have done 

on this legislation over time. It has been an absolute pleasure to 

work with him on this legislation. 

As my first question, I was going to ask Mr. Hamman to walk 

through some of the things the District has done to deal with the 

drought conditions that we have seen for a number of years now. 

I think you have effectively done that, but I want to take this as 

an opportunity to commend you and commend your board members. 

We have seen more proactive measures taken in the last couple 

of years than in many, many years before. It really is, I think, a 

testament to your board members and your leadership just how active you have been on this front and how much progress is being 

made. So I want to say thank you. 

Mr. Hamman, how might we facilitate water leasing as we are 

looking at setting up a pilot project? How do we make sure we do 
83 

that in a way that is beneficial for water rights holders as well as 

for the natural environment? 

Mr. HAMMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Heinrich. 

The process that I think will work, at least in the initial stages 

of getting this program up and running, would be to work closely 

with the state engineer’s office and Reclamation and the National 

Fish and Wildlife Foundation to do an inventory to fully determine 

the extent of the pre-1907 water rights that are in the basin. 

And then have an outreach effort for the owners of that, of those 

rights, to encourage the opportunity for them to, in lieu of outright 

transfer and sale and severance of those rights from the land, to 

actually have another alternative for them to achieve some kind of 

an income stream to work directly with the District through a 

water bank that we would likely manage and would relish the opportunity to manage, quite frankly, in addition to the water bank 

we currently manage, to afford those folks that opportunity. 

And then we would work with various NGOs and Reclamation 

and others to determine how an instream flow process might work 

and how you convert an irrigation right that doesn’t have storage 

rights to a storage right that can be used in a way that can protect 

the species of interest during the summer months when we have 

the most trouble—— 

Senator HEINRICH. Right. 

Mr. HAMMAN. ——keeping the river from drying out below Isleta 

Diversion Dam. So that would be the focus that we’d work on 

there. 

Senator HEINRICH. Excellent. 

Before my time is out, I want to switch over to Mr. Cameron real 

quickly. Can you talk a little bit about how the Bureau has used 

water leasing in other basins to help ameliorate some of the 

drought stresses that some of our basins are under? 

Mr. CAMERON. Senator Heinrich, I’m probably best advised to 

give you a more detailed response for the record. 

Senator HEINRICH. Okay. 

Mr. CAMERON. I will say more generally, however, that we 

strongly support the notion of water leasing—any way that one 

could use markets to move water around consistent with state 

water law is advantageous to everyone involved. 

So we strongly support the notion, and I can give you, perhaps, 

a detailed example for the record. 

Senator HEINRICH. That would be just fine. 

Real quick, my last question for you, Mr. Cameron. Would greater flexibility in authorization language for dam and reservoir management help the Bureau better respond to droughts? 

Mr. CAMERON. Yes, I think it would, Senator. And we welcome 

that, that would be helpful. Frankly, a drought situation needs as 

much flexibility as you can get your hands on. 

Senator HEINRICH. Yes, I hear you. 

Thank you very much. Thanks to all of you for your testimony 

and for being here today. 

Senator BARRASSO [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Heinrich. 

Senator Daines. 

Senator DAINES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
84 

I want to start off by welcoming back Mayor Jeff Sell. As the 

Mayor of Harlowton, right there in Wheatland County, you know 

first-hand the challenges of lacking access to clean water. Unfortunately, during your last visit here to speak on behalf of your community, you were caught up in all that is wrong with Washington, 

DC. You flew all the way out here to share your story and be the 

voice for rural Montana and for rural America, and you were not 

allowed to speak. 

I want to thank you for returning here to share your thoughts. 

You had to bear additional expense and share your insights on this 

critical issue that affects thousands of Montanans. 

Water is a basic need of life. There are rural communities in 

Montana that lack access to the basics of clean and reliable drinking water. In fact, if you look at this—I have a picture here I am 

going to show in a minute—you are going to see what the quality 

of water is like in one of the affected communities in Montana. I 

will have Steven put that up. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
85 
86 

This is a picture from Roundup, and you can see when you open 

up a hydrant what we got out of there in Roundup, Montana. In 

fact, I have water samples here that were taken from kitchen sinks 

in Circle, Montana, just East of Harlowton and a little bit, well, 

pretty much due East. Here is one from the Hans Family, taken 

out of their faucet. Here is one from the Good Family. Here is one 

from the Arneson Family. I have more, but I told my staff member, 

just give me three. I could show you many, many more samples 

just like it. These samples were taken from the kitchen sinks in 

Circle, Montana. We are not talking about a Third World country, 

we are talking about the United States of America. We are talking 

about Montana. 

In light of that, I have introduced Senate bill 685, the Clean 

Water for Rural Communities Act, with my colleague from Montana, Senator Tester. This bill would authorize two Bureau of Reclamation rural water projects critical to Montana, the MusselshellJudith Rural Water System and the Dry-Redwater Regional Water 

Authority System. Authorizing these two projects would be an important step in providing clean and safe drinking water to nearly 

36,000 Montanans and North Dakotans. 

Mayor Sell, Harlowton has serious issues with the wells used to 

provide your town with water. Unfortunately, Harlowton is just one 

example of numerous communities in Central and Eastern Montana that are facing severe drinking water challenges. The 

Musselshell-Judith Rural Water System would provide a clean and 

reliable water supply to your area, and I am impressed by the fact 

it has a demonstrated benefit-to-cost ratio of 1.28 to 1. 

So my question, Mayor Sell, is what benefits can we expect to see 

if we were to approve this project? 

Mr. SELL. Mr. Chairman, Senator Daines, we realize that authorization of this project does not get us any funding from the Federal 

Government at this time. But to use Mr. Cameron’s words, it would 

allow us to get in the queue at the Bureau of Reclamation for future funding, if that did become available. 

Reclamation entered into numerous agreements with the 

CMRWA over the last 12 years to put this water system together. 

Reclamation has committed time and money, roughly $700,000 to 

this project already. 

Basically, with the short construction season that we have in the 

State of Montana, if this project were authorized we would be able 

to access state and local funding to get this project started and 

then if our current administration does provide infrastructure 

funding, like has been talked about numerous times over the last 

few months, we would have a project that would be completely 

shovel ready and we could get this project built in a very short 

amount of time. 

Senator DAINES. I think that is something that folks lose sight 

of when you are from a northern state. We sometimes say we have 

nine months of winter and three months of bad sledding. 

Mr. SELL. Correct. 

Senator DAINES. So, to restate, what could be accomplished with 

authorization, even if the federal dollars were not appropriated? 

Mr. SELL. We would be able to get, probably, design. We would 

be able to get land access rights and the design of the first phase 
87 

of the project completed and possibly even get water to the first 

two communities in the first phase of the project which are Judith 

Gap and Harlowton. 

Senator DAINES. Alright. Thank you. 

I have some more questions, Chairman, but I am out of time. 

Thanks. 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator King. 

Senator KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Cameron, S. 677 looks like a very sensible bill in terms of 

it providing a coordination of a one-stop shop. Is this in any way 

duplicative of processes that you already have, or do you think this 

would be useful authority? 

Mr. CAMERON. Senator King, I do think it would be helpful. One 

of the challenges that we have as a Federal Government, and 

frankly state governments as well, in environmental reviews is that 

different agencies run their own processes along their own 

timelines, very often difficult to coordinate. They, way too often as 

I suspect you learned in your experience with hydropower in New 

England, are done sequentially as opposed to simultaneously. 

So we think this legislation would help control the expense and 

the duration of environmental reviews. And that, I think, would 

benefit the environment and would also certainly benefit the 

project proponents. 

Senator KING. I completely agree and we incorporated changes in 

our own law in Maine when I was there to do just this. One of the 

problems with the sequential is you can need 27 permits and if you 

get them all except 26, you are out of luck and you have made an 

enormous investment. 

I think anything we can do in the way of one-stop shopping, coordination in one lead agency, would be beneficial. I complement 

the Chairman on this bill. I think it is something we are going to 

have to look carefully at and be sure the language works, but the 

concept, I think, makes a lot of sense. 

Mr. CAMERON. If I could elaborate, Senator. Sometimes agency 

number 17 wants a change that’s inconsistent with agency number 

5 and you find yourself in an endless do loop which makes matters 

even worse. 

Senator KING. And that is when we get into these 10-, 12- and 

20-year permitting processes which really do not serve any purpose, in my view. 

Mr. Gabriel, do you have any objection to S. 930? You talked 

about the changes you have made in terms of transparency and 

clarity of your work. Do you welcome this bill or do you view it as 

unnecessary? 

Mr. GABRIEL. Well, we believe that this bill is in line with what 

we are looking at in terms of transparency. The only concern that 

I would express is we want to make sure that whatever is in the 

bill is actually answering the questions that the customers have because we can be chasing lots of information and then still not have 

folks satisfied. 

So we’ve been working carefully with Senator Flake’s staff and 

we’ll continue to do so. I’m all for transparency. Everything we’ve 

been doing in the last four, four and a half years, is moving down 

that path. So we have no issues with the bill itself. I just want to 
88 

make sure that the details are well spelled out so we’re answering 

the right questions. 

Senator KING. Thank you. 

Mr. Wynn, you mentioned you have both wind and hydro. One 

of my concepts for many years is the use of hydro as the battery 

for wind in terms of intermittency. Are your projects adjacent in a 

way that you could do that or is that a conceivable concept at some 

time in the future? 

Mr. WYNN. I believe it is, Senator. You could combine the hydro 

and the wind so when the wind isn’t blowing you could, kind of, 

offset or complement with hydro generation. I think that’s—— 

Senator KING. As I recall, most of your hydro is run-of-the-river 

though, isn’t it, or do you have storage? 

Mr. WYNN. We do have several storage facilities, especially in the 

headwaters of the Penobscot, Kennebec and Androscoggin Rivers. 

Senator KING. So that would definitely be a place where you 

could pair that with a wind project? 

Mr. WYNN. Absolutely. 

Senator KING. Where you have the storage. 

Talk to me about the costs of relicensing a small project. I mean, 

it was striking what you said: that the relicensing of a one megawatt dam is the same as for a 1,000-megawatt dam. That really 

strikes me as very, very difficult. Tell me about that situation. 

Mr. WYNN. The cost for a small facility for relicensing can be a 

very big burden. Small facilities earn less revenues, generate less 

cash and therefore, the owner or licensee of a small facility would 

have a difficult decision to make if you’re burdened or facing significant relicensing costs. The amount of time to recover that would 

just be a long period of time. And then you’re making the tough 

decision if you should surrender or decommission a facility. 

Senator KING. And isn’t it true that we are in danger of losing 

significant hydropower by people that are just saying, ‘‘I can’t afford the capital investment involved in a relicensing,’’ and we lose 

the power? 

Mr. WYNN. I think that’s right. I think that some of the small 

facilities face that burden. 

Senator KING. The second bill that I have in is essentially a 

study of the relicensing of storage dams, of non-powered development. Do you see that as useful, for generating useful information? 

Mr. WYNN. I do. I think—we own and operate several storage 

dams in the State of Maine. I think they provide great benefit, and 

just having a better understanding of them would be a good thing 

to know. 

Senator KING. But again, if a storage dam doesn’t produce any 

revenue, it makes the challenge of justifying the relicensing even 

greater. 

Mr. WYNN. Yes, absolutely. That’s correct. 

Senator KING. Well, I have to say one of the reasons I submitted 

this bill is I think this is a problem generally. We legislate around 

here for everybody. For example, financial regulation that is designed for big banks ends up hitting credit unions and small community banks with an equal regulatory burden that is way disproportionate to what those institutions are doing. So this is ex-
89 

actly the same problem. We are aiming it at this small hydro relicensing. 

I appreciate your testimony, and I appreciate your management 

of those great resources in Maine. As you said, I think it is one of 

the largest privately-owned hydro systems in the country, and very 

much a part of our history. I want to thank you for coming and testifying before us today. 

Mr. WYNN. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator King. 

Senator Daines, you had a last question? 

Senator DAINES. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have one question that I wanted to ask, it is for Mr. Cameron. 

Congress passed the Rural Water Supply Act to establish and carry 

out a rural water supply program in Western states. After 12 years 

and over $3 million spent by the Federal Government, the State of 

Montana and local communities, the Musselshell-Judith Rural 

Water System was found to be feasible and to have met the broad 

criteria of the program. Yet the Bureau of Reclamation will still not 

recommend this project for authorization. Mr. Cameron, what good 

does a feasibility approval do if the project will not be authorized? 

Mr. CAMERON. Senator, I completely am sympathetic with the 

basis of your question there. 

Our—we certainly recognize the fact that there’s a positive benefit cost ratio with this project. And were there, if an amount of 

funds were available, I think, yeah, we’d align it to fund it. 

Our concern really is reflecting the fact that Congress has authorized a number of projects already, well in excess of $1 billion. 

Roughly, $50 million is being appropriated every year and we’re 

concerned, frankly, about raising expectations which we might not 

be able to fulfill through the appropriations process. 

But I certainly agree that this is a good project. I certainly agree 

that no one should be asked to drink brown water, you know, such 

as you’ve exhibited here in the photographs. And we’re very sympathetic with the plight that these communities in Montana are facing. Secretary Zinke has underscored that for us on more than one 

occasion, I might add. 

Senator DAINES. Yes. My concern is that we are stewards of taxpayer dollars to make sure the resources that are devoted to the 

development of these projects, they are not just wasted. You go 

through all these feasibility studies and so forth and then no action 

is taken. 

Mr. CAMERON. I would agree with you. I think to some extent 

this is consistent with some of the subject matter of S. 677 in that 

there’s an excessively prolonged evaluation process. And I think, 

perhaps, having a better understanding up front what the project 

proponents, about the sort of obstacles that they’re facing, and trying to expedite the reviews would be beneficial for everyone involved. 

What’s happened with these two projects in Montana, unfortunately, is history. You know, at this point we can’t wind the clock 

back 10 or 15 years and start over. 
90 

Senator DAINES. Well, I am glad you are there now and I am 

sure as we go forward here, we are looking forward to making 

progress. 

Thank you, Mr. Cameron. 

Mr. CAMERON. Yes, sir. 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Manchin. 

Senator MANCHIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Wynn, this will be for you. You met with the West Virginia 

Alloy Manufacturing Company on June 9th. 

Mr. WYNN. The company did, Senator. I’m responsible for operations in New England, but other members of the company did. 

Senator MANCHIN. Oh, okay. 

I was kind of happy that we were tied together with New England and Maine. 

Contrary to what some people believe, West Virginia is not just 

all about coal. A lot of it is about coal, but we have an ‘‘all-in’’ energy policy. 

The meeting was about the release on the flow levels at the 

Hawk’s Nest hydropower facility in New River in Fayette County. 

The American Whitewater Association is proposing increased releases and flow from the facility which would increase rafting access for about one and a half miles. If that proposal is successful 

it would impact the level of electricity produced by the dam. Therefore, the West Virginia Alloy Manufacturing Company could face 

increased costs of at least a half a million dollars a year because 

they would need to purchase power from American Electric Power 

(AEP) at a much, much higher cost. 

Now the following questions will give you an opportunity to address these concerns we have and I am sure you are familiar with 

them on this project. Brookfield Renewable owns and operates at 

Hawk’s Nest and Glen Ferris facilities. 

Mr. WYNN. That’s right. 

Senator MANCHIN. Correct. And that is on New River. 

It is my understanding that they are currently working through 

FERC relicensing, which we know the challenges we have there, 

for several licenses for those two projects which provide clean, affordable power to the community. I think both projects are how 

many megawatts? One? Less than ten? 

Mr. WYNN. I don’t know, sir, off the top of my head. 

Senator MANCHIN. Oh, okay. They are very small. 

I recently met with West Virginia Alloy Manufacturing Company 

which employs 240 people and has an 80-year history producing 

high-quality silicon for the chemical, metal and solar industry 

which is very little of that produced in this country right now. 

The company’s production process is very energy intensive. Potential loss of a portion of that supply is concerning to these folks. 

The reason it is concerning is they have, with the 240 employees, 

about $1.1 million in taxes. They are talking about a release that 

would cost them half a million dollars. 

We have a lot of rivers to raft on, and I am all for the rafting 

industry and all for the recreational industry, but there comes the 

time when you put a pencil to it and a chance of losing 240 jobs 

and taxes of $1.1 million. Does it make sense? I mean, they are 
91 

going through this process and there is a chance they might not be 

relicensed. 

Have you all done economic impacts? Are you showing the economic impacts? 

Mr. WYNN. I apologize, I’m not very familiar with that relicensing. I know that, generically speaking, when we go through a 

relicensing process we work with various large groups of stakeholders. In this case, the facility you’re speaking of, the whitewater 

rafters, other groups, recreation groups, environmental groups, et 

cetera. 

So, I apologize for I won’t be able to speak to the details of that 

facility. But generally speaking, we work very hard to work with 

all groups, economic impacts, recreation, environmental. 

Senator MANCHIN. No, but I am saying, I do not know what the 

highest priority is from FERC. We are asking for a relicensing here 

to continue to operate as it has operated for over 80 years. 

Mr. WYNN. Correct, sir. 

Senator MANCHIN. There has not been any rafting in that one 

and a half miles for 80 years. We have hundreds of miles of rafting 

available, but I have 240 jobs at stake for that one and a half 

miles, that is all I am asking. 

There has got to be some common sense somewhere, maybe Mr. 

Cameron, do you have any? 

I meant, not common sense, I meant—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BARRASSO. Let the record reflect the question has been 

clarified. 

Mr. CAMERON. On more than one occasion, Senator, I’ve been accused of not having any common sense. 

Senator MANCHIN. Well, we found out it is not real common here 

in Washington, so do not be surprised. 

Mr. CAMERON. Yes, sir. I was actually sitting here listening and 

I was saying to myself, the Senator has got a great point. This 

doesn’t make a lot of sense. 

Senator MANCHIN. You know, I really agree. Senator King’s bill, 

S. 1029, it is a great bill, a great piece of legislation and I do not 

know why—do you know where we are on that Senator, if you can 

bring me up to speed? 

Senator KING. The good news is it is co-sponsored by the Chairman of the Subcommittee. That is always a good sign. 

Senator MANCHIN. That should make it fly. 

Senator KING. I hope. 

Senator MANCHIN. Anyway, I think some of these certificates, recertification—and they take into consideration the size, the proportion of what we are asking for and the amount of cost—it is just 

wearing people out, it just wears them out. 

We have an ‘‘all-in’’ energy policy in West Virginia. We want all 

the hydro we can get. We want all the wind and solar. We have 

the coal. We have been blessed with coal and natural gas. We have 

a little bit of everything, and we want to use everything to the best 

of our ability, but sometimes our own government gets in our way 

and makes it very hard for us to do what we need to do. 

The cost of electricity in West Virginia has gone up because 90 

percent of our power was coming from coal and the overreach of 
92 

regulation from the Obama Administration drove the price through 

the sky and never cleaned up one thing. We have already taken on 

all the new regulations but the cost now has doubled in West Virginia, a 50 percent increase. 

This little project is so important for the economics for it to work 

there. If it does not, it will not work. So I am preaching to the 

choir, I think. Okay, thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Manchin. 

Well, I am pleased to be here at this first Water and Power Subcommittee hearing of this Congress. I am glad all of the witnesses 

have made it back today. And we all agree good, clean water with 

strong, reliable infrastructure is essential for communities all 

across America. 

Since the beginning of this year, the Full Committee, alone, has 

held more than five hearings focused on infrastructure. We have 

heard from experts across the country in a variety of fields from 

electric utilities, our national labs and water conservation districts. 

The common theme in recommendation we received is that the current federal permitting process is broken and needs improvement. 

That is why we are here today to discuss a number of bills, one 

of which is S. 677, the Water Supply Permitting Coordination Act. 

It is also known as the ‘‘one-stop shop.’’ This bill is going to streamline the current multi-agency permitting process which often draws 

out and delays the construction of new surface water storage by 

creating this one-stop shop permitting process at the Bureau of 

Reclamation. 

Mr. Cameron, I want to thank you for your testimony on this bill. 

I appreciate you taking the time to work with my staff to discuss 

and get a better, fuller understanding of the bill. The bill seeks to 

clarify what is currently a timely and confusing permitting process 

for many. 

I noted the comments and the suggestions in your written testimony that we can use to strengthen the bill. Would you be willing 

to continue to work to address some of those points in your written 

testimony? 

Mr. CAMERON. Absolutely, Senator Barrasso. We’d be delighted 

to do that. 

Senator BARRASSO. Great, I very much appreciate it. We would 

be happy for you to work with my staff helping iron out some of 

the details. 

Mr. Davis, I want to thank you for your support of this bill, S. 

677. There is certainly a need for additional water infrastructure 

across the West. As the general manager, as you are, of the Yuma 

County Water Users’ Association, you work closely with the Bureau 

of Reclamation and it is the agency in power to coordinate new 

projects under the bill. Will you please describe some of your experiences with the Bureau of Reclamation and why you think they 

are the appropriate lead agency for this type of effort? 

Mr. DAVIS. Well, the era of dam building was thought to be over 

a number of years ago, Senator Barrasso, but recent drought has 

proven in the West that new storage infrastructure is going to have 

to be built to meet the ever-increasing demands of water in the 

West. And the Bureau was the key entity, the key agency all those 

past years to developing the West. That’s why the Reclamation Act 
93 

was formed, passed in 1902, reclaimed the West and then the first 

thing necessary was water supply and building dams. 

I think it’s recognized, from California to Oklahoma, that to survive long-term droughts we’re going to need more storage because 

of the population growth in the West. It’s natural that the Bureau 

of Reclamation is the agency to go to for that because traditionally 

they’re the experienced agency in being able to do this. 

The challenge for them is being able to regulate and manage and 

wrangle these other federal agencies that are, sort of, Johnnycome-lately to the process of building dams and they have other interests other than just building dams to impound water for public 

use. 

And so, the Bureau is the obvious agency to be in charge of this 

process, to set timelines and controls on the other agencies to get 

the permitting process. 

I think that if this is implemented it’s not going to have any negative impact on the NEPA process and the other federal laws that 

are required to build this infrastructure. It’s, like Mr. Cameron 

said, it’s a time factor that it allows the Bureau to put these folks 

and these other agencies in shape in a timely manner to get their 

processes done. 

Senator BARRASSO. In your answer you used the word timelines, 

time and timely. Could you just talk a little bit about why you 

think the timeframes set forth in this bill are important? 

Mr. DAVIS. I think the timeframes are important just because of 

the cost that the time, extended timelines, it finally—those entities 

that are trying to get these structures constructed either run out 

of money, run out of time, run out of interest, run out of, you know, 

it’s finally—the stalling process can have an effect of completely 

stopping a project from ever getting built. And so, the timeline is 

important. 

The other important thing about this bill, it allows the states to 

be involved. These projects have been and often involve, not only 

federal land, but state land and private land, and the states are 

often the ones that are stuck with the later management of some 

of these areas and it allows the states to help speed up the time 

process maybe by pumping some money into the process and maybe 

also putting in some timely information as far as data and scientific studies. So it allows the states to be a partner there and be 

involved which is, I think, absolutely necessary to get one of these 

projects done in the future. 

Senator BARRASSO. Yes. I would also like to ask a couple of questions on behalf of Senator Flake who, as you know, has been preoccupied with the tragic events that took place earlier today. 

To you, Mr. Davis, this is a question from Senator Flake about 

the Western Area Power Administration customers who are interested in providing input into the capital investment projects. But 

it doesn’t sound like there is a similar input in the operations and 

maintenance budget. Would you please run through some of the 

customer concerns and frustrations with the lack of transparency 

on headquarters’ O&M budget? 

Mr. DAVIS. Yes, you know, the customers have always had pretty 

good input, at least some veto power into the capital projects, and 

we review those annually on a 10-year basis. 
94 

It seems that our cost increases and the cost increases to my 

WAPA transmission costs have been about six percent a year for 

the last five years. And it seems to be most of that is in the operations and maintenance side of the equation which we have very 

little input into. 

I like the idea of transparency, but I like even more the idea of 

customer involvement. And that’s one thing that we’re working out 

in the Desert Southwest region of Western. We have a very customer-oriented manager there and he’s been very open. He’s been 

supportive of Mr. Gabriel to be very open, to the customers involving themselves in the process, not only of helping select capital 

projects to be put into the 10-year queue, but also to looking at 

staffing needs and other type O&M costs that are ongoing. 

We want to be careful with this transparency legislation, that it 

is meaningful but it doesn’t increase cost to the point that it’s not 

economic to do so. 

So we want transparency, but we also want to be actually involved in, somehow, decision-making in the process. And this technical, Customer Technical Committee we’ve put together working 

with the Desert Southwest Office, I think, is going to get to the bottom of this. I think it’s going to be a good example or a good showcase for other regions to follow to get more customer involvement 

to help control rates and yet do the necessary maintenance and operation that needs to be done. We’re not trying to let our systems 

run down. We want them to be maintained, state-of-the-art, but we 

want the money to be spent efficiently. 

Senator BARRASSO. Well I appreciate all of you here. I am going 

to submit a couple additional questions from Senator Flake for the 

record, and I am going to have one for you, Mr. Cameron, that I 

will also submit for the record. There are a couple reservoir 

projects in Wyoming that are well behind schedule due to lengthy 

federal approval processes. On May 2nd I sent a letter to the Acting Director of the Bureau of Land Management asking about the 

status. We have not received a response yet. I am hoping that you 

can help make sure we get that response in a more timely manner, 

and we will submit that in writing. 

Mr. CAMERON. Yes, sir, I’ll follow up when I get back to the Department as well. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much. 

Well, thank you all for being here today. This is a great start for 

the work of this Subcommittee that we are going to do during this 

Congress. 

For the information of other members, questions may be submitted for the record before the close of business on Thursday. The 

record will remain open for two weeks. I hope you will be able to 

get your questions submitted to us in a quick manner. We ask the 

witnesses to respond promptly when you do. 

I thank all of the Subcommittee members who are here as well 

as those of you who were able to appear to testify. We apologize 

for the inconvenience it caused you earlier, and thank you all very 

much for being with us today. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:58 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.] 
(95) 

APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 
96 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Subcommittee on Water & Power 

June 14, 2017 Hearing: Pending Legislation 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Mr. Scott Cameron 

Questions from Senator John Barrasso 

Question 1: Could you please provide me with an update on the status of the Leavitt Reservoir 

Expansion project and the Alkali Creek Reservoir project reviews underway in the Bureau of 

Land Management's D.C. office? 

Response: The Leavitt Reservoir Expansion project and the Alkali Creek Reservoir project 

Notice oflntents (NQls) are currently under final review by the BLM and the Department. Both 

of the proposed projects aim to either construct or expand reservoir resources to assist in late 

season irrigation, alleviate flooding concerns and provide recreational use. Not only is the 

Leavitt Reservoir project proposal a component of Governor Mead's 2015 Wyoming Water 

Strategy, but both projects also provide support for traditional uses on public lands like ranching, 

farming and angling. We recognize the importance of serving our local communities in this way 

and I have been informed that the BLM is working on these notices as expeditiously as possible. 

Question 2: Could you also provide when the Notice of Intent for these projects is expected to 

be published in the Federal Register? 

Response: The BLM and the Department are working diligently to move these NO Is forward 

with the goal of publishing them in the Federal Register within the next two months. 

Question from Senator Martin Heinrich 

Question: Has the Bureau of Reclamation implemented water leasing programs in basins other 

than the Middle Rio Grande? What has been the experience of the Bureau in implementing water 

leasing in those basins? What have been the challenges, lessons learned, and successes of those 

water leasing programs? 

Response: Reclamation has over 40 years of experience partnering with local water districts 

throughout the 17 western states to facilitate water transactions in order to enable greater 

flexibility in the use of water resources and Reclamation facilities to meet a broad array of water 

demands. Water leasing is a type of water transfer generally limited to a limited time period, as 

opposed to direct, permanent sale of water rights. 1 Reclamation plays a central role in water 

transfers when its facilities are used to store or convey non-project water, the proposed water 

transfer impacts Reclamation contractors, or Reclamation purchases water for the purpose of 

environmental flows or water for wildlife. The primary drivers for water transfers vary, but are 

generally associated with water supply shortages, the high cost or difficulty of developing new 

supplies, and the differences in value between alternative water uses. 

1 The tcnn "water leasing" is generally. but not exclusively. used in the context of Indian water rights settlements. 

while the term ··water tmnsfers" refers more broadly to the range of activities Reclamation participates in to assist 

moving water between willing buyers and sellers. 
97 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Subcommittee on Water & Power 

June 14,2017 Hearing: Pending Legislation 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Mr. Scott Cameron 

Reclamation has had an integral role in water transactions, including facilitating transfers of 

water amongst its stakeholders utilizing federal facilities. A few examples of water transactions, 

including water leasing, include Reclamation's involvement in the allocation of water in 

California through the Central Valley Project and the Colorado River. ln the first instance, the 

Central Valley Project and California State Water Project allow for water to move between 

locations and users, thus allowing for a robust market for water transfers, especially during dry 

years. In the case of the Colorado River, Reclamation participated in the development and 

implementation of the State Qualification Settlement Agreement, which quantified the share of 

California's apportionment of Colorado River water and allowed for transfers of Colorado River 

water among Colorado River users. In Colorado, between 2007 and 2015, about 140,000 acrefeet of water per year was transferred from Colorado-Big Thompson Project contract holders to 

other water users within the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. Native American 

water rights settlements enacted by Con~:,>ress often authorize water leasing for settlement water, 

which can provide a stable revenue stream for a Tribe and a water source for communities near 

an Indian reservation. 

The availability of water transfers is largely dependent on the unique circumstances of the 

Reclamation project, federal and state law, or local conditions. Because water markets are 

based on water sources derived from federal, state, or local water rights, and because such rights 

vary, the exact form and practice of water markets vary. Functioning water transfer markets 

require the existence of willing buyers and sellers, where there are sufficient economic 

incentives for water users to pursue water transfers. The absence of adequate water 

infrastructure to move water among water users can hinder the facilitation of water transfers. 

Reclamation's general deference to state law that govern the control, appropriation, use and 

distribution of Reclamation project water, complicates Reclamation's ability to develop a 

uniform water transfer process. Certain uses may not be considered beneficial under state law, 

such as instream flows, thus narrowing the types of water users that can participate in a water 

market. Legislation authorizing a Reclamation project specifies the project purposes and 

generally identifies the project's service areas, which can also narrow the scope of potential 

buyers. Water transfers can also have a variety of adverse economic, social and environmental 

impacts on third parties. 

Reclamation has developed several recommendations to remove impediments to water transfers, 

which include identifying and evaluating opportunities for increased efficiencies relating to 

environmental compliance, creating a centralized source of information for water transfers, and 

reducing transaction costs by making information generated or compiled by Reclamation 

available, including information related to the approval process required, NEPA compliance, 

and potential fees or charges. Reclamation continues to pursue opportunities to facilitate water 

transfers as a valuable tool in managing the competing needs for water in the West. 

2 
98 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Subcommittee on Water & Power 

Jnne 14,2017 Hearing: Pending Legislation 

Questions for the Record Submitted to Mr. Scott Cameron 

Questions from Senator Angus S. King, Jr. 

Question 1: I understand the intent of S. 677 is to help streamline permitting processes, but I 

also understand the bill is considered problematic by environmental groups, and concerns 

have been raised that the lanb'llage may be duplicative to existing policy. 

In testimony you submitted, you suggest that S. 677 establishes policy that already exist, but you 

also acknowledge the importance of streamlining and expediting permitting processes. What 

can the Bureau do administratively to address these challenges and address water challenges in a 

more sustainable manner? When can and will administrative actions be taken to address these 

challenges? 

Response: As noted in our testimony, Reclamation supports efforts to streamline and expedite, 

in a manner consistent with law, environmental reviews and approvals for all infrastructure 

projects, including new surface water storage projects. Surface water storage projects create 

multiple benefits, including reliable water supplies, flood control, hydropower, and water 

quality improvements. The Department is looking into some of the factors that often curtail the 

authorization of new surface storage projects, such as often costly, unpredictable, and timeconsuming environmental review processes; or identifying additional, non-federal cost-share 

partners to finance the repayment of new projects. We continue to look at ways to streamline 

and expedite the approval of infrastructure projects, and in doing so, aim to identify new and 

viable surface storage projects. 

Question 2: Can you expand on what aspects of S. 677 are duplicative efforts of Title 41 of the 

FAST Act and offer specifics? 

Response: Title XLI of the FAST Act established a process to expedite the federal approval of 

infrastructure projects that would likely require a total investment of more than $200 million, 

including water resource projects. The Act creates a council composed of relevant permitting 

agencies to designate lead agencies for covered projects, develop recommended performance 

schedules, establish best practices, and shorten the time in which challenges can be made to 

final decisions. Similar to S. 677, the Act pertains to any license, permit, approval, finding, 

determination, or other administrative decision issued by an agency- including the Department 

of the Interior- that is required or authorized under federal law. Like Section 3(a) of S. 677, the 

Act creates a mechanism to identify a lead agency to work with project sponsors to expedite the 

approval process. The Act requires the lead agency to identify and notify cooperating agencies 

that have financing, environmental review, authorization, or other responsibilities with respect 

to the proposed project, as does Section 3(b) of S. 677. The Act also requires the lead agency to 

establish a permitting timetable for action by each participating agency on any federal 

environmental review or authorization required for the project, similar to Section 4(b )(3) of S. 

677. 

3 
99 

June 14, 2017 

The Honorable Jeff Flake, Chairman 

The Honorable Angus King, Jr., Ranking Member 

U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Subcommittee on Water and Power 

304 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Chairman Flake and Ranking Member King, 

On behalf of our more than 200,000 members, I am writing to express our positions on the bills 

before the Subcommittee today. We opposeS. 677, supportS. 1012, and support in conceptS. 

I 029 and S. I 030. We appreciate the hard work that has been put into these bills so far and look 

forward to working with the Senators and staff to improve them, as able, before they move to 

consideration by the full Committee. Our comments on the bills are provided below. 

S. 677, the Water S'upply Permitting Coordination Act 

American Rivers understand that new surface storage projects are a consideration as part of a 

multi-faceted portfolio aimed at addressing long term drought in the Western United States. We 

also share Congress' view that long-term, balanced solutions to drought and water supply 

security that support and protect local economies, the viability of agriculture, municipal water 

supplies, recreation, and the riparian environment are critical to the future of Western 

communities. S. 677, however, fails to provide a long-term, balanced solution, and goes far 

beyond the scope of authorities vested in tbe Bureau of Reclamation (the "Bureau") while 

undermining the critical role other federal agencies, tribes, and states play in the permitting of 

water supply projects in the West. We remain concerned about the potential harmful impacts to 

management authorities designed to protect streams and conserve watersheds. In light of these 

concerns, we ask you to opposeS. 677. 

This legislation amends the Reclamation Act, 43 U.S.C 371, et seq., in a way that 

undermines the management authorities of other federal agencies, tribes, and states. S. 677, 

allows the Bureau to preempt state laws and procedural requirements for agency decisionmaking by dictating unreasonable deadlines. It also weakens authorities under Endangered 

Species Act and Clean Water Act, as well as other federal laws, by subordinating all other State 

1"!0114th Street, NW Suite 1400 I Washington, DC 20005-5637 phone 202.347.7550 i fax 202.347.9240 AmericanRivers.org 
100 

and federal agencies to the Bureau's sense of how much time those administering agencies 

should have to do their jobs. 

Specifically, S. 677: 

Designates the Bureau as the lead agency and allows the Bureau to set the schedule for all 

federal authorizations, including those issued pursuant to the Clean Water Act (CW A), the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), the 

Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA), and other 

federal authorizations, even where those authorizations have been delegated or devolved to the 

states or Native American tribes. 

Forces all other federal, state, and tribal agencies to comply with the Bureau's schedule and 

to defer to the Bureau's proposed scope of environmental review. 

Effectively waives the Endangered Species Act or the Clean Water Act if a state, tribe, or 

federal agency cannot meet the Bureau's schedule or misses a deadline. The Bureau and the 

project applicant may simply proceed with the proposed action and the authorization is waived. 

There are no similar remedies or penalties if the Bureau or the project applicant fails to meet a 

deadline, or if delay caused by Bureau or the project applicant results in an agency missing a 

deadline. The end result of this and the following provisions could be that states and tribes may 

be forced to deny certification for new projects in order to avoid potential legal liability. 

It is important that federal natural resource agencies retain the authority and responsibility to 

condition operations of surface storage projects so as to protect streams and other public 

resources. A key part of protecting watersheds, especially in the arid West, is maintaining 

healthy flows in streams. For years, American Rivers has worked with the federal land 

management agencies, tribes, states and other stakeholders to protect healthy river flows on 

public lands. Federal land managers, states, tribes and the public have an important role to play 

in protecting streams - based on the Property Clause of the Constitution, Section 505 of the 

Federal Land Policy and Management Act, and other authorities - and they also have a 

responsibility to work with their stakeholders to do it right. Provisions of S. 677 would harm the 

ability of federal land managers, states, and tribes to use these authorities to protect streams, 

rivers, and vital fisheries. 

We opposeS. 677, and urge Congress to carefully consider the impacts of the legislation on 

federal, tribal, and state authority before proceeding further and determine if legislation is 

needed. 
101 

S.I012, the New Mexico Drought Preparedness Act 

American Rivers supports S. 1012, the New Mexico Drought Preparedness Act. We share 

Congress' view that long-term, balanced solutions to drought and water supply security that 

support and protect local economies, the viability of agriculture, municipal water supplies, 

recreation, and the riparian environment are critical to the future of Western communities. 

Upgrading aging, century-old irrigation and water delivery infrastructure in the West is an 

opportunity to build t1ood and drought resilience through improved water storage and delivery 

and improved river health. Restoration of watershed function is a sound investment that pays 

dividends over the long-term. Linking a water infrastructure project with upstream or 

downstream investments in natural aquatic functioning increases the cost-effectiveness of the 

project and increases the range of project benefits. We ask that the Committee supportS. I 012. 

American Rivers' specific comments on sections of the bill are as follows: 

• Section 7, Emergency Funding 

American Rivers strongly supports making financial assistance available to 15 different kinds of 

projects that address drought impacts to water supplies and other water-related crises, or that 

help water suppliers engaged in collaborative processes to restore the environment, including at 

the basin level. Turning to unsustainable ground water pumping during drought exacerbates 

water scarcity, and ultimately worsens drought impacts over the long term. Some emergency 

drought relief funds have unfortunately promoted such counter-productive drought response 

measures in the past. American Rivers asks the Committee to support the following change to 

Section 7, to avoid paying for unsustainable groundwater pumping during drought: 

Delete the word pumps in subparagraph (I) of subsection 7(b ), and 

Delete the phrase and other areas in subparagraph (2) of subsection 7(b ). 

In addition, to avoid having water saved through the important efficiency activities listed in 

Section 7(b) be used for purposes other than the environmental benefits for which they are 

intended, the Committee should add a subsection (c) barring such practice. One example of this 

kind of safety clause is in §9504 of the SECURE Water Act, 42 U.SC. §10364(a)(3)(B), which 

directs the Secretary of the Interior not to: 

provide a grant, or enter into an agreement, for an improvement to conserve irrigation water 

unless the eligible applicant agrees not-

(i) to use any associated water savings to increase the total irrigated acreage of the eligible 

applicant; or 

(ii) to otherwise increase the consumptive use of water in the operation of the eligible applicant, 

as determined pursuant to the law of the State in which the operation of the eligible applicant is 

located. 
102 

• Section 8, SECURE Reauthorization 

American Rivers strongly supports reauthorization of the SECURE Water Act. Through its Basin 

Study and WaterSMART grant programs, this Act has been a critical component of the efforts to 

restore water supply and demand balance in the Colorado River Basin and elsewhere in the West. 

• Section 9, Emergency Drought Relief Act Reauthorization 

American Rivers strongly supports reauthorization of Reclamation's Emergency Drought Relief 

Authority funding. With less than $12 million left under the current appropriation, American 

Rivers urges the Committee also to raise the cap on appropriations from $90 to $110 million. 

In addition, American Rivers encourages the Committee to amend the Act to reauthorize 

Reclamation's authorities in Title I, by extending to the year 2022 the date in 40 U.S. C. 

§22l4(c). Title 1 allows Reclamation to purchase water, make its project water available, lease 

water or make funding available to lease water, and to participate in state water banks on a 

temporary basis during drought, including specifically for protecting or restoring fish and 

wildlife resources. This authority has proved critical around the West in maintaining endangered 

species populations during drought. 

• Sec. 11. Regional Conservation Partnership Program 

American Rivers strongly supports the Natural Resources Conservation Service's Regional 

Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP), created in the 2012 Farm Bill. Public/Private 

partnerships created by the RCPP have proven to be an important tool to fund "water quantity 

conservation, restoration, or enhancement projects relating to surface water and groundwater 

resources, including the conversion of irrigated cropland to the production of less water-intensive 

agricultural commodities or dryland farming; or irrigation system improvement and irrigation 

efficiency enhancement. .. " as well as drought mitigation, water retention, and habitat 

consetvation, restoration & enhancement. 

• ~Sec. 12. Conservation Reserve Program 

The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), 16 U.S. C. §3831, has proven both important and 

useful in preserving our nation's agricultural lands. CRP ensures an "equitable balance" among 

the conservation purposes of soil erosion, water quality, and wildlife habitat. 16 U.S.C. §3831(i). 

Within CRP, there is the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Prof,>ram (CREP), through which 

the Farm Service Agency (FSA) partners with States who determine which of their owners may 

be compensated for removing environmentally sensitive lands from production. American Rivers 

supports both CRP and CREP. Section 12(a) ofS. 1012 would expand CRP conservation priority 

4 
103 

areas, designated because of"special environmental sensitivities," 16 U.S.C. §3831(!)(1), to 

include areas whose water quantity in adversely affected as a result of agricultural activities. 

S. 1029, to amend the Public Utili(y Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 to exempt certain small 

hydroelectric power projects that are applyingfor relicensing under the Federal Power Actfrom 

the licensing requirements <if that Act and S. 1030, a hi/I/o require !he Federal Energy 

Regulatm:y Commission to Congress a report on certain hydropower projects. 

American Rivers support in conceptS. 1029, a bill to amend the Public Utility Regulatory 

Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA) to exempt certain small hydroelectric power projects that are 

applying for relicensing under the Federal Power Act from the licensing requirements of that 

Act, and S. 1030, a bill to require the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to submit to 

Cont,>ress a report on certain hydropower projects. The direction of S. I 029 is significantly 

improved over Senator King's previous bill (S. 1338 in the 1141

h Congress), and we appreciate 

the time and effort devoted to more narrowly tailoring the legislation to expedite licensing while 

preserving critical environmental oversight. 

It is a commonly held misconception that small dams have small impacts. Depending upon the 

siting of a hydropower project, its impacts can be felt throughout the river system. A poorly sited 

dam, regardless of its size, can injure property rights, jeopardize enforcement of trust and treaty 

obligations, and decimate fisheries. The steep decline in (and now absence of) wild salmon in 

New England is a prime example of the negative impacts of bad siting and deficient fish passage. 

Modern improvements in fishways and watershed management have greatly increased the 

number of American eel, herring, alewife, and other foundational fish populations present in 

America's rivers coastal waters. Such recovery, however, would not be possible without 

sufficient review of licenses by the National Marine Fisheries Service, the states, and other 

necessary parties currently engaged in hydroelectric licensing. 

American Rivers supports the responsible development and operation of low-impact hydropower 

projects. We also believe that infrequent licensees need special attention and flexibility in the 

application review process. The landscape of hydroelectricity is different in the East than in the 

West. Particularly, New England rivers lack the force and size of many of the rivers hosting 

hydroelectric projects along the Pacific coast, which has promoted the development of more, 

smaller dams. Viewing these projects in isolation is unlikely to restore damaged fisheries that 

provide Americans with essential subsistence, recreational, commercial value. The federal 

regulatory process for hydroelectricity is collaborative and ensures that the public's interests are 

represented for both power and non-power impacts of hydroelectric projects. 

While S. 1029 is a strong improvement over previous legislation regarding smaller capacity 

hydroelectric projects, American Rivers has concerns regarding exempting projects from federal 

oversight while not expressly empowering states to oversee them. Furthermore, enabling FERC 
104 

to declare itself no longer responsible for dam safety on certain projects without providing the 

states sufficient funding to take over its responsibilities could further overburden inspectors. 

There are also issues of cybersecurity that arise when FERC is no longer overseeing operations 

at a project that is connected to the national grid; as states do not regulate hydroelectric dams, 

they lack the technical sophistication, engagement, and expertise in cybersecurity that the federal 

government possesses. 

Regarding S. 1030, we believe that there is significant untapped potential for increased 

hydropower generation at existing facilities through technology and efficiency upgrades. New 

hydropower generation on existing water infrastructure is a vastly underserved market; we have 

encouraged laws and policies promoting such development and are committed to further working 

on responsibly cultivating this potential. The information this bill requests from FERC may lend 

itself to the development of non-powered structures assisting in the powering of structures 

farther downstream. Not every dam is suitable for development as an energy producer, however, 

and more information about the uses and costs at a given structure could help inform whether 

development at a similar structure would be either profitable or environmentally advisable. 

Due to the collaborative process outlined in the Federal Power Act, and the need to balance 

power generation with responsible resource management, outdoor recreation, and water quality 

required by the Electricity Consumers Protection Act, hydroelectric projects do more than simply 

produce low-carbon energy. The measurable benefits to Gust to name a few) fisheries, forestry 

management, quality of drinking water, protection of cultural and historical sites mentioned in S. 

1030 would not be possible in an oversight regime that was limited exclusively to the Federal 

Eners'Y Regulatory Commission (FERC). Allowing the American people to see more clearly how 

hydroelectric licensing protects public interests in addition to putting power in the grid could 

promote the responsible hydroelectric development and operation long championed by American 

Rivers. To that end, it might be beneficial to the study and its use in hydropower development if 

it included an accounting from FERC not simply on costs to licensees, but benefits to the public 

from healthy fisheries, clean water, and the outdoor recreation economy. 

We thank Senator King for his continuing effort to promote responsible hydroelectric 

development serving the multiple interests of the American people. American Rivers commits to 

work collaboratively with him on S. 1030 and with him and Senator Flake on S. 1029 to the 

greatest extent we are able. Improving efficiency, allowing for a manageable process that does 

not sacrifice the environment, ensuring proper management of shared natural resources, and the 

promotion of outdoor recreational safety are top priorities of our members and organization. 

Safeguarding our natural resources and promoting responsible policies and resource development 

is a critical concern of American Rivers. American Rivers is grateful for the hard work of these 

6 
105 

bills' sponsors and looks forward to continuing to work with them and their staffs to improve 

them further, as able. 

Sincerely, 

Jim Bradley 

Vice President for Policy and Government Relations 

7 
106 

NEW MEXICO 

May 10,2017 

Senator Tom Udall 

531 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Senator Martin Heinrich 

303 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Udall and Senator Heinrich: 

Randall Davey Audubon Center 

P.O. Box 9314 

Santa Fe, '\'11 8750-!--931-t 

Tel: 505-983-4609 

Fax: 505-983-2355 

The National Audubon Society writes to express our support for the New Mexico 

Drought Preparedness Act of2017 (S. 1012), because we believe it will strengthen New 

Mexico's water security and resiliency in the face of drought. 

After witnessing the impacts of more than a decade-long drought, westerners are acutely 

aware of the aridity of the American West. While we recognize that water scarcity is felt 

with the greatest urgency at the local level, the connectivity of water requires solutions 

that work at a basin scale and balance the needs of cities, fanns, and nature. Although 

states have the primary authority to manage water resources, the federal government has 

a significant role to play in advancing innovative, collaborative, and widely-supported 

water conservation measures and creative-financing to meet water demands and protect 

and restore healthy river flows. 

The New Mexico Drought Preparedness Act of 2017 accomplishes this by providing vital 

funding and program authorizations that enable urban, agricultural, and ecosystem sectors 

to thrive in a shared water system. Key provisions of the legislation include: 

Section 3, which establishes a voluntary water acquisition program across New 

Mexico to be managed by the Bureau of Reclamation, in coordination with other federal 

agencies, the state, and water districts. The program aims to benefit fish and wildlife, 

water quality, and river ecosystem restoration, along with the stewardship and 

conservation of working lands, water, and watersheds. Incentives and cost-shares are 

available to water districts and producers to improve irrigation systems and efficiency 

and to establish water leasing programs. Voluntary water leasing is a collaborative, 

flexible solution for achieving substantial benefits during times of drought and generating 

a financial return for farmers while preserving agricultural water rights and rural 

economies in perpetuity. 
107 

Section 8, which reauthorizes SECURE and strengthens WaterSMART to plan for 

drought impacts. The bill expands the scope of grants to include planning for the impacts 

of drought. It also provides discretionary authority for the Commissioner to waive costshare requirements for emergency drought situations and allows for prioritizing projects 

with multiple benefits, or those that include innovative tools, such as water conservation 

and markets. 

Section 9, which reauthorizes the Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief 

Act, provides the Bureau of Reclamation authority to fund temporary water transfers, 

water banking, and other structural and non-structural measures to stabilize ri ver flows 

and improve the efficiency and reliability of water supplies. The Reclamation States 

Emergency Drought Relief Act also provides a broad array of drought relief to states, 

tribes, and water districts. At the request of states or tribes, the Drought Relief Act 

authorizes the Bureau of Reclamation to help prepare and implement drought 

contingency plans, designed to prevent or mitigate the adverse effects of drought. These 

plans can draw on innovative and flexible mechanisms such as water banks, water 

conservation, use of Reclamation's project facilities to store and convey non-project 

water, and water supplies for fish and wildlife. S. I 012 would extend authorization 

through 2022 and more than doubles the amount of funding that can be appropriated from 

$90 to $190 million. 

The bill also authorizes additional programs and studies focused on improving flexibility, 

efficiency, and optimization of water supply, storage, and delivery through reservoir 

management and reoperation in the Upper Rio Grande Basin. In consultation with water 

users and tribes, reservoirs constructed and authorized 50 to I 00 years ago would be fully 

reviewed to meet current needs, including environmental purposes, and future conditions. 

Modernizing water management would benefit all water users by enhancing water 

productivity, conservation, and drought resiliency while reducing conflict over water for 

ESA-Iisted species. 

We also request consideration of some modest changes to the bill including: 

Insert a new subsection 3(c) as follows: To assist in developing and 

administering the program, the Secretary may provide funds to a federally established 

nonprofit entity with particular expertise in western water transactions including funding 

to develop a comprehensive strategic plan and budget to help inform the long-term goals 

and activities of the program; and award grants for associated program research, 

implementation and evaluation. 

Insert a new subsection 3(e) as follows: The Secretary can enter into one or more 

interagency agreements with the Secretary of State, Secretary of Army and Secretary of 

Agriculture to direct participation and transfer offunds to design, implement, and 

evaluate water acquisition programs for the U.S. International Boundary and Water 

Commission, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Natural Resource Conservation 

Services and/or Farm Service Agency. 

In subsection 7(b ): 

o Strike "pumps," in paragraph (I); 

o Strike "and other areas" in paragraph (2); and 
108 

o Insert a new subsection (c) as follows: Assistance may not be used to expand 

irrigated acreage. 

S.l 012 focuses on sustainable solutions that optimize supply and benefits for cities, 

agriculture and nature across multiple scales from districts to river basins. For these 

reasons, we supportS. l 012. 

Thank you for your leadership in addressing drought in New Mexico and throughout the 

Western United States. 

Sincerely, 

Beth Bardwell 

Director of Conservation 

Audubon New Mexico 
109 

Written Testimony of Jerry Meissner, Chairman 

Dry-Redwater Regional Water Authority 

U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on 

Water and Power Hearing 

May to, 2017 

I appreciate the opportunity to submit the Dry-Redwater Regional Water Authority's 

support for S. 685, the Clean Water for Rural Communities Act, which will authorize 

our Dry-Redwater Regional Water Authority System. 

The Dry-Redwater Regional Water Authority System- also called DRWA- is a rural 

water project in Eastern Montana with a current service area of approximately 11,000 

square miles covering the Montana counties of McCone, Richland, Dawson, Prairie and 

Garfield. In addition, our Water System will service McKenzie County, North Dakota, 

which sits atop the Bakken Shale play, and is North Dakota's leading oil-producing 

county. This Bakken boom has brought a population increase both to North Dakota 

and to our Eastern Montana communities, increasing the stress on our drinking water 

situation. 

This part of Eastern Montana does not, historically, have good water quality. Simply 

stated, the water is unsafe to drink. Therefore, in 2002 a steering committee of 

volunteers was formed to bring safe and clean drinking water to our citizens - and the 

Dry-Redwater Regional Water Authority became a legal entity in 2005. 

Initially, the Water System was planned to serve 15,000 residents, but with the 2016 

inclusion of additional towns, Sidney and Glendive, it can now bring clean 

drinking water to almost 30,000 people in eastern Montana. 

We turn to you, the United States Congress, for federal authorization of 

this project, as the United States Bureau of Reclamation has halted all 

work on our project after 11 years of collaboration to build this Water 

System. To quote the September 2016 Concluding Report sent to us by the Bureau of 

Reclamation: 

Should the sponsors [DRWA] want to continue the study at some future date, 

they would first have to obtain specific legislative feasibility study authority to 

conduct the study since the Rural Water Program authority is ending at the end 

of Fiscal Year 2016. 

The majority of the proposed communities to be served are currently operating their 

own municipal water systems. All of the communities are using wells as a source of 

water, but these wells are not providing the quality or quantity of water needed. These 

small rural towns cannot afford to build, operate, maintain, and replace their ovvn 

water treatment facilities and face limited availability of water sources. Therefore we 
110 

strive to constmct a regional mral water system that will allow these small 

communities to work together to provide access to a reliable, safe, and high quality 

water supply. DRWA uses a regional approach to improve service, reduce 

environmental impacts and capture financial benefits while reducing costly duplication 

of services. This regional system will provide a supply-managed water service to 

customers in a fiscally responsible manner. 

Allow me to provide some examples of the problems Eastern Montanans currently face. 

The public water supply systems v.>ithin our boundaries presently are unable to meet 

the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act without expensive energy intensive 

treatment options. According to the Montana Department of Environmental Quality 

(DEQ), one of our public water supply systems is out of compliance v.>ith the Federal 

Clean Water Act due to levels of secondary contaminants- sodium and total dissolved 

solids. Many of the existing systems treat their water with chlorine, which in tum has 

caused problems v.>ith elevated levels of disinfection by-products. Other systems have 

problems with bacterial contamination and elevated levels of total dissolved solids, 

iron, manganese, lead, copper, sulfate and sodium that render the water undrinkable. 

Three communities must treat their water because of high levels of fluoride, which is a 

health hazard and a regulated contaminant. Jordan does not treat its water but it is 

high in sodium and total dissolved solids, which are not currently regulated, but have 

detrimental effects on those drinking it. Fairview has high organic levels in its water 

that has led to a disinfection by-product violation and the Town operates an iron and 

manganese removal water treatment facility that uses chlorine as the oxidizer; which, 

while effective at removing the iron and manganese, does have the problem of forming 

disinfection by-products. 

One well serves the students and faculty of the Garfield County School District No. 15. 

This well shows excess sodium and fluoride levels. And, the total dissolved solids are 

more than twice the recommended level. This well and the other private wells are not 

regulated by National Drinking Water Standards but the detrimental effects of the 

water on their users are not any less because they are not regulated. 

The mral residents in the project area currently obtain their water, in the majority of 

instances, from private wells. Most mral residents haul all of their drinking and 

cooking water used, either because their well water is undrinkable or there is not a 

sufficient quantity to be usable. The treatment of water in a private well is very costly 

and sometimes complicated depending on what is in the water. Based upon 

preliminary review of the water quality in the wells of mral users we know the majority 

of them do not have access to the quality of water needed for a healthy existence. 

Attached is a spreadsheet documenting the quality of water samples from various wells 

v.>ithin our service area. 
111 

A regional rural water system will allow the small communities to come 

together and provide citizens with access to a reliable, safe, high quality 

water supply. From a regulatory aspect a regional water system has significant 

benefits. At the present time, there are six different regulated public water systems 

within the region that are meeting regulatory requirements of the Safe Drinking Water 

Act. When a rule changes, all systems must react to the change, individually. That 

means that the Montana Department of Environmental Quality is perennially facing 

problems with compliance issues in these smaller public water systems as they have a 

reduced capacity to maintain and operate due to their size. A regional water system 

would provide one point of regulation for all of the member systems. If a rule were 

changed, it would only affect one treatment plant and, due to economies of scale, a 

regional system can be upgraded and operated at a higher level of oversight and 

management at a smaller per user cost than smaller individual municipal water supply 

systems. An increased degree of compliance can be expected from a regional water 

system, which further assures the water users of a safe and reliable source of water. 

The water for this project will be obtained from the Dry Arm of Fort Peck Reservoir 

near Rock Creek. Just under 4,000 acre feet of the 18 million acre feet has been 

granted to DRWA via MT Water Right 40E 30064997. The in-take and conventional 

surface water treatment facility will be located at North Rock Creek on the Dry Arm of 

Fort Peck, in McCone County. 

Currently, over n,ooo users have completed applications for service and have paid 

'good intention' fees to show their financial commitment. The State of Montana has 

invested over $1,130,000 into studies and organizational efforts to date. In addition, 

DRWA has matched more than $450,000, and the Bureau of Reclamation has 

contributed $120,500. Total investments into DRWA to date exceed $4 

million, including the funding provided by Richland County to help build 

DRWA's currently active Sidney South pipeline. 

The project as conceptualized will consist of over 1,220 of miles of pipeline, 38 pump 

stations, and 20 major water storage reservoirs. The 2012 Feasibility Report projected 

a total project cost of $233,201,300, but as it is 2017 we must add for inflation. The 

DRWAis pursuing federal funding of75% of the project cost with the remaining 25% of 

funds pursued in the form of a low interest loan from the Rural Utility Service (12.5%) 

and a grant from the Coal Tax Trust Funds (12.5%) administered through the Montana 

Department of Natural Resources and Conservation. 
112 

It is very important to note that the two federally authorized regional 

water systems already under construction in Montana stipulate that the 

federal government fund more than 75% of the project costs. 

• The Fort Peck Dry Prairie Regional Water System was authorized in November, 

2000 by Public Law 106-382. The on-Reservation portion costs are paid 

100% by the Federal government, and the off-Reservation portion has a 

76% Federal-24% combined State/Dry Prairie split. 

• The Rocky Boy's/North Central Montana Regional Water System was authorized 

under Public Law 107-331, 116 Stat. 2859 on December 12, 2002. This law 

provides for the federal government to pay 100% of the capital costs ofthe 

tribal share of the project, and So% of the non-tribal capital costs, which 

includes the incremental increase to the cost of the Core system necessitated by 

the increased capacity required to serve the members of the Regional Water 

Authority. 

Certainly the residents that need safe, clean drinking water in Eastern Montana are as 

important as the residents in other parts of the state where the federal government is 

greatly assisting to build Water Systems. 

The Dry-Redwater Regional Water System is also financially feasible in comparison to 

rnral water system costs in our three state region of Montana, South Dakota and North 

Dakota. The completed feasibility study includes preliminary engineering analysis of 

the system and the DRWA has also completed some preliminary cultural and 

environmental reviews. There are no fatal flaws found in these preliminary studies that 

included contacts ;vith State, Federal and Local officials on NEPA compliance. 

There are distinct benefits of a regional water system in our area: 

• Communities will not absorb the costs of upgrading numerous smaller water 

facilities to keep up with water quality standards. 

• A greater number of regional system users helps defray the cost of good water for 

every individual in the area. 

• This system will provide jobs, not only during constrnction, but also for ongoing 

operation and maintenance. 

• Economic and community development opportunities with the ability to attract 

businesses and people that need a reliable water source are greatly enhanced. 

• Total water and energy consumption by all communities will be substantially less 

than if each community provides water treatment. 

• A dependable, high-quality drinking water sources provides an incentive for 

business and industry to consider relocation to eastern Montana. 

4 
113 

• Reduction in chemical usage and cost as a result of increased crop spraying 

efficiency. 

• Rural area fire protection capacity 

• Increased property values 

• An alternative water source for livestock. 

• Safe and reliable household drinking water to improve the health and existence of 

the people. 

The Dry-Redwater Regional Water Authority has been working with the Billings office 

of the Bureau of Reclamation to instill this vvater project as stipulated in the Rural 

Water Supply Act of 2006, and as expressed in the Interim Final Rules. However, the 

staff turnover within this regional office along with the various interpretations of the 

Interim Final Rules given by this office has significantly stnmg out this project's 

approval. Given the investment made in time and money- over $4 Million dollars has 

been spent thus far (see attached timeline) and over 11 years of work- we respectfully 

request the Committee to favorably report this bill and Congress to pass it into law so 

that the Dry-Redwater Regional Water System will be federally authorized. As it stands 

now, the Bureau of Reclamation has halted communications and work with the DRWA, 

and issued a Concluding Report because, it says, it has no authorization to continue 

working with D RWA due to the sunsetting of the Rural Water Supply Act. 

However, the two authorized water projects in Montana (Rocky Boys/North Central 

and Ft. Peck/Dry Prairie) obtained federal authorization before the Rural Water 

Supply Act was put in place and the DRWA certainly worked with the 

Bureau of Reclamation before the introduction of the Rural Water Supply 

Act. Further, not one project (from any state) was authorized by 

Reclamation during the entirety of the Rural Water Supply Act. DRWA is 

quite surprised with Reclamation's decision to halt 11 years of work just because an Act 

has sunset. 
114 

Monies Spent 

Both the Bureau of Reclamation and the State of Montana have allocated valuable time 

and resources to this Water System since 2004. Almost $4 million has been allocated 

($3,668,266.06) as of August 31, 2016 and over $4 million will be spent within the next 

Montana biennium ($4,834,366.06). It is important that these funds be 

included in the steps going forward to authorization and we implore the 

Committee to include these monies in their Report to accompany this 

legislation. 

Total Montana State Funding through 8/31/2016: $1,090,678.25 

-Planning Grant: $22,500.00 

-Technical Services Grant: $2o,ooo.oo 

-Planning/Services Grant: $10,ooo.oo 

-Planning Grant: $21,8oo.oo 

-Planning Grant: $48,878.25 

-CDBG Grant: $1,500.00 

-Administrative/Planning Grant: $966,000.00 

Total Federal Funding through 8/31/2016: $120,500.00 

Total Richland County Funding through 8131/2016: $1,637,060.37 

-$1,492,184.73 in Capital Contributions 

-$144,875.64 in Grant Funding 

Total DRWA Contributions/Miscellaneous Donations through 8131/2016: 

$820,027-44 

TOTAL AS OF 8/31/16: $3,668,266.06 

Funding contracted from other entities for upcoming biennium: $1,166,100.00 

-DNRC Grant Funding (East Yellowstone): $759,100.00 

-MDU Contribution (East Yellowstone): $10o,ooo.oo 

-Richland County (East Yellowstone): $52,000.00 

-SRF Loan Funding (East Yellowstone): $75,000.00 

-Administrative/Planning Grant: $180,000.00 

GRAND TOTAL (Current+ Upcoming Biennium): $4,834,366.06 

The DRWA has been working with the Bureau of Reclamation for 11+ years with no 

authorization recommendation. We are hopeful the Trump Administration and 

Secretary Zinke can introduce common sense into the approval system of the BOR. 
115 

We understand the budget constraints the Bureau of Reclamation faces. However, 

Reclamation entered into numerous agreements with DRWA over the last 11 years to 

put together this Water System. Even if Reclamation does not have current funds to 

pay for this Water System, federal authorization is NECESSARY for the State of 

Montana to recognize this Water System and begin constmction. 

Until amendments enacted by the 2015 State Legislature, the State of Montana was 

only allowed to expend Constmction Grant Funding for Federally Authorized regional 

water projects. While the law has changed, the stigma of expectation for Federal 

Authorization has not been eliminated. In terms of Bond Counsel, Montana DEQ, and 

other such agencies, the legitimacy ofthe DRWAproject is not realized until Federal 

Authorization is obtained. In a nutshell, DRWA is not eligible for the same funding 

opportunities and expansion as the two authorized Montana mral water projects have 

been. 

In summary, the Dry-Redwater Regional Water System will provide a safe and 

dependable municipal and mral water supply for the public water supply systems and 

mral users that comprise the Dry-Redwater Regional Water Authority. Many positive 

long-term economic impacts will be realized by the agricultural, energy, tourism and 

recreational industries of the area; while the potential for good quality and quantity of 

water will allow businesses and housing to build and develop. Our primarily 

agricultural-based frontier communities in eastern Montana strongly support all 

components of this project. Certainly the residents of Eastern Montana deserve a 

safe, clean, reliable source of water that is vital to our existence. 
116 

Water Quality of a Small Sampling of Wells Currently Used in the Service Area 

Well Site Name County Depth Sodium Bicarbonate Sulfate Fluoride TDS 

73 RANCH Garfield 1003.00 1524.00 737.00 2464.00 2.80 4577.17 

JORDON JOHN Garfield 280.00 667.00 795.00 793.00 1.00 1885.00 

CLAUSON WILLIAM Garfield 300.00 502.00 812.00 391.00 1.00 1330.18 

73 RANCH Garfield 1003.00 1484.00 656.40 2346.00 <5.0 4362.31 

GARFIELD CO SCHOOL DIST #15 Garfield 350.00 447.00 912.60 33.80 3.35 1048.79 

BIG DRY SCHOOL HOUSE Garfield 700.00 625.00 378.20 916.00 <0.5 1788.81 

MCKERLICK JOHN Garfield 80.00 586.00 700.20 627.80 2.00 1603.38 

BURGESS RANCH Garfield 365.00 670.00 271.00 681.00 1.00 1806.43 

BAKER JIM Garfield 390.00 979.00 1052.00 1241.00 1.00 2780.48 

HOVERSON SARAH Garfield 370.00 1062.00 1247.00 1210.00 1.50 2996.94 

HAFLAJOE Garfield 258.00 544.00 886.00 657.00 0.10 1733.50 

PLUHAR PHILLIP Garfield 255.00 460.00 688.00 424.00 0.30 1259.24 

KEEBLER DEAN Garfield 600.00 592.00 618.00 748.00 1.40 1671.91 

LANDERS H Garfield 380.00 587.00 612.00 764.00 1.10 1688.92 

CITY OF CIRCLE McCone 1624.00 412.00 907.70 <25.0 4.31 1002.02 

CITY OF CIRCLE-WEll #1 McCone 150.00 775.00 829.60 1059.00 2.55 2317.44 

CITY OF CIRCLE McCone 1508.00 400.00 921.00 <0.1 5.20 1004.81 

CITY OF CIRCLE McCone 1508.00 472.20 886.90 <2.5 5.10 1109.19 

PRAIRIE ELK SCHOOL McCone 200.00 1891.00 2596.00 2055.00 0.95 5303.20 

DREYER RAY McCone 189.00 820.00 824.20 1229.00 0.80 2537.42 

WHITMUS FRANK McCone 101.00 975.00 1110.00 1350.00 1.18 2964.94 

WHITMUS FRANK McCone 640.00 476.00 1085.00 3.40 5.50 1129.85 

WHITMUS FRANK McCone 640.00 473.00 1088.20 <25.0 5.96 1123.78 

WHITMUS FRANK McCone 640.00 456.00 1003.50 <2.5 6.67 1101.34 

WHITMUS FRANK McCone 101.00 426.00 1043.10 7.40 0.06 1049.21 

WALLER G McCone 240.00 520.00 1000.40 837.70 0.10 2044.70 

MERRY HERSCHEL McCone 260.00 700.00 683.20 887.80 2.70 1967.40 

KJELGAARD HAROLD McCone 220.00 1340.00 1964.00 1345.00 1.90 3701.16 

FLATIEN CLINTON McCone 175.00 736.00 1160.00 660.00 4.07 2033.71 

WAGNER R McCone 85.00 92.00 494.80 667.20 0.10 1405.10 

ZAHN DONALD McCone 20.20 230.00 378.60 1705.70 0.20 2630.97 

ZAHN DONALD McCone 49.90 532.50 784.70 2125.80 0.20 3604.34 

UNKNOWN-19.4 Ml SW WELDON McCone ? 2300.00 295.00 3700.00 NR 8128.32 

PAWLOWSKIW McCone 37.40 193.00 448.40 522.20 0.40 1107.56 

SEXTON WALLACE McCone 75.00 1015.00 493.00 4830.00 1.12 7144.25 

MUELLER ARNOLD McCone 203.00 626.00 1251.00 205.00 5.20 1527.93 

UNKNOWN-10 Ml S PRAIRIE ELK McCone ? 4400.00 488.00 5000.00 NR 13717.39 

FILL WORTH R CIRCLE MT 20 Ml McCone 201.00 1127.50 1018.90 2016.60 0.60 3844.26 

TWITCHEll JOHN McCone 89.00 810.00 867.60 1319.50 NR 2675.14 

DREYER RAY McCone 17.00 1116.00 915.00 3171.90 0.50 5320.63 

8 
117 

PAINE EDWARD McCone 

HUSEBY D McCone 

PAWLOWSKI OTIO McCone 

JAMES MATIHEW McCone 

SHEFFELBINE ORVILLE McCone 

SHEFFELBINE ORVILLE McCone 

GASS MILTON McCone 

WRIGHT STEWART McCone 

GIBBS DAVID McCone 

HERZBERG JOHN McCone 

NEFZGER DEAN McCone 

GULDBERG McCone 

Source: Ground Water Information Center 

123.00 1230.00 

20.00 445.00 

276.00 574.00 

109.00 584.00 

307.00 977.00 

67.00 897.00 

268.00 1470.00 

365.00 954.00 

210.00 825.00 

215.00 776.00 

175.00 1083.00 

65.00 234.00 

Meets Standards 

Exceeds Standards 

1283.90 1659.50 1.00 3591.35 

878.40 673.00 0.30 1701.37 

932.50 1014.90 NR 2237.45 

1191.20 344.00 1.00 1562.91 

982.00 1511.00 0.20 3188.91 

791.00 1528.00 0.55 2962.21 

1713.00 1794.00 0.70 4178.61 

1315.00 947.00 2.20 2619.10 

819.80 1068.20 2.30 2349.54 

1290.00 624.00 1.10 2067.03 

1576.00 1245.00 2.00 3150.22 

684.00 1610.00 2.10 2813.50 
118 

Timeline for DRWA's Interactions with the Bureau of Reclamation 

-June 2006- DRWA Submitted Feasibility Study to BOR, in accordance with 

Procedural Requirements at the time. 

-September 2007- Letter from Lenny Duberstein-DRWA will need to meet new Act 

criteria, but BORis still developing Act criteria 

-November 2008- Email from Thomas Brown-Interim Final Rule published 

-November 2008 -Email/ Attachment from Stephanie Hellekson-Interim Final Rule 

-December 2008- Email from Stephanie Hellekson with link to Economic & 

Environmental principals and guidelines for complying with Rural Water Act 

-December 2008 - Email/ Attachment from Brian Milne- Comments on Interim Final 

Rule 

-May 2009 - MECA Support Letter 

-May 2009- Email from Stephanie Hellekson-BOR still developing Final D&S, 

Feasibility Study we submitted needs to include NEP A baseline study, request DRWA 

submit Appraisal Study 

-May 2009- DRWA informed that $wo,ooo.oo+ spent on Feasibility Study was for 

nothing and would have to be done again, received expectations for Appraisal Study 

-December 2009 - Email from Tod to Stephanie Hellekson informing of Senate Bill 

S637 and House Bill HR4119, wondering if BOR had any questions on DRWA process 

thus far 

-December 2009-Email from Brian Milne with timeline of key communications on the 

authorization process with BOR that was requested during 12/14/09 conference call. 

*11/24/08-Email from BOR attaching Federal Register explaining interim final 

mles and public meeting to be held 12/1/08 

*12/5/08-Email from DRWA to BORon how public meeting went with BOR 

response that meeting went well and will call to discuss 

*1/16/09-Submitted comments to BORon Rural Water Supply Act mles 

*2/6/ 09-Submitted existing Feasibility Study I Addendum to BOR for review on 

compatibility with proposed guidelines 

*4/9/09-Draft Rural Water Supply Act guidelines sent by BOR with note they 

were very preliminary 

*s/S/09-Email from Tod to BORon items of clarification 

10 
119 

* 5/14/09-Email from BO R suggesting NEP A baseline study for entire project 

area could be our next step, BOR would give some guidance and prepare to 

submit our appraisal study to BOR for review under the Act 

*7/23/09-DC Trip-Meeting with BOR-No Rules in place yet for Rural Water 

Supply Act so modification of existing report should be put on hold 

*9/7/ 09-Letter from Baucus to Mike Connor /BO R requesting comprehensive list 

of issues with DRWA 

*10/15/09-Completed and submitted Environmental Scoping Report to BORin 

accordance with previously funded Rural Water Projects 

*n/6/09-Email from BOR acknowledging receipt of Environmental Report and 

notice they are working on next step and the status of the Rural Water Act 

Implementation 

*n/9/09-Received letter from Mike Connor/BOR Commissioner (dated 

10/30/09) to Baucus outlining 3 general areas of concern, same as in July 

testimony 

*12/14/09-Conference call ;vith Baucus/Tester Staff and Energy and Water Staff 

*12/14/09-Received email from BOR requesting a meeting 

-January 2010-Email from Stephanie Hellekson-need for meeting re:availability of 

existing documentation for completed studies (i.e. Feasibility, Environmental, Cost 

Estimates, etc .... ) 

-February 2010-Document from Brian Milne to Stephanie Hellekson: DRWA 

Feasibility Report, Report Addendum & Appendix Data Restatement MOU 

-February 2010-Email from Tod to Catherine (Baucus): BOR verbally acknowledges 

DRWA has done all steps that every rural water project has completed prior to being 

Federally Authorized 

-February 2010-Email from Tod to Baucus: Changes asked of us by BOR, BOR states 

DRWA will have to wait for finalization of Rural Water Act nues before we can move 

forward AND DRWA will then go into a pool of projects and must compete with them. 

BOR also stated Greater Northwest Region has some projects and the other area of the 

US do not so it may be harder for DRWA to compete with other projects because they 

are in other regions ofBORand they want to spread the projects around. DRWAhas 

funds and has gone through same process that all other rural water systems have prior 

to new Rural Water Act and are ready to move forward with final design and 

construction. With Federal authorization DRWA could start construction with our own 

and State of MT money within 8-12 months. 

-March 2010-Email from Todd to Brian Milne: Projects in ND and MT have gotten 

federal authorization with the same level of PER/Feasibility that DRWA completed in 

2007. 

11 
120 

-March 2010-Email from Tod to Catherine (Baucus): Meeting with BOR Economics 

from Denver scheduled. Again, another new piece that is part of the new process. This 

was not part of information completed by any other water projects that obtained 

authorization prior to new Rural Water Act. New and DRWA didn't know about it 

when completed Feasibility/PER reports back in 2007. Local (Billings) BOR couldn't 

not even explain what they wanted for this portion of the report, thus the meeting with 

BOR/Denver. DRWA was ready in 2007/2008 to move forward, still ready but need 

authorization to take the next step. BOR process is just delaying a good project that is 

ready and funds to move forward. 

-March 2010-Email from Brian Milne: Sample documents from regional water system 

completed in 1994 (Dickey Rural Water), sample documents from current rural water 

project (North Central Water Consortium) and history page from Dry Prairie showing 

final engineering report includes economic analysis was done AFTER authorization. 

Model used to determine feasibility of D RWA has been utilized since early So's, process 

is getting problematic-BORis process oriented and DRWA is results based. If DRWA 

can get Federal Authorization, BOR will still have opportunity to provide input in the 

process before appropriations. 

-April2010-Memo from Brian Milne regarding BOR meeting review of Appraisal 

Investigation Report/Economic Feasibility Analysis: Steve provided Technical 

Memorandum Number EC-2009-2-Evaluating Economic and Financial Feasibility of 

Municipal and Industrial Water Projects-December 2009, discussed level of detail 

needed for Appraisal Level Study. Outlined 5 methods available to determine benefits 

of a system. Technical memorandum outlines methodology available to completed 

NED Analysis required in the Feasibility phase. Process outlined in the Rural Water 

Act is: 

*Sponsor or BOR prepare Appraisal Investigation 

*BOR prepares Appraisal Investigation Report 

*BOR determines Cost Share Feasibility Study reportfNEPA Document is 

authorized 

*Feasibility Study Completed/Submitted to BOR 

*Project Authorization/Project Appropriation phase 

*Construction starts 

Process DRWA has followed is (same process Dry Prairie followed: 

*Prepare Feasibility Study 

*Submit to Congressional Staff to be Bill prepared to become Federally 

Authorized 

*After Authorization, then Final Engineering Report/NEP A requirements/Water 

Conservation Plan with oversight and VE by BOR. 

*Project Appropriations 

*Construction Starts 

12 
121 

-April2010-Email from Tod to Catherine (Baucus): Feasibility Study completed in 

2006 and updated with more users in 2007 does meet what BOR wants and was 

completed 3-4 years previous. Level of detail outlined at meeting for Economic 

Analysis has been exceeded by information collected in original report/addendum. 

-June 2010-Letter from US Dept. oflnterior/Stephanie Bartlett: DRWA eligible for 

further consideration for aware of agreement to conduct appraisal investigation -

invite DRWA to submit full proposal for appraisal investigation 

-June 2010-Email from Lenny Duberstein to DRWA: Draft Appraisal Report 

-June 2010-Letter from DRWA to Lenny Duberstein per Lenny's request: DRWA meets 

eligibility requirements of 43 CFR Part 404-404.6,404.7 and addresses the priority 

items in 404.13. 

-September 2010-Email from James Todd (Bartwest) to Tod: Congratulations to 

DRWA on getting approval for Feasibility Study from BOR. 

-September 2010-Letter from Stephanie Hellekson to DRWA- DRWA receiving 

Feasibility Funding 

-September 2010-Email from Brian Milne to Stephanie Hellekson: comments on POS 

and agreement. 

-September 2010-Email from Stephanie Hellekson to DRWA: Lenny and Stephanie are 

working through process of putting together complete cooperative agreement for 

funding received. 

-November 2010-Email from Stephanie Hellekson to Brian Milne: Attachment with 

edits for POS 

-December 2010-Email from Stephanie Hellekson to Brian Milne: Finalizing 

agreement and POS 

-December 2010-Email from Brian Milne to Stephanie Hellekson: Milestones/tasks 

outlined 

-June 2011-Update from Brian Milne showing work items completed/partially 

completed 

-June 2011-Revised Design Parameters from Jed Kirkland 

13 
122 

-July 2011-Scheduled meeting to discuss: Updated Service Map, Review Source 

Water/Pipeline Model, Discuss NEPA Compliance, Cost Estimates, Economics, 

Updated Schedule 

-July 2011-VE Study scheduling discussion 

-September 2011-Lenny D./BOR used North Central as example to follow for 

Feasibility Study 

-November 2011-DRWA needs meeting to determine target for project that "is not 

moving" 

-December 2011-Stephanie Micek provided Project Update Summary Notes 

-December 2011-DRWA letter to BOR narrowing alternatives (12/16/11) 

-January 2012-Meeting: VE Study Informational Needs 

-January 2012-VE Study scheduled week ofFebmary 13, 2012. 

-January 2012-DRWA rec'd BOR D&S CMP 09-03 from Lenny Duberstein 

-January 2012-Draft Feasibility Study submitted to BOR (1/31/12) 

-Febmary 2012-DRWA Study Estimate received from Stephanie Micek 

-Febmary 2012-VE Study (2/13/12-2/17/12) 

-Febmary 2012-Interstate sent cost estimates to BOR for review/NO response 

(2/15/12) 

-April2012-Phone call with Steve Piper to discuss Social and Economic Evaluation for 

Feasibility Report 

-April2012-Received VE study final report (4/4/12) 

-April2012-Draft Accountability Report (4/23/12) 

-April2012-Email from Dan Stremcha (BOR) to DRWA: BOR Feasibility Study 

Expectations (4/23/12)-After VE and after we already turned in Draft Feasibility 

1/31/12 

14 
123 

-April2012-Email from Steve Piper to Stephanie Micek: In order to complete a P&G 

economic analysis information is needed. 

-April2012-Email from Dan Stremcha to Interstate Engineering: Comments on 

Accountability Report 

-April2012-Email from Dan Stremcha to DRWA: Statns summary needed that defines 

the following for the subject project - Description of Project, Cost, Schedule, Upcoming 

Milestones, Issues needing resolution, Next Steps 

-May 2012-2nd Draft Accountability Report 

-May 2012-Final DRWAAccountability Report (5/18/12) 

-June 2012-DRWA Request for Additional Funds 

-September 2012-DEC review scheduled for October 2012 

-September 2012-Completed Feasibility Report (9/21/12) 

-October 2012-Meeting with DRWA and BOR: Next Steps/Funding Request 

-October 2012-DEC Review started with site visits (10/22/12) 

-November 2012-Received DEC Review from BOR (11/28/12) 

-We received the DEC Review Determination back and, as expected, our project was not 

being considered satisfactory (even though we were following the guidelines of the BOR 

office). 

The Dry-Redwater Regional Water Authority (DRWA) Appraisal Level Report was 

accepted by BOR and qualified DRWA for matching funds as well as a path to Federal 

Authorization (at least, this was what we were led to believe). 

- For most of 2013 the BOR would not respond to our inquiries, nor provide any 

information on the status of our application. It was not nntil October 28, 2013 

and various inquiries from the Montana Congressional delegation on behalf of the 

DRWA that Domenick Enzenbacher of the Billings BOR office responded to the DRWA. 

- In May of 2014 Domenick and his staff informed the DRWA that instead of the 

"Interim Feasibility Report the parties had been discussing for nine months, the BOR 

would now like an "Appraisal Report" written. This effectively takes the DRWA System 

back TWO steps as an Appraisal Report was written and submitted years ago. Further, 

15 
124 

the BORhas nowaskedforthe communities being served by the DRWASystem to be 

scaled back and drastically reduced. 

The BOR had a change in personnel. DRWA was provided a new contact, Gerald 

Benock. DRWA voiced concerns about being set back multiple steps with an "Appraisal 

Report". BOR and DRWA agreed upon entering into an MOU. The MOU will help 

produce a document to be placed as an attachment to the DRWA Feasibility Report. 

This document will outline improvements not yet completed. 

On April27, 2015 the Bureau of Reclamation entered into an MOU with Dry-Redwater 

for the purpose of completing a DRWA Feasibility Summary Report. The objective of 

the MOU is to define the current state of the feasibility study and the additional level of 

effort needed to revise the study technically in order to meet the requirements of the 

Rural Water Supply Program. BORde-obligated their $250,000 in funding they had 

set aside for Dry-Redwater when entering into the MOU, because the Feasibility 

Summary Report was supposed to be a cost effective way for D RWA to work together 

and share costs with Reclamation to create a summary document that could be shelved 

at BORin place of a Concluding Report. Dry-Redwater was told that BOR did not want 

to write a Concluding Report, but rather wanted a document that would list what has 

already been done, and what additional work will be need to be completed in the eyes 

of BOR. BOR wanted a Feasibility Summary Report so, in the event that funding 

became available later, BOR and DRWA would easily be able to pick up where the 

project was left off. Dry-Redwater was told by BOR that a Concluding Report would 

permanently close the DRWAprogram at BOR, and the entire process would have to be 

started over for DRWA to continue. 

- In May 2016, Dry-Redwater submitted their draft version of the Feasibility Summary 

Report for review (18 pages). The document appropriately follows the guidelines from 

the MOU. In addition, it follows the outline indicated in Exhibit A of the MOU. In 

June 2016, Gerald Benock from BOR sent one page of an example of Reclamation's 

Feasibility Summary Report Review and suggested Dry-Redwater go back and re-work 

how the DRWA Feasibility Summary Report was written to be more in line with what 

BORhad in mind that they would like to see. Given the numerous times DRWAhas 

been asked to re-study, re-work, re-organize, and re-do; Dry-Redwater is a bit 

apprehensive about doing our part all over again. In addition, DRWA understands the 

MOU process is to be a joint effort: DRWA creates a Feasibility Summary Report, BOR 

reviews the DRWA version of the report, BOR adds additional details where they would 

like them, and then both parties review the document, and agree on a final executed 

Summary Report. 

- August 12, 2106 Instead, and out of the blue, Benock sent an email to DRWA stating, 

"For your information MTAO is in process of drafting a Concluding Report on the DryRedwater Regional Water System Feasibility Study as required under Reclamation's 

16 
125 

Rural Water Supply Program which is sunsetting this fiscal year. This document will 

be based on the September 2012 DRWSFS (Feasibility Study) since that is the only 

document Reclamation has reviewed and evaluated." 

- November, 2016 Even though the DRWA was under a legally binding MOU with the 

Bureau of Reclamation, all communication ceased and a Concluding Report 

dated September 2016 was sent to DRWA. 

- The Rural Water Supply Act of 2006 sunset in September 2016. Dry-Redwater 

requested a meeting and traveled to Billings to meet with Mike Ryan, Great Plains 

Regional Director, in November 2016. Unfortunately, Dry-Redwater was informed that 

BOR no longer has any authority to work with Regional Water Systems following the 

sunset. We find this simply ridiculous as Reclamation worked with DRWA well before 

the Rural Water Supply Act was instigated and zero rural water projects were approved 

by Reclamation under the Rural Water Supply Act. How can all of this time and money 

(federal and state) be wasted? 

SUMMARY ofTIMELINE ACTIONS 

Since the acceptance of the Appraisal Report DRWA has only seen increasing 

frustrations. DRWA finds it extremely difficult to follow the guidelines of the Rural 

Water Supply Act of 2006 as the final rules are not yet written. When the Rural Water 

Supply Act of 2006 was established DRWA began down a path of continuing studies 

rather than working steadily toward authorization. 

In addition to the recurring changes and reinterpretations of the Rural Water Supply 

Act of 2006, DRWA has had to deal with roughly seven changes in staffing at the BOR 

office in Billings. This has directly led to reinterpretations of the processes DRWA is 

expected to follow. Consequently, DRWA has more than overspent our matching 

budget in an attempt to comply with the unwritten rules of the Rural Water Supply Act 

of 2006 and the ever-changing decision in the Billings BOR office. 

DRWA has completed an assortment of Feasibility Studies following guidelines 

provided by BOR. Each time a Feasibility Study is completed it seems a new 

interpretation of the requirements is determined and we are sent back to start the 

process all over again. We completed what we thought was the concluding Feasibility 

Study in September 2012. However the BOR continues to saddle the DRWA V>cith 

additional and costly reports. After more than $4 million and ten years of work on this 

project we need to spend the money on laying pipe and servicing our citizens. 

Therefore we rely on the support of Congress. 

17 
126 

The Nature 

Conservancy 

Protecting nature. Preserving tiff:t 

May 10,2017 

Senator Tom Udall 

212 E. Marcy St., Suite 200 

Santa Fe, NM 87501 

531 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Senator Martin Heinrich 

303 Hart Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

RE: New Mexico Drought Preparedness Act 

Dear Senator Udall and Senator Heinrich: 

Tel (505) 988-3867 

Fax (505) 988-4095 

nature.org/new mexico 

The Nature Conservancy writes to express our support for the New Mexico Drought Preparedness Act of 

2017 (S. 1012), because we believe it will strengthen New Mexico's water security and resiliency in the 

face of drought. 

After witnessing the impacts of more than a decade-long drought, westerners are acutely aware of the 

aridity of the American West. While we recognize that water scarcity is felt with the greatest urgency at 

the local level, the connectivity of water requires solutions that work at a basin scale and balance the 

needs of cities, farms, and nature. Although states have the primary authority to manage water 

resources, the federal government has a significant role to play in advancing innovative, collaborative, 

and widely-supported water conservation measures and creative-financing to meet water demands and 

protect and restore healthy river flows. 

The New Mexico Drought Preparedness Act of 2017 accomplishes this by providing vital funding and 

program authorizations that enable urban, agricultural, and ecosystem sectors to thrive in a shared 

water system. Key provisions of the legislation include: 

Section 3, which establishes a voluntary water acquisition Program across New Mexico to be 

managed by the Bureau of Reclamation, in coordination with other federal agencies, the state, 

and water districts. The program aims to benefit fish and wildlife, water quality, and river 

ecosystem restoration, along with the stewardship and conservation of working lands, water, 

and watersheds. Incentives and cost-shares are available to water districts and producers to 

improve irrigation systems and efficiency and to establish water leasing programs. Voluntary 

water leasing is a collaborative, flexible solution for achieving substantial benefits during times 

of drought and generating a financial return for farmers while preserving agricultural water 

rights and rural economies in perpetuity. 

Section 8, which reauthorizes SECURE and strengthens WaterSMART to plan for drought 

impacts. The bill expands the scope of grants to include planning for the impacts of drought. It 

also provides discretionary authority for the Commissioner to waive cost-share requirements for 

emergency drought situations. 
127 

Section 9, which reauthorizes the Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief Act, provides 

the Bureau of Reclamation authority to fund temporary water transfers, water banking, and 

other structural and non-structural measures to stabilize river flows and improve the efficiency 

and reliability of water supplies. The Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief Act also 

provides a broad array of drought relief to states, tribes, and water districts. At the request of 

states or tribes, the Drought Relief Act authorizes the Bureau of Reclamation to help prepare 

and implement drought contingency plans, designed to prevent or mitigate the adverse effects 

of drought. These plans can draw on innovative and flexible mechanisms such as water banks, 

water conservation, use of Reclamation's project facilities to store and convey non-project 

water, and water supplies for fish and wildlife. S. 1012 would extend authorization through 

2022. 

The bill also authorizes additional programs and studies focused on improving flexibility, efficiency, and 

optimization of water supply, storage, and delivery through reservoir management and reoperation in 

the Upper Rio Grande Basin. In consultation with water users and tribes, reservoirs constructed and 

authorized SO to 100 years ago would be fully reviewed to meet current needs, including environmental 

purposes, and future conditions. Modernizing water management would benefit all water users by 

enhancing water productivity, conservation, and drought resiliency while reducing conflict over water 

for ESA-Iisted species. 

We also request consideration of some modest changes to the bill including: 

In Section 3: 

o Insert a new subsection 3(c) as follows: To assist in developing and administering the 

program, the Secretary may provide funds to a federally established nonprofit entity 

with particular expertise in western water transactions including funding to develop a 

comprehensive strategic plan and budget to help inform the long-term goals and 

activities of the program; and award grants for associated program research, 

implementation and evaluation. 

o Insert a new subsection 3(e) as follows: The Secretary can enter into one or more 

interagency agreements with the Secretary of State, Secretary of Army and Secretary of 

Agriculture to direct participation and transfer of funds to design, implement, and · 

evaluate water acquisition programs for the U.S. International Boundary and Water 

Commission, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Natural Resource Conservation Services 

and/or Farm Service Agency. 

In subsection 7(b): 

o Strike "pumps," in paragraph (1); 

o Modify paragraph (2) so it reads "the installation of drought-relief groundwater wells for 

Indian tribes, for environmental purposes. and in wildlife refuges eorf etRe' e<ee5" by: 

Adding "for environmental purposes" to the list of purposes for which droughtrelief groundwater wells may be installed in paragraph (2); and 

Striking "and other areas" in paragraph (2); and 

o To avoid having water saved through the important efficiency activities listed in Section 

7(b) be used for purposes other than the environmental benefits for which they are 

intended, the committee should add a subsection (c) barring such practice. One 

example of this kind of safety clause is in §9504 of the SECURE Water Act, 

42 U.S.C. §10364(a)(3)(B), which directs the Secretary of the Interior not to: "provide a 
128 

grant, or enter into an agreement, for an improvement to conserve irrigation water 

unless the eligible applicant agrees not- (i) to use any associated water savings to 

increase the total irrigated acreage of the eligible applicant; or (ii) to otherwise increase 

the consumptive use of water in the operation of the eligible applicant, as determined 

pursuant to the law of the State in which the operation of the eligible applicant is 

located." 

• In Section 9, in addition to reauthorizing Reclamation's Emergency Drought Relief Authority 

funding, the Conservancy strongly supports additional language to: 

o raise the cap on appropriations from $90 to $110 million; and 

o amend the Act to reauthorize Reclamation's authorities in Title 1, by extending to the 

year 2022 the date in 40 U.S.C. §2214(c). Title 1 allows Reclamation to purchase water, 

make its project water available, lease water or make funding available to lease water, 

and to participate in state water banks on a temporary basis during drought, including 

specifically for protecting or restoring fish and wildlife resources, 2211(c), 2212(d) and 

2213. This authority has proved critical around the West in maintaining endangered 

species populations during drought. 

The Conservancy strongly supports the Natural Resources Conservation Service's Regional 

Conservation Partnership Program, created in the 2012 Farm Bill and has been instrumental in 

establishing these partnerships in the West, including, for example, in the Gunnison River Basin 

in Colorado. These partnerships have proven to be an important tool to fund "water quantity 

conservation, restoration, or enhancement projects relating to surface water and groundwater 

resources, including the conversion of irrigated cropland to the production of less waterintensive agricultural commodities or dryland farming; or irrigation system improvement and 

irrigation efficiency enhancement ... " as well as drought mitigation, water retention, and habitat 

conservation, restoration & enhancement. Given the current broad array of covered activities, 

the Conservancy asks that the text in Section 11 regarding the new "special conservation 

initiatives" be clarified so as to identify what new initiatives would be created that are not 

already covered by existing statutory authorities. 

S.1012 focuses on sustainable solutions that optimize supply and benefits for cities, agriculture and 

nature across multiple scales from districts to river basins. For these reasons, we support 5.1012. 

eadership in addressing drought in New Mexico and throughout the Western United 
129 

P.O. Box 1099 

Ohkay Owingeh, New Mexico 87566 

Phone (505) 852-4400 

Fax(505)852-4820 

Written Testimony 

Of 

Governor Peter Garcia, Jr. 

Ohkay Owingeh 

POBox 1099 

Ohkay Owingeh, New Mexico 87566 

To 

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

Subcommittee on Energy 

June 27,2017 
130 

Chairman Risch, Ranking Member Manchin, Senator Heinrich and Members of 

the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony for the record on S. 

1012, the New Mexico Drought Preparedness Act of2017. This is a very important piece 

oflegislation to the Pueblo and people of New Mexico where we've been dealing with 

unrelenting drought compounded by the effects of climate change. I am providing these 

comments on behalf of Ohkay Owingeh. 

Ohkay Owingeh is located 25 miles north of Santa Fe, New Mexico, at the 

confluence of the Rio Grande and the Rio Chama. The Pueblo Grant is within our 

ancestral lands. Our people have been diverting water, and capturing rainwater and 

snowmelt runoff for crops for more than 1000 years. Archeologists have found our 

ancestors' irrigated agricultural fields dating to the 12m century. Our name, Ohk:ay 

Owingeh, is Tewa for "place of the strong people", a truly fitting name to be sure. Ohkay 

Owingeh is the home of the leader of the Pueblo revolt of 1680, Po 'pay. Today, Po 'pay 

is one of only seven Native Americans honored in the U.S. Capitol with a statue in the 

National Statuary Hall Collection. To say that water is central to Ohk:ay Owingeh as a 

people is an understatement. 

We strongly supportS. 1012 and ask Congress to quickly pass this important 

legislation. Furthermore, the inclusion of the Rio Grande Pueblo Irrigation Infrastructure 

Improvement Act, which was last authorized in 2009 by the Omnibus Public Land 

Management Act, in this bill necessitates quick action. 

For centuries the Pueblo was able to rely upon a clean, and sufficient supply of 

water. Population increases, an increasing demand for water by onr neighbors, degraded 

water quality, and drought have made our water supplies less reliable. Our ability to 

maintain our homeland for Ohk:ay Owingeh people for the future depends on our capacity 

to protect our culture and livelihood; maintain our traditions and ceremonies; protect our 
131 

rivers, wetlands and lands; and develop our economy. A healthy homeland can be 

maintained only through a reliable and adequate supply of safe and clean water that is 

protected by federal law. Passage of this legislation is vital to the people ofOhkay 

Owingeh because it is an important step toward our goal of a sustainable homeland. The 

funding provided by this bill will facilitate efficient water use and promote conservation 

measures based on sound, long-term water management projects. Repairing Pueblo 

irrigation infrastructure will lead to better water conservation, extend available water 

supplies, increase agricultural productivity and help better preserve our culture. 

Our lands remain parched from the current drought. It is imperative that Ohkay 

Owingeh has effective, reliable irrigation for economic development both for the Pueblo 

and for our neighbors, the non-Indian communities that surround us. This bill will help 

secure a sustainable water supply for our Pueblo farmers and is an inclusive approach to 

water management. 

Section 4 of this bill, which reauthorizes the Rio Grande Pueblo Irrigation 

Infrastructure Improvement Act, begins to address the terrible condition of irrigation 

infrastructure here in the State. Unfortunately, reauthorization of this Act will not fix all 

of the problems that have been allowed to worsen with years of deferred maintenance 

costs and severe federal budget cuts. However, passage of bills like this one is a good 

first step. 

Water is essential to life for all of us. For Ohkay Owingeh, water is woven 

through every part of our lives - it is necessary for our ceremonies, is a part of our 

traditions, and is central to the Pueblo's ability to achieve economic self-sufficiency. 

Together with legislation such asS. 1012 and our ongoing water rights settlement 

negotiations, our people will have a better chance at a safe, clean, reliable and sufficient 

source of water for the future. 
132 

Thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony on behalf of Ohkay Owingeh 

for the record. 

Governor Peter Garci 

Ohkay Owingeh 
133 

J. Leroy Ari{U/1:/CO 

Governor 

Statement ofGovernorJ. Leroy Arquero 

Pueblo de Coehiti 

Before the 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Re$0urces 

on 

8.1936 

New Mexieo Drought Preparedness Ad ofl015 

October 22, 20!5 

DwayneHI?I'I'l!1'a 

Lt. Governor 

The testifying witnesses in this hearing noted that our Pueblo has experienced subsTantial 

hmms from adverse impacts of the Cochiti Dant and called.tbr p!lftnership and consent ofthe 

I>Ueblo for any Adrian Ogelsby, Vice-Chair of the Middle 

Rio Gtende Conservancy District "{wJe fully recogniZe the potential impacts that any 

changes to the Cochiti. authorization may have to Cochiti Putlblo .aad we fully support any action 

necesl!ar)' to address their conceras. This is especially important given the physical and social 

damage that the ennstrnction of Cochiti Dant inflicted upon Cochiti Pueblo." 

The original flood control easement and the modification to add and maintain a 

pemument pool to the Co.chiti reservoir have imposed enormous cultural, environmentsl.and 

financial costs upon us. Cl!ail:trmn Murkowski's opel!ing statement recognized the po.tential: 

negative impacts that drought mitigation can have on local.cdmmunities. Rlmldng Member 

Cantwell al!iO pointed out that these messlll'es can create long-term problems with costly impacts. 

I>Uehlo profol!lldly understands these impa.ets ftotn our experience \vith the fu!rms caused. by 

Dam end Reser\loir, which include irreparshle culmtallosses, as well as econoll)ic 

end environmental impacts frOm wltich we are still recovering. 

In light of our experlente, the Pueblo is deeply concerned by the suggestions of changing 

uses to and demands on the Cochiti Dam alld Reservoit. The Pueblo is grateful to Senators Udall 

and Heinrich for including terms inS. 1936 to fund a feasibility study end we appreciate the 
134 

Statement of Governor J. 

Pueblo de Cochiti 

Page2 

Arquero 

provisions in Section 5{ e) that require the consent of the Pueblo de Cochiti regarding the effects 

of any proposed deviation of the .operations of Cochiti reservoir on the Pueblo.· The testimony of 

Depllrtment of Interior Deputy Secretary Michael Connur also. expressed support for partnership 

with the Pueblo in carrying out the feasibllity litlldy. !:{e stated, "The Depllrtment supports a 

feasibility study in pertnership with tbe Army Corps of Engineers and Cochiti Pueblo to assess 

maximized operational flexibilities if.the concerns of Cochiti Pueblo are addiessed." 

As the Committee .considers S. 1936, the Pueblo urges the Connrtittee to lend its full 

support for a feasibility study conduc1ed in pertnership with the Pueblo and the inclusion of 

Section 5( e) tertns requiring 0\11' eonsent for any changes in the operations of Cochiti Dam. The 

feasibility study represents a critioal preliminary step to deterruine the effects on the Pueblo of 

any such change in operations. As Ranking Member Cantwell stressed in her opening remarks, 

long·term, CO\li'Prehensive plans .must be devised that focus on resiliency and coordinated 

plenuing. As for the effects <ln the Pueblo caused by the operations of Cochiti Dam and 

Reservoir, such a coordinated planning frameWork involves not oniy.addressing bnpacts, but also 

obtaining consensus and approval of the Pueblo. Moreover, that frameWOrk must clarifY that any 

new authorization .. of uses of Cochiti Dam will open opportonities foudditional investments into 

Cochiti Pueblo's existing mitigation infrastructure) provide for new aed sustained resources to 

build eapacity for managing ruitigation systems, include pro:yisious goventing the United States' 

liability for any dam11ges associated witb new uses and establish .mecharii~s under whic\1 the 

Pueblo may obtain revenues to compensate for ooth existing and new responsibilities to the users 

and beneficiaries of the Cochiti Reservoir. 

As discussed. ill the heafuig, the feasibility study in SectionS and the balance of the 

proposed legislation reflects a concem for the endangered Rio Grande silvery minnow (and the 

federal agencies' desire for pul,se reltlases from Cochiti RusefV()ir to aid in its spawning) and 

enhanced IO!IJl.1erm water storage capacity for the Middle Rio Grande Pueblo tribes of New 

Mexico (Cochiti, Santo Domingo, San Felipe, Santa Allll, Sandia and. Isleta) for irtigatihn 

P\li'Poses. .Yet, Cochiti Pueblo has no reS()urces available to address the proposals for extra 

water st<lrage or changes in water releasc schedules either tofacili\ate protection of the silvecy 

minnow or fur irrigation water litllrage for the Middle Rio Grande Pueblos or the Middle Rio 

Grande Conservation Disttict (MRCD). 

We have been engaged in dialogue with the u~s. Army Cotps of Engineers and other 

federal agencies for several years ~eking to establish mechanisms \lndet which the Pueblo may 

generate revenues related to ~mrent use of the Cochiti Reservoir, im;luding, fur instance, uses 

related to the approximately 600,000 recreational users who ctane t<l our lands each )'eln' to 

access Cochiti Lake, (The Pueblo bears responsibilities fur trssb, wear and tear on out roads and 

law enfo~ment obligations With no income to offSet those. C<lSts aed burdens.) To date, these 

discessions have Mt resulted in the .establishment of a revenu!)·sharing agreement or other 

mechanism to offset costs, in part due to 1be need for le:gislation authorizing tile Pueblo's 

assumption of program and adruinistr'<1tive responsibilities and receiving the corresponding 

funding or user fees. The Pueblo has indicated openoess to certain pertnerships with the federal 

agencies, but administrative, fiscal and legal hurdles have sendbagged those effurts. ·We 
135 

Statement of Governor J. Leroy Al:quern 

:Pueblo de Cochiti 

Page3 

~ncoUtage the CQID1nittee to be sensitive to implementation obstacles when considering drought mitigation legislation. 

With respect to S. 1936, tbe Pueblo also calls to your attention the following concerns, 

which we believe must be carefully examined and addressed as the Committee considers this 

proposed legislation: 

L We are concerhed about advetse environmental imP!lllt from increased water 

on the upstresm oftbe Rio Grande upstteam.from Cochiti Reservoir. Storing more 

water tbe ReservQir for purposes such as conservation or irrigation for extended periods will 

canse extensive environmental hann in that loeation as documented in the "CoChiti Reservoir 

Reregulation Interagency Biological Report" issued June 3{), 1993. We have not seen any data 

mOdifying the conclusions of that repim. or identifying any method mitigating the upstream 

environmental hanns extended water storage J~t the reservoir would CJ!USe. 

2. stored in .the reservoir for 

a prolonged period, this inerCJ!ses satoration oftbe earth fill in the Dam's structure and increases 

the risk of some furore dam collapse. 

3. Tbe Pueblo and the Unit¢d States entered into a settlement agreement regarding 

the seepage problem the reservoir tbal was approved congress in 1992. This 

settlement to tbe Pueblo de agrlcultu:rlll .fields in a 

defined area Dam .as the reservoir project existed at that As 

patt of that sett}ement, of Engineers installed an uncler~(l'OU!lld, urevltv·,based 

drainage system for our located southwest of. the 

was 1lesigned to maintenance of a ! ,200 surface acre pemtanent 

pe;iodie storage and release regime authorized by tbe flood control legisla1ion 

time. 

The is a new development that could 

overwhehn Pueblo !lgrieulture and other aspects 

of Ptleblo life. The studies aod cCOmprehensive planning 

proceSs will proceed Pueblo aod will conSider 

such measures as If implementation of 

a new program, however, of any al!thori:zing 

legislation should ensure to in .order to identify, 

analyze and cure any problems that .may reverse. the damages caused .by tbe new 

cooditions. The Pueblo that. S. 19:16 include specific terots governing liability . and 

compensation for dantages to tbe :Pueblo's cUlture, economy, operati01lell!l1d administrative costs 

and.othet interests. S119h Ianguege coult\ be ln the forot·of a proviso stafrag that the Pueblo shall 

be eligible to receive federal funding to. compensate the :Pueblo for any and ell costs and 

damages caused by tbeiroplementation ofrhis Act 

4. We have beard various estimates of the quantity of additional waters tbat some 

agencies (in pattloular tbe U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Middle. Rio. Grande Conservancy 
136 

Statement of Governor J. Leroy Arquero 

Pueblo de Cochiti 

Page4 

Pueblos rights .to prior lll!d. paramount irrigation waters 

from Rio Grande) would to .see at tbe Coehlti Reservoir. Those .estimates have 

C()ntemplated additional water storage of up to 60,000 additional acre feet for ronservatiQil 

for periods that might include 60 to 90 days or longer, The greater the atn()unt of water 

the reservoir and the lcnger its duratiQil, the more impact this woUld. have on the first 

three factors listed above. 

S. We are pleased that the 

authorize deviations ftoro the eli:isting uses of or the waters 

contained therein, but thatrecognition ouly catne after many years of negotiation with the Corps. 

The Pueblo's dealings with the C<lrps have heen costly because of the Pueblo's need to 

engage legal counsel and experts in those dealings. The Pueblo has limited 

re,Sources because it is not a gaming We now have a positive lll!d mutually respectlhl 

relationship with the Corps. Despite our positive experience with the Corps, tbe Pueblo has great 

concern as S. 1936 to yet federsl the Bureau of Reclamation 

(BOR), structare uses and water release 

schedules. actor will cost the Pueblo a great deal 

of time and money to protect its the agency, build. relatioushlps aod effectively 

coordinate with BOR.. The Pueblo a positive meeting with the BOR and we have shared 

concems. We.appreciate that the BOR listeoed aod. seemed to underStand th~ cQilcerns. 

Nonetbel,ess, we oppose· ad;iing the new layer of federal bureaucracy in the management of 

Cochiti Reservoir. In that vein, we wish to make it clearly understOOd by this Committee that the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, one of the prlaciple drivers of proposed changes in use ,of the 

reservoir •. lias never oonsuited with the Pueblo to hear our views regarding any of these !'(latters 

even though: Executive Order 13175 requires all federal agancies to engage in regular and 

meaningful goveraroent-to·govemraent consultation with tribal officials in the development of 

federal policies that have tribal iroplicatious. 

6. No one has identified a source of wafer that wouid even be available on a 

sostained fur the of the Rio Grande silvery miunow, fur· which additional. water 

storage is. proposed. With t)Xceptlon of prior and paramount water the Middle Rio Grande 

Pueblos seek to store at Reservoir, we believe the e:xperience of the prior. five year 

tempotaty deviaoan the Corp for purposes of benefitting the minnow raises 

sen'ous questious would be much water 1,\Ctually available fur futare long 

1. now well settled that the only 

the. Pueblo's ure. those set out in the existing authoriZation xegJtslaiJon 

control, re.crea'ti()nal.anhaoceraent in tbe lake and enhancement.. We 

in particn!ar that the ;efereoee to Fish and Wildlife anhaocelnent in the above provision 

to Fish and Wildlife enhancement at the reservoir not at some otberJocatiQil upstresm or 

downstream, Any over the meaulng of thase wonis in our easement agreement must 

be construed !rod our.favor based on longstanding canons of interpretation. Montana 

v. Blaclfeet Tribe oflmh'ill!iti, 471 U.S; 750 (1985). 
137 

Statement uf Goveroor J. Leroy Arquero 

Pueblo de Cochiti 

PageS 

8. The Pueblo in the past has agreed to terr•no•.,.rv 

schedule to accommodate various interests. On furtbill: Pueblo is not comfOrtable 

wjth continuing those amsngements as they are not legally authorized aod ptesent some dangers 

to the .Pueblo. Neither the Corps nor the Pueblo haV:e the legal !Uithority to unilaterally alter the 

existing congressionally authorized uses aod the Pueblo does not at tbis time support aoy such 

legislative chaoge. 

The Pueblo .is fully .committed to work with the Committee !Uld with Senators Heinrich 

and Udall to. establish a comprehensive plao for a coordinated framework to address the many 

interests aod conceras assoeiated with the Cochiti Dam aod Reservoir. Given the concentrated 

of aoy new authori:z&tion on the Pueblo, we count on that framework including 

.m€:chlmil>ms to address impacts aod to provide appropriate new investments into Cochiti's 

mi.tiga1tion infutstrncture, provide for sustained resources to build capacity to maoaging 

aod establish terms governing the United States' liability damages associated 

new uses. Pueblo further hopes that careful planning will reveal the equity. of aod 

necessitr for authority under which the Pueblo may obtain revenues to compeosate for the 

Pueblo's existing and new tesponsibilities associated with the Cochiti reservoir. 
138 

PO Box4339 

San Felipe Pueblo, NM 87001 

Phone: (505) 867-3381/3382 

Fax: (505) 867-3383 

Office of the Governor 

Written Testimony 

Of 

Governor Anthony Ortiz 

Pueblo of San Felipe 

San Felipe, New Mexico 

To 

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

Subcommittee on Energy 

June 27, 2017 
139 

Chairman Risch, Ranking Member Manchin, Senator Heinrich and Members of the 

Subcommittee, Kuwaitsi. Hello. Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony for the 

record on S. 1012, the New Mexico Drought Preparedness Act of2017. This is a very important 

piece oflegislation to the Pueblo and people of New Mexico where we've been dealing with 

unrelenting drought compounded by the effects of climate change. 

The Pueblo of San Felipe is one of the most culturally conservative of New Mexico's 19 

Pueblos. The Pueblo is located about halfway between Albuquerque (about 30 miles to the 

north) and Santa Fe (about 40 miles to the south) at the foot of the Mesa de Tamita. We have 

existed on this land since time immemorial. Our traditions, land, and culture are who we are as 

Pueblo Peoples and access to water is paramount to our survival. 

Section 4 of this bill contains reauthorization of the Rio Grande Pueblo Irrigation 

Infrastructure Improvement Act, which was last authorized in 2009 by the Omnibus Public Land 

Management Act. Through its authorization, Congress directed the Bureau of Reclamation to 

conduct a study and develop a list of recommended projects to repair, rehabilitate, or reconstruct 

irrigation and drainage facilities for the New Mexico Rio Grande Pueblos. Projects that are vital 

to the people of the Pueblo of San Felipe. The funding provided by this bill will address 

efficiency and conservation measures for good, long-term water management projects. 

Repairing Pueblo irrigation infrastructure will lead to better water conservation, extend available 

water supplies, increase agricultural productivity and help better preserve our culture. 

Our lands remain parched from the current drought, which has significantly stressed our 

natural resources and those that depend on them for their livelihoods such as tribal farmers and 

ranchers. This bill will help secure a sustainable water supply for our Pueblo farmers and is an 
140 

inclusive approach to water management that includes innovative ideas such as voluntary water 

leasing programs. 

S. 1012 is important to the Pueblo of San Felipe and the people of the State of New 

Mexico. We urge Congress to pass this important piece of legislation. 

Who:wee'eh (Thank you). 
141 

Testimony of the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership 

Subcommittee on Water and Power 

Energy and Natural Resources Committee 

United States Senate 

S. 1012 New Mexico Drought Preparedness Act 

S 677 Water Supply Permitting Coordination Act 

May 10,2017 
142 

The Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership (TRCP) is a coalition-building organization that 

seeks to unite and amplify the voices of sportsmen and women around important federal issues 

that affect fish and wildlife habitat, funding for conservation programs, and sportsmen's access. Our 

mission is to guarantee all Americans quality places to hunt and fish, and we are made up of 54 

national partner organizations. 

Drought is a constant threat across the West, so maintaining the existing authorities for 

Reclamation to assist with drought response is critical. For example, the Colorado River Basin has 

been in drought for most of the last 17 years. Given the region's growing population, the long term 

imbalance in the Basin between water supply and demand, and the fact that the large reservoirs in 

the basin, Lakes Mead and Powell, are still only half full, 2017's healthy precipitation is not cause to 

lower the red flags. This wet year has deferred, not eliminated the likelihood of a shortage 

declaration. As a result, anglers, hunters, and conservationists, along with irrigators, urban water 

suppliers, and others, continue to work on drought contingency plans and other strategies to keep 

the rivers flowing, the fields producing and the cities strong. 

Several sections ofS. 1012 amend West-wide or national programs. Om· comments relate to these 

sections of the bill. 

Following our comments on S. 1012, we have also included brief comments on S. 677, the Water 

Supply Permitting Coordination Act, 

Section 7, Emergency Funding 

The TRCP strongly supports the goal of this section, which makes financial assistance available, 

including under the Emergency Drought Relief Act and Food Security Act of 1985 to a list of 15 

different kinds of projects that address drought impacts to water supplies and other water-related 

crises, or that help water suppliers engaged in collaborative processes to restore the environment, 

including at the basin level. Some TRCP partner organizations have worked on just these sorts of 

collaborative efforts at the local and basin level that address multiple purposes, including for cities 

and irrigators, but also restoration and protection of rivers and riparian habitat that benefit fish 

and wildlife and outdoor recreation. From the 246,000 square miles of the Colorado River Basin to 

the 32 mile long Fraser River in Grand County Colorado (a Colorado River tributary), these efforts 

lead to improved results for all parties and build strong community in the process. 

The TRCP would ask that, to avoid unsustainable ground water pumping during drought, which 

some emergency drought relief funds have unfortunately allowed to occur in the past, the 

committee adopt an amendment to: 

a. Delete the word pumps in subparagraph (1) of subsection 7(b), and 

b. Delete the phrase and other areas in subparagraph (2) of subsection 7(b ). 

In addition, to avoid having water saved through the important efficiency activities listed in Section 

7(b) be used for purposes other than the environmental benefits for which they are intended, the 

committee should add a subsection (c) barring such practice. One example of this kind of safety 
143 

clause is in §9504 of the SECURE Water Act, 42 USC 10364(a)(3)(B), which directs the Secretary of 

the Interior not to: 

provide a grant, or enter into an agreement, for an improvement to conserve irrigation 

water unless the eligible applicant agrees not-

(i) to use any associated water savings to increase the total irrigated acreage of 

the eligible applicant; or 

(ii) to otherwise increase the consumptive use of water in the operation of the 

eligible applicant, as determined pursuant to the law of the State in which the 

operation of the eligible applicant is located. 

Section 8, SECURE Reauthorization 

The TRCP supports reauthorization of the SECURE Water Act Through its Basin Study and 

waterS MART grant programs, this Act has it has been a critical component of the efforts to restore 

water supply and demand balance in the Colorado River Basin and elsewhere in the West Grants 

issued through the WaterSMART Program have been a powerful tool for conserving water through 

collaborative local projects. The 243 grants issued from 2010 to 2015 save an estimated 557,000 

acre-feet of water per year-enough to provide water for more than 2.2 million people. 

Section 9, Emergency Drought Relief Act Reauthorization 

The TRCP strongly supports reauthorization of Reclamation's Emergency Drought Relief Authority 

funding. With less than $12 million left under the current appropriation, the TRCP urges the 

committee also to raise the cap on appropriations from $90 to $110 million. 

In addition, the TRCP encourages the committee to amend the act also to reauthorize Reclamation's 

authorities in Title 1, by extending the date in 40 U.S. C. §2214(c) to 2022. Title 1 allows 

Reclamation to purchase water, make its project water available, lease water or make funding 

available to lease water and to participate in state water banks on a temporary basis during 

drought, including specifically for protecting or restoring fish and wildlife resources, 2211(c), 

2212(d) and 2213. This authority has proved critical around the west in maintaining endangered 

species populations during drought 

Sec. 11. Regional Conservation Partnership Program 

The TRCP strongly supports the Natural Resources Conservation Service's Regional Conservation 

Partnership Program, created in the 2012 Farm BilL Several of our member organizations have 

been instrumental in establishing these partnerships in the West, including, for example, in the 

Gunnison River Basin in Colorado. These partnerships have proven to be an important tool to fund 

"water quantity conservation, restoration, or enhancement projects relating to surface water and 

groundwater resources, including the conversion of irrigated cropland to the production of less 

water-intensive agricultural commodities or dryland farming; or irrigation system improvement 

and irrigation efficiency enhancement..." as well as drought mitigation, water retention, and habitat 
144 

conservation, restoration & enhancement Given the current broad array of covered activities, the 

TRCP asks that the committee clarify what the new "special conservation initiatives" that the bill 

adds would include that are not covered through the existing statuto1y authorities. 

Sec. 12. Conservation Reserve Program 

The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), 16 USC §3831, has proven both important in preserving 

our nation's agricultural lands. CRP ensures an "equitable balance" among the conservation 

purposes of soil erosion, water quality, and wildlife habitat 16 USC §3831(i). Within CRP, there is 

the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP), through which the Farm Service Agency 

(FSA) partners with States who determine which of their owners may be compensated for 

removing environmentally sensitive lands from production. 

TRCP supports both CRP and CREP. We believe that these programs could be useful tools to address 

water quantity concerns, promote water conservation and help mitigate or avoid drought impacts 

in the arid and semi-arid West TRCP looks forward to working with the sponsors and committee 

members to find ways of achieving those goals without adversely affecting the other aspects of 

these programs. 

S. 677, the Water Supply Permitting Coordination Act 

The TRCP does not supportS. 677, the Water Supply Permitting Coordination Act We believe that 

committee members support western water interests in finding broad-based, collaborative 

solutions to water scarcity, such as parties have developed in the Yakima and Upper Colorado River 

watersheds. S 677, by making Reclamation the lead agency for all surface water storage projects in 

Reclamation states, includes ones where Reclamation would otherwise have no involvement, by 

creating potentially unreasonable timelines, and by putting in place a framework different from the 

one that Congress recently enacted, will work against this goal. 

As part of the Congress passed the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act in 2015. The FAST 

Act included Title XLI, to streamline and coordinate federal agency permitting for major capital 

projects, defined as those costing $200 million or more, that need a federal permit, including water 

storage projects. The TRCP supports the permit streamlining and coordination required in the FAST 

Act and would encourage the committee to expand that approach to other surface water storage 

projects, rather than establish a new process different from that in the FAST Act 
145 

Steve Moyer, 

Vice-President of Governmental Affairs 

May9,20l7 

The Honorable Jeff Flake. Chaimmn 

Subcommittee on Water and Power 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

The Honorable Angus S. King, Jr., Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Water and Power 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

Laura Ziemer, 

Senior Counsel and Water Policy Advisor 

Re: Letter for the Record for the May 10,2017 Subcommittee Hearing on S. 677 and S. 1012 

Dear Chainnan Flake and Ranking Member King: 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit for the record the following testimony in response to the 

Subcommittee's May l 0, 2017 hearing on S. 677, '·Water Supply Permitting Coordination Act," and 

S.l012 "New Mexico Drought Preparedness Act," among other water bills. We will have additional 

testimony to submit next \Vcck after \VC revic\Y other bills at issue in the hearing. 

Trout Unlimited (TU) represents more than 150,000 conservation-minded anglers, organized into 385 

chapters in 36 state councils. Our mission is to conserve, protect and restore the Nation· s trout and 

salmon fisheries and their watersheds. We have 250 staff spread across America who work with our 

members and a wide variety of partners - including fam1crs, ranchers, miners and state and local agencies 

-to accomplish our mission. TU works on projects tl1at build drought and flood resilience for our mral 

communities that provide benefits for both agriculture and river health. TU believes that linking 

investment in natural infrastructure with water infrastructure upgrades is essential in order to reduce 

inefficiencies and pr()jcct delays. and maximize benefits, including improved trout habitat and watershed 

health. 

S. 677, "Water Supply Permitting and Coordination Act:" Section 4(b)'s Timelines for 

Environmental Compliance Work Against Multi-Stakeholder, Collaborative Solutions to Water 

Scarcity. 

TU docs not supportS. 677 because it docs not work toward broad-based. collaborative solutions to water 

scarcity. TU has been a long-tenn partner in theY akima and Klamath basin efforts, and our experience in 

these multi-stakeholder, collaborative, basin-wide processes is that surface water storage is best 

considered and implemented as one clement of a multi-pronged approach or as part of a plan that 

considers a variety of alternatives. Rather than encouraging cooperative stakeholder processes or 

providing funding to catalyze cooperative solutions. S. 677's Section 4(b)(4) requires specified deadlines 

to be met for consulting \Yith cooperating agencies, completing environmental reviev.rs, and determining 

Trout Unlimited: America's Leading Coldwater Fisheries Conservation Organi:ation 

321 East Main Street, Suite 411, Bozeman, MT 59715 

office: (406) 522-7695 • cell: (4D6) 599-2606 • email: lziemer<<ltu.org • www.tu.org 
146 

Pa e 2 

project schedules. Last year in hearings on S.2902, Reclamation testified to the fact that there have been 

no examples of any Reclamation or USDA-sited surface water storage projects that have been denied 

constmction because of delays associated with project reviews or shortcomings in communication among 

Reclamation, USDA, or any other state or federal partners. TU's experience is that S. 677 would impose 

additional burdens on Bureau of Reclamation staff-who are already spread thin-without providing 

meaningful benefits for addressing water scarcity or drought resilience. 

Please bear in mind that Congress passed the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act in 

20 15. The FAST Act included Title XLI to streamline and coordinate federal agency pennitting for major 

capital projects, defined as those fcderal-pennit projects costing $200 million or more, including water 

storage projects. TU supports the permit streamlining and coordination required in the FAST Act and 

would encourage the Committee to expand the FAST Act's approach to other surface water storage 

projects, rather than establish a new process. 

S. 1012, "New Mexico Dronght Preparedness Act:" TU Supports the Act's Promotion of 

Thoughtful Drought Response and Preparedness. 

TU has worked with both agricultural and municipal partners on a range of drought response efforts, as 

well as long-tem1 efforts toward improved drought resiliency. In TU's experience, upgrading aging, 

century-old irrigation and water delivery infrastmcturc in the West is an opportunity to build flood and 

drought resilience through improved water storage and delivery and improved river health. Restoration of 

watershed function is a sound investment that pays dividends over the long-tem1. Linking a water 

infrastmcture project with upstream or downstream investments in natural aquatic functioning increases 

the cost-effectiveness of the project aud increases the range of project benefits. Several sections ofS. 

I 012 amend west-wide or national programs which have been importaut to TU's work with partners on 

drought response. Below are TU's comments on these sections of the bill. 

Section 7, Emergency Funding 

TU strongly supports the goal of this section, which makes financial assistance available to 15 different 

kinds of projects that address drought impacts to water supplies and other water-related crises, or that help 

water suppliers engaged in collaborative processes to restore the environment, including at the basin level. 

From the 246,000 square miles of the Colorado River Basin to its small tributaries, these effotts lead to 

improved results for all parties and build strong community in the process. 

Turning to unsustainable ground water pumping during drought exacerbates water scarcity, aud ultimately 

worsens drought impacts over the long term. Some emergency drought relief flmds have unfortunately 

promoted such counter-productive drought response measures in the past. TU requests that the 

Committee adopt the following amendment to avoid paying for unsustainable groundwater pumping 

during drought: 

Delete the word pumps in subparagraph (I) of subsection 7(b ), and 

Delete the phrase and a/her areas in subparagraph (2) of subsection 7(b ). 
147 

Pa e 3 

In addition, to avoid having water saved through the important efficiency activities listed in Section 7(b) 

be used for purposes other than the environmental benefits for which they are intended, the Committee 

should add a subsection (c) barring such practice. One example of this kind of safety clause is in §9504 

of the SECURE Water Act, 42 U.S.C. §I 0364(a)(3)(B). which directs the Secretary of the Interior not to: 

provide a grant, or enter into an agreement, for an improvement to conserve irrigation water 

unless the eligible applicant agrees not-

(i) to usc any associated water savings to increase the total irrigated acreage of the 

eligible applicant; or 

(ii) to othemise increase the consumptive usc of water in the operation of the eligible 

applicant, as determined pursuant to the law of the State in which the operation of the 

eligible applicant is located. 

Section 8, SECURE Reauthorization 

TU strongly supports reauthorization of the SECURE Water Act. TI1rough its Basin Study and 

waterS MART grant programs, this Act has been a critical component of the efforts to restore water 

supply and demand balance in the Colorado River Basin and elsewhere in the West. 

Section 9, Emergency Drought Relief Act Reauthorization 

TU strongly supports reauthorization of Reclamation's Emergency Drought Relief Authority funding. 

With less than $12 million left under the current appropriation, TU urges the Committee also to raise the 

cap on appropriations from $90 to $110 million. ill addition, TU encourages the Committee to amend the 

Act to reauthorize Reclamation's authorities in Title 1, by extending to the year 2022 the date in 40 

U .S.C. §2214(c). Title 1 allows Reclamation to purchase water, make its project water available, lease 

water or make funding available to lease water, and to participate in state water banks on a temporary 

basis during drought, including specifically for protecting or restoring fish and wildlife resources, 

22ll(c), 2212(d) and 2213. TI1is authority has proved critical around the West in maintaining endangered 

species populations during drought. 

Sec. 11. Regional Conservation Partnership Program 

TU strongly supports the Natural Resources Conservation Service· s Regional Conservation Partnership 

Program (RCPP), created in the 2012 Farm Bill. TU has partnerships with irrigation districts to 

implement RCPP's with a drought response focus in several states in the West, including the Gunnison 

River Basin in Colorado. These partnerships have proven to be an important tool to fund ·'water quantity 

conservation, restoration, or enhancement projects relating to surface water and groundwater resources, 

including the conversion of irrigated cropland to the production ofkss water-intensive agricultural 

commodities or dry land farming; or irrigation system improvement and irrigation efficiency 

enhancement ... " as well as drought mitigation, water retention, and habitat conservation, restoration & 

enhancement. Given the current broad array of covered activities, TU asks that the Committee clarifY 

what the new ·'special conservation initiatives" that the bill adds arc, and clarify whether they arc already 

covered through the existing statutory authorities. 

Sec. 12. Conservation Reserve Program 

The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), 16 U.S. C. §3831, has proven both important and useful in 

preserving our nation's agricultural lands. CRP ensures an "equitable balance., among tl1e conservation 
148 

Pa e 4 

purposes of soil erosion, water quality, and wildlife habitat. 16 U.S.C. §383l(i). Within CRP, there is the 

Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP), through which the Farm Service Agency (FSA) 

partners with States who determine which of their owners may be compensated for removing 

environmentally sensitive lands from production. TU supports both CRP and CREP. Section 12(a) of S. 

10 12 would expand CRP conservation priority areas, designated because of "special environmental 

sensitivities," 16 U.S.C. §3831(£)(1), to include areas whose water quantity in adversely affected as a 

result of agricultural activities. TU asks the Committee to clarify further that, in this context, ·'water 

quantity" impacts relate to adverse environmental effects such as chronic low flows that stress fisheries 

and riparian systems. This will help ensure that the soil erosion, water quality, and wildlife habitat 

purposes arc not adversely affected, while at the same time appropriately expanding the program to help 

address water scarcity in the arid West. 

TI1ank you for your time in considering these important issues. Please do not hesitate to contact either of 

us at smover:a;tu.org or lzicmer(iitu.org if we can be of assistance. 

Yours truly, 

Steve Moyer. 

Vice-President of Govemmcntal Affairs 

0 

Laura Ziemer, 

Senior Counsel and 

Water Policy Advisor