U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

51-187 PDF 2009

H.R. 1065, H.R. 1738, H.R. 2265, 

H.R. 2442, H.R. 2522, H.R. 2741 

AND H.R. 2950 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 

Serial No. 111-28 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html 

or 

Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Chairman 

DOC HASTINGS, Washington, Ranking Republican Member 

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa 

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii 

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey 

Grace F. Napolitano, California 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam 

Jim Costa, California 

Dan Boren, Oklahoma 

Gregorio Sablan, Northern Marianas 

Martin T. Heinrich, New Mexico 

George Miller, California 

Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts 

Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon 

Maurice D. Hinchey, New York 

Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands 

Diana DeGette, Colorado 

Ron Kind, Wisconsin 

Lois Capps, California 

Jay Inslee, Washington 

Joe Baca, California 

Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South Dakota 

John P. Sarbanes, Maryland 

Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire 

Niki Tsongas, Massachusetts 

Frank Kratovil, Jr., Maryland 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, Puerto Rico 

Don Young, Alaska 

Elton Gallegly, California 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Jeff Flake, Arizona 

Henry E. Brown, Jr., South Carolina 

Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington 

Louie Gohmert, Texas 

Rob Bishop, Utah 

Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania 

Doug Lamborn, Colorado 

Adrian Smith, Nebraska 

Robert J. Wittman, Virginia 

Paul C. Broun, Georgia 

John Fleming, Louisiana 

Mike Coffman, Colorado 

Jason Chaffetz, Utah 

Cynthia M. Lummis, Wyoming 

Tom McClintock, California 

Bill Cassidy, Louisiana 

James H. Zoia, Chief of Staff 

Rick Healy, Chief Counsel 

Todd Young, Republican Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Republican Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California, Chairwoman 

TOM McCLINTOCK, California, Ranking Republican Member 

George Miller, California 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Jim Costa, California 

Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon 

Jay Inslee, Washington 

Joe Baca, California 

Nick J. Rahall, II, West Virginia, ex officio 

Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington, 

Adrian Smith, Nebraska 

Mike Coffman, Colorado 

Doc Hastings, Washington, ex officio 

(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Tuesday, July 21, 2009 ............................................................... 1 

Statement of Members: 

Baca, Hon. Joe, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California ....................................................................................................... 57 

Chaffetz, Hon. Jason, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Utah, Prepared statement of ....................................................................... 20 

Costa, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California ....................................................................................................... 57 

Gallegly, Hon. Elton, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, Prepared statement of ............................................................... 83 

McClintock, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California ................................................................................................... 4 

Miller, Hon. George, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California ....................................................................................................... 5 

Napolitano, Hon. Grace F., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California ................................................................................................... 2 

Walden, Hon. Greg, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Oregon ............................................................................................................ 6 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Alvarez, Desi, Deputy City Manager, Downey, California ............................ 30 

Prepared statement on H.R. 1738 ........................................................... 31 

Brookshier, Ed, City Manager, Hermiston, Oregon ....................................... 51 

Prepared statement on H.R. 2741 ........................................................... 53 

Connor, Michael L., Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. ........................................... 8 

Prepared statement on H.R. 1065 ........................................................... 16 

Prepared statement on H.R. 1738 ........................................................... 9 

Prepared statement on H.R. 2265 ........................................................... 10 

Prepared statement on H.R. 2442 ........................................................... 10 

Prepared statement on H.R. 2522 ........................................................... 11 

Prepared statement on H.R. 2741 ........................................................... 12 

Prepared statement on H.R. 2950 ........................................................... 13 

Darling, Gary W., General Manager, Delta Diablo Sanitation District, 

Antioch, California ........................................................................................ 43 

Prepared statement on H.R. 2442 ........................................................... 45 

Hansen, Edwin J., General Manager, Magna Water District, Magna, 

Utah ............................................................................................................... 41 

Prepared statement on H.R. 2265 ........................................................... 42 

Lupe, Ronnie, Tribal Chairman, White Mountain Apache Tribe, Fort 

Apache Indian Reservation, Arizona ........................................................... 65 

Prepared statement on H.R. 1065 ........................................................... 66 

Mulligan, Susan, Manager of Engineering, Calleguas Municipal Water 

District, Thousand Oaks, California ............................................................ 47 

Prepared statement on H.R. 2522 ........................................................... 49 

Ruppe, Scott, General Manager, Uintah Water Conservancy District, 

Vernal, Utah .................................................................................................. 54 

Prepared statement on H.R. 2950 ........................................................... 56 

Sullivan, John F., Associate General Manager, Water Group, Salt River 

Valley Water Users Association and Salt River Project Agricultural 

Improvement and Power District, Phoenix, Arizona ................................. 71 

Prepared statement on H.R. 1065 ........................................................... 72 

(1) 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 1738, TO 

AMEND THE RECLAMATION WASTEWATER 

AND GROUNDWATER STUDY AND FACILITIES ACT TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY 

OF THE INTERIOR TO PARTICIPATE IN THE 

CITY OF DOWNEY, CALIFORNIA, REGIONAL 

WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND RECLAMATION FACILITY PROJECTS. ‘‘DOWNEY 

REGIONAL WATER RECLAMATION AND 

GROUNDWATER AUGMENTATION PROJECT 

OF 2009;’’ H.R. 2265, TO AMEND THE RECLAMATION WASTEWATER AND GROUNDWATER STUDY AND FACILITIES ACT TO 

AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO PARTICIPATE IN THE MAGNA 

WATER DISTRICT WATER REUSE AND 

GROUNDWATER RECHARGE PROJECT, AND 

FOR OTHER PURPOSES. ‘‘MAGNA WATER 

DISTRICT WATER REUSE AND GROUNDWATER RECHARGE ACT OF 2009;’’ H.R. 2442, 

TO AMEND THE RECLAMATION WASTEWATER AND GROUNDWATER STUDY AND 

FACILITIES ACT TO EXPAND THE BAY AREA 

REGIONAL WATER RECYCLING PROGRAM, 

AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. ‘‘BAY AREA 

REGIONAL WATER RECYCLING PROGRAM 

EXPANSION ACT OF 2009;’’ H.R. 2522, TO 

RAISE THE CEILING ON THE FEDERAL 

SHARE OF THE COST OF THE CALLEGUAS 

MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT RECYCLING 

PROJECT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; 

2 

H.R. 2741, TO AMEND THE RECLAMATION 

WASTEWATER AND GROUNDWATER STUDY 

AND FACILITIES ACT TO AUTHORIZE THE 

SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CITY OF HERMISTON, 

OREGON, WATER RECYCLING AND REUSE 

PROJECT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES; 

H.R. 2950, TO DIRECT THE SECRETARY OF 

THE INTERIOR TO ALLOW FOR PREPAYMENT OF REPAYMENT CONTRACTS BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND THE 

UINTAH WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT; 

AND H.R. 1065, TO RESOLVE WATER RIGHTS 

CLAIMS OF THE WHITE MOUNTAIN APACHE 

TRIBE IN THE STATE OF ARIZONA, AND 

FOR OTHER PURPOSES. ‘‘WHITE MOUNTAIN 

APACHE TRIBE WATER RIGHTS QUANTIFICATION ACT OF 2009.’’ 

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Water and Power 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:01 a.m. in Room 

1334 Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Grace Napolitano 

[Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Napolitano, McClintock, Miller, Costa, 

and Baca. 

Also Present: Representatives Gallegly, Chaffetz, Walden, Smith 

of Nebraska, Roybal-Allard, Matheson, and Kirkpatrick. 

STATEMENT OF HON. GRACE NAPOLITANO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. The 

meeting of the Subcommittee on Water and Power will come to 

order. 

The purpose of today’s meeting is to hold a legislative hearing on 

H.R. 1738, H.R. 2265, H.R. 2442, H.R. 2741, H.R. 2950 and 

H.R. 1065. 

But first, before I start the meeting, I would like to welcome and 

congratulate my former colleague in the State Assembly and newly 

appointed Ranking Member, Tom McClintock, for having his first 

hearing today. And while I am at it, I would like to also, I would 

3 

like to introduce our new Director of Personnel for the Water and 

Power Subcommittee, David Wegner, and look forward to having a 

lot more interaction on water. 

I ask unanimous consent that Congresswoman Roybal-Allard, 

Congressman Matheson, Congressman Chaffetz, Congressman 

Gallegly, Congressman Walden, and Congresswoman Kirkpatrick 

be allowed to sit on the dais and participate in the Subcommittee 

proceedings today. And without objection, so ordered. 

After my opening statement I will recognize all of the members 

of the Subcommittee for any statements they may have. Any member who desires to be heard will be heard. 

Additional material may be submitted for the record by members, by witnesses or by any interested party. The record will be 

kept open for 10 business days following the hearing. 

The five-minute rule with our timer will be enforced. Green 

means go, yellow indicates one minute remains, and red means 

stop or I will. 

Today’s legislative agenda focuses on two issues that the Water 

and Power Subcommittee sees as priorities: Title XVI water recycling and tribal water rights settlement litigation. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Today we are also considering H.R. 2950, a 

bill that allows for early repayment of contracts to the Federal government from Uintah Water Conservancy. 

Welcome Commissioner Connor to what I anticipate will be the 

first of many Subcommittee hearings. Hopefully all of them will be 

pleasant. We look forward to hearing the Bureau of Reclamation’s 

perspective on Title XVI and Indian water rights. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I am concerned about the Administration’s 

position to not support Title XVI legislation and H.R. 1065, the 

White Mountain Apache settlement legislation, and I hope you will 

be able to enlighten the Subcommittee this morning on the reasons 

why the Department of the Interior does not support programs to 

better manage our western water resources. 

We want to better understand the constraints the Bureau has in 

supporting these programs, and what needs to be done to resolve 

your concerns. One of mine is budgetary, and I hope to see in the 

future a budget of at least $100 million for the next several 

legislative years to be able to catch up with the backlog of over 

$600 million. 

There is an issue of unclear administrative or legislative direction. Tell us how we can help provide the focus. 

Let me make this very clear. We look upon Title XVI and Indian 

water settlement programs as being critical to addressing the current and future water crisis of the West. 

Today we will hear testimony on five separate Title XVI programs’ authorizations. When combined, these five bills produce 

62,000 acre-feet of recycled, reused water for our systems. 

At a time when my home state of California faces extremely 

tough economic and hydrological conditions from the Bay Area, Bay 

Delta Region to the Southland, we cannot ignore the role nor the 

importance of Title XVI programs to helping solve our water 

problems. 

I personally welcome Chairman Lupe of the White Mountain 

Apache Tribe—welcome, sir—for the testimony we will receive on 

4 

H.R. 1065. This legislation settles the claims of the Tribe and provides the White Mountain Apache Tribe with a quantified water 

right. Most importantly, it provides certainty to all water users in 

the Salt River Basin and a defined water right from which the 

Tribe can work to improve their economic well-being. 

Thank you to all of the witnesses for traveling so many miles to 

meet with us here in Washington, D.C. 

I want to again welcome my colleague and new Ranking Member, Tom McClintock, to the Subcommittee and ask for any opening 

statements he may have. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM McCLINTOCK, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Well, thank you very much, Madame Chairwoman. I very much enjoyed our service together years ago in the 

California Assembly, and I am looking forward to being able to 

work with you in this new capacity. 

The former Ranking Republican on this Subcommittee, Cathy 

McMorris Rodgers, and the Republican staff have told me repeatedly how much they appreciate the open and bipartisan manner 

with which you have conducted this Subcommittee, and I want you 

to know how strongly I seek to continue that working relationship. 

I would like to begin by offering a few thoughts on the general 

work of the Subcommittee and then on the bills before us today. 

A generation ago the principal objective of our water and power 

policy was to create an abundance of both. It was an era when vast 

reservoirs and hydroelectric facilities produced a cornucopia of 

clean and plentiful and cheap electricity and water on a scale so 

vast that many communities didn’t even bother to meter. 

But the last generation seems to have abandoned this objective 

and to replace it with a very different philosophy that now dominates our public policy, that the principal purpose of government 

is not to produce abundant water and power but rather to ration 

and manage shortages the government has caused by abandoning 

its earlier objectives. 

The result is increasingly expensive water and power that is now 

affecting our prosperity as a nation. We are no longer looking at 

cost-benefit analysis of which projects make economic sense and 

which do not. Instead, practicality has been replaced by an entirely 

new ideological filter. Those projects that ration or manage shortages are considered worthy, regardless of their feasibility or cost; 

and projects that produce abundance are to be discouraged, 

regardless of their economic benefits or simple common sense. 

We have seven bills before us today, including five that deal with 

water recycling programs. With respect to the recycling bills, I 

think we need to address some very basic questions to assure consistency and accountability. 

First, what is the Federal nexus? Projects that exclusively benefit 

local communities ought to be exclusively financed by local communities. Federal funds should be used to benefit the entire nation. 

So the question arises, why should St. Petersburg be asked to pay 

for a water project for St. Paul? 

Second, have we established the project’s feasibility? Before 

Congress authorized most water supply projects in the past, the 

5 

planning had to be completed so we knew what we were getting. 

Has this process been undertaken on the projects before us? 

Third, is the project cost-effective? It is said that every gallon of 

recycled water avoids the need for a gallon of harvested water. But 

that begs the obvious question, if an acre-foot of recycled water 

costs $1,000 and an acre-foot of harvested water costs $200, why 

replace the cheaper water with the more expensive water at enormous expense to taxpayers and consumers? 

This is a question that seems to be neglected in these discussions. But at a time when the Federal deficit is at its highest level 

in history by a factor of four, it is a question that ought to dominate every discussion on this subject. 

One of the bills before us today involves the settlement of Indian 

water rights claims. Congress has passed 20 settlement bills over 

the last 20 years, but there are hundreds of others that it may be 

called upon to decide in the future. 

I support the basic principle of the Winters decision that an inherent obligation to the Federal government in establishing a reservation is to guarantee sufficient water for that reservation. However, I am concerned about tribal claims to excess water for the 

sole purpose of reselling it at profit. For example, 99,000 acre-feet 

of water are proposed to be given to 15,000 residents. That is 2.1 

million gallons per person, more than 25 times the average annual 

residential usage. The total cost of this legislation is $292 million or nearly $20,000 

per resident. One part of this bill requires the American taxpayer 

to finance economic development projects that may not be supported by the Administration nor be related to the water rights settlement. And I hope that these issues can be addressed during that 

portion of the hearing. 

Finally, we have a bill that allows the Uintah Water District to 

prepay its obligations to the Federal Treasury. This is in the interest of the District that can be relieved of interest costs and regulatory burdens. But it is also in the interest of the Nation at a time 

when it is running a catastrophic deficit. 

My only question is why an Act of Congress is necessary to make 

it possible for the District to do so. I hope that the law can be 

broadened to allow any district in similar circumstances to prepay 

Federal loans or other obligations without having to beg Congress 

for special approval to do so. 

Those are my initial questions and observations, Madame Chairman. And I want to thank the witnesses for traveling all the way 

to address them and to assist us in this decisionmaking process. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, sir. And I am Chairwoman, sir. 

Mr. Miller? 

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE MILLER, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Madame Chairwoman. I want to thank 

you so much for holding this hearing and for your unflagging support of alternative water supplies like water recycling. 

And I want to welcome Commissioner Mike Connor here to the 

Subcommittee and thank him for bringing us his wealth of experience. And he has a reputation and experience in working on many 

6 

of these problems, in fact even solving a few of them. So welcome 

to the Committee and welcome to the Department of the Interior. 

I also want to welcome Gary Darling and thank him for his tireless work on the Title XVI programs in the San Francisco Bay 

Area. Through the Bay Area Recycled Water Coalition, Gary has 

brought the region’s water and wastewater agencies together to 

identify effective and worthy projects. It is a successful model, and 

it is one that we should reward. The Title XVI program helps provide a sustainable water supply for California and for the West and 

helps us to lessen the impact on the Bay Delta ecosystems and on 

other parts of the California water system. 

The six water recycling projects in H.R. 2442 would add over 

8,000 acre-feet of water, of new sustainable water supply in California. That works out to 7.2 million gallons per day and up to 

meet the needs of 24,000 households, over 24,000 households. 

Over time the Bay Area Water Recycling program is projected to 

add more than 90,000 acre-feet of water to our region’s clean water 

supply. This bill and the water it will provide is absolutely critical 

to a state like ours. That is why I am extremely disappointed to 

see that the Bureau of Reclamation is not supporting the additional 

authorizations for the Title XVI programs. 

I hope to hear an explanation from the Commissioner as to the 

Administration’s position on the program, and I look forward to 

seeing and working with the Administration for its support of 

water reuse and recycling in the 2011 budget. 

But thank you again for these hearings so that we can narrow 

these subjects. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Miller. 

Mr. Walden. 

STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you very much, Chairwoman Napolitano 

and Ranking Member McClintock. It is good to be back here on the 

dais. I only wish I had a vote up here again. 

Thank you for holding a hearing on H.R. 2741, legislation I 

wrote to authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to participate in the 

building of a new water recycling and reuse facility for the City of 

Hermiston in northeast Oregon. 

And like my friend and colleague from California, Mr. Miller, I 

too share concerns about the Bureau’s opposition to this legislation 

because in this case, as in many in the West where we are starved 

for water, being able to reuse it can bring great benefits for agriculture, for fish and to meet new environmental regulations. 

Before I get into the specifics of the bill before us now, I want 

to say thank you for allowing me the opportunity to participate in 

the hearing, Madame Chairwoman. 

Second, I would like to welcome Hermiston City Manager Ed 

Brookshier to the hearing. Ed and his team have done a wonderful 

job of demonstrating to me the need for this project and why it is 

a worthwhile Federal project. He has made the long trip out here 

from the West Coast to testify for the bill today. Madame Chairwoman and Congressman McClintock, as I do, I know you understand the distances in making that trip. 

7 

The construction of the Hermiston Recycled Water Plant Improvement project, as it is commonly known, will enable the city 

to reliably meet numerous key goals, including complying with the 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit levels for 

the next 20-plus years. 

Now the existing facilities were constructed in 1979 and as you 

can imagine after 30 years are in need of modernization that will 

help meet new pollution reduction requirements, add capacity and 

help put water instream for salmon. This project will increase 

wastewater treatment capacity to match the population and economic growth for a community that refuses to be in a recession, a 

statement made by the Hermiston Chamber of Commerce Executive Director, Debbie Pedro, to me and others during a community 

meeting in Hermiston a while back. 

The project has been designed to produce the highest quality 

class A recycled water that will add additional protections for the 

Umatilla River’s threatened salmon species. This was one of the 

key reasons that the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian 

Reservation are supporting the legislation and the project. I thank 

them for their support. 

And, Madame Chairwoman, I have a letter of support from the 

Umatilla Tribes that I would like to have put into the record, along 

with a statement from the West Extension Irrigation District in 

support of the legislation, without objection I would like to have 

added in as supporting documents. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Without objection, so ordered. 

[NOTE: The documents submitted for the record have been 

retained in the Committee’s official files.] 

Mr. WALDEN. The final component of the project will be the 

drought-resistant water delivery of recycled water to the West Extension Irrigation District. These deliveries will help the irrigation 

district serve their diverse agricultural community. This water will 

supplement current allocations, but as we all know, a little extra 

water in a dry climate can make or break it for farmers. 

The proposed project must comply with numerous environmental 

laws and regulations, and the city has completed the required supporting documentation. This included preparation of an environmental assessment for potential impacts from the proposed project, 

such as a cultural resources survey, wetland delineation and an 

Endangered Species Act biological assessment. 

The Federal cost share in this bill, 25 percent Federal, 75 percent 

local, will be of enormous assistance in this partnership for the 

community to meet these requirements, most of which are driven 

by the Federal government as the project moves on from drawing 

boards to construction. 

However, the Federal cost share only exists if this bill becomes 

law. So I ask that this Subcommittee make a do-pass recommendation to the full Committee to take action as soon as possible so the 

House can consider and pass this legislation. 

You can see this legislation is of great importance to the City of 

Hermiston and surrounding areas. 

I thank you, Madame Chairwoman, for holding this hearing 

today, and I would be happy to answer any questions. Thank you, 

Madame Chairwoman. 

8 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Walden, for your statement— 

and to all of you gentlemen. 

We will now hear from our witnesses. We do have two panels. 

We have combined Mr. Connor into the first panel. Witnesses will 

be introduced before they testify. And after we hear from each 

panel, we will have questions. 

Your prepared statements will be entered into the record, and all 

witnesses are asked to kindly summarize the high points of your 

testimony and limit your remarks to five minutes. Again, the timer 

before you will be used to enforce this rule. It also applies to our 

questions. Members will have five minutes for questions. If there 

are additional questions, we may have a second round, time permitting. 

For our first panel, we have Commissioner Mike Connor from the 

Bureau of Reclamation. He will testify on all bills. And you have 

10 minutes, sir, because that way you don’t have stop, Mr. Connor. 

Commissioner Connor. 

STATEMENT OF MIKE CONNOR, COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF 

RECLAMATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, 

WASHINGTON, D.C., ON H.R. 1738, H.R. 2265, H.R. 2442, 

H.R. 2522, AND H.R. 2741 

Mr. CONNOR. Thank you. Madame Chairwoman and members of 

the Subcommittee, this is my first appearance before the Subcommittee, and I welcome the opportunity to testify before you 

today and look forward to working with you and your staff over the 

next several years. 

I am pleased to provide the Department of the Interior’s views 

today on seven bills before the Subcommittee. In the interest of 

time, I will provide a quick summary of my written statements, 

which have been submitted for the record. 

To begin, I will devote this portion of the statement to summarizing the Department’s position on the five Title XVI bills that are 

before the Subcommittee today. I will also provide testimony then 

following on the other two bills that are before you. 

The five Title XVI bills before the Committee today all authorize 

Federal cost-sharing in new water or expanded local water recycling projects. Reclamation staff, working with local project sponsors, have determined that the projects before the Subcommittee 

today are at various stages in the process of evaluating their feasibility. This is a key aspect of the Title XVI program, and the details for each project are set forth in my written statement. 

One update I have is that at the end of last week, the Magna, 

Utah project, that is in H.R. 2265 was certified as feasible by Reclamation staff. So that is an update to the written statement. 

As a threshold matter, I would like to express the Department’s 

general support for the Title XVI Reclamation and Reuse program. 

The 2010 budget proposal includes funding for Secretary Salazar’s 

water conservation initiative, and Title XVI is an important element of that program. 

Also, on July 1, the Department announced the award of approximately $135 million in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

funding for authorized Title XVI projects. We recognize that water 

9 

reuse is an essential tool in stretching the limited water supplies 

in the West. 

Notwithstanding the support, Reclamation is managing the Title 

XVI program in evaluating new authorizations in the context of a 

backlog of over $600 million in currently authorized projects. This 

figure takes into account the just-announced $135 million in funding out of the Recovery Act. So, given the budget challenges presented by this backlog, the Department is unable to support the 

authorization of new Title XVI projects at this point in time. 

Reclamation will, however, continue to work with project proponents to evaluate the feasibility of their projects. To that end, 

Reclamation recently revised and improved its directives and 

standards that govern its review of Title XVI projects. By applying 

these new standards, we believe Reclamation can play a constructive role with local sponsors as well as Congress in evaluating the 

merits of proposed water recycling projects. 

Reclamation believes that information regarding a project’s feasibility should be fundamental to Congress’s evaluation of new Title 

XVI authorizations. 

With that, that summarizes my statement with respect to the 

Title XVI projects. I will go forward now to the other specifics of 

the two bills before the Subcommittee. 

[The prepared statements of Mr. Connor on H.R. 1738, 

H.R. 2265, H.R. 2442, H.R. 2522 and H.R. 2741 follow:] 

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

U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 1738 

Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Michael L. Connor, 

Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased provide the Department 

of the Interior’s views on H.R. 1738, the Downey Regional Water Reclamation and 

Groundwater Augmentation Act. For reasons described below, the Department cannot support H.R. 1738. 

H.R. 1738 would amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study 

and Facilities Act (43 U.S.C. 390h et seq.), commonly called Title XVI, to authorize 

the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the design, planning, and construction 

of the Downey Regional Water Reclamation and Groundwater Augmentation Project 

in Los Angeles County, California. 

Reclamation this summer has begun meetings with the City of Downey to exchange information regarding this project and help them develop a feasibility study 

in accordance with existing Directives and Standards. A feasibility study has not 

been submitted by the City of Downey, and compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act for this project has not been initiated. As such, Reclamation cannot provide a determination as to its merits. 

As a threshold matter, I’d like to express the Department’s general support for 

the Title XVI Reclamation and Reuse program. The 2010 budget proposal includes 

funding for Secretary Salazar’s Water Conservation Initiative and Title XVI is an 

important element of that program. Also, on July 1, the Department announced the 

award of approximately $135 million in grants for specific authorized Title XVI 

projects. We recognize that water reuse is an essential tool in stretching the limited 

water supplies in the West. 

However, given that there are 53 already authorized Title XVI projects and numerous competing mission priorities and demands on Reclamation’s budget, the Department cannot support the authorization of new Title XVI projects at this time. 

As a practical matter, Reclamation is concerned that a proliferation of authorized 

projects would be detrimental to effective overall program management because 

there would be a dilution of available funding and a diminished ability of the Bureau to carry out and complete individual projects. 

Reclamation will, however, continue to work with project proponents to evaluate 

the feasibility of their projects. To that end, Reclamation recently revised and improved its directives and standards that govern the review of Title XVI projects. By 

doing so, we believe that Reclamation can play a constructive role with local sponVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:49 Jan 15, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\51187.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
10 

sors, as well as Congress, in evaluating the merits of proposed water recycling 

projects. Information regarding a project’s feasibility should be fundamental to Congress’ evaluation of new authorizations. H.R. 1738 authorizes the appropriation of up to $20 million, or a maximum of 25 

percent of total project costs. While the Department supports efforts to increase 

local water supplies and increase recycled water use in Southern California, this 

project would compete with other critical needs within the Reclamation program, including other Title XVI projects currently under construction, for funding priority 

in the President’s Budget. 

Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my testimony. Thank you for the opportunity 

to comment on H.R. 1738. I would be pleased to answer any questions at this time. 

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

U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 2265 

Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Michael L. Connor, 

Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased to provide the Department of the Interior’s views on H.R. 2265, legislation to authorize the Secretary of 

the Interior to participate in the Magna Water District water reuse and groundwater recharge project. For reasons discussed below, the Department cannot support 

H.R. 2265. 

H.R. 2265 would amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study 

and Facilities Act (43 U.S.C. 390h et seq.), commonly called Title XVI, to authorize 

the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the design, planning, and construction 

of permanent facilities needed to establish recycled water distribution and wastewater treatment and reclamation facilities in the Magna Water District in Salt Lake 

County, Utah. H.R. 2265 authorizes a $12 million Federal cost share for the project. Reclamation’s Regional and Program offices are reviewing the Magna Water District’s draft 

Feasibility Report this month to determine its compliance with the requirements 

identified in the Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse Program Directives and 

Standards (D&S) and Section 1604 of Public Law 102-575, as amended. Reclamation 

anticipates making a final determination as to the project’s feasibility in the next 

few months. 

As a threshold matter, I’d like to express the Department’s general support for 

the Title XVI Reclamation and Reuse program. The 2010 budget proposal includes 

funding for Secretary Salazar’s Water Conservation Initiative and Title XVI is an 

important element of that program. Also, on July 1, the Department announced the 

award of approximately $135 million in grants for specific authorized Title XVI 

projects. We recognize that water reuse is an essential tool in stretching the limited 

water supplies in the West. 

However, given that there are 53 already authorized Title XVI projects and numerous competing mission priorities and demands on Reclamation’s budget, the Department cannot support the authorization of new Title XVI projects at this time. 

As a practical matter, Reclamation is concerned that a proliferation of authorized 

projects would be detrimental to effective overall program management because 

there would be a dilution of available funding and a diminished ability of the Bureau to carry out and complete individual projects. 

Reclamation will, however, continue to work with project proponents to evaluate 

the feasibility of their projects. To that end, Reclamation recently revised and improved its directives and standards that govern the review of Title XVI projects. By 

doing so, we believe that Reclamation can play a constructive role with local sponsors, as well as Congress, in evaluating the merits of proposed water recycling 

projects. Information regarding a project’s feasibility should be fundamental to Congress’ evaluation of new authorizations. 

Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my testimony. Thank you for the opportunity 

to comment on H.R. 2265. I would be happy to answer any questions at this time. 

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

U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 2442 

Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Michael L. Connor, 

Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased to provide the Department of the Interior’s views on H.R. 2442, legislation to expand the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program (BARWRP). Although Reclamation commends 

BARWRP’s goals, for reasons discussed below the Department cannot support 

H.R. 2442. 

11 

H.R. 2442 would amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study 

and Facilities Act (43 U.S.C. 390h et seq.), commonly called Title XVI, to authorize 

the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the design, planning, and construction 

of six new projects for water recycling and distribution of non-potable water supplies 

in the greater San Francisco Bay Area. The legislation would also increase the Federal cost share for two previously-authorized Title XVI projects in the same area to 

$16.3 million from $10.5 million. H.R. 2442 would increase the number of BARWRP 

projects from eight to 14. 

As a threshold matter, I’d like to express the Department’s general support for 

the Title XVI Reclamation and Reuse program. The 2010 budget proposal includes 

funding for Secretary Salazar’s Water Conservation Initiative and Title XVI is an 

important element of that program. Also, on July 1, the Department announced the 

award of approximately $135 million in grants for specific authorized Title XVI 

projects. Reclamation also recently selected 27 Title XVI projects—26 of which are 

in California—that will receive American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 

funding. We recognize that water reuse is an essential tool in stretching the limited 

water supplies in the West. 

However, given that there are 53 already authorized Title XVI projects and numerous competing mission priorities and demands on Reclamation’s budget, the Department cannot support the authorization of new Title XVI projects at this time. 

As a practical matter, Reclamation is concerned that a proliferation of authorized 

projects would be detrimental to effective overall program management because 

there would be a dilution of available funding and a diminished ability of the Bureau to carry out and complete individual projects. 

Reclamation will, however, continue to work with project proponents to evaluate 

the feasibility of their projects. To that end, Reclamation recently revised and improved its directives and standards that govern the review of Title XVI projects. By 

doing so, we believe that Reclamation can play a constructive role with local sponsors, as well as Congress, in evaluating the merits of proposed water recycling 

projects. Information regarding a project’s feasibility should be fundamental to Congress’ evaluation of new authorizations. 

Many Federal Title XVI projects are located in the greater San Francisco Bay 

area, a region that encompasses the United States’ largest west coast estuary and 

the source of drinking water for two-thirds of California. Many of the local project 

sponsors work together through entities such as the Bay Area Recycled Water Coalition. Over the past decade, such agencies have invested nearly $300 million of local 

funds in water recycling projects. 

Reclamation commends these agencies for working together to coordinate their efforts to address the regional issues of water supply and water quality. Reclamation, 

in collaboration with each project sponsor, is assisting in the preparation of projectspecific feasibility reports and will review all submitted documents for compliance 

with applicable Federal environmental and cultural regulations. 

H.R. 2442 authorizes the appropriation of over $38 million of new or increased 

Federal cost shares. The Department supports efforts to increase local water supplies and increase recycled water use in northern California. However, the Department does not support the authorization of new Title XVI projects which have not 

yet received a determination that they are feasible for construction. Also, as discussed above these projects would compete with other needs within the Reclamation 

program, including other Title XVI projects currently under construction, for funding priority in Reclamation’s Budget. 

Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my testimony. Thank you for the opportunity 

to comment on H.R. 2442. I would be happy to answer any questions at this time. 

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

U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 2522 

Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Michael L. Connor, 

Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased to provide the Department of the Interior’s views on H.R. 2522, a proposal to raise the ceiling on the Federal share of the cost of the Calleguas Municipal Water District (District) Recycling 

Project. For reasons discussed below, the Department cannot support H.R. 2522. 

H.R. 2522 would amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study 

and Facilities Act (43 U.S.C. 390h et seq.) commonly called Title XVI, to increase 

the ceiling on the federal share of the costs of the Calleguas project to $60 million. 

Current Federal law limits the Federal share of individual project costs to 25 percent of the total, or a maximum contribution of $20 million. Raising the cost share 

further would further strain Federal budgetary resources. 

12 

The District submitted a feasibility study as required by the Title XVI statute, 

and it was approved in April of 2000. The feasibility study included nine distinct 

components: five wastewater reclamation and reuse projects, three brackish groundwater recovery projects, and a regional brine disposal project. A cooperative agreement was executed in September 2000, to provide Federal funding for one of the 

wastewater reclamation and reuse projects known as the Conejo Creek Diversion 

Project. This project was completed in September, 2003, and is currently producing 

about 9,000 acre-feet of recycled water annually. The total Federal share for this 

component was almost $1.7 million. 

In January, 2003, a cooperative agreement was executed to provide federal funding for the Regional Brine Line component. To date, Reclamation has provided about 

$10 million to the District as the federal share of costs for this facility, which will 

provide a means to dispose of brine wastes from facilities such as brackish groundwater recovery projects throughout Ventura County. The FY 2010 Budget requested 

$1.4 million for the Calleguas Municipal Water District Recycling project. 

The Regional Brine Line is being constructed in three phases, starting with Phase 

1 near the coast, and progressing inland. The current estimated cost of Phase 1, 

which includes an ocean outfall, is about $76 million. The 25 percent federal share 

of Phase 1 would be $19 million, which would obviously be reduced slightly because 

Reclamation has already provided $1.7 million for the Conejo Creek Diversion 

Project. There would be no additional Federal funds available for Phases 2 and 3, 

which together are estimated to cost about $145 million; nor for any of the remaining seven projects that were identified in the feasibility study due to the current 

ceiling. This legislation would authorize $40 million in additional federal funds. 

As a threshold matter, I’d like to express the Department’s general support for 

the Title XVI Reclamation and Reuse program. The 2010 budget proposal includes 

funding for Secretary Salazar’s Water Conservation Initiative and Title XVI is an 

important element of that program. Also, on July 1, the Department announced the 

award of approximately $135 million in grants for specific authorized Title XVI 

projects. Reclamation also recently selected 27 Title XVI projects—26 of which are 

in California—that will receive American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 

funding. We recognize that water reuse is an essential tool in stretching the limited 

water supplies in the West. 

However, given that there are 53 already authorized Title XVI projects and numerous competing mission priorities and demands on Reclamation’s budget, the Department cannot support the authorization of new Title XVI projects at this time. 

As a practical matter, Reclamation is concerned that a proliferation of authorized 

projects would be detrimental to effective overall program management because 

there would be a dilution of available funding and a diminished ability of the Bureau to carry out and complete individual projects. 

Reclamation will, however, continue to work with project proponents to evaluate 

the feasibility of their projects. To that end, Reclamation recently revised and improved its directives and standards that govern the review of Title XVI projects. By 

doing so, we believe that Reclamation can play a constructive role with local sponsors, as well as Congress, in evaluating the merits of proposed water recycling 

projects. Information regarding a project’s feasibility should be fundamental to Congress’ evaluation of new authorizations. 

Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my testimony. Thank you for the opportunity 

to comment on H.R. 2522. I would be pleased to answer any questions at this time. 

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

U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 2741 

Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Michael L. Connor, 

Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased to provide the Department of the Interior’s views on H.R. 2741, the City of Hermiston, Oregon, Water 

Recycling and Reuse Project. For reasons discussed below the Department cannot 

support H.R. 2741. 

H.R. 2741 would amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study 

and Facilities Act (43 U.S.C. 390h et seq.), commonly called Title XVI, to authorize 

the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the design, planning, and construction 

of permanent facilities to reclaim and reuse water in the City of Hermiston, Oregon. 

Current federal law limits the federal share of individual project costs to 25 percent 

of the total, or a maximum federal contribution of $20 million. 

The City of Hermiston is located in north central Oregon and is one the largest 

communities within the Bureau of Reclamation’s Umatilla Project Area. As part of 

their Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvements Project, the City of Hermiston is 

13 

exploring the option of delivering reclaimed water to the West Extension Irrigation 

District to be used as agricultural water. Based on the city’s current population, the 

reuse project would deliver an additional 1,132 acre-feet of water to the West Extension Irrigation District during the irrigation season. By 2026, it is estimated that 

the project would yield 1,685 acre-feet of reused water. The total estimated cost for 

this project is about $21.5 million. 

H.R. 2741 includes authorization for design, planning, and construction of this 

project, of which the Federal cost share is limited to 25 percent of the total cost. 

No Title XVI related appraisal or feasibility levels studies have been completed for 

this project. 

The City of Hermiston is part of an agricultural community and recent changes 

in the state of Oregon’s recycled water regulations reduce the barriers to using such 

water for the irrigation of food crops. There have also been a number of discussions 

between the City of Hermiston and the West Extension Irrigation District’s governing board and the District has taken a favorable view of the project. 

As a threshold matter, I’d like to express the Department’s general support for 

the Title XVI Reclamation and Reuse program. The 2010 budget proposal includes 

funding for Secretary Salazar’s Water Conservation Initiative and Title XVI is an 

important element of that program. Also, on July 1, the Department announced the 

award of approximately $135 million in grants for specific authorized Title XVI 

projects. We recognize that water reuse is an essential tool in stretching the limited 

water supplies in the West. 

However, given that there are 53 already authorized Title XVI projects and numerous competing mission priorities and demands on Reclamation’s budget, the Department cannot support the authorization of new Title XVI projects at this time. 

As a practical matter, Reclamation is concerned that a proliferation of authorized 

projects would be detrimental to effective overall program management because 

there would be a dilution of available funding and a diminished ability of the Bureau to carry out and complete individual projects. 

Reclamation will, however, continue to work with project proponents to evaluate 

the feasibility of their projects. To that end, Reclamation recently revised and improved its directives and standards that govern the review of Title XVI projects. By 

doing so, we believe that Reclamation can play a constructive role with local sponsors, as well as Congress, in evaluating the merits of proposed water recycling 

projects. Information regarding a project’s feasibility should be fundamental to Congress’ evaluation of new authorizations. 

Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my statement. Thank you for the opportunity 

to comment on H.R. 2741. I would be pleased to answer any questions at this time. 

Mr. CONNOR. H.R. 2950, the Uintah Prepayment Bill. The Department supports H.R. 2950, with a clarification as set forth in 

my written statement. 

H.R. 2950 is legislation that would allow for prepayment of current and future repayment obligations of the Uintah Water Conservancy District in Utah. 

The District’s current contract from 1992 requires them to repay 

about $5.5 million through the year 2037 at the project interest 

rate of 3.2 percent, with annual payments of about $226,000. 

My written statement provides more details on this legislation 

and on the Jensen unit of the central Utah project. But in summary, the Department believes that the proposed legislation will 

provide for terms favorable to the District and the United States 

and provide flexibility to address any future unknowns if future additions to the Jensen unit do not materialize. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Connor on H.R. 2950 follows:] 

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

U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 2950 

Madam Chairwoman and members of the Subcommittee, I am Mike Connor, Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. Thank you for the opportunity to provide 

the Department of the Interior’s views on H.R. 2950. The legislation allows for prepayment of the current and future repayment contract obligations of the Uintah 

14 

1 All net present value figures cited in this testimony were calculated by discounting the payment stream to the year 2009 using the rate from 30-year Treasury constant maturities for the 

week ending July 10, 2009. The exact net present value will fluctuate based on the date of the 

calculation and the Treasury rate. 2This allocation will be subject to revision should there be additions to the project. 

Water Conservancy District (District) of the costs allocated to their municipal and 

industrial water (M&I) supply on the Jensen Unit of the Central Utah Project 

(CUP). H.R. 2950 would amend current law to change the date of repayment to 

2019 from 2037. The legislation would also allow repayment to be provided in several installments and requires that the repayment be adjusted to conform to a final 

cost allocation. The Department supports the goals of H.R. 2950. However, the legislation should be amended to clarify that the early repayment will be of an amount 

equal to the net present value of the foregone revenue stream. Under any repayment scenario, the Federal Treasury must be made whole. 

The District entered into a repayment contract dated June 3, 1976, in which they 

agreed to repay all reimbursable costs associated with the Jensen Unit of the CUP. 

However, pursuant to Section 203(g) of the Central Utah Project Completion Act of 

1992 (P.L. 102-575) the District’s contract was amended in 1992 to reduce the 

project M&I supply under repayment to 2,000 acre-feet annually and to temporarily 

fix repayment for this supply based upon an interim allocation developed for an 

uncompleted project. The 1992 contract required the District to repay about $5.545 

million through the year 2037 at the project interest rate of 3.222% with annual 

payments of $226,585. The net present value of the amount remaining from this income stream starting in 2009 is $3,887,364. 1

However, the costs allocated to the contracted M&I supply, and the M&I supply 

available through additional contract amendments, may be significantly revised in 

the future upon project completion and Final Cost Allocation. An additional currently unallocated cost of $7,419,513 is expected to be allocated to the contracted 

2,000 acre-feet. 2 Assuming that the costs allocated to the contracted 2,000 acre-feet 

will be increased by $7,419,513 with the reallocation in 2019, the net present value 

of the stream of benefits from this reallocation is $4,654,454. Therefore, under Reclamation’s assumptions, the net present value of the total stream of benefits anticipated under this contract is $4,654,454 plus $3,887,364, or $8,541,818. The contracted M&I amount is $4.1 million and the adjustment amount is $7.4 million. In 

total non-discounted dollars, the Conservancy District owes the Federal government 

$11.6 million. 

Under Reclamation law, water districts are not authorized to prepay their M&I 

repayment obligation based upon a discounted value of their remaining annual payments. 

This legislation would authorize early repayment by the Uintah Conservancy District to the Federal government. Because there is an interest component to the M&I 

repayment streams to be repaid early, early repayment without an adjustment for 

interest would result in lower overall repayment to the United States. However the 

Bureau believes that the language in this bill requiring that the early repayment 

be ‘‘under terms and conditions similar to those used in implementing section 210 

of the Central Utah Project Completion Act (Public Law 102-575), as amended’’ is 

intended to require that the United States allow the early repayment in such a way 

as to keep the United States whole. We interpret this to mean that the Bureau of 

Reclamation would collect the present value of the whole amount that would be due 

without early repayment. Thus, given Reclamation’s assumptions the present value 

of the payments collected under this legislation will be at least $8,541,818, although 

the legislation allows some flexibility in the timing of the repayment and under 

some scenarios the total amount due could be higher. 

The language in H.R. 2950 should be amended to clarify that this legislation is 

requiring that the Federal government be paid what it is owed by the Conservancy 

District. In supporting the concept of early repayment of the amount owed under 

this contract, the United States is reserving the right to seek full repayment to the 

U.S. Treasury. 

While the Department supports the goals of H.R. 2950, the legislation should be 

amended to clarify that the U.S. Treasury will be repaid in full; our support depends 

upon language that will clearly establish that early repayment under this legislation 

must be of an amount equal to the net present value of the foregone revenue 

stream. 

This concludes my testimony. I will be pleased to answer any questions the Subcommittee may have. 

15 

Mr. CONNOR. Finally, with respect to the White Mountain 

Apache Tribe proposed settlement, H.R. 1065 would authorize a 

settlement of the Federal Indian reserve water rights of the White 

Mountain Apache Tribe in Arizona. 

To begin with, this Administration strongly supports the resolution of Indian water rights claims through a negotiated settlement. 

Settlements improve water management by providing certainly not 

just for the quantification of the Tribes’ water rights but also for 

the rights of all water users, both Indian and non-Indian. 

Indian water rights settlements are consistent with the Federal 

Trust’s responsibility to Native Americans and with a policy of promoting Indian self-determination and economic self-sufficiency. For 

these reasons and more, for over 20 years, Federally recognized 

Indian tribes, states, local parties and the Federal government 

have acknowledged that when possible negotiated Indian water 

rights settlements are preferable to protracted litigation over 

Indian water rights claims. 

However, the Department’s general policy of support for negotiations cannot translate into support for every proposed settlement. 

As discussed in my written statement, while we appreciate that 

much good work has gone into this proposed settlement, we are unable to support H.R. 1065 at this point in time. 

The Administration has a number of concerns about the specific 

language of this legislation. For example, Reclamation recently 

completed a review of the engineering estimates for the rural water 

system authorized in Section 7 of the bill. This project is a centerpiece of the settlement. 

Based on that review, Reclamation determined that the Tribe’s 

cost estimate of roughly $126 million is not sufficiently detailed to 

provide the necessary assurance that the project can be constructed 

for that amount of money. This raises an uncertainty as to the actual Federal contribution that will be necessary to implement the 

settlement. 

The Administration is also concerned about the mechanism 

under which the project construction funds would be handled. As 

introduced, H.R. 1065 has conflicting provisions regarding how the 

Secretary is to handle the money appropriated for construction of 

the rural water system. 

Section 14 of the bill requires the establishment of a trust fund 

into which construction monies would be deposited. This trust fund 

would be managed in accordance with the American Indian Trust 

Fund Management Reform Act of 1994. The Tribe would be able to 

withdraw these funds and spend them after submitting a plan to 

the Secretary. 

This is an unusual and potentially cumbersome way to deal with 

construction funds, particularly when compared to the option of 

constructing the project under the Indian Self-Determination and 

Education Assistance Act, the P.L. 93.638 program. 

The waivers and releases authorized in Section 12 of the bill are 

also of serious concern to the Administration because they do not 

adequately protect the United States from future liability and do 

not provide the measure of certainty and finality that the Federal 

contribution contained in the bill should afford. The U.S. Forest 

Service has also raised concerns about the waiver provisions. We 

16 

believe the issues, however, raised are not irreconcilable if we are 

given the opportunity to work with the parties toward resolving 

them. 

My written statement details additional concerns surrounding 

the financial structure of the settlement and some process considerations. In the interest of time, I will just add that the Administration needs to complete its analysis of this settlement, particularly 

the financial aspects. 

The Administration appreciates the willingness of the settlement 

parties to negotiate their differences in a cooperative spirit. We are 

committed to working with Congress and all parties to developing 

settlement legislation that the Administration can support. 

This concludes my statement. Thank you again for the invitation 

to appear today, and I welcome the opportunity for questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Connor on H.R. 1065 follows:] 

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

U.S. Department of the Interior, on H.R. 1065 

Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Michael L. Connor, 

Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased to provide the Administration’s views on H.R. 1065, the White Mountain Apache Tribe Water Rights 

Quantification Act of 2009. H.R. 1065 would authorize a comprehensive settlement 

of the Federal Indian reserved water rights claims of the White Mountain Apache 

Indian Tribe in Arizona. 

This Administration supports the resolution of Indian water rights claims through 

negotiated settlement. However, our general policy of support for negotiations is 

premised on the federal contribution to the settlement being appropriate. Before the 

Administration can support a settlement, there must be a thorough analysis of the 

costs it would entail and the benefits to be received in order to assess the appropriateness of the proposed federal contribution. As I will discuss later, while the Administration appreciates that much good work has gone into this proposed settlement, we are unable to support it at this time. 

Negotiated Indian Water Rights Settlements 

Settlements improve water management by providing certainty not just as to the 

quantification of a tribe’s water rights but also as to the rights of all water users. 

That certainty provides opportunities for economic development for Indian and nonIndians alike. Whereas unquantified Indian water rights are often a source of tension and conflict between tribes and their neighbors, the best settlements replace 

this tension with mutual interdependence and trust. In addition, Indian water 

rights settlements are consistent with the Federal trust responsibility to Native 

Americans and with a policy of promoting Indian self-determination and economic 

self-sufficiency. For these reasons and more, for over 20 years, federally recognized 

Indian tribes, states, local parties, and the Federal government have acknowledged 

that, when possible, negotiated Indian water rights settlements are preferable to 

protracted litigation over Indian water rights claims. 

White Mountain Apache Tribe Water Rights Quantification Act of 2009 

The heart of this bill is provisions ratifying and approving the White Mountain 

Apache Quantification Agreement dated January 13, 2009, a settlement reached between the tribe and other non-federal parties regarding the quantification of the 

Tribe’s water rights. H.R. 1065 requires the Bureau of Reclamation to plan, design, 

construct, operate, maintain, replace, and rehabilitate a rural water system to serve 

the White Mountain Apache tribe. It also establishes a trust fund for the operation 

and maintenance of the system to be constructed. Finally, the bill includes authorizations for the Secretary to carry out a number of other activities that appear to 

be intended to promote economic development on the White Mountain Apache reservation. 

These economic development activities include (1) providing financial and technical assistance to completing the Hawley Lake, Horseshoe Lake, Reservation Lake, 

Sunrise Lake, and Big and Little Bear Lake reconstruction projects and facilities 

improvements; (2) conducting a feasibility study of options for improving the manufacture and use of timber products derived from commercial products derived from 

commercial forests on the White Mountain Reservation and forest management 

17 

practices; (3) rehabilitating and improving the Alchesay-Williams Creek National 

Fish Hatchery Complex; (4) constructing a White Mountain Apache Tribe Fishery 

Center; (5) rehabilitating Canyon Day and other historic irrigation systems on the 

reservation; (6) planning, design, and construction of snow-making infrastructure, 

repairs, and expansion at Sunrise Ski Park; and (7) planning, designing, and constructing any recommended on-reservation recreation impoundments following a 

feasibility study of such impoundments. 

H.R. 1065 is the culmination of cooperative negotiations among the Tribe and 

many non-Indian water users throughout northern and central Arizona. The negotiations were focused on the need for a long term solution to the problems of an inadequate Reservation domestic water supply and quantifying the Tribe’s water 

rights. The Tribe and other non-Federal parties reached agreement in 2008. The 

parties are to be commended for that effort. 

There is much in the proposed settlement that is positive. The rural water system 

authorized through this bill would replace and expand the current water delivery 

system on the Reservation, which relies on a diminishing groundwater source and 

is quickly becoming insufficient to meet the needs of the Reservation population. We 

do not question the Reservation’s need for reliable and safe drinking water. Although a system such as the one proposed may turn out to be the best way to address the Reservation’s need, the Administration has many concerns about the specific language of this legislation as introduced, which are summarized below. We 

also have concerns about the large federal contribution expected in the proposed settlement. We would like to work with the sponsor of legislation and the settlement 

parties to address our concerns. 

Water Rights Allocation 

Under Section 5 of H.R. 1065, the Tribe would have the right to divert up to 

99,000 acre-feet of water from a combination of groundwater, surface water, and 

Central Arizona Project water. We understand that the Tribe believes that this is 

a favorable quantification of its federal reserved water rights. The Department of 

the Interior’s preliminary analysis indicates that the allocation is appropriate and 

we hope to have a final Administration analysis in the near future. 

Concerns about the Cost Estimate for Construction of the Rural Water 

System 

The centerpiece of the settlement is the construction and operation of the White 

Mountain Apache Rural Water System (WMAT Rural Water System) described in 

Section 7. This system would consist of the Miner Flat Dam, a 155 foot high dam 

along the North Fork of the White River that would have an anticipated total storage capacity of 8,400 acre-feet with a surface area of approximately 160 acres; water 

treatment facilities and a pipeline conveyance system extending approximately 50 

miles throughout the Reservation. The surface water delivered from this system is 

anticipated to meet population requirements through 2040 or beyond. 

The Bureau of Reclamation recently completed a review of the Design, Engineering, and Construction (DEC) estimates for the WMAT Rural Water System. Based 

on that review, Reclamation determined the Tribe’s cost estimate of roughly $126.2 

million, which is in the proposed legislation, is not sufficiently detailed or comprehensive to provide the necessary assurance that the project can be constructed 

for that amount of money. Moreover, the legislation does not provide any cap on the 

amount of Federal funds that can be expended for project construction. The Administration is concerned about authorizing a project in cases such as this where we 

are very uncertain as to end costs. Our experience has been that projects authorized 

in this manner can become far more expensive than originally contemplated. 

Further work is needed to bring the cost estimate up to the feasibility level generally required by Reclamation authorities before a project is recommended for authorization. This work will require Reclamation funding. At this time, Reclamation 

is developing a cooperative agreement to allow the Tribe to complete the planning, 

engineering, and design of a rural water system, pursuant to P.L. 110-390, under 

the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, P.L.93-638. The real 

cost of the WMAT Rural Water System will certainly be refined as this effort moves 

forward. 

In addition to concerns about the cost estimate, the Administration is also concerned about the mechanism under which project construction funds would be handled, which could add to the costs of project construction. As introduced, H.R. 1065 

has differing provisions regarding how the Secretary is supposed to handle the 

money appropriated for construction. Section 14 of H.R. 1065 requires the establishment of a trust fund, the ‘‘Rural Water System Construction Fund’’ into which construction monies would be deposited. This trust fund would be managed in accordVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:49 Jan 15, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\51187.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
18 

ance with the American Indian Trust Fund Management Reform Act of 1994. The 

Tribe would be able to withdraw these funds and spend them after submitting a 

plan to the Secretary. This is an unusual and cumbersome way to deal with construction funds. Reclamation, the bureau responsible for constructing the WMAT 

Rural Water System and the bureau to which the funds would typically be appropriated, would have to deposit construction funds into a trust account managed by 

a different bureau. 

Under section 7(g) of H.R. 1065, the Tribe has the option of performing the planning, design, construction, operation, maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement 

of the WMAT Rural Water System in accordance with the provision of the Indian 

Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (P.L. 93-638). Reclamation believes that having the tribe carry out the construction under an ISDEAA framework 

is one alternative that would accomplish the intended purposes of this act in a more 

direct and efficient manner than the trust fund model set forward in section 14. 

However, the Tribe has had financial management and accounting issues with other 

P.L. 93-638 contracts and grants. The Department encourages the use of the Indian 

Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act and would support its use for the 

projects called for in H.R. 1065 if additional language could be formulated and 

added to the legislation allowing the Secretary of the Interior to require appropriate 

accounting and review measures to insure that Federal funds are expended as intended. At the very least, the legislation needs to clarify whether the Secretary is 

being called upon to establish a trust fund to be controlled by the Tribe or to accomplish the construction through an ISDEAA contract. We look forward to working 

with the bill sponsors on this clarification. Ultimately, the Administration’s goal in 

this or any other settlement is to define, with as much certainty as possible, the 

Federal costs necessary and appropriate to achieve implementation of the settlement. 

Title to the Rural Water System 

H.R. 1065 requires that the WMAT Rural Water System be held in trust by the 

United States. This stands in sharp contrast to the manner in which title to domestic water supply systems is handled in other enacted and pending water rights settlements. Generally, title is transferred to tribes or other project users once construction is complete. The Administration believes transferring title to the domestic 

water supply system is more consistent with concepts of self determination and tribal sovereignty and we would prefer that the WMAT Rural Water System be so 

transferred. 

Concerns about the Waivers and Releases 

The waivers and releases authorized in Section 12 of the bill are of serious concern to the Administration. We note that the Department of Justice has concerns 

that the waivers set forth in the bill do not adequately protect the United States 

from future liability and do not provide the measure of certainty and finality that 

the Federal contribution contained in the bill should afford. The U.S. Forest Service 

also has concerns about the waiver provisions. We believe that the issues raised are 

not irreconcilable if we are given the opportunity to work with the parties towards 

resolving them. Recently enacted settlements, such as the Duck Valley ShoshonePaiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Reservation Water Rights Settlement, P.L. 111- 

11, provide an example of waiver and release provisions that were negotiated with 

the parties in a manner that addressed many of the Justice Department’s concerns. 

Additional Concerns about the Financial Structure of this Settlement 

In addition to authorizing the WMAT Rural Water System, H.R. 1065 also authorizes appropriations for several other projects as part of the settlement: (a) snowmaking facilities ($25 million); (b) fish hatcheries ($12.47 million); (c) irrigation rehabilitation ($4.95 million); (d) a forest products feasibility study and implementation funds ($25 million); and (e) recreation lakes improvements ($48.67 million), a 

total of approximately $116 million in addition to the amount authorized for the 

rural water system. However, under H.R. 1065 as introduced, the waivers by the 

Tribe and the United States of the Tribe’s federal reserved water rights become effective once there is funding to construct the rural water system. With the exception 

of the funding for the rehabilitation of the irrigation systems on the reservation, the 

other settlement activities authorized in this legislation are completely uncoupled 

from the waivers. The final effectiveness and enforceability of the settlement is not 

contingent on these other appropriations, but only upon the appropriations for the 

design and construction of the WMAT Rural Water System. Other settlements have 

followed a different model under which a tribe receives an appropriation in a fund 

to accomplish its own development priorities in using the water it receives under 

a settlement. We believe that model might be preferable, although the AdministraVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:49 Jan 15, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\51187.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
19 

tion has not determined what would be an appropriate amount of federal funding 

for such a fund. 

We also note that the bill as introduced would require all of the funding for the 

rural water system to be appropriated by October 31, 2013. Given the realities of 

federal budgeting, it will be much more realistic to provide a longer period to budget 

for what are ultimately determined to the appropriate federal costs of this system. 

To the extent that one of the factors driving the settlement proponents to ask for 

this money upfront is a desire for waivers that come into effect earlier, we would 

suggest that they look at other settlements involving construction where waivers are 

able to come into effect but are subject to nullification if construction does not get 

completed within the time frame established in the settlement agreement and authorizing legislation. 

Process Concerns and Conclusion 

This legislation has to be analyzed and understood within the context of the large 

numbers of Indian water rights settlements which are expected to be introduced 

during the course of the 111th Congress. We need to establish negotiating approaches and standards that will result in fair consideration and treatment of all 

of the settlements that this Congress will be asked to review. While we are aware 

that the settling parties worked closely with the Federal negotiating team in developing the parameters of this settlement, we have also been informed by the team 

that issues involving the cost of the settlement were not considered. We believe that 

these costs need to be discussed and negotiated and that the benefits of the settlement must justify the costs. The Administration needs to complete its analysis of 

the settlement so that we can inform the parties what level of funding we would 

be able to support, and we need to explore alternative funding mechanisms that will 

provide a realistic chance for this settlement to be implemented in a way that fulfills the promise that it represents to the Tribe and to others for a comprehensive 

settlement. 

In conclusion, the Administration appreciates and is encouraged by the willingness of the settlement parties to negotiate their differences in a cooperative spirit. 

We are committed to working with Congress and all parties to develop settlement 

legislation that the Administration can support. 

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for the opportunity to present this testimony. 

I will be pleased to answer questions you and other Members might have. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Connor. And I read most of 

your testimony except for what came in this morning. I certainly 

would appreciate all of it coming in so that I have a chance to go 

over it and draw some of my questions out of your testimony. 

I have the greatest respect for the work that the Bureau does 

and look forward again to working extensively the next few Congresses to be able to see what we can do to help promote Title XVI 

and other projects, but specifically Title XVI, to help address some 

of the drought, what are the tools that they have to address the 

drought in the West. 

And you talk about the Native American tribes, and I am just 

wondering how much help do they have to be able to do the things 

that are necessary to come before a subcommittee and get in line 

to be able to get assistance. Should we consider possibly setting 

aside a fund or creating a fund to deal with Indian water right 

claims? Because it is going to hopefully be more available to more 

tribes as we go forth. 

Mr. CONNOR. Well, I certainly don’t have a position from the Administration on whether a new fund should be established for any 

water rights settlements. 

I do know based on existing law there are a couple of opportunities that exist already out there as part of the Navajo settlement 

that was enacted in the last Congress. There is a provision there 

that establishes a Reclamation Indian water rights trust fund to 

help pay for Reclamation’s role in implementing Indian water 

20 

rights settlements. And that comes into effect in the resources 

available to implement those settlements as of the year 2020. 

There is also as part of the Global AIDS Package the bill known 

as PEPFAR that was enacted by Congress last year. There is a provision there that would also establish a fund to be used to meet 

certain needs on Indian lands in three areas, law enforcement, 

healthcare and the implementation of Indian water rights settlements. And I know there has been discussion in the Legislative 

Branch about putting resources in there. 

So I guess I just note we don’t have a position on a new fund, 

but there are some existing situations that are under provisions already in law that Congress I know is looking at. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. OK. But that brings to mind then is there 

enough money in those funds to be able to adequately address the 

concerns that most of the tribes have, one. Two, maybe having a 

hearing with all those agencies, the different areas where those 

funds are, to sit at table and find out what is there so that we 

know and be able to refer as they come to a subcommittee to request assistance. 

Mr. CONNOR. Well, I think getting all of that information out on 

the table would be a very good first step. We are certainly concerned from the Bureau of Reclamation’s perspective about the 

backlog that exists presently with respect to authorized Indian 

water rights settlements, which is in the tune of about a billion dollars. And certainly, this bill and other bills that are currently before Congress would add to that overall backlog of expectations of 

coming up with the money to implement those settlements that the 

parties are looking to implement. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. We look forward to working with you on that, 

Commissioner. Mr. Chaffetz? 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you, Madame Chair, I appreciate it. I 

would just ask unanimous consent to insert into the record my 

statement regarding the Magna Water District Water Reuse and 

Groundwater Recharge Act of 2009. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you. 

[The statement submitted for the record by Mr. Chaffetz follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Jason Chaffetz, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of Utah 

Thank you Madam Chairwoman and Ranking Member McClintock for holding 

this hearing on H.R. 2265, The Magna Water District Water Reuse and Groundwater Recharge Act of 2009’’. H.R. 2265 is the House companion bill to S. 745 sponsored by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT). 

I want to formally welcome, Ed Hansen, the manager of the Magna Water District. This is his first time testifying before a congressional committee. He’s a good 

man. Go easy on him. 

H.R. 2265 amends the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study Facilities Act, also known as Title XVI. This legislation authorizes $12 million in federal 

funding. Total cost of the project is $51 million. 

The Magna Water District is located in Salt Lake County and includes the Magna 

Township, western areas of West Valley City, and a corner of south west Salt Lake 

City. 

Project Description 

This project achieves the following: 

• Restoration of a currently contaminated drinking water supply. 

• Implementation of water reuse and groundwater recharge. 

21 

• Reduction in high quality drinking water usage for irrigation. 

A new electrodialysis facility is being built to remove perchlorate and arsenic from 

the Barton Well Field resulting in two products: high quality drinking water and 

a concentrated waste stream. 

The drinking water will be pumped directly into the District’s potable water system. The concentrated waste stream will flow by gravity to the existing wastewater 

treatment plant where a bioreactor is being constructed to treat the waste stream. 

The bioreactor will produce high quality effluent that will be disinfected and combined with the effluent from the existing wastewater treatment plant to be used for 

irrigation, eliminating the need to use a high quality drinking water for outdoor irrigation uses. The project will result in a projected annual reduction of 580 million 

gallon of high quality, potable water used for outdoor irrigation. 

The existing wastewater treatment plant effluent is discharged into the Great 

Salt Lake where it is unrecoverable. With this new project, the areas being irrigated 

are also within the recharge zone for groundwater recovery wells that provide water 

for the District’s expanding secondary water irrigation system. 

Justification for Federal Funding 

Federal funding for this project is justified so that the Magna Water District may 

comply with federal environmental mandates. Moreover, this federal funding is justified since the district is addressing water contamination caused by the Department of Defense and its contractors. 

The Bureau of Reclamation has reviewed the project and has found the project 

to be feasible. 

I look forward to hearing the Administration’s testimony and addressing their 

concerns. 

Thank you, again, Madam Chairwoman and Ranking Member McClintock, for 

holding this hearing. I look forward to working with you and members of your staff 

to move this needful project forward. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. If I may, my understanding regarding the Magna 

project is that, again having not seen the testimony that came this 

morning, and my apologies for being late with other committee assignments, that the project is feasible, but the question is much 

more in tune with resources and other projects that are in line before this one. 

Can you help summarize that for me? 

Mr. CONNOR. I think you have characterized the issue correctly. 

We look at these projects, and I think in each of the written statements it weighs this out. There are two aspects from which Bureau 

of Reclamation is evaluating these authorizations. One is the basic 

feasibility, and the directives and standards that Reclamation has 

to evaluate project feasibility, which were really new, not new but 

revised last year and put in place, and which we have been applying to these new authorizations. 

As you know, the Magna project that is in your bill as of last 

week was certified as feasible, having gone through that process. 

But even in that context, then we have to look at the existing backlog of projects that we have. And to summarize there, we have basically a $600 million backlog in authorized Title XVI projects. And 

that is after the $135 million of Recovery Act money that we just 

announced on July 1 to be applied to those projects. 

So, given that backlog and given the available resources at this 

time, that is the basis for the position that we are not supporting 

new project authorizations. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Understood. Just one other brief comment. Having visited the facility in Utah recently for the first time, I appreciate the fine men and women who are serving there, that are serving our country and, by all evidence, are doing a great job. It is a 

22 

wonderful facility. So I thank you, and I yield back, Madame Chair. 

Thank you. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you for your statement. And now just 

a couple questions, Commissioner. 

Public Law 109-451 authorized Reclamation to establish comprehensive programmatic criteria, including prioritization and eligibility criteria as well as criteria to evaluate appraisal and feasibility studies for the rural water program. In your opinion, are 

similar criteria needed for Title XVI programs? And has the development of these directives and standards negated the need for legislative criteria? 

Mr. CONNOR. Well, I think the promulgation of the directives and 

standards are sufficient to evaluate project feasibility. And we have 

been applying those directives and standards as I mentioned. And 

based on that application, I think over the last two years, 2008 and 

2009, there have been 20 new projects that have been authorized 

by Congress, most, if not all, that have been evaluated and certified 

under those directives and standards. So that, in my mind, 

addresses the feasibility aspect of this. 

In moving forward and in tough budgetary times, in evaluating 

the priorities for funding under Title XVI, there may be room to 

look at projects and develop criteria under which we would allocate 

the limited resources and prioritize the projects that should be 

funded. 

We did some aspect of that in the Recovery Act funds, the $135 

million, although I should note that we certainly looked at the 

projects themselves and evaluated them. But also we had to apply 

the criteria that was established as part of the Recovery Act, a lot 

of which involved shovel-readiness, when we could get the money 

obligated, when it could be used by the project sponsors. So those 

were some other criteria that were specific to the Recovery Act. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. But when you talk about the feasibility study, 

are you referring to the feasibility study that applies to a Title XVI 

program not under the principals and guidelines, is this true? Is 

this correct? 

Mr. CONNOR. That is correct. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. OK. 

Mr. CONNOR. They are specific feasibility criteria that have been 

developed for the Title XVI program itself. Although there are similarities and there are certain aspects that are pulled out of the general principal and guidelines for larger water projects, the feasibility directives and standards are customized to the Title XVI 

project based on the local sponsor’s input and our role. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. And I would like to ask that a list 

of those projects that have met the feasibility be provided to this 

Subcommittee. 

Mr. CONNOR. Yes, Madame Chairwoman, we can do that. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. McClintock. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you, Madame Chairwoman. The first 

question I have is just over the cost-effectiveness issues. What criteria are used to evaluate whether these things make financial 

sense? 

Mr. CONNOR. Well, we do have economic considerations as one 

aspect. There are nine different categories as part of the directives 

23 

and standards. Economic considerations and analyses are part of 

those. 

I can get back to you on the written record as far as all elements 

of those economic considerations. I do know that they look at 

project alternatives as one aspect of that, so there is some comparison that is done as part of that analysis. But as far as the whole 

level of details in evaluating cost-effectiveness, that is actually one 

of the items in there. They look at cost-effectiveness. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. I am looking at some of the numbers before us, 

and I find them absolutely stunning. Just the projects that are on 

the agenda today, even amortizing the costs over 30 years, it comes 

to nearly $1,000 per acre-foot. That just doesn’t seem to me to 

make any sense at all. 

Mr. CONNOR. Well, I haven’t looked at them, at the projects, as 

far as a cost per acre-foot. I guess in looking at the projects, one 

perspective that I can give is the Title XVI program uses a 25 percent Federal cost share and leverages a lot of local community 

money to develop those projects. And those communities it seems 

safe to say have evaluated their options for providing additional 

water supply to their communities and have determined that this 

is one of the most cost-effective options for them to come up with 

a drought-resistant supply. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. A thousand dollars per acre-foot? I mean, the 

most expensive I have ever heard imported water to run is about 

$400 per acre-foot, and that includes moving it about 500 miles. So 

$1,000 per acre-foot just sounds completely off the scale. I just wonder why in the world would we be interested in encouraging that? 

I mean, if a local community wants to squander its citizens’ money 

in that way, that is between them and the local citizens. But why 

should the rest of the taxpayers of America be pulled into that silly 

decision? 

Mr. CONNOR. Well, I think I would want to go back and, before 

answering that question, go back and evaluate these projects and 

see whether in fact they are $1,000 per acre-foot and evaluate why 

those communities believe that that is the best investment that 

they can provide water supply through. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Have you found any of these recycling projects 

under Title XVI to be less expensive per acre-foot than the alternative of importing or harvesting water? 

Mr. CONNOR. That is a part of our analysis of the Title XVI 

projects. I can get back to you on details of what we found. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Have you ever determined a recycling project 

that is producing water for less than the cost of importing it? 

Mr. CONNOR. I will have to get back to you with the details. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. OK. It seems to me that is a pretty basic question if you are evaluating cost-effectiveness and particularly if you 

are giving any kind of serious consideration to cost-effectiveness. 

Don’t you agree? 

Mr. CONNOR. That is a fundamental question. I do agree with 

that. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. If I can move to the question of the Federal 

nexus, why is it that a taxpayer in Alturas, California, for example, 

should be called upon to finance a water project in Downey, California, for example? 

24 

Mr. CONNOR. Well, I think going back to the initial authorization 

of the Title XVI program, the view is that there was a direct Federal nexus in helping local communities in California I guess be 

less reliant on imported water supplies from the Colorado River 

and elsewhere. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. But Alturas doesn’t get any of its water from 

the Colorado or from any other sources that Downey draws from. 

They are two entirely separate water systems. Why should one be 

forced to subsidize the cost of the other? 

Mr. CONNOR. Well, I guess there are Federal issues in a lot of 

different river basins, et cetera. This was viewed as a Federal objective to help people, communities be able to develop local supplies 

and get off the Colorado River. 

In that situation, which was the basis for the original authorization, there is a Federal interest in California Bay Delta and water 

recycling projects there as part of an overall solution to help address the serious water issues that exist in the northern California 

area. In other areas of the country, I know Title XVI projects have 

been used which have helped forestall, address new water supplies 

in other water-short basins such as the Middle Rio Grande. 

And the development of these projects certainly has helped at 

least delay, and maybe negate, the need for additional surface 

water supplies, which has helped alleviate some of the environmental issues that exist in other river basins. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. My concern is to me it sounds like the government’s attitude is cost is no object and fairness is no object. 

Two more questions if I may, Madame Chairwoman. 

First, the feasibility issue. You said that these projects are evaluated on a much different set of criteria in terms of feasibility than 

say a dam project. What are those differences? 

Mr. CONNOR. Well, once again, the details of those differences of 

how the feasibility criteria for Title XVI projects differ from the 

overall P and Gs, I am going to have to get back to you on the written record. I am happy to do that. 

I think what is driving the differences, though, is recognizing 

that this is a 75 percent local cost share and the Federal government is a contributor of up to 25 percent of the cost. So we are not 

shouldering the burden of developing these projects, so the analysis 

is a little different. But there is still an analysis to ensure that the 

Federal investment for these projects is a good and legitimate one. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Final question going to the Uintah bill. I was 

stunned as I pulled out a pocket calculator and realized that the 

water allocation is 2.1 million gallons for every one of the 15,000 

residents. What is the justification for that? 

Mr. CONNOR. That is the White Mountain Apache Tribal Settlement Bill? 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Pardon me, I am sorry. I am sorry, White 

Mountain Apache. 

Mr. CONNOR. Well, I know that the allocation of water in that 

particular settlement was negotiated by not only the Tribe and the 

State but a lot of water users in the area, in fact all of the water 

users that perceive themselves at risk from the unquantified tribal 

water rights. So that was an agreement that was developed by the 

25 

parties in allocating Arizona’s water resources, and those parties 

thought that that was a legitimate allocation. 

The Federal team that participated in some of the negotiations 

has done a preliminary analysis, viewing that as a legitimate allocation of water, based on the tribal claims and other criteria that 

they have looked at, including the fact that the water is available 

from Arizona. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. What is the Tribe going to use all of that 

water to do? 

Mr. CONNOR. I am not aware of all the tribal water needs. Certainly the centerpiece of the settlement is utilizing a portion of that 

water for its rural water supply project, so M&I needs basically. 

And I am sure the Tribe has agricultural uses and other opportunities to use water in addition to that. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thanks. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Miller. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Madame Chair. 

Commissioner, let me just follow on here. As I look at your testimony, it suggests that you can’t support the authorization of these 

new projects because there is a backlog of projects already. 

Mr. CONNOR. That is correct. 

Mr. MILLER. Have you thought about the reverse of that on how 

you work on the backlog in terms of the budget allocations? I know 

you have come with this budget, the first one of this Administration. And I recognize that there was money, the $135 million that 

was in the stimulus bill. But when we look forward to 2011, I 

would assume that backlog would suggest that there is some priority here by the Congress, by local water users, that this is a viable way to go. 

So how do we turn that notion around that because there is a 

backlog we can’t support it—as opposed to how are we going to get 

the backlog whittled down, especially when we have some anticipation of the continuation of the drought in a good chunk of the West 

and certainly in California? 

Mr. CONNOR. To answer your initial question, I have given that 

a lot of thought. Quite frankly, that is the heart of the matter of 

how are we going to address the backlog that exists. I would just 

note part of my testimony also is we strongly view that we should 

be evaluating the feasibility of projects, and some of these projects 

have not achieved that feasibility determination. So that is part 

and parcel. 

But the heart of your question, how are we going to whittle away 

at this backlog and do we not understand that this is a priority for 

Congress and a priority because these are good water projects, we 

are looking very closely at that question. 

As I noted in my statements, Secretary Salazar has a water conservation initiative which did have significant resources in the 

2010 budget. We view the Title XVI program to be part of that initiative. Granted, it was $9 million in the 2010 budget that was a 

couple-million-dollar increase over previous budgets, and we are 

going to be evaluating the whole water conservation initiative taking this data as part of that discussion that there is this huge backlog that produces good results in addressing a lot of water supply 

issues. 

26 

Mr. MILLER. May I assume from your answer then that we have 

moved on from what a lot of people have speculated that the Bureau just didn’t see this as part of their mission? They just didn’t 

see water recycling and reuse as part of their mission? That that 

is now incorporated as part of when you look at the overall mission 

of the Bureau and the Department of the Interior? 

Mr. CONNOR. Title XVI is an important part of the Bureau of 

Reclamation’s mission. 

Mr. MILLER. Well, that is very helpful to know that, because I 

think that what we see here is, I would say to my colleague, Mr. 

McClintock, it is not just a question of whether the price of the 

water, the recycled water, the reuse of the water versus delivered 

water, the reason many of these projects are being considered is because the delivered water isn’t being able to be delivered. 

A lot of this is about water stability and whether or not people 

will be able to rely on those supplies for economic decisions that 

local communities have to make, either about creating jobs. In 

some cases, some manufacturing in our state, a fair amount of 

manufacturing in our state is very water-intensive and whether or 

not that water will be available or whether it is building new communities if California continues to gain in population as it sort of 

has over the historical past. 

So I think that when we look at this as a component of the water 

development in the West this is significant. In terms of what we 

like to think we would build on is a system that is flexible to move 

water for competing economic needs, for competing environmental 

needs, for competing demands from growth and also take into accommodation that we do go through and we have gone through 

these cycles of water availability. 

And I expect that in some instances, if you compare this water 

to water that people are talking about developing behind new dams 

or reworked dams or whatever the project we are going to use, 

when you look at the actual yield and the availability on a consistent basis, this is probably a fair comparison. 

But that is your job. You will have to look at those comparisons 

and the feasibility, because obviously if the projects just are not 

feasible, we shouldn’t be funding them. That is the test that I think 

most of the local entities have thought about as they decide to commit local resources. That is one of the initial screens that you go 

through—that there is some determination by the local individuals. 

The question of what happens to the people in Alturas, the same 

question is true whether you raise Shasta Dam or you build Temperance Flat or you build something else or a new canal or rework 

the pumps. Those are shared expenses of trying to keep California 

water use together and sustainable and hopefully somewhat predictable. 

So I think that these are a very important component of the traditional mission of the Department of the Interior in terms of water 

development and allocations and uses throughout the West. And 

certainly, when it comes to times of scarcity that we are now experiencing, I think that many of these projects really let us—the second use of the water or third use of the water becomes very valuable when you look at the water budget in many of these geoVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:49 Jan 15, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\51187.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
27 

graphical areas. It is not just in California but throughout much 

of the West. 

So I would hope that we could work with you to develop a consistent policy, a priority of this policy, as a component of the traditional mission of the Department of the Interior in the programs 

of water development throughout the West. 

I think that the match, I would like other people to have the skin 

in the game. You know, in the past, we did an awful lot of water 

development in the West where other people didn’t have much skin 

in the game. They are beneficiaries and they are interested in it 

and all the rest of it, but those bills still have not been paid. 

So I think this is a much better way to go. The Chairwoman has 

been an absolute champion of recycling and reuse. And while there 

were a lot of doubters I think in the beginning, when we look at 

the water predicament in our state, you start to see the urgency 

of trying to figure out how we can build this kind of flexibility, 

whether it is increased storage in normal or perhaps wet years or 

whether it is the ability to draw on that water or to recycle that 

water or reuse that water in whatever mix of components people 

have in their plans, become very, very important to try to provide 

some sustainability and predictability for the economy of our state 

and other regions of the West. 

So I would hope that with this hearing and with an opportunity 

with this Committee to work with you that we could incorporate 

this into a major component and priority of the Department as it 

considers going forward in the West. 

In my years here, when we reconfigured the Central Utah project 

and the Garrison project, we recognized that a lot of those uses 

didn’t make much economic sense, given the way the West has developed. There were other competing economic interests where that 

water was more valuable, more viable, and the rest of that. And 

that should be a continual process within the Department of the 

Interior, within the Congress, and within the states as our states’ 

populations and economies change over time. 

And I would hope that we would also be willing to add new technologies, new sources of the use of water, to help us get through 

that. 

And so I look forward to working with you. I have a great sense 

of urgency about these projects that we are seeking to authorize in 

this Committee. We look forward to your screening them for their 

feasibility. 

I think I had a couple of projects the first time that really went 

through a real feasibility study. We got through it, and so I welcome that process. And I think all of those who testify today know 

that they are going to have to meet that test. 

So thank you very much for your time. My apologies, I have a 

markup. Mr. McClintock, are you coming to my markup? No. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Not after the last one, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MILLER. The last one is not over yet in the Education Committee. But I just want you to know I am very, very interested in 

the success of this program, and I mean success in all ways, for the 

taxpayers, for water users in the West. Thank you. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Miller, and I 

couldn’t have said it any better. 

28 

The one thing I would like to ask the Commissioner to clarify in 

response to continuing a little bit of your question, Mr. Miller, and 

to Mr. McClintock’s point, it isn’t just about the cost, it is about 

certainty of water delivery. Do you agree, sir? 

Mr. CONNOR. Certainly. I think one of the motivating factors for 

communities in looking at water reuse is certainly its drought resistance, its certainty as far as supply. And given other issues ongoing in the West now, I can see why that is a high priority that 

local communities place on developing water. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, sir. Mr. Walden. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, Madame Chairwoman. And again, I 

find myself in agreement with the gentleman from California. The 

only question I ask is, did you want Mr. McClintock at your markup? I won’t go there. 

Mr. MILLER. That crossed through my mind. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. WALDEN. I know we want him there, but I am going to leave 

all that California stuff to you all. But I thank you for your comments. 

Mr. Connor, thank you, and I look forward to getting some time 

with you down the road. I know this is your first time before this 

Committee, and while I am not a member of it, I was for a number 

of years. And my district, 70,000 square miles in eastern Oregon, 

has just a couple of water issues going on. 

It seems to me on this legislation and legislation like it, while 

I understand the Administration’s opposition or acknowledge it, I 

guess I would look at it from this perspective. There are a lot of 

projects in the queue, and you don’t have enough money right now 

to fund them all. I get that. But it looks to me like it is not harmful 

for this Committee to move forward and put another one in the 

queue, to go through the process to determine this is worthwhile 

so that when funding does come you are ready to go. 

I mean, we do that all the time in all kinds of other committees 

I am on. We authorize things and say no, the authorizing committee has reviewed the project and determined it makes sense. 

Then those higher up in Appropriations decide is the money there 

to pay for it. 

And so I would hope you would think about that. I understand 

you have already testified in OMB and all that stuff. But it just 

seems to me that the duty of this Committee is to say no, this is 

a good project and when the money is there, this should happen. 

And then people can go ahead and kind of begin to plan. 

There is another one coming in the Rogue Valley, southern Oregon, that is upwards of 30,000 acre-feet of water that would go 

back into the Rogue River that could displace—it is a very complex 

one, but anyway, they end up using the recycled water. It solves 

an irrigation issue, it puts more water in the river, I mean, all of 

that, and the water going in is more pure than the water in the 

river. 

And so I think these are the kinds of projects that make a lot 

of sense and help us get ahead of the curve on our water needs and 

our recycling needs and frankly improving the water quality. 

At some point, I hope to sit with you and have a discussion about 

the Administration’s views on the Klamath Basin Restoration 

29 

project. I know you will be deeply engaged in that. I know Secretary Salazar has made it clear that the Administration intends 

to move forward. There are obviously a lot of complex issues involved in the KBRA and a lot of controversy surrounding it. 

And so I look forward to an opportunity sometime to sit down 

and have that discussion with you, sir. 

Mr. CONNOR. I would welcome the opportunity. 

Mr. WALDEN. And I thank you for being here today. And after 

my stirring remarks, I am sure you will reconsider your opposition 

to my bill. 

Thank you, Madame Chairwoman. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. You are welcome. Do we have any other questions for the Commissioner? 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. I just want to address the question of reliability. It seems to me that the reason that California is now suffering from unreliable water supplies is the fact that half of our 

water is being diverted to meet various environmental regulations 

and only a portion of the state water project was ever completed, 

which gets back to my concerns that the last generation has 

dropped the objective of abundance as the principal objective of 

water and power policy and has instead moved now to rationing 

shortages that are caused by the abandonment of abundance as a 

national object. 

Mr. MILLER. If the gentleman would yield, I just would say I 

think you will find that half of the water is not being diverted for 

environmental reasons. In fact, when you look at the shortage this 

year, a very small percentage of the water is related to environmental reasons. 

But understand that those environmental reasons are also linked 

to economic reasons. In fact, a lot of this discussion over the fish, 

for a lot of small businesspeople up and down the north and central 

coast, that environmental reason is whether or not they will have 

a livelihood. For the people who do the dockside supplies, whether 

it is ship channel reefs or whether it is icemakers or fish salespeople or the trucking firms and all the rest of that, hook onto 

those issues. 

So this isn’t just throwing away jobs in one area for jobs in the 

other areas. But I think when you examine this, you will find out 

that in fact very little of that is—we have an overall—we have 

much more demand on water than the water that is available in 

the current system. And this is one way that we think we can better manage that and get a greater yield out of that water. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. I will stop the discussion at this 

moment. We need to move over for them. I wish they were true because I also have my own two cents on it, and I don’t want to get 

started. When you put in enough water meters, I will start with 

that. Thank you, sir. 

With that, Commissioner, thank you so much. I would love to 

have you sit around and listen, and possibly we may want to bring 

you up to answer a question or two. But thank you so very much. 

I look forward to working with you. And so with that, we dismiss 

you, and we will call up our next panel. 

Mr. CONNOR. Thank you. 

30 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Desi Alvarez, Deputy City Manager for 

the City of Downey, California, testifying on H.R. 1738; Mr. Edwin 

Hansen, General Manager at Magna Water District, Magna, Utah, 

H.R. 2265; Mr. Gary Darling, General Manager, Delta Diablo Sanitation District, Antioch, H.R. 2442; Susan Mulligan, General Manager of Engineering, or Manager of Engineering, Calleguas Municipal Water District, Thousand Oaks, California, on H.R. 2522; Ed 

Brookshier, City Manager, Hermiston, Oregon, H.R. 2741; Scott 

Ruppe, General Manager, Uintah Water Conservancy District, 

Vernal, Utah, H.R. 2950. 

Welcome. And we will begin with Mr. Alvarez from Downey. 

STATEMENT OF DESI ALVAREZ, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER, 

DOWNEY, CALIFORNIA [H.R. 1738] 

Mr. ALVAREZ. Madame Chairwoman and honorable members of 

the Committee, my name is Desi Alvarez, Deputy City Manager of 

the City of Downey. On behalf of the City of Downey, I would like 

to express our gratitude to Congresswoman Roybal-Allard for 

introducing this legislation and to Chairwoman Napolitano for cosponsoring the bill. 

I would also like to publicly thank all of the cities that have written letters in support of this project, which is vital to the City of 

Downey and, we believe, to the region as a whole. I appreciate the 

opportunity to testify on H.R. 1738, the Downey Regional Water 

Reclamation Project, and will be happy to answer any questions 

you may have. 

The proposed legislation is associated with the construction of an 

advanced water treatment facility that will improve water supply 

and water reliability in southeast Los Angeles County by ensuring 

a local, reliable, safe, cost-effective and energy-efficient source of 

drinking water for five cities serving approximately 450,000 people. 

The project will eliminate dependence on expensive imported 

water from the Sacramento San Joaquin Delta, and it is of utmost 

importance because of environmental and economic considerations. 

And that is why the City of Downey has proposed to build this 

project. 

The ability to treat recycled water and put it to beneficial use enhances the region’s drinking water reliability and security. And in 

these economic times, this project will provide tangible benefits 

through the creation of approximately 650 jobs. 

The Cities of Cerritos, Downey, Norwalk, Pico Rivera and South 

Gate are located in southeast Los Angeles County and rely on 

pumped water from the Central Basin for the majority of their potable water needs, which is approximately 50 million gallons of 

water per day. 

The Cities’ reliance on the local groundwater supply is economically preferable to meet 100 percent of their water needs. However, 

that is not possible since the amount of water each city can pump 

in any given year is limited to the sustainable yield of the basin, 

which limits each city’s extraction rights. Since annual potable 

water demands are currently greater than the Cities’ extraction 

rights, any increase in water demands will further stress the already-tight water situation. 

31 

Presently the difference between the allowable extractions from 

the basin and greater water demands leaves the Cities dependent 

on using imported water, the main source being from the northern 

California through this delta, a less-than-viable long-term solution 

for providing water to the region. 

Our increase in demand for water has resulted in the need for 

a project like this. Importing northern California water which was 

to be moved through the delta is an unfavorable option due to the 

high cost and its unreliability as to the long-term supply source, 

due to the impacts of pumping on the ecosystem of the delta, thus 

the alternative of providing for water needs for the local sustainable reliable water supply from highly treated recycled water. 

This project is consistent with the California Water Plan update, 

which promotes regional water supply diversification and increased 

use of recycled water. The project will provide 5 million gallons per 

day of net new potable water, which may be delivered through 

pipeline connections far more efficiently, as we are proposing, by 

injection into the groundwater basin for extraction by participating 

cities using regular groundwater pumping wells. 

The project will be built at the City of Downey’s utilities yard, 

selected because it is located near an existing recycled water transmission main, has space available to house the facility, has an existing five-million-gallon storage tank which will be dedicated to 

the project. 

A new 18-inch influent recycled water pipeline will be constructed to connect to an existing recycled water transmission line 

at Firestone Boulevard, and the project will consist of an advanced 

treatment plant using microfiltration, ultrafiltration, and reverse 

osmosis, as well as ultraviolet light with hydrogen peroxide for disinfection. The project has environmental water security and economic benefits on our local region and on a national level. 

The use of the local water supplies will also help us be much 

more independent in our future as our water demands continue to 

increase. On behalf of the Cities of Cerritos, Norwalk, Pico River 

and South Gate, the City of Downey is requesting support for 

H.R. 1738, which authorizes funds for the design and construction 

of a five-million-gallon-per-day advanced recycled water treatment 

plant. 

The project is essential to ensure the sustainability of the Cities’ 

drinking water supplies. The City of Downey has invested significant time and funds in preparation of this project and is ready to 

proceed with project implementation. 

In light of the numerous economic, environmental and regulatory 

benefits the project affords the Central Basin in Los Angeles County, I ask for your continued support of this important legislation. 

I thank the Committee and you, Madame Chairwoman, for your 

time and consideration. I am available to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Alvarez follows:] 

Statement of Desi Alvarez, Deputy City Manager, 

City of Downey, California, in support of H.R. 1738 

Introduction 

Madame Chair and Honorable Members of the Committee, my name is Desi Alvarez, and I am the Deputy City Manager of the City of Downey, California. On behalf 

of the City of Downey, I’d like to express our gratitude to Congresswoman RoybalVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:49 Jan 15, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\51187.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
32 

Allard for introducing this legislation and to Chairwoman Napolitano for co-sponsoring the bill. I’d also like to publicly thank all of the cities that have written letters in support of this project, which is vital to the City of Downey and, we believe, 

to the region as a whole. I appreciate the opportunity to testify on H.R. 1738, the 

Downey Regional Water Reclamation and Groundwater Augmentation Project and 

to answer any questions you may have. 

The proposed legislation is associated with the construction of a water treatment 

and groundwater storage facility that will dramatically improve water supply and 

water reliability in Southeast Los Angeles County. The Downey Regional Water Reclamation and Groundwater Augmentation Project will ensure a local, reliable, safe, 

cost-effective and energy-efficient source of drinking water for five cities and nearly 

450,000 people. Eliminating dependence on expensive imported water from the vulnerable Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is of utmost importance, environmentally 

and economically, and that is why the City of Downey has proposed to build this 

regional project. The ability to treat recycled water and store it in the groundwater 

basin directly enhances the region’s drinking water reliability and security. Furthermore, in these tough economic times, this project provides tangible benefits to the 

region before the project is completed, through the creation of approximately 648 

jobs. 

Project Need 

The Cities of Cerritos, Downey, Norwalk, Pico Rivera, and South Gate are located 

in the Central Groundwater Basin in Southeast Los Angeles County and rely on 

water pumped from the Basin to meet the majority of their potable water needs. 

The combined population of the five cities is approximately 450,000, with a current 

demand of nearly 50 million gallons of water per day. The cities’ reliance on groundwater supply is economically preferable and would be sustainable, except that the 

amount of water each city can pump in any given year is limited by the sustainable 

yield of the basin, which limits each city’s extraction rights. Since annual potable 

water demands are currently greater than each city’s extraction rights, any increase 

in water demand will further stress the already tight water situation. 

Presently, the difference between the allowable extractions from the Basin and 

the greater water demands leaves cities dependent on using imported water, the 

main source being from Northern California through the Sacramento-San Joaquin 

Delta (Delta), a less than viable long-term solution for providing water to the region. 

Increasing populations throughout the Central Groundwater Basin have led to increased water demand overall. Importing Northern California water, which must be 

moved through the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, is an unfavorable option due to 

the high cost; unreliability as a long-term source of water; excessive carbon footprint 

and energy usage resulting from pumping water up the 8,000 foot Tehachapi Mountains; and adverse impacts on the ecosystem of the Delta, of which this subcommittee is well aware, based on the proceedings of the CalFed Bay Delta Program. 

Thus, the alternative of providing for water needs with a local, sustainable, reliable water supply from highly treated recycled water is highly desirable. This alternative capitalizes on two local and underutilized resources: the dewatered space in 

the Central Groundwater Basin and the millions of gallons of unused recycled water 

produced each year by the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County. 

Treating the locally-produced recycled water and storing it through the use of 

groundwater injection wells will augment the water supply available to pumpers in 

the Central Groundwater Basin. It also enhances the quality of the groundwater, 

as in many cases the extensively treated recycled water has fewer total dissolved 

solids (TDS) than the water naturally occurring in the Basin. Furthermore, this 

Project is consistent with the California Water Plan Update, which promotes regional water supply diversification and increased use of recycled water. 

Project Description 

The Downey Regional Water Reclamation and Groundwater Augmentation Project 

would provide advanced treatment of recycled water for injection and storage in the 

Central Groundwater Basin. Product water capacity of the advanced recycled water 

treatment plant will produce five million gallons per day of net new potable water 

which would be injected into the groundwater basin for extraction by participating 

Cities via regular groundwater pumping wells. 

The project will be built at the City of Downey’s Utilities Yard, selected because 

it is located near an existing recycled water transmission main, has space available 

to house the facility, and has an existing five million gallon storage tank which will 

be dedicated to the project. A new 18-inch influent recycled water pipeline will be 

constructed (see Figure 1. Project Area Map) to connect the existing recycled water 

33 

transmission main at Firestone Boulevard and the San Gabriel River to the new 

treatment plant at the Utilities Yard. The influent pipeline would convey tertiary 

treated recycled water from the County Sanitation District’s Los Coyotes Water Reclamation Plant to the proposed advanced water treatment plant. Physical components of the advanced treatment plant include an influent tank, an inter-process 

storage tank, pump stations, filters, and strainers and process streams and pipelines 

(see Table 1. Project Components). The recycled water would be further filtered with 

microfiltration and ultrafiltration membranes; treated with a reverse osmosis system; and disinfected using ultraviolet light with hydrogen peroxide treatment. 

The resulting high-purity reclaimed water would then be introduced into the Central Groundwater Basin through three aquifer storage and recovery wells. Following 

injection, the stored water would be available for extraction to augment the local 

water supply. 

Project Benefits 

The Downey Regional Water Reclamation and Groundwater Augmentation Project 

has environmental, water security, and economic benefits on a local, regional and 

national level (summarized in Table 2. Project Benefits). The project is consistent 

with state and federal objectives that aim to reduce reliance on water imported from 

the Delta, to promote regional water supply diversification and to increase the use 

of recycled water. Augmenting the water supply so that local water is more available than imported water reduces reliance on the Delta and ‘‘drought-proofs’’ the 

local water supply. 

The use of local water supplies will also reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas production because local water, unlike imported water, does not need to 

be pumped up and over the 8,000 foot Tehachapi Mountains. Another environmental 

benefit of the project is an improvement in water quality in the San Gabriel River 

and in the Central Groundwater Basin because the production of ultra-high quality 

recycled water through treatment with reverse osmosis will result in reduced total 

dissolved solid contaminant levels. Finally, this project will benefit the local, state, 

and national economy through the creation of approximately 648 jobs resulting from 

increased construction (direct), manufacturing (indirect), and consumer spending 

(indirect) labor (based on the IMPLAN Model Input/Output Data from the Los Angeles County Economic Roundtable). 

Conclusion 

On behalf of the Cities of Cerritos, Norwalk, Pico Rivera, and South Gate, the 

City of Downey is requesting support for H.R. 1738, which authorizes funds for the 

design and construction of a five million gallon-per-day advanced recycled water 

treatment plant with groundwater storage wells. The Downey Regional Water Reclamation and Groundwater Augmentation Project is essential to ensure the sustainability of the Cities’ drinking water supplies. The participating cities and the Southeast Water Coalition actively support this project. The City of Downey has invested 

significant time and funds in preparation of this project, and is ready to proceed 

with project implementation, pending completion of final plans and specifications. 

It is anticipated that the environmental impact report could be completed by the 

end of September 2010, a construction contract could be awarded by October of 

2011, and project close-out could be completed by September 2013. 

In light of the numerous economic, environmental, and regulatory benefits the 

Downey Regional Water Reclamation and Groundwater Augmentation Project affords the Central Groundwater Basin in Los Angeles County, I ask for your continued support of this important legislation. 

I thank the committee and you, Madame Chair, for your time and your consideration. 

34 


51187.001
35 


51187.002
36 


51187.003
37 


51187.004
38 


51187.005
39 


51187.006
40 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Alvarez. 

And now we will move on to Mr. Edwin Hansen, General Manager at Magna Water District, Magna, Utah. 


51187.007
41 

STATEMENT OF EDWIN J. HANSEN, GENERAL MANAGER, 

MAGNA WATER DISTRICT, MAGNA, UTAH [H.R. 2265] 

Mr. HANSEN. Madame Chairwoman and members of the Committee, I thank you for the opportunity to address you this morning. 

I am the General Manager of the Magna Water District. We 

serve the Magna Township, the northwest quadrant of the Salt 

Lake Valley, along with West Valley City and parts of the southwest section of Salt Lake City. 

I want to thank Representative Chaffetz for his support of this 

bill, Representatives Matheson and Bishop for co-sponsoring this 

bill on our behalf. All three of the representatives’ districts bound 

Magna’s area. 

Magna serves a population of approximately 28,000 people. The 

Title XVI project now before the Committee has a unique opportunity to restore drinking water supply by removing arsenic and 

perchlorate from the Barton Well Field while implementing a water 

reuse groundwater recharge project. 

Over the past century, the historic uses of the nearby land have 

been for copper mining and rocket fuel production. We also have 

a DOD facility that is located just south of the district. Both of 

these facilities necessitated an aggressive response from our district from the contamination and from the unfunded mandated arsenic safe drinking water rule. The District invested and is investing in a new EDR, electrodialysis treatment facility, which will remove the contaminants from the drinking water and provide the 

population safe drinking water. The facility after producing the 

drinking water will produce a highly concentrated brine stream 

with the contamination in it. 

The District over the past decade has been looking at alternative 

treatments for handling this concentrated brine stream. The District along with a couple of engineers has developed a BIOBROx 

treatment system that will remove and destroy the contaminated 

in the concentrated brine stream. 

The concentrated brine stream leaves the facility and is entered 

into the wastewater collection system, which in turn is delivered to 

our wastewater treatment plant. The BIOBROx process allows this 

high-concentrated brine along with the contamination to pass 

through these bioreactors. These bioreactors are 12 foot in diameter, 15 feet high. There are six of them. When constructed, they 

will treat just under four MGD a day. 

The effluent coming off these bioreactors will be type I reuse irrigation water and will be ready for treatment and then allowed to 

be pumped back out into the reuse/recharge system. The District 

has master-planned over the last 20 years and looked at alternative costs for water and import water. They felt with the District’s support and the community’s support that the alternative 

was to treat the water and have invested $36 million in this 

project. The cost of import water is projected to be over $1,000 per acrefoot. So we feel that this concentrated brine stream, rather than 

being discharged directly out to the environment, our option was 

better to treat it and reuse the water as a sustainable water source 

for this area of Salt Lake County. 

42 

I thank you for the opportunity. If you have any questions, I will 

be happy to answer them. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hansen follows:] 

Statement of Edwin Hansen, Magna Water District (Utah), on H.R. 2265 

Good Morning. My name is Ed Hansen. I am the General Manager of the Magna 

Water District, which is comprised of Magna Township, located in the western areas 

of West Valley City, and a corner of South West Salt Lake City in Salt Lake County, 

Utah 

I want to thank Representatives Chaffetz, Matheson and Bishop for sponsoring 

this bill on our behalf. All three of there Congressional Districts intersect at our 

near the area which serves the 28,000 people who reside in our service area. 

Through this Title XVI project now before the committee, the Magna Water District has a unique opportunity to restore a drinking water supply by removing arsenic and perchlorate from the Barton Well Field while implementing a water reuse 

and groundwater recharge project. Over the past century, the historic uses of the 

nearby land are copper mining and rocket fuel production, both of which has necessitated an aggressive response by our district. 

A new electrodialysis reversal (EDR) facility is currently being constructed to remove perchlorate and arsenic from the Barton Well Field resulting in two products: 

high quality drinking water and a concentrated waste stream. 

The drinking water will be pumped directly into the District’s potable water system while the waste stream will flow by gravity to the existing wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) site where a bioreactor is being constructed to treat the waste 

stream. 

The bioreactor will produce high quality effluent that can be disinfected and along 

with the effluent from the existing WWTP and used for irrigation through a reuse 

and secondary water irrigation system, thus eliminating the need to use high quality drinking water for outdoor irrigation uses. 

The existing WWTP effluent is currently discharged into the Great Salt Lake 

where it is unrecoverable by the District. There is synergy in the proposed system 

where as the areas being irrigated are also within the recharge zone for groundwater recovery wells that provide water for the District’s expanding secondary water 

irrigation system. 

This reclamation project will result in a projected annual reduction of 580 million 

gallons (1,780 acre-feet) of high quality, potable project water used for outdoor irrigation 

Magna Water District is seeking funds, on a matching basis, to implement this 

project that will generate a several benefits to its water users: 

1. It will reduce the current use of treated high quality project water thus cutting 

operating costs, 

2. It will preserve an 8 cubic feet second (cfs) water right located at the WWTP 

outfall, 

3. It will preserve and sustain their valuable water resources, and to promote 

water conservation. 

Utah ranks as the second driest state in the nation following Nevada, but is number one in per capita water use (municipal and industrial) at about 300 gallons of 

water per person per day. The residents of Magna are willing to invest in a portion 

of the project that they know will benefit the District as well as other surrounding 

communities. 

In fact, as a part of this reclamation project, the District and its water users have 

already invested more than $20 million in treatment facilities to remove arsenic and 

perchlorate from their water supply. 

The high cost of water treatment has forced the District to evaluate water usage 

and to investigate possibilities for reducing nonpotable water use. In 2004, recognizing the demand for high quality drinking water for outdoor irrigation in their existing system, the District planned, designed and installed the first phase of a secondary water system. 

Phase I of this system targets all of the District’s large water users such as 

schools, churches, golf courses, and parks. 

As a result of the secondary water system planning and implementation efforts, 

District reports show a dramatic drop in potable usage for those using the secondary 

system. Private residences that connected to the secondary water system showed 

similar results; in most cases, nearly a 98% reduction in potable water usage for 

outdoor watering was achieved. 

43 

The District continues to master plan to address the growing needs of its population by maximizing the use of its potable water supply for domestic, in-home uses 

and using expansion of the secondary water system for outdoor purposes thereby 

preserving its valuable potable water resources. 

A key element of this Phase II is to utilize the high quality product (reuse) water 

from the bioreactor at the District’s wastewater treatment facility to increase the 

supply of water available for outdoor use. Reuse of water from the District’s bioreactor will control potable water capital and operating costs and enhance water 

conservation efforts. 

In addition, all new development within the District boundary is currently required to install secondary water piping and infrastructure that complies with District standards to further maximize the District’s ability to preserve potable water 

resources. This policy allows funding for this system to primarily benefit existing 

users and requires new development to bear the cost of secondary and reuse systems that are to its benefit. 

The total cost of the project is estimated to be approximately $51 million. Project 

funding sources include approximately $3 million in Federal funding and $36 million funded by the District. Passage of this legislation will allow the District to fund 

the remaining $12 million through the Bureau of Reclamation’s Water Reclamation 

and Reuse (Title XVI). When this happens, the people of Magna and our larger service area will be able to rely on a sustainable water supply that continues to be clean, 

safe and dependable. Thank you for this opportunity to testify. I would be happy 

to answer any questions. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you for your testimony. 

Now we turn to Gary Darling, General Manager of Delta Diablo 

Sanitation District, Antioch, California. 

STATEMENT OF GARY DARLING, GENERAL MANAGER, DELTA 

DIABLO SANITATION DISTRICT, ANTIOCH, CALIFORNIA 

[H.R. 2442] 

Mr. DARLING. Good morning, Madame Chairwoman. My name is 

Gary Darling, and I am the General Manager of Delta Diablo Sanitation District in the Bay Area, Antioch, California. I appreciate 

the invitation to appear today to present testimony on behalf of the 

Bay Area Recycled Water Coalition and our strong support of 

H.R. 2442. 

At the outset, I want to extend the Coalition’s deepest appreciation to Congressman George Miller for his vision and leadership in 

introducing this much-needed water legislation, which will help 

eight Bay Area communities increase their municipal water supplies. 

I also want to commend the co-sponsors, Representatives Eshoo, 

Lofgren, Tauscher, Speier, Honda, Stark, McNerney and Woolsey. 

I last appeared before your Subcommittee in May of 2007. At 

that time, I sought support for H.R. 1526, which was signed into 

law in May 2008. This resulted in the authorization of seven new 

recycled water projects for the Bay Area, and I want to commend 

you, Madame Chairwoman, for your leadership in that effort. You 

have always taken a personal, direct interest in California’s water 

supply issues, and many recognize your invaluable contributions. 

I am proud to report that our coalition’s objective of working together in collaboration rather than pursuing individual agency interests is successfully producing recycled water projects. 

As you are aware, California has serious water supply challenges. In February, Governor Schwarzenegger warned that California faces its third consecutive year of drought, and it must prepare for the worst, a fourth, fifth or even sixth year of a drought. 

44 

As our state’s water needs continue to grow, so do our responsibilities to secure long-term sustainable water options. An increasing population coupled with decreasing Sierra snowpack make it 

imperative that we act very actively, seek conservation and water 

recycling programs to withstand the impacts of climate change and 

drought. 

As you correctly point out on your website, Madame Chairwoman, our nation’s water infrastructure is aging and deteriorating. Huge quantities of water that could be recycled are instead 

flushed out to the sea. 

Now the Bay Area uses a little over a million acre-feet of water 

per year, which is about one fourth of the storage availability in 

Shasta Reservoir. Half of that ends up in our sewer system, and 

that water is practically drought-proof and it is available for recycled water projects. 

The projects undertaken to date by the Bay Area Recycled Water 

Coalition have resulted in over 22,000 acre-feet of recycled water 

being developed, and there are more opportunities to develop additional water supplies, but we cannot do it alone. 

Federal funding and support is the strongest foundation we have 

to guarantee the successful implementation of water-efficient technologies. As Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar indicated during 

his visit to the Delta this past April, it is time to modernize, it is 

time to make hard choices, and it is time for the Federal government to reengage in full partnership with the 21st century water 

system for the State of California. 

The six new projects in H.R. 2442 will generate over 8,000 acrefeet of brand-new water supply for the Bay Area. That is enough 

water to meet the needs of nearly 24,000 homes. These projects 

help answer President Obama’s call to ensure the safety of our environment and to rebuild our economic vitality and investments for 

future generations. 

Congressman McClintock asked three specific questions that I 

will try to address very briefly. What is the Federal nexus? The 

Federal nexus is all six of these projects draw water out of the 

Delta. Three of them are specific Federal water contractors. There 

are 126 Federal contractors in the State of California, and the Bureau is never able to meet the full allocation of water for those contractors. So this is a new water supply. It is water that was called 

upon under the previous legislation, the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, called on the Bureau to identify new water sources. 

This is a new water source. 

Feasibility, all of our projects are committed to going through the 

feasibility project. One of the projects that is in my district was the 

very first in the Nation to gain complete acceptance through the 

feasibility process, and we are committed to that. 

Cost-effectiveness, that is a very good question. Our board members of all the Bay Area agencies ask exactly that. 

You had asked is there a project out there that produces recycled 

water less than $1,000 an acre-foot. Our project costs to deliver recycled water, the operating cost is less than $300 an acre-foot for 

operating and maintenance of those facilities. 

The capital costs to put that new infrastructure in needs to be 

compared to the capital costs for any new water supply. So building 

45 

a reservoir or desalination plant, an inter-tie groundwater project, 

if you compare the cost of new infrastructure for those facilities 

versus these type of facilities, it is extremely competitive. 

So, with that, we are asking for your support of H.R. 2442 to 

build on an already progressive and proven partnership between 

the Federal government and local communities to expand the successful regional water recycling program across the San Francisco 

Bay area. 

Accordingly, the Coalition urges support for H.R. 2442. Thank 

you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Darling follows:] 

Statement of Gary W. Darling, General Manager, Delta Diablo Sanitation 

District, City of Antioch, California, on H.R.2442 

Madam Chairwoman, good morning. My name is Gary Darling and I am the General Manager of the Delta Diablo Sanitation District in Antioch, California. 

I appreciate the invitation to appear today to present testimony on behalf of the 

Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Coalition (BARWC), a partnership of Bay Area 

regional water recycling agencies, in strong support of H.R.2442, the ‘‘Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program Expansion Act of 2009.’’ 

At the outset, I want to extend the Coalition’s deepest appreciation to Congressman George Miller for his vision and leadership in introducing this much-needed 

water legislation which will help eight Bay Area communities increase their municipal water supplies through innovative water recycle projects. I also want to commend Representatives Eshoo, Lofgren, Tauscher, Speier, Honda, Stark, McNerney, 

and Woolsey for being original cosponsors of the bill, which also affects critical 

projects in their Districts. 

Madam Chairwoman, as a matter of background, the Coalition has projects authorized under Title XVI of Public Law 102-575 as amended through the Bay Area 

Regional Water Recycling Program. This Program is a partnership of Federal, State 

and local agencies focused on feasible use of recycled water in the San Francisco 

Bay Area—home to one-sixth of California’s population. Since 1999, when our Bay 

Area Water Recycling Master Plan was completed, our agencies have invested over 

$280 million planning, designing and building water recycling projects. With continued State and Federal funding assistance, including the President’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, we can continue to successfully develop recycled 

water projects that provide new sustainable dry weather supplies to the Bay-Delta 

area, benefitting not only our region, but also the State of California and the nation. 

I last appeared before this Subcommittee in May 2007. At that time, as spokesperson for BARWC, I sought support for H.R.1526, which was signed into Public 

Law 110-229 in May 2008. This resulted in authorization of seven new projects and 

subsequent funding for five of these. I want to commend you, Madam Chairwoman, 

for your leadership in that effort. You have always taken a personal, direct interest 

in California’s water supply issues, and many recognize your invaluable contributions. 

I’m proud to report that our Coalition’s objective of working together in collaboration rather than pursuing individual agency interests is successfully producing 

water reuse projects focused on creating long-term sustainability and drought-tolerant water supplies. Reuse projects with regional and statewide benefits have received priority funding and implementation support. 

To give you a brief example, one of the projects where the Subcommittee’s support 

has made a difference is the Redwood City Recycled Water Project, which recently 

completed construction of recycled water treatment, storage, pumping and distribution facilities, providing recycled water for landscape irrigation, commercial, and industrial uses. Through this authorized BARWC project, Redwood City is currently 

saving approximately 50 million gallons of drinking water per year. The City is currently seeking authorization for a new project to meet its goal of saving 300 million 

gallons of drinking water by 2010. This is just one project in the BARWC. 

There is still much work to be done around the important issues of water efficiency and conservation. We have an urgent need to address the issues of water 

stress and scarcity which plague much of the western region of our great nation. 

According to the Natural Resources Defense Council, water will be one of the 

major environmental issues of the 21st century. It’s a natural resource that is alVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:49 Jan 15, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\51187.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
46 

ready in short supply across parts of the United States and the world—and it will 

become even scarcer as our population grows and our climate changes. 

As you are already aware, California has serious water supply challenges. Currently two-thirds of the San Francisco Bay Area’s water supply is imported. In February, Governor Schwarzenegger warned that ‘‘California faces its third consecutive 

year of drought and [it] must prepare for the worst—a fourth, fifth or even sixth 

year of drought.’’ 

As our State’s need for water continues to grow, so too does our responsibility to 

secure long-term sustainable water options. An increasing population coupled with 

decreasing precipitation and Sierra snowpack make it imperative that we actively 

seek conservation and water recycling programs to withstand the effects of climate 

change and drought. 

Water recycling and reuse enables us to address these challenges. Research indicates recycled water could meet thirty percent of the projected increase in 2030 regional water demands. Water sourced from storage reservoirs is equivalent of up to 

five times more than that which is produced by water recycling. Using virtually 

drought-proof recycled water for irrigation, landscaping and industrial purposes dramatically reduces dependence on freshwater. 

However, water sourcing is only one component of the challenge we face. As you 

correctly point out on your website Madam Chairwoman, ‘‘Our nation’s water infrastructure is aging and deteriorating. Huge quantities of water that could be recycled 

are instead flushed out to sea.’’ Lack of adequate infrastructure remains one of our 

biggest obstacles to offering more recycled water, faster and more efficiently across 

our communities. Installation of designated ‘‘purple’’ pipeline remains one of the 

largest costs associated with recycled water. 

Our Coalition is actively working to implement viable water recycling programs. 

Projects have been undertaken by Coalition members resulting in over 22,000 acrefeet of recycled water being supplied to Bay Area communities and businesses. And 

there are many more opportunities for us to be active leaders in addressing the 

growing issues of water conservation and reuse. 

But we can’t do it alone. Federal funding and support is the strongest foundation 

we have to guarantee the successful adoption and implementation of water-efficient 

technologies and practices. Federal support enables us to stretch limited water supplies and protect precious ecosystems to the benefit of citizens in a far broader geography than simply the communities our agencies serve. 

As Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar indicated during his visit to the Delta 

this past April, ‘‘It is time to modernize, it is time to make hard choices and it is 

time for the Federal government to reengage in full partnership with the 21st century water system for the State of California.’’ Water recycling and reuse technology 

must be a large component of this new system. 

Today I’m asking your support for H.R.2442 which builds on the success of last 

Congress by making six additional recycled water projects eligible for a 25% federal 

cost-sharing investment. This will enable more cities across the Bay Area to connect 

with the recycled water network by installing new pump stations, piping and storage tanks. This will directly result in reduced demand from six Bay Area communities on scarce fresh water from the Bay-Delta. 

These six new projects will generate over 8,000 acre-feet per year of new sustainable water supply. That’s over 2.6 billion gallons per year or 7.2 million gallons per 

day. That’s enough to meet the needs of nearly 24,000 homes. It will reduce wastewater discharges to aquatic environments, and reduce the demand for limited fresh 

water from our fragile Bay-Delta system. 

Water recycling is a responsible water supply option that is less energy-intensive 

than almost all other water supply options. As there is a steady supply of wastewater, recycled water is virtually drought-proof. However, without Federal partnership providing vital 25% capital, we risk these valuable projects not being developed. H.R.2442 will enable us to build six new projects and fully fund two more. 

It will allow for valuable financial support in these difficult economic times to public 

agencies being challenged with decreasing revenue and increasing expenditures. 

Without these cost sharing measures, many of our projects risk not being completed 

or may fail to get started at all. 

These six innovative water recycling projects covered under H.R.2442 answer 

President Obama’s call to ensure the safety of our environment and to rebuild our 

economic vitality and investments now for future generations. Because when we 

protect our resources, we protect our future. 

California’s water supply continues to be precious, but limited. In the San Francisco Bay Area, our Coalition is actively undertaking unprecedented collaborative 

water recycling projects which answer the challenge of ensuring we have sufficient 

47 

freshwater supplies to maintain a good quality of life and sustain our much needed 

economic growth—not just for today or tomorrow, but in the future as well. 

I’m here today to ask the Subcommittee to join with our Coalition once again to 

lead a new direction of water recycling initiatives which can directly benefit millions 

of Californians and the Bay-Delta ecosystem. These projects offer the Federal government an opportunity to leverage Federal funds for significant benefit. These 

projects help achieve the objectives of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act 

and the Bay Delta Conservation Plan. Investing in the work being undertaken by 

our Coalition will result in advanced technologies which protect the health of our 

communities and environment, while providing long-term economic benefits. 

Your support for H.R.2442 will build on an already progressive and proven partnership between the Federal government and local communities to expand the successful regional water recycling program across the San Francisco Bay Area. 

Accordingly, the Coalition urges support for H.R.2442. Thank you. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, sir, for your testimony. 

And we move on to Susan Mulligan, Manager of Engineering, 

Calleguas Municipal Water District in Thousand Oaks, California. 

Ma’am. 

STATEMENT OF SUSAN MULLIGAN, MANAGER OF ENGINEERING, CALLEGUAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, THOUSAND 

OAKS, CALIFORNIA [H.R. 2522] 

Ms. MULLIGAN. Chairwoman Napolitano, members of the Subcommittee and staff, good morning. Thank you for the opportunity 

to testify today on this very important issue. 

My name is Susan Mulligan. I am the Manager of Engineering 

for Calleguas Municipal Water District, which provides water to 

about 75 percent of the population of Ventura County or 650,000 

people about 50 miles northwest of Los Angeles, California. 

I want to thank you for holding this hearing on H.R. 2522, which 

proposes to raise the ceiling on the Federal share of the cost of the 

Calleguas Municipal Water District Recycling project. 

I also want to thank Congressman Elton Gallegly for sponsoring 

this important bill that will provide much-needed additional water 

supplies to our region and improve the quality of our local natural 

resources. 

Calleguas Municipal Water District is a public agency created in 

1953 to provide southeastern Ventura County with a reliable supply of high-quality supplemental water. Calleguas’s service area 

faces serious water supply and water quality challenges. 

Calleguas imports about 120,000 acre-feet per year from the 

State Water Project, as you know, a system of reservoirs, aqueducts 

and pumping facilities that convey water from the Sacramento Bay 

Delta in northern California to southern California. 

The ability of the State Water Project to convey reliable supplies 

has been hampered by an ongoing drought and decisions which 

have mandated that significantly more water remain in the Bay 

Delta for habitat needs. Climate change is expected to further reduce available supplies as precipitation decreases and less water is 

stored in snowpack. Calleguas needs to develop additional supplies 

if it is to reliably sustain its existing residents, businesses and agriculture. 

In addition to the water supply challenge, the quality of the region’s local water supplies is deteriorating. The Calleguas service 

area has experienced increasing salinity levels since its supplies 

48 

were first put to use by farmers in the 1880s. Much of the local 

groundwater is now too saline for use as drinking water and is 

harmful to the county’s billion-dollar-a-year agricultural industry, 

particularly for sensitive crops like berries and avocados. 

This project resolves both of those problems. It will improve 

water supply reliability and reduce imported water supplies by 

making it possible to put the local brackish water supplies to beneficial use. The project is a regional pipeline that will collect salty 

water generated by groundwater desalting facilities in the region, 

allowing them to produce higher-quality water for municipal, industrial and agricultural uses instead of using imported supplies. 

The salty water from these facilities and excess recycled water 

from other sources will be conveyed for reuse elsewhere. Potential 

uses near the coast include wetlands restoration, irrigation of salttolerant crops such as sod and coastal game preserves. The use of 

this nonpotable water source will help reduce groundwater pumping near the coast and imported water use. Any surplus supplies 

will be safely discharged to the ocean where natural salt levels are 

much higher. 

In addition to its water supply and water quality benefits, the 

project will also benefit the environment by improving the quality 

of flows in local creeks, reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 

using less intensive local water resources instead of imported 

sources which require substantial pumping and reducing dependence on imported water from the sensitive Bay Delta ecosystem. 

The project is being built in phases. Phase 1 is largely complete 

and includes 48-inch-diameter pipe extending nine miles through 

the Cities of Oxnard and Port Hueneme and unincorporated areas 

of Ventura County. This phase also includes a 30-inch-diameter 

ocean outfall extending 4,500 feet into the ocean, which is currently 

under construction. Phase 1 will facilitate the reclamation and 

reuse of about 15,000 acre-feet per year of water. 

Phase 1 was authorized by P.L. 104-266 and will be completed 

at an estimated cost of $83.8 million. Once complete, the cost of 

Phase 1 will cause Calleguas to reach the $20 million cap in our 

Federal authorization. 

H.R. 2522 will authorize the Bureau’s support for Phases 2 and 

3 of the project, which will extend pipe an additional 26 miles 

through the Cities of Simi Valley, Moorpark and Camarillo. Completion of Phases 2 and 3 will facilitate the reclamation and reuse 

of about 43,000 acre-feet per year of water in addition to that facilitated by Phase 1. 

Federal support for these phases through the Bureau would be 

limited to the lesser of $40 million or 25 percent of the construction 

costs. Implementation of the project will facilitate recycled water 

use, reduce the demand on import of water, remove salt from the 

watershed, facilitate restoration of coastal wetlands, help sustain 

important agricultural operations and provide overall benefits to 

Ventura County and the State of California. 

Thank you again, Chairwoman Napolitano, for your time and 

consideration. I am ready to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Mulligan follows:] 

49 

Statement of Susan Mulligan, Manager of Engineering, 

Calleguas Municipal Water District, on H.R. 2522 

Chair Napolitano, members of the Subcommittee, and staff, good morning and 

thank you for the opportunity to testify today on this very important issue. 

My name is Susan Mulligan and I am the Manager of Engineering for Calleguas 

Municipal Water District, which provides water to about 75 percent of the population of Ventura County, or 650,000 people, about 50 miles northwest of Los Angeles, California. 

I want to thank you for holding this hearing on H.R. 2522, which proposes to 

raise the ceiling on the Federal share of the cost of the Calleguas Municipal Water 

District Recycling Project which funds the construction of a 35 mile brine line. 

I also want to thank Congressman Elton Gallegly for sponsoring this important 

bill that will provide much needed additional water supplies to our region and improve the quality of our natural resources. 

Calleguas Municipal Water District (Calleguas) is a public agency created in 1953 

to provide southeastern Ventura County with a reliable supply of high quality supplemental water. The District serves an area of approximately 350 square miles that 

includes the cities of Camarillo, Moorpark, Oxnard, Port Hueneme, Thousand Oaks, 

and Simi Valley, as well as surrounding unincorporated areas. Calleguas’ service 

area faces serious water supply and water quality challenges. 

Calleguas’ imported water supply is dwindling. Calleguas imports about 120,000 

acre-feet per year (AFY) from the State Water Project (SWP), a system of reservoirs, 

aqueducts, and pumping facilities that conveys water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay-Delta in northern California to southern California. The ability of the 

SWP to convey reliable water supplies has been hampered by an on-going drought 

and regulatory decisions which have mandated that significantly more water remain 

in the Bay-Delta for habitat needs. Climate change is expected to further reduce 

available supplies as precipitation decreases and less water is stored in snowpack. 

Calleguas needs to develop additional water supplies if it is to reliably sustain its 

existing residents, businesses, and agriculture. Water conservation alone cannot 

provide sufficient savings to avert potential future water supply shortages. 

The quality of the region’s local water supplies is deteriorating. Calleguas’ service 

area generally overlies the Calleguas Creek Watershed. Calleguas Creek and many 

of its tributaries are listed as ‘‘impaired’’ for salinity under the Clean Water Act. 

The Calleguas service area has experienced increasing salinity levels since its water 

supplies were first put to use by farmers in the 1880s. Contributing factors include 

naturally occurring minerals, agricultural runoff, and lack of surplus water to flush 

salts from the environment. Salinity levels have increased with each cycle of urban 

use for municipal and industrial purposes. Groundwater over-draft along the coastline has led to seawater intrusion into coastal groundwater basins, impairing the 

quality of freshwater aquifers. Much of the local groundwater is too saline for use 

as drinking water and is harmful to the County’s billion dollar a year agricultural 

industry, primarily for sensitive crops like berries and avocados. High salinity levels 

in soils and surface water can also be detrimental to sensitive habitat. Without a 

means of removing salt, the area will continue to experience long-term increases in 

salinity levels as the salts are cycled and concentrated. 

Solutions to these supply and quality problems are being implemented through a 

collaborative process. Beginning in 1996, a broad coalition of local property owners, 

water and wastewater agencies, environmental groups, agricultural parties, governmental entities, and other private interests joined together to develop the Calleguas 

Creek Watershed Management Plan, which is centered around implementation of 

the Calleguas Municipal Water District Recycling Project (Project). 

The Project will improve water supply reliability and reduce dependence on imported water supplies by making it possible to put local brackish water supplies to 

beneficial use. The only way to remove salinity from water is through a membrane 

treatment process, such as reverse osmosis, which produces a highly saline waste 

concentrate which must then be managed and disposed. If the concentrate were to 

be discharged to wastewater or creeks, it would perpetuate the cycle of salt build 

up. 

The Project is a regional pipeline that will collect salty water generated by 

groundwater desalting facilities and excess recycled water and convey that water for 

reuse elsewhere. Any surplus supplies will be safely discharged to the ocean, where 

natural salt levels are much higher. The Project is being built incrementally in 

phases, as shown on the attached map. Phase 1 is largely complete, with one pipeline section and an ocean outfall currently under construction. Once complete, the 

cost for Phase 1 will cause Calleguas to reach the $20 million cap in their federal 

authorization. 

50 

Much of the local wastewater is treated to a high level of bacteriological quality 

but is too saline for discharge to local creeks. The Project will either provide a 

means for that wastewater to be demineralized for use as a high quality irrigation 

supply or a means of conveying that wastewater to potential users near the coast 

which can tolerate saline water. Potential uses include wetlands restoration, irrigation of salt-tolerant crops (such as sod), and coastal game preserves. 

The use of this non-potable water source will help reduce groundwater pumping 

and imported water use. The Project will also export salts out of the watershed to 

help achieve compliance with regulatory requirements for salts in local groundwater 

and surface water resources. Additionally, the Project will facilitate the development 

of new, local water supplies through treatment of brackish groundwater. 

The Project is vital to the region’s water reliability as imported supplies become 

increasingly vulnerable to drought, climate change, catastrophic levee failures from 

flood and/or seismic events, and regulatory shutdowns of pumping facilities for habitat protection. 

The Project will improve surface water and ground water quality by moving salts 

out of the watershed. Salt will be removed from groundwater and the concentrate 

from the treatment process sent to the Project. Tertiary treated wastewater which 

is too saline for discharge to local streams will be sent to the Project during wet 

periods when it is not needed for irrigation. Ventura County has abundant sources 

of groundwater, but much of the water is too high in salts for municipal and agricultural use. By treating groundwater to remove salts and moving those salts away 

from surface waters and groundwater, water agencies in Ventura County solve a 

water quality problem, while improving local water supply reliability. 

In addition to its water supply and water quality benefits, the Project will also 

benefit the environment by improving the quality of flows in local creeks, reducing 

greenhouse gas emissions by using less energy-intensive local water resources instead of imported sources which require substantial pumping, and reducing dependence on imported water from the sensitive Bay-Delta ecosystem in Northern California. 

Phase 1 of the project was authorized by P.L. 104-266, Section 2, and will be completed at an estimated cost of $83.858 million (maximum Federal share of $20 million). Phase 1 includes 48 inch diameter pipe extending nine miles through the cities of Oxnard and Port Hueneme and unincorporated areas of Ventura County, and 

also includes a 30 inch diameter ocean outfall extending 4,500 feet into the ocean. 

Phase 1 will facilitate the reclamation and reuse of about 15,000 acre-feet per year 

of water. 

H.R. 2522 will authorize Bureau of Reclamation support for Phases 2 and 3 of 

the Project, which will extend the 18-inch through 30-inch diameter pipe an additional twenty-six miles through the cities of Simi Valley, Moorpark, and Camarillo, 

and unincorporated areas of Ventura County. Completion of Phases 2 and 3 of the 

Project will facilitate the reclamation and reuse of about 43,000 acre-feet per year 

of water. Federal support for these phases of the project through the Bureau would 

be limited to the lesser of $40 million or 25 percent of the construction costs. 

The Project is the only truly reliable, environmentally-sensitive, and cost-effective 

solution to the water supply and water quality issues in the Calleguas service area. 

Implementation of the Project will facilitate recycled water use, reduce the demand 

on imported water, remove existing salts, reduce salinity loadings, facilitate restoration of coastal wetlands, help sustain important agricultural operations in Ventura 

County, and provide overall benefits to Ventura County and the State of California. 

Calleguas Municipal Water District takes its role as water supply manager for the 

County very seriously. Calleguas, local cities and retail water agencies, and the local 

community, are all looking for water supply and water supply reliability solutions. 

Local brackish groundwater and recycled municipal wastewater are good solutions. 

H.R. 2522 can be the tool that enables us to achieve this water supply and we very 

strongly urge your support for this legislation. 

Thank you again, Madame Chair, for your time and consideration and I am here 

ready to answer any questions you may have. 

51 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Ms. Mulligan. 

Mr. Brookshier, City Manager of Hermiston, Oregon. Sir. 

STATEMENT OF ED BROOKSHIER, CITY MANAGER, 

HERMISTON, OREGON [H.R. 2741] 

Mr. BROOKSHIER. Chairwoman Napolitano and members of the 

Subcommittee, thank you for holding this hearing and allowing me 

to testify in support of H.R. 2741. 

My name is Ed Brookshier, and I am the City Manager for the 

City of Hermiston, Oregon, a rural agricultural community of 

16,000 on the state’s east side. 

I wish to publicly thank Congressman Greg Walden for introducing this important piece of legislation that is crucial to the city’s 

reclamation and reuse of its municipal wastewater. This reclamation effort will provide high-quality recycled water for reuse as a 

source of irrigation supply. 

The city’s recyclable water production is estimated to be 3,600 

acre-feet annually, of which 1,800 acre-feet will supply irrigation 

and 1,800 acre-feet will be discharged to the Umatilla River for 

winter use. 

This new partial source of drought-proof irrigation water will 

provide an added supply to the Bureau of Reclamation-owned and 

locally operated West Extension Irrigation District. 

The benefits of developing a high-quality source of recycled water 

followed by its use as a source of irrigation are numerous and extend to the West Extension Irrigation District, the City of 

Hermiston, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation and the region as a whole. 


51187.008
52 

The West Extension Irrigation District benefits from this project 

by obtaining an additional source of supply which is both high in 

quality and drought-proof. Since water is delivered to the District, 

energy required for pumping is also reduced by approximately 

$13,000 a year. In addition, the 1,800 acre-feet of irrigation water 

provided annually will supply water to 600 acres, reducing the demand on the District’s surface water supply sources. 

Finally, this added source of partial irrigation water improves 

the District’s operational flexibility. 

The City of Hermiston benefits primarily through meeting its upcoming national pollutant discharge elimination system permit. 

This permit requires the city to develop high-quality recycled water 

and remove its discharge from the Umatilla River continuously 

from April 1 to October 31 of each year. 

The West Extension Irrigation District provides the long-term, 

multifarm discharge option that allows the city to remove its discharge from the river during this period of each year. If the city 

is unable to discharge to the District, it will be in continuous violation of current temperature standards and periodic violation of the 

ammonia standard contained within the city’s permit. 

Secondary benefits to the city include a reduction in energy costs from reduced pumping, estimated to be $42,000 a year, and the certainty that this solution, though expensive, will serve for decades 

to come. 

The Confederated Tribes of Umatilla Indian Reservation will also 

benefit from development of high-quality recycled water throughout 

the year. These benefits include a significant improvement in the 

quality of recycled water discharged to the Umatilla River in winter, further protection of sensitive salmon habitat during summer 

when the recycled water is used for irrigation in lieu of river discharge, increased environmental monitoring at the recycled water 

treatment facility and the long-term nature of this solution. 

The region as a whole also benefits from treatment that develops 

high-quality recycled water. This water source is protective of the 

environment in both summer and winter and provides an added 

source of irrigation supply to agriculture, which is the backbone of 

the Hermiston economy. 

The Hermiston Water Recycling Project is estimated to be completed and on line in two and one half years. This effort will have 

an immediate economic impact to our local economy as much-needed jobs will be created through an infrastructure project of this 

size. 

More importantly, the addition of the new and reliable water 

source created by this project will have a profound long-term impact on the farming industry in our area, which faces an uncertain 

future due to dwindling water supplies. 

Madame Chairman, while I understand and appreciate the strict 

budgetary limitations that your Committee and Congress as a 

whole are faced with, I believe the Hermiston Recycled Water Facility is a worthwhile Federal investment. Combined with the serious regulatory issues the City of Hermiston is faced with and the 

need for added drought-proof sources of recycled water in the 

Hermiston area for irrigation, it is essential that we complete construction of this project in a timely manner. Federal participation 

53 

in this endeavor is vitally important to ensure that this becomes 

a reality. 

This concludes my testimony. I will be happy to answer any 

questions that you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Brookshier follows:] 

Statement of Ed Brookshier, City Manager, City of Hermiston, Oregon, 

on H.R. 2741 

Chairwoman Napolitano and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for holding this hearing and allowing me to testify in support of H.R. 2741. My name is 

Ed Brookshier and I am the City Manager for the City of Hermiston, Oregon. I wish 

to publicly thank Congressman Greg Walden for introducing this important piece 

of legislation that is crucial to the City’s reclamation and reuse of its municipal 

wastewater. This reclamation effort will provide a high quality recycled water for 

reuse as a source of irrigation supply. The City’s recycled water production is estimated to be 3,600 acre-feet annually, of which 1,800 Acre-feet will supply irrigation 

and 1,800 acre-feet will be discharged to the Umatilla River in winter. This new 

partial source of drought proof irrigation water will provide an added supply to the 

Bureau of Reclamation owned and locally operated West Extension Irrigation District. 

Hermiston, Oregon is a progressive, growth-oriented urban center with a total 

trade area population of 320,900. Located in a relatively dry section of the state of 

Oregon, positioned between the Cascade Mountains to the west and the Blue Mountains to the East, Hermiston is placed in a unique geographical area that offers an 

extended growing season and a variety of agricultural crops and products. The immediate Hermiston area has been able to diversify its economy with food processing, 

cold storage and warehousing and distribution facilities. 

The benefits of developing a high quality source of recycled water followed by its 

use as a source of irrigation are numerous and extend to: The West Extension Irrigation District, the City of Hermiston, The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla 

Indian Reservation and the region as a whole. 

The West Extension Irrigation District benefits from this project by obtaining an 

additional source of supply, which is both high in quality and drought proof. Since 

water is delivered to the District, energy required for pumping is also reduced by 

approximately $13,000 annually. In addition, the 1,800 acre-feet of irrigation water 

provided annually will supply water to 600 acres, reducing the demand on the District’s surface water supply sources. Finally, this added source of partial irrigation 

water improves the District’s operational flexibility. 

The City of Hermiston benefits primarily through meeting its upcoming National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES). This permit requires the 

City to both develop a high-quality recycled water and remove its discharge from 

the Umatilla River continuously from April 1 to October 31 of each year. The West 

Extension Irrigation District provides the long term, multi-farm discharge option 

that allows the City to remove its discharge from the River during this period of 

each year. If the City is unable to discharge to the District it will be in continuous 

violation of current temperature standards and periodic violation of the ammonia 

standard contained within the City’s NPDES Permit. Secondary benefits to the City 

include a reduction in energy cost from reduced pumping, estimated to be $42,000 

annually, and the certainty that this solution, though expensive, will provide service 

for decades to come. 

The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation will also benefit from 

development of high-quality recycled water throughout the year. These benefits include a significant improvement in the quality of recycled water discharged to the 

Umatilla River in winter; further protection of sensitive salmonid habitat during 

summer when the recycled water is used for irrigation in lieu of River discharge; 

increased environmental monitoring at the recycled water treatment facility and the 

long-term nature of this solution. 

The region as a whole also benefits from treatment that develops high-quality recycled water. This water source is protective of the environment in both summer 

and winter and provides an added source of irrigation supply to agriculture, which 

is the backbone of the Hermiston economy. The Hermiston Water Recycling Project 

is estimated to be completed and online in 2 1/2 years. This effort will have an immediate economic impact to our local economy as much needed jobs will be created 

through an infrastructure project of this size. More importantly, the addition of the 

new and reliable water source created by this project will have a profound long-term 

54 

impact to the farming industry in our area which faces an uncertain future due to 

dwindling water supplies. 

Madam Chairman, while I understand and appreciate the strict budgetary limitations that your Committee and Congress as a whole are faced with, I believe that 

the Hermiston Recycled Water facility is a worthwhile federal investment due to the 

numerous federal objectives that will be advanced through this project. Combined 

with the serious regulatory issues the City of Hermiston is faced with and the need 

for added drought proof sources of recycled water in the Hermiston Area for irrigation, it is essential that we complete construction of this project in a timely manner. 

Federal participation in this endeavor is vital to ensure that this becomes a reality. 

This concludes my testimony. I will be happy to answer any questions that you 

may have. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, sir. 

We move on to Mr. Scott Ruppe, General Manager at Uintah 

Water Conservancy District in Vernal, Utah. 

STATEMENT OF SCOTT RUPPE, GENERAL MANAGER, UINTAH 

WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT, VERNAL, UTAH [H.R. 2950] 

Mr. RUPPE. Thank you very much, Madame Chairwoman and 

members of the Subcommittee. I am grateful to be able to appear 

here today and testify in support of H.R. 2950. I want to thank 

Representative Jim Matheson for introducing this bill on behalf of 

the Uintah Water Conservancy District. 

The District was formed in 1956 for the purpose of conserving, 

developing and stabilizing supplies of water for domestic, irrigation, power, manufacturing, municipal and other beneficial uses 

and for the purpose of constructing drainage works. 

The District operates and maintains the Vernal and Jensen units 

of the Central Utah Project, which was authorized by Congress as 

part of the Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956. The District 

encompasses almost all of Uintah County, Utah, in eastern Utah 

adjacent to the Colorado border. 

At the time of its construction in 1984 to 1987, the Jensen unit 

was to provide 18,000 acre-feet of municipal and industrial water 

to the residents of Uintah County. Six thousand acre-feet were to 

be developed with the construction of the Red Fleet Dam, which 

was built, and another 12,000 acre-feet were to be developed at a 

later date with the construction of the Burns Bench Pump station 

on the Green River near Jensen, Utah. 

Due to the economic bust in the mid- to late eighties, the demand 

for water that had been foreseen was no longer there. Also in 1989, 

an amendatory contract was signed with the Bureau of Reclamation reducing the amount of water subscribed to by water providers 

to 2,000 acre-feet. 

The Bureau desires to do a final cost allocation in the Jensen 

unit. If that allocation were done without developing the remaining 

12,000 acre-feet, the cost per acre-foot would be approximately two 

and a half times as much as if the 12,000 acre-feet were developed. 

At this time, not all of the 6,000 acre-feet of water in Red Fleet 

Dam have been subscribed to even though the demand for that 

water has increased recently. 

A block notice was issued to the District from the Bureau of Reclamation for the 2,000 acre-feet, and the District contracted with 

municipalities, water improvement districts and a private company 

for all of that water. 

55 

Since that time, the additional 4,000 acre-feet of municipal and 

industrial water has remained unsubscribed. The Bureau of Reclamation took 700 acre-feet to increase the conservation pool in the 

reservoir, which leaves 3,300 acre-feet of available water. The 

Burns Bench Pump station will not be constructed until all of the 

municipal and industrial water available in Red Fleet is subscribed 

to. 

In the past year, due in large part to the projected growth, the 

District had received requests for all of the remaining municipal 

and industrial water available in Red Fleet. Five entities, Vernal 

City and Ashley Valley Water and Sewer, have requested 1,000 

acre-feet each; Maeser Water has requested 675 acre-feet; Jensen 

Water has requested 175 acre-feet; Uintah County in conjunction 

with Jensen Water has requested 150 acre-feet, and a private company has requested 300 acre-feet. 

The price of the water was set by the amendatory contract. The 

amount per acre-foot was based on the cost of the Jensen unit, including an estimated cost of the pump station divided by the 

18,000 acre-feet. The resulting cost is $5,555.21 per acre-foot and 

is payable by dividing that amount by the number of years remaining until 2037, with the last payment being made in 2037. Water 

purchased in 2006 would be paid for at a rate of $179.07 per acrefoot per year for 31 years. In 2009, it would be $198.40 for 28 

years. 

The District approached the Bureau about the possibility of discounting those payments at either the 3.222 rate used by the Bureau to calculate the repayment or the Federal funds rate at the 

time of the discounting. According to the Bureau, the amendatory 

contract does not allow for prepayment. 

The District then determined that it would ask legislation similar to that used by Central Utah Water Conservancy District that 

has allowed for prepayment of the repayment contracts for the 

Bonneville unit. Prepayment of our contract with the Bureau will 

substantially reduce the cost to the District and will also produce 

substantial payment to the Federal Treasury, which we estimate 

between $4 and $5 million. 

H.R. 2950 directs the Secretary of the Interior to allow for prepayment of the specified contract between the United States and 

the Uintah Water Conservancy District, providing for prepayment, 

repayment of municipal and industrial water delivery facilities 

under terms and conditions similar to those used in the implementing provisions of the Central Utah Project Completion Act. It 

also provides that the prepayment may be provided in several installments to reflect a substantial completion of the delivery of facilities and shall be adjusted to conform to a final cost allocation, 

and it may not be adjusted on the basis of the type of prepayment. 

The Administration has suggested that the bill be amended to 

clarify that the District intends to pay the entire present value of 

future cash flows. That was always our intention, and we agree to 

work with the Administration to develop the language that will 

clarify that intent. 

Again, I thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I will be 

happy to respond to any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ruppe follows:] 

56 

Statement of Scott Ruppe, General Manager, Uintah Water Conservancy 

District, In Support of H.R. 2950 

Madame Chairwoman and members of the Subcommittee, I am grateful to be able 

to appear here today and testify in support of H.R. 2950. I want to thank Rep. Jim 

Matheson for introducing this bill on behalf of the Uintah Water Conservancy District (District). The District was formed in 1956 for the purpose of ‘‘conserving, developing and stabilizing supplies of water for domestic, irrigation, power, manufacturing, municipal and other beneficial uses, and for the purpose of constructing 

drainage works.’’ The District operates and maintains the Vernal and Jensen Units 

of the Central Utah Project, which was authorized by Congress as part of the Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956. The District encompasses almost all of 

Uintah County, Utah in eastern Utah adjacent to the border of Colorado. 

At the time of its construction (1984-1987), the Jensen Unit was to provide 18,000 

Acre Feet (AF) of M&I water to the residents of Uintah County. Six thousand AF 

were to be developed with the construction of Red Fleet dam (which was built) and 

another 12,000 AF were to be developed at a later date with the construction of the 

Burns Bench Pump station on the Green River in Jensen, Utah. Due to the economic bust in the mid to late 80’s, the demand for water that had been foreseen 

was no longer there. Also, in 1989 an amendatory contract was signed with the Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau) reducing the amount of water subscribed to by water 

providers to 2,000 AF. 

The Bureau desires to do a final cost allocation on the Jensen Unit. If that allocation were done without developing the remaining 12,000 AF, the cost per AF would 

be approximately 2.5 times as much as if the 12,000 AF were developed. At this 

time, not all of the 6,000 AF of water in Red Fleet Dam has been subscribed to even 

though the demand for that water has increased recently. A Block Notice was issued 

to the District from the Bureau of Reclamation for the 2,000 AF and the District 

contracted with the municipalities, water improvement districts, and a private company for all of that water. Since that time the additional 4,000 AF of M&I water 

has remained unsubscribed. The Bureau of Reclamation took 700 AF to increase the 

conservation pool in the reservoir which leaves 3,300 AF of available water. The 

Burns Bench pump station will not be constructed until all of the M&I water available in Red Fleet is subscribed to. In the past year, due in large part to the projected growth, the District has received requests for all of the remaining M&I water 

available in Red Fleet. Vernal City and Ashley Valley Water and Sewer have each 

requested 1,000 AF, Maeser Water has requested 675 AF, Jensen Water has requested 175 AF, Uintah County in conjunction with Jensen Water has requested 

150 AF, and a private company has requested 300 AF. 

The price of the water was set by the amendatory contract. The amount per AF 

was based on the cost of the Jensen Unit (including an estimated cost of the pump 

station) divided by 18,000 AF. The resulting cost is $5,555.21 per AF and is payable 

by dividing that amount by the number of years remaining until 2037 with the last 

payment being made in 2037. Water purchased in 2006 would be paid for at a rate 

of $179.07 per AF per year for 31 years. The District approached the Bureau about 

the possibility of discounting those payments at either the 3.222% rate used by the 

Bureau to calculate the repayment or the federal funds rate at the time of the discounting. According to the Bureau, the amendatory contract does not allow for prepayment. The District then determined that it would seek legislation similar to that 

used by the Central Utah Water Conservancy District that has allowed for prepayment of the repayment contracts for the Bonneville Unit. Prepayment of our contract with the Bureau will substantially reduce the cost of water to the District. 

H.R. 2950 will also produce a substantial payment to the federal treasury, which 

we estimate to be between $4-5 million. 

H.R. 2950 directs the Secretary of the Interior to allow for prepayment of the 

specified contract between the United States and the Uintah Water Conservancy 

District providing for repayment of municipal and industrial water delivery facilities 

under terms and conditions similar to those used in implementing provisions of the 

Central Utah Project Completion Act. It also provides that the prepayment: (1) may 

be provided in several installments to reflect substantial completion of the delivery 

facilities being prepaid; (2) shall be adjusted to conform to a final cost allocation; 

and (3) may not be adjusted on the basis of the type of prepayment financing utilized by the District. 

Again I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify today and will be happy 

to respond to any questions. 

57 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you for your testimony. And now we 

will begin with some of the questioning. 

Before I do that, I will give two minutes to Mr. Baca for an opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOE BACA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. BACA. Well, thank you very much, Madame Chair, and thank 

you for your leadership. And I want to welcome my new Ranking 

Member, Tom McClintock, that I happened to work with at the 

State Legislature in California. Congratulations on your new appointment. I hear it is quite fast you got here. I don’t know how 

you did that, Tom, but that was quite fast. So congratulations. I 

don’t know if they are punishing you. I think you are doing it for 

the right reasons, especially as it pertains to California and the crisis that we have and as we deal with our nation. 

Let me begin by saying that the world’s water crisis is one of the 

largest public health issues of our time, and I state that it is one 

of our time. Nearly 1.1 million people roughly or 20 percent of the 

world population lack access to safe drinking water. 

Ensuring clean and safe drinking water is a top priority. Clean 

drinking water is the right that all families deserve. It impacts not 

only the family, the children and all of us as we begin to grow, and 

especially as we look at many of the women that are having babies 

as we look at perchlorate, which is one of the areas that has affected the Illinois Park quite a lot. So clean water becomes very important. The bill we are discussing today will help shed light on 

various water issues in our nation. 

Today we will hear about of course the water issues found in 

California, Arizona, Utah, Oregon and Michigan. By addressing 

Title XVI authorization and providing directions to the Bureau of 

Reclamation and by helping settle the tribal water rights, we will 

bring us one step closer to finding a solution to many of our water 

problems. And I hope that we continue to work together. 

I commend Congresswoman Grace Napolitano, our Chair, for her 

leadership on water, and I look forward to working with her and 

our new Ranking Member, Tom McClintock, on an important issue 

impacting all of us. Thank you. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Baca, for keeping within time 

for your comments. 

Mr. Costa, two minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JIM COSTA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you very much, Madame Chairwoman. Again, 

I want to commend you for putting this hearing together. It is an 

important issue. I too as Congressman Baca served with Congressman McClintock, and welcome. We have a whole California gathering here it seems. 

But the issue at hand really is how we balance the needs of our 

current water needs not only in the Southwest but throughout the 

country and its long-term applications to conjunctive use programs 

that balance our groundwater usage with our surface water supVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:49 Jan 15, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\51187.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
58 

plies and how we use all the water management tools in our water 

toolbox to get there. 

I am particularly interested, Madame Chairwoman, in terms of 

the balance of our needs of our various communities because larger 

communities, larger service agencies, have more resources to deal 

with cleanup and recycling of groundwater as we apply the conjunctive use efforts. Smaller communities, smaller service areas, 

don’t have the resources to meet various standards, and how we 

provide cost-effective ways in terms of health and safety is always 

a concern. 

I think partnerships are very critical. We have had some very 

important partnerships in California with both urban and agricultural water agencies and how they share resources for long-term 

water usage. 

So I look forward to listening to the hearing, and I thank you 

again for putting this effort together. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Costa. And I will start the 

round. It looks like we may have a vote, so we will have to cut it 

short. 

To Mr. Alvarez, Mr. Hansen, Mr. Darling, Ms. Mulligan, and Mr. 

Brookshier, has a feasibility study been completed for your 

projects—and I would like yes or no answers, and we won’t go into 

detail—including compliance with all state, Federal, environmental 

requirements? Yes or no, please. If no, do you expect for your feasibility study to be completed and construction started? 

Third question, are you working with Reclamation to complete 

your projects? Yes or no. And have you experienced obstacles? Mr. 

Alvarez. 

Mr. ALVAREZ. Madame Chairwoman, no, we have not completed 

all of our feasibility and planning work. We have made significant 

efforts in that area. 

And I am sorry, your second question? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Do you expect your feasibility study to be completed and construction started? 

Mr. ALVAREZ. Our planning horizon is for four years to complete 

all of the environmental final design and construction. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And you are working with Reclamation? 

Mr. ALVAREZ. We are working with the Bureau of Reclamation. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Hansen? 

Mr. HANSEN. Yes, we have completed all requirements, and the 

project is ready to go, it is shovel-ready, ready to implement. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And you are working with Reclamation? 

Mr. HANSEN. Yes. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Darling. 

Mr. DARLING. All six new projects have the Title XVI feasibility 

determination process—it is in process. They are not complete. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. When do you expect completion? 

Mr. DARLING. They will be complete as soon as we have enough 

staffing availability with the Bureau Staff. We literally only have 

one person for the mid-Pacific Region that works full-time on this, 

so it is a matter of staffing actually. That impacts the timing. But 

I do like to point out that the bill is to authorize for the planning, 

design and construction. So this is for the planning. That is why 

59 

we need this authorization, in order to tell the Bureau to help plan 

this project. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. OK. 

Ms. MULLIGAN. Our feasibility is complete. It was complete before we began construction on Phase 1. And we are working with 

Reclamation to complete the project. The feasibility is already complete. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. OK. Was the original authorizing bill for 

Phase 1 including expansion? 

Ms. MULLIGAN. It was for Phase 1 and included expansion to 

Phase 2 and 3, yes. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. Mr. Brookshier. 

Mr. BROOKSHIER. All of our feasibility is complete. We have one 

environmental review that we are still working on. That is with the 

National Marine Fisheries Service. We are in consultation with the 

Bureau. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. Mr. McClintock. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you, Madame Chairwoman. The first 

question I would have, the first observation I would make is we 

have five districts here that want to get into a relationship with 

the Federal government. We have one here that has been in such 

a relationship and wants to get out because of all the regulatory 

burdens and costs that are associated. So you might all want to 

gather outside the hearing room here and kind of exchange notes 

because maybe there is somebody among you who is sadder but 

wiser for their relationship with the Federal government. That is 

just an observation. 

The question I would like to pose to each of you along the lines 

of cost-effectiveness is simply this. What is the estimated cost per 

acre-foot of water under the recycling project that you are proposing, and what is the overall cost to your district of water per 

acre-foot? 

Mr. ALVAREZ. Congressman McClintock, the estimated cost for 

our facility would basically be capital costs, about $7,000 an acrefoot. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. How much? 

Mr. ALVAREZ. Seven thousand dollars an acre-foot. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Seven thousand dollars per acre-foot. 

Mr. ALVAREZ. Yes. And if the City of Downey tried to acquire 

some additional water rights earlier this year that became available in our Central Basin, those water rights went for $7,000 an 

acre-foot. So the capital costs of providing this would be equivalent 

to basically what the market price for water in our region is today. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. And what is the market price for water in 

your region today? 

Mr. ALVAREZ. Seven thousand dollars an acre-foot. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Is the market price? 

Mr. ALVAREZ. That was the price of the most recent sale of water 

in the Central Basin of which the City of Downey participated in. 

It went through a bid process, and we were not the high bidder, 

although we were close to that $7,000 an acre-foot. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. And that is the overall cost of water to your 

agency? 

60 

Mr. ALVAREZ. That is the cost of acquiring the water rights. In 

addition to that—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. No, no, what is the overall cost per acre-foot 

to your agency of your water supply? I am just trying to get a sense 

of whether rates are going to be going up. 

Mr. ALVAREZ. To answer your question, am I looking at what am 

I going to need to pay for water to meet my water demands, and 

that would be $7,000 an acre-foot plus the cost of production, treatment and distribution. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. What is the cost, overall cost, of water for your 

district per acre-foot? 

Mr. ALVAREZ. Today? 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Today. 

Mr. ALVAREZ. If we discount the cost of the water we already 

have access to—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. No, no, no, I am talking about the water you 

currently have access to. What are you paying for it? What is the 

average cost of water to your district per acre-foot? 

Mr. ALVAREZ. Our overall treatment production cost is about 

$350 an acre-foot. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Three hundred fifty dollars per acre-foot, OK. 

Magna Water District? 

Mr. HANSEN. Our cost per acre-foot for our water is just under 

$400 an acre-foot. That is the treated cost for drinking water. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. What is the purchase cost? What do you buy 

it for? 

Mr. HANSEN. That is. We have purchased all of our water rights. 

We have our own water rights. We have some surface water. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. And what is the cost of water for this particular recycling project? 

Mr. HANSEN. Our estimated cost to recycle this water through 

the new technology we have is a little over $100 an acre-foot. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. So it is going to be $100 per acre-foot for the 

recycling water as opposed to $400 for your overall costs? 

Mr. HANSEN. For drinking water, yes. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. OK. Now is that $100 added to the cost or 

$100 for the recycled water? 

Mr. HANSEN. They are two separate systems. They are both a 

metered, three-tiered water system with rates. And secondary 

reuse water is a little over $100 an acre-foot. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. OK. How about Diablo? 

Mr. DARLING. Wet water, wet-year water supplies in the Bay 

Area range anywhere from $200 to say $600 an acre-foot with infrastructure that was built in the 1920s and 1930s. Our recycled 

water projects range anywhere from $300, as I mentioned earlier, 

up to over $1,000 an acre-foot. 

But I think an important distinction is wet-year versus dry-year 

water supply, if dry-year was even available, during this drought 

period, one of the water districts in the Bay Area imposed surcharges on its customers for $14,000 an acre-foot. So the cost of a 

dry-year water supply is astronomical. This recycled water is an 

on-demand water supply available 365 days a year at a very competitive price. 

61 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Right. When something is scarce, it becomes 

expensive. When it is plentiful, it is cheap. That is true of anything, and that gets back to that central issue of abundance. The 

more abundant the water supply, the cheaper it will be. And it has 

gotten a lot more expensive since we dropped abundance as the 

principal object of our public policy. Calleguas. 

Ms. MULLIGAN. Our imported water supply is purchased from 

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. Their price 

right now is just over $900 an acre-foot to us. And we are currently 

in allocations from them so that if a 15 percent reduction isn’t 

achieved, they have penalties that go as much as two times to four 

times that for water again to scarcity. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. And what is the overall cost of water right 

now to Calleguas? 

Ms. MULLIGAN. Calleguas, $900 per acre-foot, just over $900. And 

then under these allocations, there are severe penalties, two to four 

times that amount for the water. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. And under this project? 

Ms. MULLIGAN. Under this project, which is largely capital, is the 

costs are very little O&M costs because it is a pipeline, is if you 

amortize the capital over 30 years at about 5 percent, you get 

$1,500 an acre-foot for the water. But with the rising price of imported water, we think that it will catch up within the next decade 

so that it equals the cost of Metropolitan Water. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. And then finally Hermiston. 

Mr. BROOKSHIER. Our costs, our current operating costs would work out to about $7,000 per acre-foot. If I am calculating this correctly, it would appear that the project costs that we are looking 

for here would be in the neighborhood of $4,000 per acre foot. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. See, now again $7,000, I think that amount 

seems astronomical. 

Mr. BROOKSHIER. We are a municipal system, and that is what 

it costs to operate. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. That is the overall cost of—— 

Mr. BROOKSHIER. Overall cost to operate based on our current 

use. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. OK, thank you. Just a moment. 

Yes, let me just ask one other question. One of the principal 

propositions that has been put forward in support of these projects 

is that it reduces—this would be what I have to tell rate peers in 

Alturas. You don’t get any benefit from these projects, but you are 

going to be called to pay for them through your taxes. But the argument that is being made is, well, this does reduce the draw from 

many Federal water systems, including the Delta system, for example. 

Would you accept a proviso in this legislation that requires the 

District to reduce its draw on the Federal system for every gallon 

that is generated by these Federally financed recycling projects? 

Ms. MULLIGAN. Yes, we would. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. You would actually agree to reduce your draw 

on the system on a gallon-per-gallon basis? 

Ms. MULLIGAN. Yes. Growth would need to be calculated into 

that to the extent there were growth. But since all of our water 

comes from the imported supply, it would be easy to document that 

62 

this acre-foot-for-acre-foot reduces the amount we would take from 

northern California. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. OK. Other districts? 

Mr. DARLING. As I mentioned earlier, all of our projects directly 

draw out of the Delta, and the Delta is in a process, as you are 

aware, between Judge Wagner’s decisions and the Endangered Species Act of basically shutting down. So these projects are in lieu 

of—this already is taking place that the amount of water available 

from the Delta is decreasing by itself. So these are replacement 

supplies. These are insurance policies. 

So, if there were a certainty that the water was there to begin 

with, that might be something that would be acceptable. But there 

is no certainty in terms of Delta water supplies. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. Very quickly, we need to move on. 

Mr. ALVAREZ. We would and I would like to qualify that to the 

extent that right now there are agencies that would be participating in this that are importing water, that would be easy to document. There are other agencies that would not be looking for an alternative water supply, which would then put a stress on the imported water system. And that would be a more difficult one to document because it would be an indirect transfer. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Anybody else? 

Mr. HANSEN. I think Magna is unique where we have a pristine 

water supply. We are in the second driest state in the Union, and 

we have developed a technology that I believe may be utilized 

throughout the country. So I do think it is a wise investment. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, sir. Mr. Baca. 

Mr. BACA. Thank you, Madame Chair. 

Mr. Darling, H.R. 2442, regarding your response to the Federal 

nexus, would you go a step further and explain how it is not only 

a Federal issue but a global issue? 

Mr. DARLING. Well, thank you, I absolutely will. I think longterm sustainability is extremely important in water and power 

issues and water particularly in the State of California and globally. The ocean has risen seven inches in the past 100 years at the 

Golden Gate Bridge. All models show that it is not going to decrease in terms of the amount that the ocean’s level is increasing. 

It is actually accelerating. 

And so the climate change issues for the Bay Area, the declining 

snowpack, all water resource options need to be on the table. All 

need to be developed. The writing is very clear on the wall that this 

investment is necessary on all fronts. 

Mr. BACA. Thank you. And then saving water or the 7.2 million 

gallons per day, will it go a long way? Is that correct? 

Mr. DARLING. I am sorry? 

Mr. BACA. Saving water or 7.2 million gallons per day, will that 

go a long way? Is that correct? Just a yes or no answer. 

Mr. DARLING. Yes, that will go a long ways toward helping the 

Bay Area water supply portfolio. 

Mr. BACA. Thank you. Mr. Hansen, you responded to the costs 

associated with the project, but do you have a choice? 

Mr. HANSEN. No. 

Mr. BACA. Perchlorate is not going away, is that correct? 

Mr. HANSEN. That is correct. 

63 

Mr. BACA. So we need to invest and clean that because we need 

to have good quality of water for every individual impacted, especially when we look at women that are really affected by that water 

itself if it is not clean because of the thyroids and children and others that drink that water. Is that correct? 

Mr. HANSEN. That is correct. 

Mr. BACA. Thank you. Mr. Hernandez, what will happen in the 

long run if H.R. 1739 does not pass? That is Question No. 1. And 

what if the project is not funded? How will your community prepare for a shortage in water supply and water reliability? 

Mr. ALVAREZ. If H.R. 1738 does not move forward, the City of 

Downey and participating cities will be faced with the issue of how 

we do meet our existing and long-term water demand needs. That 

need is not going to go away. It is an existing need today, and we 

are living with a very limited available water supply. 

If we do not get funding here, we will probably continue to develop this project and look for alternative funding sources. But 

without additional funding, it makes the viability of this project 

much more difficult. 

Mr. BACA. Right. And definitely, will it have a greater impact if 

we don’t, based on California’s deficit of 26-point-some million dollars that we have right now and based on the agreement that they 

have come up with and not the additional dollars that would be 

available, so it would have a great impact in terms of the lack of 

ability of the state to provide any kind of funding if the Federal 

does not provide so. 

Mr. ALVAREZ. Absolutely. And if you look at the California budget, in at least at our understanding today, our ability to meet our 

existing obligations are going to be much more difficult at the municipal level because of the requirements to balance the state budget. 

Mr. BACA. Right. And especially as I looked at it as a reduction 

even on the educational perspective of it where a lot of our students are impacted by the quality of water that they have too as 

well in each one of our educational institutions. Isn’t that correct? 

Mr. ALVAREZ. Yes. 

Mr. BACA. Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. Mr. Walden. 

Mr. WALDEN. Madame Chair, I have no questions at this time. 

I appreciate your courtesy. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chaffetz? 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you, Madame Chairwoman, I appreciate it. 

I appreciate the bipartisan support for the Magna project for Mr. 

Matheson and Mr. Bishop. Just two brief questions in the essence 

of time. 

There is a Federal nexus, a Federal component to this that I 

think this makes worthy of Federal investment of taxpayer dollars. 

Can you spend just a moment talking about why this Federal component is needed and justified given that that is partly what created the problem? 

Mr. HANSEN. I believe the Safe Drinking Water Act which required us to remove the arsenic out of the water was an unfunded 

mandate. I also believe that the rocket industry and the Department of Defense and the issue of contaminating our water supply, 

64 

our sole water supply, I believe that along with the technology that 

has been developed by the District warrants the support of the 

Federal government. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. And just review again for us the investment that 

has already been made by the local state community there. 

Mr. HANSEN. The local rate-payers have already invested $36 

million in this project and this technology. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. I just wanted to note for the record—and thank 

you, Mr. Hansen, for being here and for that—I just want to note 

for the record the significant investment that has been done at the 

local level, and with that, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you so very much. 

Mr. Alvarez, we have had a discussion on this in my office in regard to the program that water replenishment district and the 

sanitation district and that whole basin are working on. You indicated to me there are two basins. 

In working with the cities that are part of your bill, are you looking at working with the other entities? I understand there is going 

to be litigation or is litigation that might delay or put in question 

moving forward on something. So would you clarify that, please? 

Mr. ALVAREZ. We have worked with a number of agencies, and 

we will be working with the water replenishment district to work 

on both projects. 

Just for further clarification, the water replenishment district is 

a district that is there to replenish the groundwater basin, which 

is the difference between the sustainable yield of the basin and the 

overpumping that has been allowed by a court-adjudicated judgment that has been issued in the basin. 

Their project basically will create net new water to make up for 

that replenishment. That is net new water above and beyond what 

the basin already yields; that is just basically to make up the difference between the sustainable yield of the basin and the adjudicated pumping rights in the basin. 

Our project will be net new water that will go beyond the yield 

of the basin. So they are complementary projects. I think that we 

can work something out. I think that the litigation that has been 

raised has been an issue with respect to the adjudications. There 

are parties, including the water replenishment district, in court to 

amend those judgments. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. 

Mr. Rupee, does repaying the debt the Conservancy District owed 

the Federal government imply that you would not need to comply 

with the environmental laws and regulations that you must comply 

with while in repayment? 

Mr. RUPPE. No, no, Madame Chairman, we would still need to 

comply with all of those regulations. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Great. 

Ms. Mulligan, how many more phases of the project? You answered that there is a second phase. How many more phases do 

you expect before you complete or do you think you need before you 

complete? And what would the Federal government need to provide 

to fund those additional phases? 

Ms. MULLIGAN. The only phases which we envision are what we 

call Phases 2 and 3. We have built about eight miles, soon to be 

65 

about 10 miles, of the 35-mile pipe, and it was the most expensive. 

It is the largest diameter which is near the ocean which also includes the ocean outfall. 

These Phases 2 and 3 extend the pipe the full 35 miles into the 

watershed. The estimated cost of that is an additional $120 million, 

which is why the requested authorization is the $40 million, which 

would be 25 percent of that amount. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And that is just for the brine. 

Ms. MULLIGAN. That is just for the pipeline. The desalters are 

being funded locally. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. OK. Do you have any other questions? Mr. 

Walden, do you have any questions? No? 

Well, I believe that wraps up most of the questions that we had. 

We thank all of the witnesses for your insightful testimony and for 

being open to this Committee, the Subcommittee, in regard to the 

issues that are before us. And we look forward to continuing working with you. Thank you very much. You are dismissed. 

Ms. MULLIGAN. Thank you. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I would like to call up the last panel, Honorable Ronnie Lupe, Chairman of the White Mountain Apache Tribe 

from White River, Arizona, and Mr. John Sullivan, Associate General Manager of the Salt River Project from Phoenix, Arizona. If 

you would take your seats, we will begin the next panel. 

Commissioner Connor, would you like to join us at the table? 

Where are you, Commissioner? OK. 

Chairman Lupe, you may start your testimony, sir. If you will 

put your mic on, and we will move right along. Thank you very 

much for being so patient. 

And thank you, Commissioner, for staying with us. 

STATEMENT OF RONNIE LUPE, TRIBAL CHAIRMAN, 

WHITE MOUNTAIN APACHE TRIBE, WHITERIVER, ARIZONA 

Mr. LUPE. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before your 

honorable Subcommittee. We are here to ask the Subcommittee to 

support the quantification agreement that we have signed with the 

Phoenix Valley Cities, Salt River Project, State of Arizona, Central 

Arizona Water Conservation District and other downstream parties 

representing millions of people. 

We are at the headwaters of the Salt River system and that we 

and everyone else depends upon to live. Years ago we traveled to 

Washington, D.C. and asked for funding to build a safe and reliable 

drinking water system for our people. Although we have hundreds 

of miles of streams on our land, we do not have enough drinking 

water for our people. The reason is Mother Nature. 

We are 100 percent dependent upon a well field that was built 

in 1999. Over 14,000 people on our reservation depend upon it, almost our entire population. The well field is failing. Production is 

half of what it was in 1999. We have shortages. There is no recharge. There is natural arsenic in the water. We have to blend it 

to meet EPA standards. Water must be hauled by hand in one community and piped to another one 30 miles from the well field. 

Drilling more wells will only place more straws in a failing system. It does not receive water from nature anywhere near the 

66 

amount we are removing. Everyone agrees that our needs can only 

be met by storage of surface water from our streams and rivers. 

When we came to D.C. to seek funding to build a drinking water 

reservoir project, we were politely told that it was impossible unless we agreed to quantify and settle our water rights. We took 

heed of this advice and asked the Secretary of the Interior to appoint a Federal negotiation team to help us quantify and settle our 

reserve water rights. We prepared a water budget based on our historic, present and future water use needs. 

Intense and hard negotiation followed with the Valley Cities, the 

Salt River Project and other state parties. This year all of the parties signed a quantification agreement that would settle our reserve water rights claims and fund facilities needed to put part of 

our water use in accord with all national environmental laws and 

regulations. We would receive funding for our drinking water storage dam, treatment plant and pipeline to serve our communities. 

The drinking water system would be held in trust by the United 

States. 

An OM&R Trust Fund in the amount of $50 million is included 

in the H.R. 1065 to fund OM&R costs after the drinking water system is in full operation, estimated to be about $2.1 million annually. H.R. 1065 authorizes funding for other wet water economic 

development for parts of our water budget that will not only benefit 

our tribe but our entire White Mountain region. Specifically I am 

referring to the funding authorization in 16[c]-[f] of H.R. 1065. 

Finally we have agreed to lease our entire 25,000 acre-feet cap 

water allocation received from the Secretary of the Interior to nine 

Valley Cities in the Phoenix metropolitan area and CAWCD for the 

next 100 years to make them whole for the water we use upstream. 

We respectfully ask this Subcommittee’s help to make our drinking water reservoir a reality for our people and to protect the water 

rights we have agreed upon in the quantification agreement. Thank 

you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lupe follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Ronnie Lupe, Tribal Chairman, 

White Mountain Apache Tribe, Fort Apache Indian Reservation, Arizona 

To: The Honorable Grace F. Napolitano, Chairwoman, and The Honorable Tom 

McClintock, Ranking Member, and members of the Subcommittee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of the White Mountain Apache 

Tribe Water Rights Quantification Act of 2009, H.R. 1065, (‘‘Quantification Act’’). 

My name is Ronnie Lupe and I am the Tribal Chairman of the White Mountain 

Apache Tribe. We number about 15,000 people. We live on the Fort Apache Indian 

Reservation (‘‘Reservation’’), established November 9, 1871, on 1.66 million acres of 

aboriginal lands which we have occupied since time immemorial. Our Reservation 

is located about 200 miles Northeast of Phoenix in the White Mountain Region of 

East Central Arizona. (See attached map). 

Origin of Tribe’s Vested Property Rights to Water 

The White Mountain Apache Tribe has retained actual, exclusive, use and occupancy of its aboriginal lands within Reservation boundaries designated by the Executive Orders dated November 9, 1871 and December 14, 1872, without exception, 

reservation, or limitation since time immemorial. The Tribe’s vested property rights, 

which include its aboriginal and other federal reserved rights to the use of water, 

often referred to as Winters Doctrine Water Rights, that underlies, borders and traverses its lands, have never been extinguished by the United States and are prior 

and paramount to all other rights to the use of water in the Gila River drainage, 

of which the Salt River is a major source. 

67 

Headwaters of Salt River System on Tribal Land 

Except for a small portion of the Reservation that drains to the Little Colorado 

River Basin, virtually the entire Reservation drains to the Salt River. See attached 

location map referenced above. The headwaters and tributaries of the Salt River 

arise on our Reservation and are the principal sources of water for the Tribe, the 

downstream Cities of Avondale, Chandler, Gilbert, Glendale, Mesa, Peoria, Phoenix, 

Scottsdale and Tempe; the Salt River Reclamation Project and the Roosevelt Water 

Conservation District, among other parties to the Gila River and Little Colorado Adjudication Proceedings. 

United States in Capacity as Tribe’s Trustee Files Reserved Water Rights 

Claim 

In 1985, the United States, acting in its capacity as the trustee of the Tribe’s 

water rights, filed a substantial reserved water rights claim in the name of the 

White Mountain Apache Tribe to the Salt River System as part of the Gila River 

Adjudication Proceedings still pending before the Maricopa County Superior Court, 

State of Arizona. It also filed claims for the Tribe in the Little Colorado River Adjudication Proceedings, also still pending before the Apache County Superior Court, 

State of Arizona. 

Tribe’s Reserved Water Rights Claim Inclusive of Base Flow 

At the urging of, and in collaboration with the Tribe, the United States amended 

its water rights filings for the Tribe in the Little Colorado River and the Gila River 

General Stream Adjudications in September 2000, to assert the Tribe’s prior and 

paramount, aboriginal and federal reserved rights to the transbasin aquifer sources 

that sustain the base flow of the Tribe’s Reservation springs and streams. The 

amended claim filed by the United States in its capacity as trustee for the Tribe, 

specifically recognizes the Tribe’s unbroken chain of aboriginal title and time immemorial priority rights to the base flow of the springs and streams, and the contribution to those surface waters by rainfall and snowmelt runoff on the Tribe’s Reservation. 

Historical Conflict 

For decades, the White Mountain Apache Tribe has asserted its right to preserve, 

protect, use and develop its aboriginal and federally reserved water rights. As late 

as the 1950s, a physical confrontation became imminent between the Tribe and 

downstream water claimants when the Tribe began to develop outdoor recreation 

lakes on its Reservation by impounding water from streams within the Reservation’s 

exterior boundaries. This activity was considered a threat to water supplies in the 

Salt River System by downstream water users in the Phoenix Metropolitan area and 

was vigorously opposed. A litany of water right controversies involving the White 

Mountain Apache Tribe, the United States in its role as the Tribe’s conflicted trustee, and the Salt River Valley Reclamation Project, characterized the relationship the 

Tribe had with the Salt River Reclamation Project and downstream water users 

throughout the 20th century. 

The Tribe’s sizable and senior water rights claims in the pending Gila River and 

Little Colorado River Adjudication Proceedings generated considerable uncertainty 

regarding the availability of Salt River water supplies used by the downstream Salt 

River Project, which serves the greater Phoenix Metropolitan area. As many as 3.5 

million people downstream depend in large part upon the water sources that arise 

on the Fort Apache Indian Reservation to which the White Mountain Apache Tribe 

claims sufficient water to meet its present and future needs. 

Tribe’s Aboriginal and Reserved Water Rights Quantified by 2009 Agreement 

This year, the White Mountain Apache Tribe Water Rights Quantification Agreement, (‘‘Quantification Agreement’’) was formally approved and signed by the White 

Mountain Apache Tribe and by the downstream parties’ respective governing bodies, 

including the Governor of the State of Arizona, Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District, Salt River Valley Water Users Association, Roosevelt 

Water Conservation District, Arizona Water Company, the Cities of Avondale, 

Chandler, Glendale, Peoria, Mesa, Phoenix, Show Low, Scottsdale, Tempe, Gilbert, 

Buckeye Irrigation Company, Buckeye Water Conservation and Drainage District, 

and the Central Arizona Water Conservation District (CAWCD). The Quantification 

Agreement is an honorable, dignified and equitable quantification and settlement of 

our Tribe’s reserved water rights. 

The Quantification Agreement that was approved and signed by all the parties 

except the United States, (the United States does not sign the Quantification Agreement until H.R. 1065 is enacted by Congress), provides that the Tribe is permitted 

68 

to divert for beneficial use, approximately 99,000 + acre-feet annually, so long as 

the depletion from any diversion does not exceed 52,000 acre-feet annually. 

This water use right was negotiated by the Tribe and state parties and reflects 

a water budget that will provide sufficient water to satisfy the Homeland purpose 

of our Reservation. The water budget includes present and future water needed for 

domestic and commercial purposes through the year 2100, irrigation, stock ponds, 

recreation lakes, storage reservoirs, federal fish hatcheries on our land, livestock, 

our sawmill, outdoor recreational resort housing development, and mineral development. 

H.R. 1065 

H.R. 1065 will authorize, confirm, and implement the Quantification Agreement 

and will thereby resolve uncertainties among all of the parties and claimants in 

both the Gila River and Little Colorado River Basins. The Act will quantify, preserve, recognize, and settle the reserved water rights of the White Mountain Apache 

Tribe in perpetuity, provide Tribal waivers and releases of claims regarding all 

State law water users in the Gila River and Little Colorado River basins, including 

the United States (except for the United States acting as trustee on behalf of other 

Indian Tribes). 

Tribal Claims Waived by Quantification Agreement Outlined in Liability 

Paper 

H.R. 1065 will also resolve potential claims by the White Mountain Apache Tribe 

against the United States for water related breach of trust damage claims that 

could potentially result in liability far in excess of the funding authorized by 

H.R.1065. Specifically, beginning with the completion of Roosevelt Dam for the Salt 

River Reclamation Project in 1911, the trustee United States, acting by and through 

its principal agent, the Secretary of the Interior, has as a matter of policy, suppressed, neglected, ignored, and opposed the reserved water use rights of the White 

Mountain Apache Tribe. These policies, fostered by an inherent conflict of interest 

on the part of the Secretary, favored development of the non-Indian Salt River 

Project at the expense of the welfare of the White Mountain Apache Tribe. 

For example, as set forth in greater detail in the Tribe’s Liability Paper, that has 

been submitted to the Department of Interior and to appropriate House congressional staff, the Secretary of the Interior in the 1950s and early 60’s intentionally 

destroyed thousands of Cottonwood trees and other riparian vegetation along the 

Tribe’s streams to increase water runoff to the Salt River Valley and Roosevelt Reservoir. The Secretary also cleared thousands of acres of Juniper trees under the auspices of rangeland restoration for the purpose of increasing runoff, not for the benefit of the White Mountain Apache Tribe, but for the benefit of the downstream 

water users in the Phoenix Metropolitan area. The ecosystem damage from this action continues and is ongoing. The cost of riparian restoration is in the hundreds 

of millions of dollars. 

Another example of a water related, breach of trust damage claim that will be 

waived by the Tribe in H.R. 1065, are damages to water rights resulting from the 

doubling of the annual allowable cut of the Tribe’s commercial forests by the Secretary for the purpose of increasing water runoff from the Tribe’s Reservation to 

Roosevelt Reservoir for the benefit of the Salt River Reclamation Project. 

Other potential water related, breach of trust damage claims, inter alia, which are 

discussed in the Liability Paper and that will be waived by H.R. 1065, will be 

claims arising from: 

• an historic failure to maintain approximately 90 miles of irrigation ditches on 

the Reservation (waived after federal funding received to repair), 

• failure to support future OM&R expenses for the Miner Flat Dam Project Rural 

Water System (waived after OM&R Trust Fund established), 

• an historic failure to meet the trust obligation to provide a safe drinking water 

supply for the Tribe, 

• suppression of irrigation development, 

• expense of litigating the Tribe’s reserved water rights claims, 

• failure of the Secretary to reserve Tribe’s water from contracts issued downstream for storage after Roosevelt Dam was originally built in 1911, 

• failure of the Secretary to set aside New Conservation Storage (NCS), for the 

White Mountain Apache Tribe in the 1995-96 enlargement of Roosevelt Reservoir (result is that Tribe was compelled to obtain 25,000 acre-feet of CAP instead of retaining Salt River Water valued by SRP at $6,000 per ac ft), 

• failure of the United States to assert the reserved water rights of the White 

Mountain Apache Tribe in the EIS for the reallocation of CAP water, and 

69 

• holding the trustee United States harmless by relinquishing 26,000 acre-feet diversion annually (valued by SRP at $6,000 per acre-foot), that had been earmarked for economic development on the Reservation’s Bonito Prairie area. 

Value of Tribal Waivers 

The value of tribal waivers of potential water related breach of trust claims 

against the United States, as outlined in the Tribe’s Liability Paper, far exceeds the 

authorization in H.R. 1065 for a dam, reservoir and drinking water system ($127 

million) (‘‘Miner Flat Reservoir Project’’), the OM&R Trust Fund ($50 million) for 

the Miner Flat Reservoir Project, and the $116 million authorized for ‘‘wet water 

economic development, supported by all parties (except the United States), for: (1) 

existing lakes infrastructure enhancement ($23,675,000); (2) fish hatchery repair, rehabilitation and expansion ($7.5 million); (3) a fisheries center ($5 million); (4) repair of existing, but neglected BIA irrigation systems ($4.95 million); (5) forest management study and Sawmill retooling to accommodate smaller diameter trees and 

reduce forest fire risk ($25 million); (6) snowmaking infrastructure ($25 million); 

and (7) future recreational lake development ($25 million). 

Drinking Water Crisis 

The Tribe and Reservation residents are in urgent need of a long-term solution 

for their drinking water needs. Currently the Tribe is served by the Miner Flat Well 

Field. Well production has fallen sharply and is in irreversible decline. Over the last 

8 years, well production has fallen by 50%, and temporary replacement wells draw 

from the same source aquifer that is being exhausted. The Tribe experiences chronic 

summer drinking water shortages. There is no prospect for groundwater recovery. 

The quality of the existing water sources threatens the health of our membership 

and other Reservation residents, including the IHS Regional Hospital and State and 

BIA schools. The only viable solution is replacement of failing groundwater with 

surface water from the North Fork of the White River. A small water diversion system along the White River (North Fork Diversion Project) will help the Tribe’s short 

term drinking water needs, but this is only a temporary measure to replace the 

quickly failing well field. 

Reservoir Storage a Necessity 

Without reservoir storage behind Miner Flat Dam, a feature authorized by 

H.R. 1065, the stream flows of the North Fork of the White River, supplemented 

by short-term capacity of the Miner Flat Well Field, are together inadequate to meet 

community demands of the White Mountain Apache Tribe for the Greater 

Whiteriver Area, Cedar Creek, Carrizo and Cibecue and to maintain a minimum 

flow in the North Fork of the White River. The demands of the Tribe for its Rural 

Water System as proposed in H.R. 1065 will dry up the North Fork of the White 

River by 2020 or earlier, even in combination with a supplemental, diminished 

water source from the Miner Flat Well Field. Therefore, Miner Flat Dam is necessary to store 6,000 acre-feet of water during runoff periods for release and enhancement of the North Fork of the White River to meet demands of the Reservation rural water system and maintain a minimum flow for aquatic in riparian habitat preservation and enhancement. The Miner Flat Project will meet the increasing 

drinking water needs of the Reservation for a future population of nearly 40,000 

persons in the decades to come. See attached Miner Flat Reservoir and Pipeline Location Map. 

Environmental Impact 

The dam and reservoir will be environmentally beneficial. The flow at the site of 

the proposed miner flat dam and reservoir averages 60,500 acre-feet annually. The 

dam will not alter the average annual flow of the North Fork of the White River 

at the dam or along the first 15 miles of river below the dam. It will only regulate 

the flow, storing water during periods of runoff and releasing like amounts of water 

during periods of seasonal low flow. The project can store and release a maximum 

of 6,000 acre-feet (the active conservation storage) on a seasonal, annual or multiyear basis. These releases are beneficial between the dam and the Alchesay National Fish Hatchery because they enhance the quantity of flow during low flow periods, such as May and June, and enhance the quality by lowering temperature, 

which has been historically problematic for the hatchery. The temperature is lowered by releasing cold water at depth in the reservoir. Miner Flat Dam will not stop 

the annual flow of the North Fork of the White River, but will only regulate the 

River’s annual flow. The operating plan for the releases will meet environmental requirements. 

70 

Funding Consideration for Quantification Agreement 

Funding for the WMAT Rural Drinking Water System, including the Miner Flat 

Dam Storage Facility, water treatment plant, and pipeline to deliver drinking water 

to Reservation communities is an indispensable component of the Quantification Act 

and Quantification Agreement. 

The language approved by all of the signing parties declares that the entire 

Drinking Water System, including the Miner Flat Dam, reservoir, treatment plant 

and pipeline, pumping stations and other infrastructure, shall be held in trust by 

the United States for the use and benefit of the White Mountain Apache Tribe. This 

is consistent with other authorized Bureau of Reclamation Indian rural water 

projects such as: Garrison Diversion Unit, Mni Wiconi, Fort Peck, North Central/ 

Rocky Boy’s, Santee Sioux, and Cheyenne River. 

The Quantification Agreement and H.R. 1065 also provide that the Tribe waives 

any future OM&R cost claims against its trustee, the United States, upon establishment of a OM&R Trust Fund, the interest of which will be used to pay for the annual estimated OM&R cost of $2.1 million for the Miner Flat Project. This is the 

deal the Tribe made with the signing parties in consideration for quantifying its 

substantial reserved water rights claim in the Salt River and Little Colorado River 

systems, waiving substantial damage claims, and relinquishing a considerable reserved water right in exchange for, and in reliance upon, funding for a safe drinking 

water system and for ‘‘wet water’’ economic development. 

Conclusion 

The White Mountain Apache Tribe is thankful for the opportunity to present testimony before this important Subcommittee and expresses its appreciation to Congresswoman Ann Kirkpatrick for introducing H.R. 1065, the companion bill to 

S.313, which was co-sponsored by our United States Senators Jon Kyl and John 

McCain. The Tribe also thanks the signing parties to the White Mountain Apache 

Water Rights Quantification Agreement for their continuous support of H.R. 1065. 


51187.009
71 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Sullivan. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN F. SULLIVAN, ASSOCIATE GENERAL 

MANAGER, SALT RIVER VALLEY PROJECT 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Chairwoman Napolitano, Ranking Member 

McClintock, members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of H.R. 1065, the White Mountain 

Apache Tribe Water Quantification Act of 2009. My name is John 

Sullivan. I am the Associate General Manager of the Water Group 

at the Salt River Project or SRP. 

Over the past four decades, SRP has worked with numerous 

tribes and stakeholders to resolve Indian water rights disputes in 

a manner that benefits both Indian communities and their nonIndian neighbors. In fact, last year I testified before this Subcommittee regarding Indian water rights settlements, and I identified some of the challenges and benefits associated with settling 

water rights disputes rather than litigating. 

Thanks to the dedication of Chairman Lupe, the White Mountain 

Apache Tribal Council and all of the settling parties over the past 

several years, we have worked through many of the same challenges that I described last year to negotiate this quantification 

agreement. I am confident that, in turn, passage of H.R. 1065 and 

implementation of this agreement will allow the fundamental and 

direct benefits I also referenced in my testimony, in particular a reliable and certain water supply for all the parties to the settlement. 

The agreement provides this long-term reliable supply for the 

Tribe by building infrastructure to deliver desperately needed 

drinking water to communities on the White Mountain Apache’s 

Fort Apache Reservation. That is why the centerpiece of this legislation and quantification agreement is the Miner Flat Dam and 

Pipeline Project. This project will allow the Tribe to put their quanVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:49 Jan 15, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 6602 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\51187.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY

51187.010
72 

tified water right to beneficial use in the communities and provide 

a healthy living environment and economic opportunity. 

The need for a sustainable and permanent water supply on the 

reservation is undeniable, and the analysis done by SRP came to 

the same conclusion as the studies done by the White Mountain 

Apache experts that the Miner Flat Dam & Pipeline is the best and 

most cost-effective solution to meet the municipal needs for the 

next 100 years for the Tribe. 

The agreement’s permanent quantification of water rights and 

conclusive settlement of outstanding claims on water originating on 

the Fort Apache Reservation gives SRP and the state parties water 

supply certainty. Four of the seven reservoirs operated by SRP are 

located on the Salt River downstream of the Fort Apache Reservation. They are at the headwaters of the Salt River. 

Approximately 42 percent of the water delivered by SRP to Phoenix metropolitan area stakeholders originates there. Absent approval of this negotiated settlement, resolution of the pending 

claims could take many years, entail great expense and prolong 

water supply uncertainty. The effective implementation of the 

quantification agreement would allow SRP and the other settling 

parties to make better long-term decisions regarding their water 

supply, water usage and potential need for future water supplies. 

Madame Chairwoman and members of the Subcommittee, this 

bill provides a win-win solution to a longstanding dispute and has 

widespread support in Arizona. It has now been approved by the 

appropriate boards and counsels of all of the state settling parties 

and many of the cities and water districts have sent this Subcommittee letters of support. 

I would also like to thank Representative Kirkpatrick for introducing this bill and for all of her work on this issue. As we move 

forward, I look forward to working with this Subcommittee and the 

Department of the Interior to address any outstanding issues. 

Thank you, and I am happy to answer questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sullivan follows:] 

Statement of John F. Sullivan, Associate General Manager, Water Group, 

Salt River Valley Water Users Association and Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District, on H.R. 1065 

Chairwoman Napolitano, Ranking Member McClintock, and members of the Subcommittee, 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of H.R. 1065, the White 

Mountain Apache Tribe Water Rights Quantification Act of 2009. I also thank Representative Ann Kirkpatrick for her introduction and continued support of this important legislation. My name is John F. Sullivan. I am the Associate General Manager, Water Group, of the Salt River Project (‘‘SRP’’), a large multi-purpose federal 

reclamation project embracing the Phoenix, Arizona metropolitan area. SRP has a 

history of negotiating and settling Indian water rights disputes in Arizona. Over the 

past four decades, SRP has worked with numerous tribes and stakeholders to resolve Indian water rights disputes in a manner that benefits both Indian communities and their non-Indian neighbors. Most important among the benefits is water 

supply certainty, which is a fundamental outcome of any water rights settlement. 

SRP is composed of the Salt River Valley Water Users’ Association (‘‘Association’’) 

and the Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District (‘‘District’’). 

Under contract with the federal government, the Association, a private corporation 

authorized under the laws of the Territory of Arizona, and the District, a political 

subdivision of the State of Arizona, provide water from the Salt and Verde Rivers 

to approximately 250,000 acres of land in the greater Phoenix area. Over the past 

century, most of these lands have been converted from agricultural to urban uses 

and now comprise the core of metropolitan Phoenix. 

73 

The Association was organized in 1903 by landowners in the Salt River Valley to 

contract with the federal government for the building of Theodore Roosevelt Dam 

on the Salt River, located some 80 miles northeast of Phoenix, and other components of the Salt River Federal Reclamation Project. SRP was one of the first multipurpose projects approved under the Reclamation Act of 1902. In exchange for 

pledging their land as collateral for the federal loans to construct Roosevelt Dam, 

which loans have long since been fully repaid, landowners in the Salt River Valley 

received the right to water stored behind the dam. 

In 1905, in connection with the formation of the Association, a lawsuit entitled 

Hurley v. Abbott, et al., was filed in the District Court of the Territory of Arizona. 

The purpose of this lawsuit was to determine the priority and ownership of water 

rights in the Salt River Valley to the natural flow of the Salt and Verde rivers and 

to provide for their orderly administration. The decree entered by Judge Edward 

Kent in 1910 adjudicated those water rights, provided water supply certainty to existing water users and, in addition, paved the way for the construction of additional 

water storage reservoirs by SRP on the Salt and Verde Rivers in Central Arizona. 

Today, SRP operates six dams and reservoirs on the Salt and Verde Rivers in the 

Gila River Basin, one dam and reservoir on East Clear Creek in the Little Colorado 

River Basin, and 1,300 miles of canals, laterals, ditches and pipelines, groundwater 

wells, as well as numerous electrical generating, transmission and distribution facilities. The seven SRP reservoirs impound runoff from multiple watersheds, which 

is delivered via SRP canals, laterals and pipelines to municipal, industrial and agricultural water users in the Phoenix metropolitan area. SRP also operates approximately 250 deep well pumps to supplement surface water supplies available to the 

Phoenix area during times of drought. In addition, SRP provides power to nearly 

900,000 consumers in the Phoenix area, as well as other rural areas of the State. 

SRP holds the rights to water stored in these reservoirs, and for the downstream 

uses they supply, pursuant to the state law doctrine of prior appropriation, as well 

as federal law. Much of the water used in the Phoenix metropolitan area is supplied 

by these reservoirs. 

The White Mountain Apache Tribe is located on the Fort Apache Reservation in 

eastern Arizona, established by Executive Order in 1871. The headwaters of the Salt 

River originate on the Fort Apache Reservation. Four of the seven reservoirs operated by SRP are located on the Salt River downstream of the Fort Apache Reservation, and approximately 42% of the water delivered by SRP to Phoenix metropolitan 

area customers originates on the Reservation. The United States, acting on behalf 

of the Tribe, has asserted claims in the pending Gila River Adjudication to the depletion of 179,000 acre-feet of water from these headwaters. These claims are based 

on the federal reservation of rights doctrine and largely encompass potential future 

uses of water by the Tribe on its Reservation. 

Because resolution of the pending claims could take many years, entail great expense, and prolong water supply uncertainty, a group of Arizona water users began 

settlement negotiations with the White Mountain Apache Tribe about three years 

ago. In addition to the Tribe, the settlement parties include the United States, State 

of Arizona, Central Arizona Water Conservation District (‘‘CAWCD’’), Salt River 

Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District, Salt River Valley Water 

Users’ Association, Roosevelt Water Conservation District, Buckeye Irrigation Company, Buckeye Water Conservation and Drainage District, Arizona Water Company, 

and the Arizona cities and towns of Phoenix, Mesa, Tempe, Chandler, Glendale, 

Scottsdale, Avondale, Peoria, Show Low, and Gilbert. 

The negotiations culminated in a comprehensive settlement (‘‘Settlement’’) that 

resolves the longstanding water disputes and is embodied in the White Mountain 

Apache Tribe Water Rights Quantification Agreement and H.R. 1065, the White 

Mountain Apache Tribe Water Rights Quantification Act of 2009 currently before 

this Subcommittee. At this time, all of the state parties have formally approved and 

signed the Settlement through their boards and councils. The Settlement legislation 

confirms and approves the Tribe’s settlement, specifies water reallocations to implement the Settlement, and authorizes a CAP water delivery contract with the Tribe. 

It provides parameters for Tribal CAP water leases and authorizes the Secretary to 

execute those leases. Furthermore, H.R. 1065 authorizes the Miner Flat Dam 

Project and funding for its construction, operation and maintenance, and repayment 

of the loan for planning and engineering that was authorized last year in P.L. 110- 

390. 

Under the Settlement, the Tribe’s water rights are quantified at a total diversion 

right of 99,000 acre-feet per year through a combination of surface water and Central Arizona Project (‘‘CAP’’) water sources. The Tribe’s surface water rights, the 

first component of the Tribe’s quantified water rights, include the ability to divert 

74 

1 Included within this total diversion right is 3,000 acre-feet per year which may be diverted 

beginning in the year 2100. 2 Included within this total depletion right is 1,200 acre-feet per year which may be depleted 

beginning in the year 2100. 

67,000 acre-feet per year from the Salt River system 1 and another 7,000 acre-feet 

per year from either the Salt River or Little Colorado River system. Maximum depletion amounts of 23,000 acre-feet per year from the Salt River system 2 and 4,000 

acre-feet per year from either the Salt River or Little Colorado River system are also 

quantified by the Agreement. The second component of the Tribe’s quantified water 

rights is a right to CAP water. The Tribe may deplete and put to its own use up 

to 25,000 acre-feet per year of CAP water or choose to lease some or all of this water 

to others. The Tribe has negotiated CAP water leases with the CAWCD and the valley cities of Avondale, Chandler, Gilbert, Glendale, Mesa, Peoria, Phoenix, and 

Tempe. 

For their part, the Tribe has committed to providing waivers and releases of 

claims benefiting all State law water users in the Gila River and Little Colorado 

River basins and the United States (except on behalf of other Indian Tribes), as part 

of the Settlement and in return for the quantified water rights described above. 

Establishment of an adequate water storage and distribution system to meet the 

domestic and industrial water requirements of the Tribe and its members is a critical component of the parties’ efforts to settle all existing disputes regarding the 

White Mountain Apache Tribe’s water rights. The Tribe’s existing system is supported by a wellfield, but the aquifer’s supply is limited and insufficient to serve 

the reservation’s municipal water needs. As an interim measure, the Tribe plans to 

construct a small temporary water diversion system along the White River. However, this is only a short-term solution. The Tribe and the settling parties have determined that construction and operation of the Miner Flat Dam Project would best 

address the Tribe’s growing municipal, rural and industrial water diversion, storage 

and delivery demands. The Project, which is estimated to cost approximately $128 

million, would include a dam and pipeline for water distribution within the Reservation’s boundaries including the growing communities of White River, Cedar Creek, 

Carrizo, and Cibecue. As part of the Project, pipelines would be constructed to connect water treatment plants to existing Whiteriver, Carrizo, and Cibecue area water 

distribution systems. Associated water system connections, access roads, buildings, 

and electrical transmission and distribution facilities would also be included within 

the Project’s scope. 

As part of the Settlement and in recognition of the Tribe’s sustained efforts to provide a reliable drinking water source to its people, the non-federal settlement parties have agreed to support the Tribe in developing a long-term solution to this challenge. As an initial step, the White Mountain Apache Tribe Rural Water System 

Loan Authorization Act was introduced by Representative Pastor in the House and 

Senator Kyl in the Senate last year. This legislation (H.R. 6754 and S. 3128) was 

approved by Congress and signed into law by President Bush as P.L. 110-390. It 

authorized $9.8 million in the form of a loan to the Tribe to be repaid beginning 

in 2013. The Act established the groundwork to begin Project construction once the 

Settlement is approved, allowing inflationary costs to be minimized, potentially saving millions of dollars and providing much needed water to the communities on the 

Fort Apache Reservation years earlier. We greatly appreciate this Committee’s work 

and leadership in passing this legislation to allow work to begin on this important 

project. 

H.R. 1065 will continue the progress made last year toward providing a sustainable water supply for the White Mountain Apache Tribe and certainty for water 

users in Arizona, and has the strong support of the settlement parties and numerous water users in the Little Colorado River Basin. We look forward to working with 

the Subcommittee on this bill. Chairwoman Napolitano and Ranking Member 

McClintock, thank you again for the opportunity to testify and for considering our 

views. I am happy to answer any questions. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Sullivan. I appreciate your 

testimony. 

There are several questions that come up in regard to the project 

itself and, Chairman Lupe, the 99,000 diversion right, what is used 

by the Tribe and you release what amount down to other needs and 

what do you sell the water for, cost? 

75 

Mr. SULLIVAN. If I might, Madame Chairwoman, the water budget that was developed for the White Mountain Apache Tribe, we 

started with the claim that was filed by the United States quite 

some time ago, which was almost 180,000 acre-feet. That was 

based on various current and potential uses by the Tribe. 

We then looked at studies done by the Tribe on uses and concluded that their total diversions would be more appropriate at I 

believe the number is around 99,000 acre-feet. In fact, they will 

only deplete something in excess of 50,000 acre-feet from the watershed. 

The water that comes from the headwaters of the Salt River 

flows in those rivers naturally, so really the Tribe is not charging 

for the water. It is a matter of quantifying the rights between the 

downstream users and the White Mountain Apache Tribe. So there 

is no charge currently for water that flows into the dams that the 

Salt River Project operates if that is answering your question. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Is there an expected future charge though? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Pardon me? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Is there an expected future charge? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. There is no expected future charge. It is a matter 

of defining among the parties how much water will be used by the 

White Mountain Apache Tribe for basically forever. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. OK. In testimony, Chairman Lupe, you state 

the Secretary of the Interior’s 1950 and early ’60s intentionally destroyed thousands of cottonwood and juniper trees as well as other 

riparian vegetation for the benefit of the downstream users in the 

Phoenix metropolitan area. What impact have these actions caused 

on the White Mountain Apache Tribe? 

Mr. LUPE. I did not understand your question, ma’am. I am 

sorry. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, apparently according to what we were 

reading is the thousands of cottonwood and junipers and other riparian vegetation was intentionally destroyed for the benefit of 

downstream users in the Phoenix metropolitan area. What impact 

did these actions back in the ’50s and ’60s have on your tribe? 

Mr. LUPE. The impact up to this time has been tremendous in 

terms of the area of my reservation on the west end. We had tremendous economic loss from one of the biggest forest fires that we 

ever had on the reservation and in the State of Arizona. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I am sorry. We can barely hear you, sir. 

Would you pull the mic up please? I am having a hearing problem. 

Mr. LUPE. I am referring to the forest fire that was one of the 

biggest in the State of Arizona. It took more than half of our economy, which is forestland itself. And that really devastated the economy on our reservation. And also, it affected all of our water development and other development. 

So at the present time, we are struggling now to get to the power 

that we had before. And this is part of the water settlement that 

we are initiating, so that we can get back some of the plentiful living that we had on the reservation is now not there. 

Maybe the trial attorney who is here with me can answer some 

of that, also, Bob Browkley. 

Mr. BROWKLEY. Thank you. My name is Robert Browkley, Madame Chairwoman. 

76 

During the 1950s and sixties, there was a deliberate policy of the 

United States, which is well documented in our liability paper we 

just touched on the many thousands of our tribal documents, documented that there was a policy to increase water runoff to Phoenix 

Valley by defoliating the reservation. 

So what the Bureau of Indian Affairs did, together with a committee from Phoenix, acting with the Department of the Interior, 

was to kill thousands of cottonwoods, because one cottonwood will 

take 300 gallons of water a day. So they killed thousands of cottonwoods by girdling them with chainsaws, poisoning them. And they 

did this on all of the major tributaries that feed into the Salt River. 

This went over the—they put stream gauges in there to measure 

the success of the runoff. And in conjunction with this program, 

there also was the beginning of a proscribed burning program, 

which was to reduce or to replicate wildfires to reduce the threat 

of forest fires. But another purpose that emerged from the proscribed burning was to increase water runoff by burning off the 

duff, and having the water not saturate, but run off. 

A third thing they did was they doubled the annual allowable cut 

of the forest from about 55 million board feet to 110 million board 

feet. The primary purpose was to increase water runoff to Phoenix. 

Now, the devastation to the Tribe is well documented in terms 

of the erosion, the cost of riparian restoration, some estimated, we 

have done some already through a permanent fund when the Tribe 

filed a claim for damages up to 1946. They set aside 20 percent of 

the money in a permanent fund to kind of restore these riparian 

areas. 

It is in the hundreds of millions of dollars to restore the riparian 

areas from the erosion, the channeling of the rivers by bulldozers 

to increase water runoff, to restore the thermal barriers to fish 

habitat caused by the defoliation, the invasion of salt cedar and 

other species caused by the eradication of the juniper and the cottonwood trees. 

Our experts have estimated that the cost of restoration could be 

a million dollars for half a mile of stream. So, the long-term damage continues—and runoff. 

Now, the interesting thing about this experiment, which lasted 

for about a decade, is that the runoff and the erosion and the washing away of millions of tons of topsoil canceled out any immediate 

benefit from the runoff, so it was abandoned. But the environmental damage due to the fact the sedimentation that washed 

down to Roseville Dam in part contributed to having to raise Roseville Dam by 36 feet in order to accommodate the sedimentation 

that washed out on the reservation. 

So that is just one claim that the Tribe would be waiving in its 

water right settlement, in addition to relinquishing 85,000 acre-feet 

a year which the United States had put in as a claim in 1985. 

So Salt River project estimates that the value of that water is 

about $6,000 an acre-foot. So take $6,000 times 85,000 acre-feet annually, and there is a stupendous benefit. Not only did the United 

States did not have to defend that claim, but the benefit to the Salt 

River Valley is immeasurable. 

And in exchange, the Tribes, we have waived certain claims in 

exchange for and in consideration for the water right we retained, 

77 

the vested property rights that we retained to the use of water. We 

would like to have money to develop those water rights, since we 

are giving up so much. And since 1912, it has been the official policy of the United States to suppress any development of the reservation. So that was just, route water development is for the retooled sawmill—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. We have to move forward. 

Mr. BROWKLEY. OK. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. You have answered the question. 

Mr. BROWKLEY. OK, thank you. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. And I guess to Mr. Sullivan, the 

settlement provides a water supply certainty for how many people? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. The service area that we supply route water to 

probably has a population of around 4 million people. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you, Madame Chairwoman. 

I want to focus in on the 99,000 acre-feet of water. Who currently 

owns that water? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, I will take a shot at answering that question. 

Currently in the State of Arizona, we are undergoing litigation 

over who actually has rights to waters in the Gila River Watershed. And the Salt River is a tributary of the Gila River. 

So, for the last 35-plus years, we have been in litigation over the 

water rights in the Salt River Valley. 

The United States filed a claim as a part of that adjudication for, 

I believe it was just shy of 180,000 acre-feet, on behalf of the White 

Mountain Apache Tribe. In looking at—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Those are claims. Who currently owns it? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Ownership in the State of Arizona of surface 

water rights, it is currently owned by the people of Arizona. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. OK. So the people of Arizona—— 

Mr. SULLIVAN. The water rights, however, are claimed by the 

Salt River Valley water users. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Claims are different. Claims have to be adjudicated, I understand that. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Right. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. But right now that water is owned by the people of Arizona. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. And is currently being used by—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Now, you are transferring, in this settlement 

you are transferring 99,000 acre-feet per year to the residents of 

the White Mountain Apache Tribe, correct? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Under this settlement, where the diversions of the 

Tribe will be 99,000, they actually will only deplete about 52,000. 

The remainder will come back to the river. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Well, but they will be selling that, will they 

not? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. No. Net use by the Tribe will be 52,000 acre-feet. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. But the entitlement is 99,000. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Pardon me? 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. The entitlement is 99,000. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. The entitlement to divert out of the river. 

78 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Right. So again, you are transferring water 

rights to 99,000 acre-feet from the people of Arizona to the residents of the White Mountain Apache Tribe. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Correct. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Now, again, pull out a pocket calculator. That 

comes to a mind-numbing figure of 2.1 million gallons per resident 

per year. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Correct. That includes uses beyond just domestic 

use. That includes agricultural use by the Tribe. They do have agricultural use currently, and have development plans for additional 

agricultural use. It includes use for their recreational projects. It 

includes a reservation for some industrial use. They operate a timber system, two sawmills on the reservation. 

So there are a number of other uses beyond the—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Well, I am going to have to go back and read 

the Winters decision. But it seems to me that goes far beyond anything contemplated in the Winters decision. Particularly when, by 

your own testimony, you are telling me the Tribe can’t even use 

that 99,000 acre-feet currently. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, we believe that they will, over time, be able 

to—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Well, given enough time, I am sure they can 

figure out other ways of using it; but it is a stunning figure. The other question I would raise is the $116 million in economic 

development projects that the taxpayers are being asked to fund. 

Isn’t that what investors normally do? For example, I see one of the uses of this $116 million is the 

planning, design, and construction of snow-making infrastructure 

repairs and expansion at Sunrise Ski Park. 

Now, it seems to me that what would normally be done is you 

would go out and seek private investors, and say we have this 

great ski park here that we want to design and build; will you invest in it. 

Instead you are asking the taxpayers to do so. Do I have that 

correctly? Am I understanding that correctly? 

Mr. BROWKLEY. Madame Chairwoman, may I be heard on this? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Certainly, if you have an ability to answer. 

Yes. 

Mr. BROWKLEY. With respect to what Mr. Sullivan said, the 

water on the reservation that borders, underlies, and traverses the 

reservation, is not state water. 

The Tribe has an aboriginal right to the use of water, so it is not 

the state giving anything to the Tribe. Under the Winters doctrine, 

the Tribe has vested property rights to the use of water. 

And to answer the Ranking Member’s question, no one owns 

water. What you have is a right to use water. And the big question 

under the Winters doctrine is, when reservations were established, 

the Tribes conferred and held back for themselves sufficient water 

for a permanent homeland purpose. And that is what the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted and stated as such, and the Arizona 

Supreme Court followed those line of decisions and said the big 

question is how much do they get. 

We put a team of experts together and now the 185,000 diversion 

claim, which was actually filed by the United States, arrived at a 

79 

figure of 99,000 acre-feet diversion, 52,000 acre-feet maximum 

depletion. 

So the State of Arizona is giving nothing to the Tribe. In fact, 

the Tribe has a priority bid that goes back thousands of years, way 

before the State of Arizona even dreamed of being existing. 

So the question is, we came up with a use of the water, and it 

is very clear. We went out 100 years, the same as the State of Arizona, and for the 35,000 acre-feet diversion for agriculture, that is 

old, historic use, current use, and future use; 8,000 for evaporation. 

You are charged for evaporation from your lakes. They have 2,000 

stock ponds—a 17,000 acre-feet diversion for the Federal hatcheries. And that is not depletion. It just passes through—24,000 

acre-feet a year for drinking water, up to 100 years. That is a 

hundred-thousand-person population that we estimate. 

Four-hundred-and-twenty-three acre-feet for livestock. There are 

20,000 livestock—8,790 for resort and industrial development, and 

5,800 acre-feet a year for mineral development. There is some coal 

there, and there is an iron mine that might be commercially feasible. 

So altogether, that is 99,000 acre-feet diversion. And the Tribe is 

not using that much now. But when you have a reserved water 

right, you don’t just look at the historic use or the current use; they 

have a reserved right to how much water they need as a permanent homeland. That is why you go out about 100 years. Beyond 

100 years it is speculative. So this is how we arrived at—we hired experts. We spent $1 million on a 2500-page water budget, the Salt River project. They vetted it, and they had their experts. That is why the Tribe agreed, 

after looking at what was economically feasible, we agreed that 

99,000 annual diversion, 52,000 acre-feet total depletion. It can 

never exceed that. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. All right. May I just ask, what does the Administration think about these claims? What is the Administration’s position? 

Mr. CONNOR. Well, the Administration filed the claim on behalf 

of the Tribe as part of its trust responsibility. So recognize that the 

180,000 acre-foot figure was a legitimate claim filed as part of the 

adjudication process there. 

As I think I said earlier, with respect to the settlement for 

99,000 acre-feet, we are still doing an in-depth analysis of that. But 

the preliminary analysis by the Federal negotiating team was that 

it was a legitimate figure in recognition of the claim that had been 

filed, and in recognition of the negotiated aspects of the agreement 

and the different sources of water for the various uses. 

So, it does appear to be a very legitimate number by which to 

settle this claim. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Does that include the $116 million in economic 

development projects for Sunrise Ski Park, among other things? 

Mr. CONNOR. The Administration has not endorsed the $116 million for economic development projects as part of the settlement. I 

would, that is something that we are still looking at. 

Historically, there has been some level of, as part of a tribal trust 

fund—historically, settlements that establish some level of precedent that there has been a tribal trust fund to help facilitate some 

80 

payment of OMB as the Tribe gets its water project up and going, 

as well as some economic development activities. So we are still 

looking at that number, and have not endorsed that figure or those 

projects as part of this settlement. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Final question. Would the Tribe agree to a 

proviso in the bill that would forbid it from reselling the water? 

My concern is that there is such a huge amount of water coming 

in. There is some intention of simply taking that water from the 

people of Arizona, and then selling it back to them. 

Mr. BROWKLEY. I can answer that question, Congressman. The 

Tribe is, under this Act, the Tribe is forbidden, and in all Arizona 

Indian water settlements, a tribe cannot sell this water. It cannot 

sell their land. All the water is held in trust by the United States. 

Legal title is held in the United States, fair legal title, beneficial 

title to the waters for the benefit of the White Mountain Apache 

Tribe. 

So they can’t sell it. They are prohibited by law. They couldn’t 

sell their trust land, either. 

Now, the only thing that happens is that the Tribe gave it up. 

They have an 1871 priority date for a 74,000 acre-feet diversion. 

That is about 27,000 acre-feet depletion, because every time you divert water, you don’t deplete equal amounts. A lot of it is returned 

back to the stream. 

After that, after they exhaust that, the only way they can get 

water is through an exchange. And they have an allocation of 

25,000 acre-feet of CAP water, with a 1968 priority date. And they 

have to share in shortages, just like everybody else, when there is 

a shortage in the Colorado River. 

So, if they want to divert more than 75,000 acre-feet—in other 

words, another thousand feet above the 74,000—they have to do it 

through an exchange. They have to give 1,000 acre-feet of water 

down to Phoenix through CAP, so they can take another thousand 

acre-feet out of their streams. 

And now currently, because eventually there will be depletion, 

100 years from now, or 50 or 60 years from now, when the Tribe 

has fully developed its water rights, there may be depletion of up 

to 99,000 acre-feet. 

Well, 25,000 acre-feet, that will be CAP water. So, currently 

Valley City said, ‘‘We want to lease that from you. We can’t buy 

it from you; you can’t buy it, but we can lease it from you temporarily.’’ So, we can bank that water underground, or use it right 

away, because it is cheaper to do that and use it for their development. They can’t develop unless they have a 100-year water supply. 

And so we give them a 100-year water supply through the CAP 

lease. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you so very much. I would like to ask 

a question. You brought up an interesting point about aquifers. 

Has one been identified so that you can store water for dry 

years? Are you working with USGS? Mr. Commissioner, is there 

anything that you know that might help begin to look at that in 

the future, so that there is storage, underground storage? Anybody. 

Mr. CONNOR. At this point in time, I am happy to check our 

sources and supplement the record for you with respect to that. 

81 

I am not aware, off the top of my head, of opportunities for aquifer recharge and storage that exist now on the reservation, and 

don’t know that that is a part of the settlement. 

Mr. BROWKLEY. Is this a question about drought and climate 

change? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. It is really about the ability to store water for 

drought underground. 

In our evaluation of the reservation and its ability to pump 

groundwater, that ability is very limited. We did not do any evaluation that I know of, unless the Tribe has done some, of the ability 

to store groundwater, or store surface water for future use in 

droughts. 

Based on what I know, it would be very difficult. But it is certainly something that we should explore with the Bureau of Reclamation in terms of long-term supply. But they have very limited, 

they are at the edge of the bowl. If you think of an aquifer as a 

bowl, the reservation is actually at the edge of the bowl. And so it 

is very difficult for them to find groundwater that they can use. 

Mr. BROWKLEY. I think I understand the question now, Madame 

Chair. 

When I was talking about storage, the cities in the Valley Cities, 

200 miles to the southwest of us will be storing the CAP water, or 

using it. Because the CAP water will not be piped out to the reservation, of course. It comes into Phoenix from Lake Havasu, from 

the western border, the Colorado River. 

But in terms of the Tribes storing water, that is really not possible for the Tribes to store any groundwater, because all the 

groundwater leaches out into the springs and streams. That is why 

they don’t have any. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. OK. 

Mr. BROWKLEY. North of the reservation, the Coconino Aquifer, 

which is the base flow of the Little Colorado and other streams, 

that has a huge basin. But unfortunately, on the reservation itself, 

all the Coconino that is the base flow supplemented by snowfall 

and precipitation, all of that just discharges into the rivers. So you 

have no groundwater. 

We found one lens, and we have 15 wells there. And as the 

Chairman testified, those wells are now at 50 percent capacity, and 

they are failing fast. There is no recharge. So all the water that 

you see on the reservation—all the groundwater—has already discharged to the streams. 

Now, the City of Phoenix and all that, they are storing up to a 

million acre-feet of CAP water, because they know there will be 

shortages some day. And so they lease water from all of the other 

tribes. And the only way a tribe can get CAP water is if you settle 

your water rights. That is the incentive that the Secretary of the 

Interior came up with many years ago to encourage Indian tribes 

to settle. And also to compensate the valley people of non-Indian 

population for water that they won’t get any more, because the 

Indians are asserting their reserve water rights. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Understood. And I guess my point is that because we have climate change, you have longer heat periods, that 

you are going to have more dry-year cycle, and you are going to 

82 

have more evaporation of your canals and your rivers and your 

dams. 

So, storage underground in aquifers is going to be something that 

we need to start entertaining and look at to see how they are, and 

how we can add to them to prepare. It is not something that we 

like to think is going to be a necessity. 

But if we are going to try to prevent drought in some areas, or 

as you are saying, the Phoenix metropolitan area is gearing for a 

future drought, I think more communities need to start looking at 

that as a possible assist in, one more tool, one more idea to be able 

to utilize in case of continued drought. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I couldn’t agree more, Madame Chairwoman. The 

Phoenix metropolitan area, all of the water municipalities and 

water districts in the three-county area served by the Central Arizona Project, have been very aggressive in underground storage 

projects. 

There are a number of them within the service area of the Central Arizona project. And I also agree with Bob, there probably are, 

if any, very limited opportunities on the reservation itself. 

The good news for the White Mountain Apache Tribe is they sit 

at the headwaters. And so the diversions and depletions that the 

Tribe will make out of the Salt River are a very small percentage 

of the total flow of the river system, of the Salt River system. And 

because of that, they will have a very reliable supply over time. 

And their consultants looked at percentage cuts due to severe 

drought or climate change, whatever you want to call it. They did 

factor that into their evaluation. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And one more maybe comment, is that I am 

looking more and more, or asking whether the communities are 

looking at utilization of photovoltaic solar panels to run pumps to 

be able to save on electricity, and thereby saving some of that 

water. 

Mr. Commissioner, do you have any comment on what has been 

transpiring? 

Mr. CONNOR. No. I thank you for the opportunity with respect to 

your last comments about integrating renewals and water supply 

systems. I think it is a great idea, one that we need to look into 

very closely. I think there are opportunities there. 

I think, in my experience, from water utilities themselves are already looking at this because of some flexibility in pumping times, 

et cetera. So I look forward to working with you and your Subcommittee. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I really appreciate it. And because the Subcommittee has jurisdiction over the grid energy also, that we, I consider this one of the other areas of conserving that energy by utilization of solar power, leaving more water in the dams and the 

rivers so that you can generate the electricity. 

So if we recycle, we have that ability to expand that water usage 

of recycling. 

So I thank all the panel and Commissioner for staying with us, 

and for helping us out. 

This concludes the Subcommittee’s legislative hearing on 

H.R. 1738, H.R. 2265, H.R. 2442, H.R. 2522, H.R. 2741, 

H.R. 2950, and H.R. 1065. Our thanks to all of our witnesses for 

83 

appearing before the Subcommittee. Your testimony and expertise 

have been very enlightening and helpful. 

Under Committee Rule 4[h], additional material for the record 

should be submitted within 10 business days after the hearing. 

And the cooperation of all the witnesses in replying promptly to 

any questions submitted to you in writing would be greatly appreciated. 

And so this Subcommittee is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:] 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gallegly follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Elton Gallegly, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of California 

I would first like to thank Chairwoman Napolitano and Ranking Member McClintock for calling this legislative hearing today on my legislation H.R. 2252. My legislation would raise the ceiling on the federal share of the cost of completing the 

Calleguas Municipal Water District Recycling Project. 

I believe we all know about the water shortage problems plaguing the state of 

California. In my district, adequate water supplies have become difficult to develop 

and maintain. Especially as traditional imported water sources have become increasingly unreliable. Thus, the necessity for my district to develop new sources of 

water through H.R. 2252. 

H.R. 2252 would authorize $40 million in additional funding for the Bureau of 

Reclamation to support the completion of the Calleguas Municipal Water District 

Recycling Project. 

To date, the federal government has expended approximately $18 million for this 

project, bringing it close to the current $20 million cap. The additional authorization 

provided in this bill will allow for the Bureau of Reclamation to continue funding 

its share of this project. 

The main focus of this project is the construction of the salinity management pipeline, also known as a brine line. This pipeline would collect and convey brackish 

groundwater and recycled water for direct use, stretching local water supplies. This 

project would transport brine and high quality saline wastewater and brine to either 

an ocean discharge facility or salt tolerant water users such as sod farms, game preserves or coastal wetlands. 

The use of this new water source will reduce the demand for imported water, improve local water resources, and provide a dependable source of water for much of 

my district. 

More specifically, this legislation would allow Calleguas to expand the water delivery capabilities for roughly 600,000 of my constituents. And in the era of droughts 

and water shortages throughout California, as a resident of Southern California, I 

believe we need to do all we can to reduce our dependence on imported water. 

I look forward to the testimony of Susan Mulligan, the Manager of Engineering 

for Calleguas and a true expert on this project who can explain in great detail, the 

specific benefits of what this additional funding from my legislation will accomplish. 

Again, thank you Madame Chair for your time and allowing for the consideration 

of H.R. 2252. 

Æ