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

44–380 PDF 2008

S. HRG. 110–494 

MISCELLANEOUS WATER AND POWER BILLS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

ON

S. 2680 H.R. 29 

S. 2805 H.R. 123 

S. 2814 H.R. 1803 

APRIL 24, 2008 

( 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

KEN SALAZAR, Colorado 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

JON TESTER, Montana 

PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon 

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky 

MEL MARTINEZ, Florida 

ROBERT M. SIMON, Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Chief Counsel 

FRANK MACCHIAROLA, Republican Staff Director 

JUDITH K. PENSABENE, Republican Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota, Chairman 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

KEN SALAZAR, Colorado 

BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, Arkansas 

JON TESTER, Montana 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon 

JIM BUNNING, Kentucky 

JEFF BINGAMAN and PETE V. DOMENICI are Ex Officio Members of the Subcommittee 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS 

Page 

Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator From New Mexico ........................................ 2 

Chavarria, Hon. Joseph Michael, Governor, Santa Clara Pueblo, Chairman, 

Eight Northern Indian Pueblos Council, Espanola, NM ................................... 26 

Corker, Hon. Bob, U.S. Senator From Tennessee ................................................. 2 

Davies, Milton G., Director, Board of Directors, Fallbrook Public Utilities 

District, Fallbrook, CA ......................................................................................... 34 

Domenici, Hon. Pete V., U.S. Senator From New Mexico .................................... 3 

Johnson, Hon. Tim, U.S. Senator From South Dakota ........................................ 1 

Johnson, Robert W. Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation, Department of 

the Interior ........................................................................................................... 4 

Ortega, Orlando, Eastern New Mexico Rural Water Authority, Portales, NM .. 21 

Rudolph, Martha, Director of Environmental Programs, Colorado Department 

of Public Health and Environment, Denver, CO ............................................... 31 

APPENDIXES 

APPENDIX I 

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

APPENDIX II 

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

(1) 

MISCELLANEOUS WATER AND POWER BILLS 

THURSDAY, APRIL 24, 2008 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:15 p.m. in room 

SD–366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Senator Tim Johnson presiding. 

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

FROM SOUTH DAKOTA 

Senator JOHNSON. I call to order this hearing before the Water 

and Power Subcommittee. It is my pleasure to welcome everyone 

here this afternoon. Today’s hearing involves six different bills that 

are pending before the subcommittee. 

These bills cover a broad range of issues. As is typical for a hearing on miscellaneous bills we’ve got several which deal with basic 

water supply. Others promote water conservation and address 

water quality needs. 

I’ll briefly summarize these bills for the record. 

One, S. 2680, the Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel Improvement 

Act sponsored by Senator Salazar. 

Two, S. 2805, the Rio Grande Pueblos Irrigation Works Improvement Act sponsored by Senator Bingaman. 

Three, S. 2814, the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water Authorization Act sponsored by Senator Bingaman and Senator Domenici. 

Four, H.R. 29, authorizing a water supply project for the 

Fallbrook Public Utility District. 

Five, H.R. 123, to authorizing the San Gabriel Basin Restoration 

Fund. 

Six, H.R. 1803, the San Diego Water Storage and Efficiency Act. 

These bills are just a sample of the intense demand that exists 

for our constricted partnership with the Federal Government that 

addresses long term water needs. The subcommittee will take a 

closer look at these bills and work with the sponsoring members to 

try and make progress toward enactment. I’ll turn to Senator Corker, the Ranking Member for his opening comments and then proceed to other members of the subcommittee if they wish to make 

a statement. 

Senator Corker. 
2 

STATEMENT OF HON. BOB CORKER, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM TENNESSEE 

Senator CORKER. Mr. Chairman, thanks for having this hearing. 

I want to thank the witnesses who are coming to enlighten us. I’m 

glad to be here with Senator Bingaman. I think Senator Domenici 

is coming. Because I know he’s going to be here the entire time, 

I’ve left a seat here for him right beside you. 

I don’t want you to think I don’t want to be next to you. I always 

enjoy serving with you and with that I look forward to hearing this 

variety of bill presentations that I know are important to many, 

many members. Thank you. 

Senator JOHNSON. Senator Bingaman. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

NEW MEXICO 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Johnson. I appreciate you doing this hearing and you and Senator Corker both for 

your leadership on this subcommittee. Let me just make a very 

short statement. 

I’m particularly focused today on two of the bills that you listed 

there, S. 2805 and S. 2814. In the interest of time I’ll submit a 

complete statement for the record. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Bingaman follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN, U.S. SENATOR

FROM NEW MEXICO

Thank you Senator Johnson, for convening today’s hearing, and including as part 

of the agenda, two bills that I am sponsoring—S. 2805 and S. 2814. In the interests 

of time, I’ll submit a written statement for the record and just make a few brief 

comments now. 

The witnesses on the second panel include a couple of New Mexicans who I’d like 

to welcome. We have Governor Michael Chavarria of Santa Clara Pueblo, and 

Mayor Orlando Ortega of Portales, New Mexico. Accompanying Mayor Ortega, is 

Mayor Gayla Brumfield of Clovis, New Mexico. Thank you all for being here today. 

The Subcommittee will hear testimony today describing the critical water needs 

facing the communities represented by Governor Chavarria, Mayor Ortega, and 

Mayor Brumfield. They will also talk about their efforts at the local level to address 

these issues. What’s now needed is the active participation of the federal government to achieve success in solving the problems they face. Unfortunately, the Administration’s testimony will not offer any assistance, but instead, tells these communities that basically, they are on their own. I think this is a short-sighted approach to a critical set of issues and look forward to discussing this further during 

the hearing. 

Thank you again Mr. Chairman for convening today’s hearing. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me just say we do have two witnesses today 

from New Mexico who I’m very proud to have here. Governor Michael Chavarria, who’s Governor of Santa Clara Pueblo is here to 

testify on one of the two bills. Mayor Orlando Ortega of Portales, 

New Mexico is here to testify on the other. 

Mayor Ortega is accompanied by Mayor Brumfield, Gayla 

Brumfield from Clovis, New Mexico. Of course Mayor Ortega is 

from Portales. We thank all of those witnesses for being here. 

I am disappointed as we will hear in the testimony that I believe 

the Administration’s position is that they do not support Federal 

Government help with the projects involved here. I think that’s unfortunate. But I think we’ll get good testimony and I hope we will 
3 

have strong support on the committee to move ahead with this legislation, both pieces of legislation. 

Again, thank you for having today’s hearing. 

Senator JOHNSON. We’ll now turn to the first panel of witnesses 

for today’s hearing. Representing the Administration is Bob Johnson, the Commissioner of Reclamation will speak to all the bills on 

today’s agenda. We also have Susan Bodine, the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response at the Environmental Protection Agency. Ms. Bodine is here to address the issues 

involving S. 2680. 

Welcome to both of you. Thank you for making yourself available. 

Before starting I would like to quickly note that the subcommittee 

has received additional written testimony on several of the bills before us today. That testimony as well as the written submission of 

all of today’s witnesses will be made a part of the official hearing 

record. 

Mr. Johnson, please go ahead and summarize your written. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Senator JOHNSON. Wait a minute. 

Senator Domenici. 

STATEMENT OF HON. PETE V. DOMENICI, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

NEW MEXICO 

Senator DOMENICI. Mr. Chairman, Senator Bingaman, I first 

wanted to tell you that I came. But I won’t be able to stay very 

long. I wanted to make sure that the New Mexico witnesses knew 

that I was involved, but won’t be here very long. 

I have an opening statement regarding S. 2814 that I’d like to 

make part of the record. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Domenici follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. PETE V. DOMENICI, U.S. SENATOR

FROM NEW MEXICO

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding this hearing. Senator Bingaman 

has a bill before this subcommittee today, S. 2814—of which I am proud to be a 

cosponsor—that intends to address a serious issue we are dealing with back in our 

state. 

Eastern New Mexico faces the growing prospect of insufficient water supplies. It 

also faces competition between agriculture and municipal demands for those water 

supplies that do exist. This is a fact. It is not up for debate. What is up for discussion is how these needs will be addressed. 

Some of you will remember, in fact some of you were there; this Committee had 

a field hearing on this subject in Clovis last August. In that hearing I expressed 

my concern that the Administration has not been very supportive of addressing this 

issue. Frankly, I do not feel that the situation has improved. 

I would like to reiterate several points that I made during that hearing. 

Over the last 5 years or so, the State Engineers Office has been a strong supporter for the use of Ute Reservoir water to supply the needs of communities in the 

Clovis and Portales region. The Bureau of Reclamation, on the other hand, has been 

a reticent participant in this process. 

Had the leadership been engaged, the full feasibility work for this project could 

have been accomplished many years ago. Instead Congress has had to push, pull, 

cajole and wrestle with the agency to get even the minimum amount of attention. 

I look forward to hearing from the Administration on these issues and hope that 

we can work together to find financially responsible, technically feasible solutions 

for the water supply challenges of Eastern New Mexico. 

I thank all of our witnesses for being here today, especially the Honorable Orlando Ortega for coming all the way from Portales. I would also like to thank Governor Chavarria for making the trip as well to testify before us today. 
4 

Senator DOMENICI. It’s pretty straight forward. Just a quick observation regarding the water pipeline that you and I have introduced a measure on. 

I hope that the government’s witnesses come to the conclusion 

that they’ve studied it enough. In spite of the fact that we don’t 

have a method of paying for it that they at least indicate we’re 

ready and that we don’t have to spend more time studying or evaluating it. If I’m not here, I would hope that one of you would ask 

that question or I would leave it and ask it. Thank you very much. 

Senator JOHNSON. Mr. Johnson, please go ahead and summarize 

your report and testimony. Following that we’ll have a brief question and answer period for you and Ms. Bodine. Proceed. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT W. JOHNSON, COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; 

ACCOMPANIED BY SUSAN PARKER BODINE, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

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

committee. It’s a pleasure to be here. I will try to summarize our 

written testimony quickly. 

S. 2680 would direct the Interior Department to implement actions of the remedy selected by the Environmental Protection Agency for the California Gulch Superfund site. The Administration cannot support S. 2680. However I can report to the subcommittee 

that Reclamation and EPA are aggressively taking action to address any immediate risk. 

Public safety dictates every action Reclamation and EPA take at 

the Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel. We have had an emergency 

action plan for the tunnel since 2001. Reclamation is making every 

effort to make a science based determination regarding whether 

there is an elevated public safety risk below the drainage tunnel. 

Reclamation’s ongoing risk assessment which began in November 

2007 is aimed at understanding how complex geology and extensive 

subsurface mine passages affect the quantity and quality of drainage inside the tunnel. The results of that study are going to be 

available this June. 

In the meantime our agencies are committed to the following. 

EPA will complete the removal action that is underway including 

the construction of the relief well, pump and pipeline to transport 

water to Reclamation’s treatment plant. Reclamation will operate 

and maintain the treatment plant, relief wells, pump and pipeline 

and if necessary based on the risk analysis, improve the treatment 

plant to handle increased flows of water as a result of the EPA removal action. 

In addition to these actions Reclamation and EPA are evaluating 

long term solutions and will have a better understanding of the 

long term safety requirements once the analysis is completed. 

We’re working to develop a permanent solution. We will submit 

proposed legislation if any legislative authority is needed to implement it. 

S. 2805 would authorize agreements with the Rio Grande Pueblos to rehabilitate or reconstruct existing irrigation infrastructure. 

The Department supports the goals of this bill. Installing proper 
5 

drainage, replacing ditches with pipes or concrete linings and having conveyance facilities capable of efficiently supplying water at 

both high and low flows would result in greater efficiency for the 

Pueblos. However, the bill as presently written contains some unclear provisions and funding requirements which are outlined in 

our written testimony. For this reason, the Department cannot support S. 2805. 

S. 2814, the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water Project Act would 

authorize rural water project for several Eastern New Mexico municipalities. Reclamation has been working with the State of New 

Mexico and local parties on a number of studies on this evolving 

project over the years. Since 1998 Congress has provided $1.76 million for planning and technical assistance, of which more than $1.2 

million has been transferred directly to the city of Clovis for work 

on the project. 

Reclamation has previously expressed concerns with the adequacy of the conceptual design report and posed some critical questions outlined in detail in our written testimony that need to be 

considered before construction should proceed. Much progress has 

occurred and Reclamation continues to work with the local entities 

to develop answers to our concerns. The Administration is concerned about becoming the primary source of funding for these 

types of project and because of this project’s high Federal cost of 

$327 million, the Department cannot support S. 2814. 

H.R. 29 would authorize construction of facilities to provide 

water for irrigation, municipal use and military uses from the 

Santa Margarita River in California. Engineering, economic and 

environmental analyses are currently underway for this project and 

are not yet complete. Since 2003, Reclamation has been working 

with the Marine Corps and the district to analyze alternatives capable of implementing the Conjunctive Use Project. 

It is anticipated that implementation could assist in settling the 

long standing water rights claims of the Marine Corps and the district and help reduce the use of imported water supplies from the 

Colorado River and the Bay delta in California. However, primarily 

for fiscal reasons, we cannot support H.R. 29 at this time. 

H.R. 1803, the San Diego Water Storage and Efficiency Act of 

2007 would authorize a feasibility study to design and construct a 

four reservoir intertie system to improve water storage opportunities, reliability and water yield in San Diego County. The Department supports the goals of this bill and would support the bill if 

amended as described in my written statement. Reclamation recommends that this bill be amended to provide that before undertaking a full feasibility study and appraisal investigation should be 

complete to determine the prudence of a feasibility study. Only if 

the appraisal investigation recommends that the proposed intertie 

system be studied further should the Secretary undertake a full 

feasibility study. 

H.R. 123 would increase the ceiling on funds authorized to be appropriated to the San Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund. The Administration does not support H.R. 123. Ground water contamination 

was first detected in the San Gabriel Valley in 1979. As part of this 

effort to clean up the ground water contamination in San Gabriel 

Basin, Congress established the restoration fund in 2001. 
6 

The Administration has not budgeted for the San Gabriel Restoration Fund in any fiscal year. The Department believes that resources should be allocated to achieving priorities within Reclamation’s traditional mission area and does not support the 61.2 million cost ceiling increase proposed in the bill. Reclamation, however, will continue to work with the Water Quality Authority and 

the district when possible to advance the goal of ground water 

clean up in the San Gabriel Basin. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on these six 

bills. I would be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statements of Mr. Johnson follow:] 

PREPARED STATEMENTS OF ROBERT W. JOHNSON, COMMISSIONER, BUREAU OF

RECLAMATION, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

S. 2680

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Robert Johnson, Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased to be here today to present the 

Administration’s views on S. 2680, the ‘‘Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel Environmental Improvement Act of 2008.’’ We recognize the intense public interest in the 

Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel issues addressed by this bill, and support the goals 

of this bill of ensuring public safety and accomplishing the expeditious and efficient 

cleanup of the California Gulch Superfund site. The Administration cannot support 

S. 2680 at present because we have not yet determined what further actions are 

needed to provide a long-term solution. 

That being said, I can report to the Subcommittee that Reclamation and EPA are 

aggressively taking action to address any immediate risk. 

In view of the recent concerns of rising groundwater and mine pool levels, EPA 

and the Bureau of Reclamation, in coordination with the State of Colorado, are now 

conducting removal actions. This work commenced in February 2008 and includes 

two major activities. First, EPA installed a pumping system in the Gaw mine shaft 

and has been pumping at a rate of 450 gallons per minute since late February. This 

action may lower water levels in the mine pool. In addition, it appears to have diminished seeps and springs that had recently appeared in the lower California 

Gulch. Second, EPA is taking steps to drill a relief well into the LDMT to lower 

the level of water in the LMDT and mine pool. EPA plans to have the relief well, 

pump and pipe to the LMDT installed and ready to operate in Summer of 2008. 

Both the Department of the Interior and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have a long history in this area. The Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel 

(LMDT) is located in central Colorado, and was originally constructed by the Bureau 

of Mines from 1943 to 1952. It was intended to de-water portions of the Leadville 

Mining District to facilitate the extraction of lead and zinc ore for the WWII and 

Korean War efforts. Reclamation acquired the LMDT in 1959 with the intention of 

using the tunnel as a source of water for the Fryingpan-Arkansas project, though 

water rights issues precluded using the tunnel effluent as a water source. Water 

that flows out of the tunnel is considered part of the natural flow of the river. 

In 1975, EPA issued a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

permit to Reclamation because the LMDT effluent contains heavy metals. In 1991 

Reclamation completed construction of a water treatment facility at the LMDT portal—the plant treats the effluent flowing from the LMDT to the standards in the 

NPDES permit. 

EPA listed the California Gulch Site on the National Priority List (NPL) in 1983. 

The 18-square-mile area was divided into 12 areas designated Operable Units (OU). 

The Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel (LMDT) is located beneath OU6, which covers 

approximately 3.4 square miles in the northeastern quadrant of the Site. The Bureau of Reclamation owns the LMDT, which is hydrologically connected to OU6. 

Reclamation does not own or operate any sources of contamination on the surface 

of OU6 (i.e., waste rock or tailings) or any portion of the surface itself. The objective 

of OU6 is to control surface sources of contamination. Specifically, the objectives are 

to control erosion of mine waste rock and deposition into local water courses; control 

leaching and migration of metals from mine waste rock into surface water; control 

leaching of metals from mine waste rock into groundwater; and prevent direct unacceptable exposures to elevated concentrations of contaminants in the soil and waste 

rock. EPA is the lead agency to address hazardous substances at the California 

Gulch NPL Site, including OU6 in particular. 
7 

As part of the implementation of the OU6 remedy, EPA collects surface runoff 

from mine waste piles and discharges that surface runoff into the Marion Shaft, 

where it moves through the mine workings to the Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel. 

This water is seasonal and totals approximately 3 to 5 million gallons a year. However, the volume of surface water diverted by EPA to the LMDT is less than 1% 

of the 550 million to 750 million gallons of water Reclamation treats annually. EPA 

pays Reclamation for the treatment of that water at the Reclamation Treatment 

Plant. The chemistry of the water draining from the LMDT to the Reclamation 

treatment plant is very different from the chemistry of the water found on the surface of OU6. It has proven to be possible, however, for the Reclamation plant to 

treat limited amounts of waters from OU6 under agreements with EPA. 

Currently, groundwater levels have continued to fluctuate near the LMDT. Reclamation is working to assess the threat level to public safety through a detailed 

risk analysis. Reclamation has already increased the rate at which water from the 

LMDT is pumped, treated, and discharged into the Arkansas River. Since February 

15, Reclamation has established capability to increase water treatment at the treatment facility by over 80% and today is able to process water at a rate of nearly 

2,100 gallons per minute (gpm) from the LMDT (or 4.8 cubic feet per second). The 

natural rate of drainage from the tunnel is 1,487 gpm, or 3.4 cfs, which amounts 

to 2,500 acre feet annually. 

Public safety dictates every action Reclamation takes at the LMDT, and Reclamation has had an Emergency Action Plan for the LMDT and water treatment facility 

since 2001. Water level indicators and other warning systems near the LMDT are 

tied into the water treatment plant’s auto-dialer for employees, and an audible 

warning system was installed in 2002 to alert the Village at East Fork residents 

in the event of an emergency. The system plays an alert message in Spanish and 

English. 

Reclamation is making every effort to make a science-based determination regarding whether there is an elevated public safety risk below the LMDT. Reclamation’s 

ongoing risk assessment, begun in November 2007, is aimed at understanding how 

the complex geology and extensive subsurface mine passages affect the quantity and 

quality of drainage water inside. The results are expected in June of this year. 

Interior and EPA, at the highest levels, are committed to the following: 

• EPA will complete the removal action that is underway, including the construction of a relief well, the pump and pipeline to transport water to Reclamation’s 

treatment plant. 

• Reclamation will operate and maintain the treatment plant, relief wells, pump 

and pipeline, and if necessary based on the risk analysis, improve the treatment 

plant to handle increased flows of water as a result of the EPA removal action. 

In addition to these actions, Reclamation and EPA are evaluating long-term solutions and will have a better understanding of long-term safety requirements once 

the risk analysis is completed. We are working to develop a permanent solution to 

any safety problem and we will submit proposed legislation if any legislative authority is needed to implement this solution on a long-term basis. 

The Administration cannot support the specific language in S. 2680 at present because we do not yet know what additional specific safety measures and funding requirements may be needed. Once the EPA relief well is completed in June and 

water can be pumped from the LMDT, any immediate risk should be alleviated and 

more information about the needs for ensuring the safety of the tunnel and longterm water treatment options can be assessed. It is possible that the particular solutions referenced in section 4 of S. 2680, which calls on Reclamation to implement 

portions of the remedy selected by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency in 2003, may turn out not to be necessary. We look forward to working 

with the Congress and the State of Colorado to find the best outcome for the citizens 

of Leadville. 

This concludes my written remarks. We would be pleased to answer any questions 

from the Subcommittee. 

S. 2805

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Robert W. Johnson, Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. Thank you for the opportunity to appear 

today to present the Department of the Interior’s views on S. 2805, a bill to authorize the United States to enter into agreements with the Rio Grande Pueblos to repair, rehabilitate, or reconstruct existing irrigation infrastructure. While the Department supports the goals of this bill, we cannot support this legislation. 
8 

The Rio Grande Pueblo Irrigation Infrastructure Improvement Act would provide 

an assessment of the irrigation infrastructure of 18 Pueblos in New Mexico and provide grants to repair, rehabilitate, reconstruct, or replace existing infrastructure. In 

1999 and 2000, Reclamation spent $100,000 in cost share with the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs for an appraisal level study and cost estimate for irrigation infrastructure 

work on the 18 Pueblos. 

Diversions of the Rio Grande River and many of its tributaries supply the water 

for irrigation. Irrigated agriculture remains the primary source of Pueblo-grown 

produce for family consumption and local sales, while also serving important cultural purposes. 

Many factors now make Pueblo farming more difficult. Often, there is not enough 

flow available for Pueblo ditches to work properly. Despite the incorporation of the 

six Middle Rio Grande Pueblos into the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District’s 

water delivery system, poor Pueblo irrigation facilities have, in some cases, hindered 

the delivery of water for efficient production on Pueblo lands. 

Installing proper drainage, replacing inefficient ditches with pipes or concrete 

lined ditches, and having conveyance facilities capable of efficiently supplying water 

at both high and low flows would result in greater efficiency for the Pueblo. Work 

done to date between Reclamation and the Pueblos is primarily done through Public 

Law 93-638 contracts. These contracts are the preference of many of the Pueblos. 

Work done under this bill would be subject to Public Law 93-638. Section 5(a) of 

this bill describes cooperative agreements and grants with the Pueblos. Reclamation 

is concerned that it lacks the word ‘‘contracts,’’ which could be problematic with 

issuing Public Law 93-638 contracts. 

The scope of work that would be covered under the bill could vary significantly 

depending on the definitions for some key words included in this bill. Reclamation 

would request definitions for major impoundment structures (Sec.5(b)1), on-farm improvements (Sec.5(b)2), drainage facility (Sec 3(4)), and historically irrigated lands 

(Sec.5(b)3). The definitions for each of these could have different interpretations and 

could significantly change the boundaries, costs and workload associated with these 

projects. Section 4 also does not describe any cost share requirements for the study, 

which includes creation of the list and work with the Pueblos to gain their consent 

of the list. 

Sections 4(a) and 5(c) direct Reclamation to conduct a study and compile a list 

of projects based on priority and with the consent of the Pueblos. The results of the 

study, priority list and any other findings must be reported to Congress within 18 

months of the enactment. This time frame is not reasonable to conduct an adequate 

feasibility study, prepare cost estimates, comply with the National Environmental 

Policy Act, and perform a value engineering analysis, all of which are required by 

Reclamation. The bill would provide DOI with the authority to award grants to the 

Rio Grande Pueblos to plan, construct or repair Pueblo irrigation infrastructure. S. 

2805 would authorize the Federal government to pay up to 75 percent of project construction/repair costs, and to waive the non-Federal cost share requirement if the 

Pueblo demonstrates financial hardship that would prevent the Pueblo from cost 

sharing. S. 2805 authorizes an appropriation of $60 million for the proposed projects 

and $4 million for the study. 

The list mentioned in sections 4(a) and 5(c) must have the consent of the Pueblos. 

The legislation’s wording does not specify whether all Pueblos must approve the entire list or each Pueblo is required to approve only its portion of the list. The outcomes could also vary depending on whether approval of the list would require 

unanimous consent of all the Pueblos, or only the consent of a majority of the Pueblos. Under Public Law 93-638, the Pueblos can request that they determine the priorities and overall list of projects to be completed. Reclamation would like clarification on the level of consent required from the Pueblos, individually and corporately. 

Reclamation agrees that this legislation could help improve the efficiency of the 

Pueblo irrigation systems and could therefore serve as a water conservation measure along the Rio Grande. However, as described above, the bill as presently written 

contains many unclear provisions and leaves some important factors open to interpretation. The Department also can not support the addition of new projects which 

would result in the reduction of funding for other ongoing Reclamation projects. 

This concludes my testimony. I am happy to answer any questions. 

S. 2814

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Robert W. Johnson, and 

I am Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased to be here to provide 

the Department of the Interior’s views on S. 2814, the Eastern New Mexico Rural 

Water Project Act. The Department cannot support S. 2814. 
9 

Reclamation has been working with the state of New Mexico and local parties on 

developing concepts for the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water Project since Congress 

authorized feasibility studies in 1966. Reclamation has participated in a number of 

studies on this evolving project over the years. Since 1998, Congress has provided 

$1,763,000 for planning and technical assistance, of which more than $1.2 million 

has been transferred directly to the City of Clovis, acting as the fiscal agent for the 

local communities, for work on the project. The FY 2008 omnibus appropriation includes $246,000 for the Project. 

The proposed Eastern New Mexico Rural Water Project would provide a sustainable water supply for the eastern New Mexico municipalities of Clovis, Elida, Grady, 

Melrose, Portales, and Texico, as well as Curry and Roosevelt counties and Cannon 

Air Force Base. The area currently depends entirely on a groundwater source that 

is diminishing in both quantity and quality. The currently envisioned project would 

supply 16,400 acre-feet per year. The water would be delivered through a pipeline 

from Ute Reservoir, which was built by the State of New Mexico in 1963 as a water 

supply source for eastern New Mexico, and would cost approximately $436 million 

to construct, with $8.2 million in annual operations and maintenance costs. 

In 2004, Reclamation testified on legislation (HR 4623) to authorize construction 

of the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water Supply Project. During that hearing, Reclamation cited concerns with the adequacy of the Conceptual Design Report to support authorization and identified some critical questions that needed to be answered 

before construction should proceed, such as whether all economically viable alternatives had been considered, whether design and construction costs were consistent 

with comparable projects, and whether the communities that would be sharing 

project costs had an accurate estimate of how much those costs might be. Reclamation also expressed concerns with the proposed cost sharing formula, which assumed 

an 80% federal share for construction of the project. The federal cost share in the 

new legislation (S. 2814) is 75%. 

In the intervening years, a Reclamation ‘‘Oversight Committee’’ has been assisting 

the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water Authority (Authority) and their consultants 

in developing a more complete and thorough feasibility report. 

A ‘‘Preliminary Engineering Report’’ prepared for the Authority by their consultant that was submitted in December 2006 represents significant progress toward a 

feasibility-level analysis. Reclamation is continuing to work with the Authority as 

they further develop the proposed project’s design, cost estimates, financing plan, 

and environmental analysis. 

The Authority is working with their consultant to take the design and associated 

cost estimate to the feasibility level. Feasibility-level cost estimates are based on information and data which is sufficient to permit the preparation of preliminary layouts and designs used to estimate each kind, type, or class of material, equipment, 

and labor necessary to complete a project. A second consultant has been selected by 

the Authority to work on National Environmental Policy Act compliance. A third 

consultant for the Authority is working on a detailed plan for financing the project. 

As stated above, the most recent cost estimate for construction, as prepared last 

year by the Authority’s consultant, is $436 million, with an estimated annual operation and maintenance cost of $8.2 million. The local communities would pay 100% 

of the operation, maintenance, and replacement costs. 

Reclamation is committed to working with its customers, States, Tribes, and other 

stakeholders to find ways to balance and provide for the mix of water resource 

needs in the future. The Administration is concerned, however, about becoming the 

primary source of funds for these types of projects. Because of this project’s high 

cost, with a federal cost share of $327 million, and because this project would compete with ongoing work by Reclamation in New Mexico and across the west, the Department cannot support S. 2814. However, we are working with the Authority and 

the State to bring the project to a point where a feasibility determination is possible. 

This concludes my statement, and I am happy to answer any questions the Subcommittee may have. 

H.R. 29

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Robert W. Johnson, Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased to be here today to give the 

Department’s views on H.R. 29, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to construct facilities to provide water for irrigation, municipal, domestic, military, and 

other uses from the Santa Margarita River, California. 

Engineering and economic feasibility investigations, and environmental analysis 

that is currently underway for this project, are not yet complete. In addition, general stream adjudication for the Santa Margarita River is ongoing, and the claims 
10 

of the Pechanga, Cahuilla and Ramona Indian Bands have yet to be determined, 

leaving uncertainty as to ownership of water rights in this river system. Also, this 

project would have to compete for funds with ongoing projects. In view of these factors, the Department cannot support H.R. 29. 

H.R. 29 authorizes $60 million of Federal funding for construction of this project, 

as may be adjusted for engineering cost indices, conditioned upon the following: 

1. The Fallbrook Public Utility District (District) and the Department of the 

Navy (Navy) entering into a repayment contract with the United States for its 

allocation of the construction costs, with interest, as applicable; 

2. The State of California granting permits to Reclamation for the benefit of 

the Navy and the District to use the water developed by the project; 

3. The District agreeing not to assert any prior appropriative right it may 

have to water in excess of the quantity deliverable to it under this Act; and 

4. The Secretary of the Interior determining that the project has economic, 

environmental, and engineering feasibility. 

The project would be located on the lower Santa Margarita River on Camp Joseph 

H. Pendleton Marine Corps Base (Marine Corps), the Fallbrook Annex of the Naval 

Weapons Station (Weapons Station), and surrounding lands within the service area 

of the District. The project, as proposed by the Act, would consist of features for the 

conjunctive use of ground and surface water, the yield of which would be allocated 

60 percent to the Navy and 40 percent to the District. 

In 1974, the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) assigned 

four water rights permits to Reclamation held in trust for the Marines and the District. The permits were originally granted to construct two dams on the Santa Margarita River as part of a proposed settlement of United States v. Fallbrook. Since 

2003, Reclamation has been working with the Marine Corps and the District to analyze alternatives capable of implementing the conjunctive use project under a feasibility investigation authority. It is anticipated that implementation could assist in 

settling the long-standing water rights claims of the Marine Corps and the District. 

Mr. Chairman, the Department understands the importance of reducing the use 

of imported supplies from the Colorado River and the Bay-Delta in the Santa Margarita River basin. However, for the reasons stated above we cannot support H.R. 

29. This concludes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any questions. 

H.R. 1803

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Robert W. Johnson, Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased to be here today to present 

the Department’s views regarding H.R. 1803, the San Diego Water Storage and Efficiency Act of 2007. The Department supports the goals of this bill, and would support the bill if amended as described in this statement. 

H.R. 1803 would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a feasibility 

study to design and construct a four reservoir intertie system for the purposes of 

improving the water storage opportunities, water supply reliability, and water yield 

in San Diego County, California. In cooperation and consultation with the City of 

San Diego and the Sweetwater Authority, the investigation would determine whether a system of pumps and pipelines interconnecting four non-Federal reservoirs (San 

Vicente Reservoir, El Capitan Reservoir, Loveland Reservoir, and Lake Murray) 

would improve water management opportunities. The legislation authorizes an appropriation of $3 million for the investigation. 

The Bureau of Reclamation recommends that this bill be amended to provide that 

before undertaking a full feasibility study, Reclamation should first carry out an appraisal investigation to determine the prudence of a feasibility study for the proposed intertie system. Only if the appraisal investigation recommends that the proposed intertie system be studied further should the Secretary undertake a study, 

as authorized in this bill, to determine the feasibility of the intertie system. 

As part of the feasibility authorization in this bill, the Federal cost share will not 

exceed 50 percent of the total study costs. The proposed legislation only authorizes 

a feasibility investigation. The outcome of the feasibility investigation would be an 

important factor in whether the Secretary would recommend that Congress enact 

further authorization for construction of the proposed reservoir and intertie project. 

The Department is aware of local efforts to study various ways to increase local 

water supplies and reliability in southern California. As Watermaster of the Colorado River, the Department would benefit from improved efficiency of use of imported water in California. An intertie system such as the project proposed might 

allow San Diego County, located at the end of the Colorado River, and State Water 

Project distribution systems, the ability to better manage their imported supplies, 
11 

improve reliability and move water more effectively within several reservoirs to receive the benefits of available storage. This project, if found to be feasible, could be 

a valuable tool under the California 4.4 Plan to improve and better utilize imported 

water from the Colorado River. 

The Bureau of Reclamation is currently working with the City of San Diego and 

the Sweetwater Authority on other unrelated water recycling projects that help with 

the future needs for water of the region. 

The Department supports the goal of this legislation to authorize a new feasibility 

investigation, and requests that the legislation be amended so that the feasibility 

investigation will only go forward if, on the basis of an appraisal investigation, Reclamation determines that the proposed intertie system should be studied further. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. Thank you for the opportunity to 

comment on H.R. 1803. I would be happy to answer any questions at this time. 

H.R. 123

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Robert Johnson, Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased to be here today to give the Department’s views on H.R. 123, a proposal to increase the ceiling on funds authorized 

to be appropriated to the San Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund. The Administration 

does not support H.R. 123. 

Groundwater contamination was first detected in the San Gabriel Valley in 1979. 

Following this discovery, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency designated 

major portions of the region’s groundwater as Superfund sites. Between 1990 and 

1997, EPA identified Potentially Responsible Parties at the site who then engaged 

in negotiations with local water agencies and began initial design work on an EPAdeveloped basin-wide plan to set cleanup priorities. After reaching a detailed agreement with seven local water agencies in March 2002, design work was completed 

and construction work began. Construction of the four planned groundwater extraction and treatment facilities was largely completed in 2006. 

As part of this effort to clean up the groundwater contamination in the San Gabriel Basin and prevent the contamination from spreading into the adjacent Central 

Basin, the San Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund (Fund) was established in 2001 by 

P.L. 106-554. Originally established as a Defense Department account and subsequently transferred to the Interior Department, this interest-bearing account reimburses the San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority (WQA) and the Central 

Basin Municipal Water District (District) for designing and constructing facilities 

that help with groundwater cleanup efforts in the Basin. The Fund is also authorized to reimburse the WQA and District for operating and maintaining these facilities for up to 10 years. A 35 percent non-Federal share is required for projects. This 

cost-share can be met by credits given to the WQA for expenditures used for water 

quality projects that have already been built in the San Gabriel Basin, in lieu of 

depositing the required 35 percent non-Federal share for these projects into the 

Fund. To date, the entire non-Federal share has been met by credits that have been 

certified by Reclamation. 

In Fiscal Year 2001, Congress appropriated $23 million for deposit into the Fund. 

The Energy and Water Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (P.L. 107-66), transferred administrative responsibility for the fund from the Secretary of the Army to 

the Secretary of the Interior, and appropriated an additional $12 million. Appropriations in fiscal years 2003-2008 brought the total deposits to the Fund to $71.71 million. In addition, the Fund has accumulated over $2.8 million in interest. 

Reclamation has executed six grant agreements under the Restoration Fund authority. One grant agreement is with the Central Basin Municipal Water District, 

covering design, construction, operation, and maintenance of their facility, up to the 

$10 million ceiling established by the legislation for this component. The other five 

agreements are with the WQA. Four cover the design and construction of specific 

facilities, and the fifth agreement covers operation and maintenance of those four 

facilities. 

The total estimated cost of the project authorized by the legislation is about $204 

million. Based on this cost estimate, about $69 million would be allocated for the 

completion of all five facilities, and about $135 million would be allocated to fund 

the operation and maintenance of all five facilities for 10 years, as authorized. 

The San Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund is and will continue to be used for important local projects. Reclamation must allocate its scarce budget toward funding 

already authorized projects within the agency’s traditional mission of delivering 

water and power in an environmentally responsible and cost-efficient manner, with 

emphasis on the needs of aging infrastructure, the safety of existing facilities and 

dams, and ongoing environmental restoration efforts. The Administration has not 
12 

budgeted for the San Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund in any of the preceding fiscal 

years. The Administration believes that resources should be allocated to achieving 

priorities within Reclamation’s traditional mission area and does not support the 

$61.2 million cost ceiling increase proposed in H.R. 123. Reclamation, however, will 

continue to work with the WQA and the District when possible to advance the goal 

of groundwater cleanup in the San Gabriel Basin. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. Thank you for the opportunity to 

comment on H.R. 123. I would be happy to answer any questions at this time. 

Senator JOHNSON. I yield to the full chairman of the committee. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I do have 

a couple of questions about the two bills that relate to our circumstance in New Mexico. First, let me ask Mr. Johnson, this Rio 

Grande Pueblo bill which I think you testified on. I think the Bureau of Reclamation and the Bureau of Indian Affairs first completed an initial assessment of the Pueblo’s irrigation facilities back 

in 2000. So this is not a new item. 

I guess the obvious first question is why has nothing been done 

to implement the results of that study since 2000? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I understand that we have had some interaction 

with the Pueblos but have never been able to find the resources to 

move forward with any of the programs that were identified in 

there. 

The CHAIRMAN. I guess I would ask if, I think in your testimony 

on this bill, you indicate that there are still a series of technical 

problems with the bill. Are those clearly identified someplace 

where we could talk back and forth about those? See if we could 

resolve at least some of them because my sense is that many of 

them are fairly ephemeral disagreements. 

I think for example you state the need to define some key terms 

when those terms were actually taken directly from the 2000 report 

that Bureau of Reclamation did. So, I mean, we ought to be able 

to find some way to resolve that concern at least. Is it possible to 

get a real, definitive itemization of the problems you folks still have 

with that bill? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I think it is, Senator. I think we’d be happy to 

work with you to get language that is clear in our minds as to the 

intent of the legislation. I think that can be done. 

You know, I think, ultimately, we still have the concerns about 

the fiscal impacts and costs. But I think the technical issues that 

we’ve—and the comments that we’ve made on the bill, I think we 

could certainly work with you on it. I agree with you. I think we 

could probably find solutions to those. 

The CHAIRMAN. That would be very helpful. I know that the Administration has tried to make grants under this Water 2025 program in the last several years. Could you tell me how much of that, 

how many of these grants or what percentage of these grants have 

gone to Indian tribes? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I can’t give you a specific figure on that. But I can 

certainly provide one for the record. We have given some Water 

2025 grants to tribes. I don’t think it’s a lot. It’s probably a few. 

But we can get you that information for the record. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ok. That would be very helpful if we could get 

that. Let me ask about the other legislation that I’m concerned 

about the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water bill. I’m surprised, 

frankly, that we have had a great deal of interaction. I think you 
13 

acknowledged that in your testimony, between the Administration 

and the local communities involved on this legislation. 

I was surprised that your testimony says, ‘‘The Administration is 

concerned about becoming the primary source of funds for these 

types of projects.’’ My recollection is that 16 months ago the President signed into law the Rural Water Supply Act of 2006 which 

contemplates a Federal cost share of up to 75 percent on rural 

water projects. This bill was crafted in part from legislation that 

was proposed by the Administration which suggested a 65 percent 

cost share for rural water projects. 

It seems to me that this is a pretty clear change of position from 

what the President signed 16 months ago. Am I missing something 

here? 

Mr. JOHNSON. You’re right about the Rural Water legislation. I 

think it says up to 75 percent. I think our hope was that we could 

find projects that wouldn’t require that high of a percentage or 

projects that we could provide technical assistance with. 

Then also part of that act had the potential of providing loan 

guarantees to help provide non-Federal dollars for financing for 

rural communities and that sort of thing. So I think we saw those 

as tools in that act that could in fact provide some assistance without costing hundreds of millions of dollars. I think one of the things 

that we struggled with is we have a number of rural water projects 

that are already authorized. We have a $2 billion backlog. We’re 

really struggling finding the funding for the ones that are already 

authorized. 

You know, I think there’s a concern about these new ones coming 

along that are again in the hundreds of millions of dollars and 

what our ability is going to be to fund those if they get authorized 

as well. I think it really comes back primarily to a fiscal concern. 

The CHAIRMAN. So it’s really not a concern about becoming the 

primary source of funds for these types of projects. It’s concern 

about becoming the primary source of funds for any more of these 

types of projects. Is that it? Is that what you’re saying? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I think it’s overall. Certainly we have a number 

of projects that are already authorized. We’re behind the eight ball 

on them. Quite frankly, we’re not funding them at real significant 

levels. We’re not keeping up with the backlog that we have. Adding 

more exacerbates that problem. 

We would like to use the Rural Water Supply Act to provide assistance to rural communities in planning water supply needs. 

Then maybe, hopefully using some of the other tools that that act 

provides that maybe wouldn’t commit such large percentages and 

such large dollars to future funding. So certainly the act does provide up to the 75. I don’t deny that. I think it’s our hope that we 

can use percentages that end up with maybe smaller fiscal impacts 

on our budget. 

The CHAIRMAN. Last year Reclamation’s Albuquerque area office 

sent a letter to the authority stating that its engineering report 

demonstrated that the project was technically viable’’ and ‘‘the 

least costly and most sustainable way to meet long term water 

needs in the project area.’’ You still agree with that? 
14 

Mr. JOHNSON. I’m sure if that our project office said that, I’m certain that that’s correct. I know there has been a lot of study that’s 

been done on this project. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. It is my impression, based on the research we’ve 

been able to do, that this project has received more scrutiny, undergone more analysis, than any other rural water project that’s ever 

been authorized by the Congress. Would you agree with that? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I know it’s undergone a lot of study, going back 

for a very long period of time. Not knowing the complete history 

I don’t know that I would say it’s the one that’s received the most, 

but I would say it’s fair to say it’s received more than most. I don’t 

know if it’s absolutely the most. 

The CHAIRMAN. I guess the sort of final concern I have is if we 

do further delay, which I believe your testimony is urging, further 

delay this project, the concern you’ve got about the cost is going to 

only increase. I mean every time this is put off another year, the 

cost goes up. The quicker we can go ahead and begin the development and construction of the project, I think the more likely we are 

to get it done at some reasonable cost. So I have that concern. Let 

me stop with that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator JOHNSON. Senator Corker. 

Senator CORKER. Mr. Chairman, what I’d like to do with the 

same interest from Senator Domenici is submit a number of questions that he had for the record that they can respond directly back 

to us with. 

Senator JOHNSON. Senator Bingaman and Senator Salazar have 

a number of questions regarding the bills they are sponsoring. I 

will defer to them on those matters. But I do have a general question on BOR’s Rural Water Program. 

In December 2006 we enacted the Rural Water Supply Act which 

required BOR to determine how to build the criteria by December 

2007 and feasibility criteria for rural water projects by June 2008. 

What is the status of those actions called for in the original legislation? 

Mr. JOHNSON. We are preparing a set of Federal regulations to 

lay out the criteria under which to administer the Rural Water 

Supply Act. That criteria has been drafted. It’s undergoing review. 

Our schedule calls for that to be available as an, what we would 

call an interim final rule in September of this year. 

So we’ve got ongoing work on that. We did provide, I think, a 

short letter report to the Congress a few—a month or so ago explaining the status of where we are on that. Another part of that 

is the loan guarantee program and the regulations to deal with the 

loan guarantees that would be associated with Reclamation facilities. But also the Rural Water Program. It could be connected to 

the Rural Water Program. 

We’ve run into a determination that funding—that our seeking 

of appropriations for that loan guarantee program would have to 

be 100 percent of the loan guarantee. So we’re in the process of reconsidering how we develop that rule and move forward with it. So 

that’s the status of the rulemaking processes that we’re working on 

under that act. 

Senator JOHNSON. Your testimony indicates that the construction 

of the Santa Margarita project is contingent on the State of Cali-
15 

fornia granting permits necessary to use water for the project. You 

also mentioned that Reclamation currently holds permits to construct dams to disrupt water supply on the Santa Margarita River 

for the Fallbrook district and Camp Pendleton. Can Reclamation 

use the permits it presently holds from the State of California for 

the project proposed in H.R. 29? 

If so, is it true that activity under those permits must be initiated by the end of this year or the permits may not longer be valid? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. The permits that Reclamation currently holds 

would be used as the water supply for the Santa Margarita Project. 

Those permits do expire at the end of this year. When you’re not 

putting water right permits to use there is always the risk that we 

could lose those permits. They could be awarded to somebody else 

if we’re not showing action on putting those permits to use. 

We certainly would approach the State of California, the Water 

Resources Control Board, to seek renewal of those permits before 

they expire. 

Senator JOHNSON. You note that the engineering studies and the 

environmental analysis for the Santa Margarita Project had not yet 

been completed. What is the status of those studies at a minimum 

has an appraisal level and has an analysis been completed? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, the feasibility studies are scheduled to be 

completed in June of 2009. The draft feasibility report is going to 

be available late this summer. We did do a pre-feasibility study. I 

don’t know if we called it an appraisal study, but we did a pre-feasibility study that did show that the further analysis and that the 

project did have promise. 

Senator JOHNSON. Your testimony indicates that the Administration opposes reauthorizing the San Gabriel Basin Fund because 

Reclamation’s budget is not the appropriate place for this funding. 

That withstanding, which agency provides the funding? Is there a 

Federal responsibility to help clean up the ground water contamination in Southern California? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, that’s something I’d like to do 

some research on and provide an answer for the record. 

Off the top of my head I’m not sure what Federal responsibilities 

might exist on that project. But we’d certainly get back for the 

record on that. 

Senator JOHNSON. Yes. Get back to us. 

Senator Salazar. 

Senator SALAZAR. Thank you very much, Chairman Johnson and 

Ranking Member Corker for holding today’s hearing. Let me first 

say on the second panel we will have Martha Rudolph from the 

Colorado Department of Health and Environment. I want to welcome her here today to testify on our legislation here. 

Let me also, Commissioner Johnson, thank you for the work that 

you have done at Leadville and with all the other Bureau Reclamation facilities that we have in Colorado. I will have a number of 

questions to ask you. Let me also say here at the outset that you 

should know I’m disappointed in the fact that at last night we received the official confirmation from the Bureau of Reclamation 

that you were opposed to this legislation to deal with what could 

potentially be a huge human and environmental catastrophe for 

Colorado. 
16 

If the Leadville mine drainage tunnel bursts it not only will put 

into danger the lives of people who live immediately below the 

water treatment plant of the Leadville mine drainage tunnel, but 

also has all the potential of killing a river downstream of that point 

throughout the entire Arkansas River Basin. If that were to happen the communities from Leadville, through Buena Vista, through 

Salida, through Pueblo all the way to the Kansas line and beyond 

could in fact be affected by the blowout of this tunnel. So want to 

just at the outset express that I am disappointed and hope that 

what we can do with the Bureau of Reclamation is to work with 

you to see how we might be able to modify the legislation in a way 

that we can get this legislation through the Congress. So that we 

can provide some clarity about who has the responsibility in moving forward with what is a very dangerous situation in our State. 

Today a collapsed part of the Leadville mine drainage tunnel 

poises a grave and environmental threat to many citizens of Colorado. Leadville sits at the headwaters of the Arkansas River. Thus 

the affluent into the river there is a fair amount of importance to 

millions of people. The deterioration of the tunnel has received 

enormous attention throughout Colorado and indeed throughout 

the country over the last several months. 

The tunnel is just over two miles long. It was a tunnel constructed during the 1940s and the 1950s by the U.S. Department 

of the Interior’s Bureau of Mines, the drain that flooded mines and 

the Leadville mining district in Lake County Colorado. In 1959 the 

Bureau of Reclamation took full custody and full responsibility for 

the LMDT in order to obtain additional water rights for the 

Fryingpan Arkansas project under the condition that the Bureau 

would not spend its own funds to maintain or repair the tunnel. 

In the early 1990s, however, litigation compelled the Bureau to 

take responsibility for the quality of the water that was discharged 

from the tunnel. In 1995, a major collapse of a segment of the tunnel was detected and since then mine water has pooled behind the 

blockage. Today the EPA estimates that close to one billion gallons 

of water contaminated with toxic levels of cadmene, zinc, manganese has collected in that tunnel. 

The citizens of Leadville and Lake County and the counties and 

communities downstream of Leadville are rightly worried and concerned that the building pressure of the voluminous quantity of 

water will cause the blockage to burst and flood the town resulting 

in a public health and environmental disaster. This winter’s heavy 

snowfall has many of us concerned that spring snow melt will further balloon the quantity of toxic water and exacerbate the risk. I 

want to thank the Bureau of Reclamation, Commissioner Johnson 

and your staff for the swift and decisive action that you have taken 

up to this point to begin pumping and treating water behind the 

tunnel blockage. 

These operations have provided some measure of relief and some 

piece of mind to the citizens of Leadville. But we must not however 

lose sight that we need a long term solution to this problem. We 

are not out of the woods in terms of the danger that is created because of the blockage. 

My bill focuses on making sure the long term solution for the 

tunnel moves forward as expeditiously as possible. My bill gives 
17 

the Secretary of the Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation clear 

authority and responsibility to maintain the LMDT in a manner 

that protects human health and the environment. For many years 

the Bureau has maintained that it is not responsible for changed 

conditions within the LMDT, specifically the legislation directs the 

Bureau to participate in the long term remedy that has already 

been approved by the EPA, the Colorado Department of Public 

Health and Environment and has been vetted over many years 

through many public meetings. 

The bill also authorizes the necessary funds for implementation 

of a long term remedy. The long term solution for the LMDT specified under the fully approved and vetted EPA Superfund record of 

decision is much more extensive than the pumping and water 

treatment activity that is currently now underway. It will involve 

construction of a bulkhead in the tunnel to isolate the contaminated pool, backfilling the tunnel, as well as several other actions. 

The bill also directs the Secretary of the Interior in cooperation 

with the State and EPA to conduct a study to determine whether 

any blockages in the tunnel have affected or are affecting water 

quality and aquatic life in the Arkansas River. We must ensure 

that the problems with the blockage do not impact the water quality of the Arkansas River which is a life blood of so many that rely 

on that river. The study that we propose in the legislation will help 

us improve our understanding of the conditions of the headwaters 

near the tunnel. 

Above all, my bill directs the Bureau and the Environmental Protection Agency to come to a consensus on implementing a long term 

remedy that I believe we all agree is necessary to safeguard the 

LMDT from becoming an environmental and public health disaster. 

A permanent solution to the problems with the LMDT has long 

been stymied by jurisdictional and liability questions related to 

EPA’s remedies selected in the California Gulch Superfund site 

record of decision for the area that we commonly refer to as Operational Unit Nine. Specifically Reclamation’s legal ability under 

CERCLA or as the owner of the tunnel and EPA’s ability to spend 

Superfund remedial action funds on Operational Unit Six appear 

to be in dispute. 

Since I introduced my legislation we’ve had dialog about how we 

might be able to resolve the dispute. It is my view that our legislation would end the dispute and sometimes the finger pointing that 

occurs between one agency and the other about who has what responsibility for the LMDT. I am hopeful, Mr. Chairman, that we 

will be able to move forward with this legislation. 

I have a number of questions that I wanted to ask. But I know 

that I’m already in overtime. So I’ll wait for the next round. 

Senator JOHNSON. Does the chairman of the committee have follow up questions for this round? 

The CHAIRMAN. I do not, Mr. Chairman. I’ve got questions for the 

second panel, but not for this panel. 

Senator JOHNSON. Commissioner Johnson and Ms. Bodine, you 

are excused. 

Senator SALAZAR. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I was not done if 

I could have additional questions on the second round. 
18 

Senator JOHNSON. The second round. You are now invited to ask 

your questions. 

Senator SALAZAR. Thank you, Chairman Johnson. So let me just 

say, Commissioner Johnson and you are the Honorable Susan 

Bodine. So it’s an administrator. I was trying to look up your title. 

Here is the reality as I see it with respect to this tunnel. The Bureau of Reclamation bought the tunnel because of the fact that 

there were water rights associated with the tunnel. It was part of 

the Bureau of Reclamation’s efforts to try to enhance its capacity 

to deal with water rights on the Arkansas River. That predated the 

passage of CERCLA. Once CERCLA was passed we had the Bureau of Reclamation that had bought this tunnel that had a water 

right associated with it, but there’s always been some question in 

the mind of the Bureau of Reclamation as to who has the ultimate 

CERCLA responsibility. 

It would be no question in most cases under CERCLA law that 

the owner of the drainage tunnel would have full responsibility. 

You buy it. You own it. 

The liability under CERCLA comes with it regardless of whether 

you were the one that created the condition for the pollution that 

you’re trying to govern under CERCLA. It seems to me that’s basic 

CERCLA law. So what we are tying to do in our legislation, Commissioner Johnson and Ms. Bodine, is to try to make sure that we 

avoid the ambiguity that we sense has existed between the Bureau 

of Reclamation and EPA. In my mind it is clear here that the Bureau of Reclamation, as the owner of this tunnel that now contains 

these billion gallons of toxic water, has the responsibility for dealing with the remedy. 

My question to you, Commissioner Johnson and Ms. Bodine, is 

whether or not you see you see the clarity of responsibility in the 

same way that I see it. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I think I would start by saying that I think EPA 

and Reclamation have been working very closely on this issue. We 

are speaking with one executive branch voice. I would say that we 

are moving forward to implement whatever provisions are required 

to ensure the public safety and to also address the issues associated with the Superfund site. 

That’s something that we’re doing together and we are going to 

sort out the details of that over time. As we need legislation, as 

Reclamation needs legislation, if we need legislation we’re going to 

come back to the Congress with the request for that. But that will 

not slow up our activities and our actions to make sure that we’re 

dealing with the public safety and Superfund site issues. 

Senator SALAZAR. So it would be correct then, Commissioner 

Johnson to say that with respect to the long term goal of stabilizing 

the tunnel, installing the permanent plug, drilling the well, constructing the pipeline, putting the water from the pipeline into the 

Water Treatment Plant and treating that water through the Water 

Treatment Plant, the Bureau of Reclamation is in fact committed 

to taking those actions on. Is that correct? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I think I said that we were going to move forward 

expeditiously to deal with the issues. EPA is already pumping 

water out of the GAW shaft that’s—and in fact EPA has actually 

stepped up and begun implementing a number of actions imme-
19 

diately. They’re removing water from the GAW shaft. I think 

they’re very close to issuing a contract to put the first well in. 

Senator SALAZAR. Ms. Bodine. 

Ms. BODINE. Yes, in terms of putting in the relief well and pump 

and a pipeline to the Reclamation Treatment Plant, yes, we are 

moving ahead with that and expect to have that construction work 

completed this summer. That will then begin to pump water out of 

the drainage tunnel, lowering the water levels. 

So that has to happen, irrespective of if ultimately the plug is 

needed for safety purposes or not. That well has to go in. The water 

levels have to go down. So we’re comfortable with doing that work 

which is going to alleviate the pressure and has to happen and 

then looking at the results of Reclamation’s study on the risks associated with the tunnel. 

We’re comfortable with that because that does not constitute any 

delay at all. The relief well will go in. The pumping will happen, 

all that. The water levels have to be lowered and all that will take 

time. So there isn’t any delay in any action while Reclamation completes its study of the risks and then we can look together and see 

what else has to happen to address the safety risks. 

Part of the confusion over this, the project, in Operating Unit Six 

is that our record of decision doesn’t mention safety or even risk 

of blowout at all. The remedial action objectives, the objectives of 

the project are to control the migration of contamination from surface waste rock piles and to control that runoff that had been going 

to service water and ground water. The purpose of the plug in the 

record of decision is just—— 

Senator SALAZAR. If I may just interrupt you. The reality of it is 

that the Bureau of Reclamation here bought the Bureau of Mines 

bought this tunnel. 

Ms. BODINE. Yes. 

Senator SALAZAR. They bought it during a time of national need. 

The Bureau of Reclamation came in and stepped into the position 

of the Bureau of Mines later on because of the interest of the Bureau of Reclamation in the water rights associated with the 

Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel. They did not at the time recognize that they were also stepping into, potentially, what was a 

huge liability with respect to CERCLA. 

Indeed, I think, as has happened since then, the Bureau of Reclamation found out that we weren’t really dealing with two distinct 

water sources. The water within the tunnel is considered to be tributary to the Arkansas River. So in effect the Bureau of Reclamation ended up with the water right that really had no value in it 

whatsoever. 

But we are dealing now with an issue of billion gallons of toxic 

water behind this tunnel and trying to figure out how we can move 

forward together with one voice as a Federal executive government, 

EPA and Bureau of Reclamation to make sure that we have the 

right remedy to fix the problems at the tunnel. There is in fact, you 

may not want to admit it on the record, but there is in fact a major 

problem in terms of how the Bureau of Reclamation and EPA have 

historically tried to figure out the responsibility with respect to this 

drainage tunnel. It hasn’t been until very recently when we’ve had 

the major outcry and the media focus that has been placed on the 
20 

Leadville mine drainage tunnel that we’ve seen the kind of working 

relationship. 

I will not go through the entire timeline that we’ve—that I’m 

sure you know as well as I do. But the final record of decision from 

EPA that dealt with Operational Unit Six was published in September 2003. That’s 5 years ago. In November, many meetings 

since then. 

October 2007, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Commissioner 

Johnson, this is October 2007. That wasn’t that long ago, a few 

months ago. A few months ago the Bureau of Reclamation says the 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation says it doesn’t have the authority to 

treat the water pump from the mine tunnel. 

November 2007, a month later, the EPA Regional Administrator, 

ok, writes to the Bureau of Reclamation expressing concern ‘‘of a 

potentially catastrophic release of water from the tunnel.’’ That’s 

November 2007. In January 2008, the Bureau of Reclamation Regional Director writes back asking for the rationale behind EPA’s 

concern about a catastrophic release.’’ These are all recent. I could 

keep going. There’s lots of other examples I could use. 

But part of the problem, Ms. Bodine and Commissioner Johnson, 

that we have here is that we don’t have a legal framework that creates the delineation of responsibility that then allows the two agencies essentially to speak with one voice as you deal with both the 

media and the long term problem. I mean, we’re dealing with an 

issue here that’s going to be a multi-decade issue that’s going to 

involve responsibilities that are immediate now. You’re taking 

those actions as you drill the relief well, when you construct the 

pipeline and you expand the usage of the Water Treatment Plant 

to its capacity and all those actions that you’re taking place now. 

But if you look at it 5 years from now, 10 years from now, 

where’s that responsibility going to be for water treatment. It 

seems to me that the legislation that we crafted would give you 

that legal framework. I would hope, Commissioner Johnson, that 

you might take another look at that legislation along with EPA to 

see whether we can get President Bush as the President of our 

country and this Administration to take another look at this legislation and hopefully come on board and support it. 

Mr. Chairman, I have a number of other questions, but I don’t 

want to keep us here too long. So what I will do is I will submit 

my other questions for the record. 

I appreciate your indulgence in giving me this additional time. 

Senator JOHNSON. Commissioner Johnson and Ms. Bodine, you 

are excused. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Senator JOHNSON. Since there are no more questions. Let’s have 

our second set of witnesses take a seat. On the second panel we 

have Mayor Orlando Ortega of Portales, New Mexico. Governor Michael Chavarria of Santa Clara Pueblo, representing the Eight 

Northern Indian Pueblos Council in New Mexico. Three, Martha 

Rudolph with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and Milt Davies, with the Fallbrook Public Utilities District in California. Welcome to each of you. 

Mayor Ortega, please start by summarizing your testimony. We’ll 

then proceed with our other witnesses. After all of you have com-
21 

pleted your statements we’ll proceed with questions from members 

of the subcommittee. 

Mayor Ortega. 

STATEMENT OF ORLANDO ORTEGA, EASTERN NEW MEXICO 

RURAL WATER AUTHORITY, PORTALES, NM 

Mr. ORTEGA. Chairman Johnson, Senator Bingaman, Senator 

Domenici and members of the committee, my name is Orlando Ortega and I am the Mayor of Portales, New Mexico. I serve as the 

Vice Chairman of the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water Authority. 

I will be presenting the testimony on behalf of the authority with 

regard to Senate bill 2814. A bill to authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to assist in the construction of the Eastern New Mexico 

Rural Water System, commonly referred to as the Ute Water Pipeline Project. 

Joining me today is the newly elected Mayor of the city of Clovis, 

New Mexico, Mayor Gayla Brumfield, behind me. The city of Clovis 

is the largest population among the cities in the authority and 

serves as the fiscal agent for the project. The authority was created 

in 2001 for the purposes of building and operating the Ute Water 

Pipeline Project to serve the communities of Clovis, Portales, Melrose, Texico, Grady, Elida and throughout Curry and Roosevelt 

Counties in Eastern New Mexico. 

I would like to express our deep appreciation to Senators Bingaman and Senator Domenici for sponsoring Senate bill 2814 and 

championing efforts to establish a sustainable supply of water to 

preserve the socioeconomic future of Eastern New Mexico. A sustainable supply of water is critical to the future of our region which 

supports a number of industries including dairy, large scale food 

production and processing, ethanol refining, a critical military presence at Cannon Air Force Base and colleges and universities among 

others. Providing a sustainable water supply for Eastern New Mexico is our most significant challenge. Our communities rely solely 

on water reserves located in the Ogallala Aquifer. 

Over the last 40 years numerous studies have clearly demonstrated that this aquifer is being depleted and that the Ute 

Water Pipeline Project is the most efficient, cost effective and dependable solution for these water challenges. Anticipating the potential water needs in Eastern New Mexico and in the interest of 

maximizing New Mexico’s use of water from the Canadian River 

Stream System, the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission 

completed construction of the Ute Dam and Reservoir in 1962 at 

a present day cost of over $140 million. Significant progress has 

been made on this project. 

Working together the New Mexico legislature and Governor Bill 

Richardson have invested millions of dollars in the Water Trust 

Fund which seeks to provide funding for water projects across New 

Mexico. Since 2002 the State of New Mexico has provided direct 

funding to the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water System Project in 

excess of $12 million which includes $4.5 million that was appropriated by the New Mexico Water Trust Board just yesterday indicating continued strong support by the New Mexico State Legislature and Governor. 
22 

If the authority is prepared to undertake the local financing operations and maintenance of the proposed project over the years 

the individual communities have contributed financial resources 

and in kind resources to the project. Clovis, Portales, Texico and 

Melrose have increased water and waste water rates in order to 

generate new revenue for the project. The city of Clovis has enacted a gross receipts tax increment and has dedicated revenue to 

the project. These actions are solid evidence of a high level of commitment from the local governments to provide a portion of the 

non-Federal funding of the project. 

We have been studying the efficacy of the Ute Water Pipeline 

Project for a number of years. With over 30 volumes of technical 

memoranda on the project that examines ground water conditions, 

population growth and water demand, conservation and re-use, existing water systems, evaluation of alternatives, environmental 

issues, Ute Reservoir operations, water treatment needs, power 

service and wind power potential, cost estimating in hydraulic optimization. In short, our plans for the Ute Water Pipeline Project 

have been very thorough and comprehensive. 

Just last year the United States Bureau of Reclamation commented in a letter to the authority that the project is the least costly and most sustainable way to meet long term water needs in the 

area. They also agreed with our design consultants preliminary design level of completeness, cost estimates and that no special environmental issues have been identified. Momentum to build this 

project is very high. We are extremely hopeful that this legislation 

will become law this year in what will be the final chapter of a 

most outstanding and distinguished career of our senior Senator, 

Pete Domenici. 

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

appear before you today to urge Congress to expeditiously pass 

Senate bill 2814, which would authorize the financing, planning, 

design and construction of the Ute Pipeline Project. We cannot emphasize strongly enough how important this project is for our member entities and for the citizens and businesses of Eastern New 

Mexico. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to present our request at 

this important hearing. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ortega follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ORLANDO ORTEGA, EASTERN NEW MEXICO RURAL WATER

AUTHORITY, PORTALES, NM 

S. 2814

Eight cities and counties on the eastern side of New Mexico make up the Eastern 

NM Rural Water Authority (ENMRWA), including: Clovis, Curry County, Elida, 

Grady, Melrose, Portales, Roosevelt County and Texico. 

Presently, municipal and commercial water supply to the region is provided entirely by groundwater from the Ogallala formation of the High Plains Aquifer. 

Groundwater levels in the region are declining at an average rate of between 2.6 

and 4 ft/yr and water well production is dropping at an alarming rate. For example, 

in the Clovis area, hard evidence supports that in 2008 it takes 53 wells to provide 

9500 gallons per minute of production compared to 28 wells providing 10,500 gallons 

per minute in 2000. 

ENMRWA members are saddled with ongoing expensive and unsustainable development of existing groundwater resources while actively pursuing conservation and 

wastewater reuse projects. The member communities have collectively incurred costs 
23 

of approximately $22 million since 2005 in purchasing groundwater water rights, 

converting existing wells and completing new wells. 

The Eastern New Mexico Water Supply Project, Feasibility Report, May 1972 (rev. 

August by the Bureau of Reclamation stated: 

• ‘‘There is a definite need for the Eastern New Mexico Water Supply Project. . .’’ • ‘‘Although the investigations presented herein are in sufficient detail to establish engineering feasibility and economic justification of the project, additional 

investigations will be required prior to construction to insure that the final plan 

provides the most economical and desirable project in the interest of the state, 

the public, and the water users.’’ • ‘‘It is recommended that: 1. The Eastern New Mexico Water Supply Project be 

authorized to be constructed. . .’’ • The project envisioned at the time the 1972 Feasibility Report was prepared 

was larger and more complex in size and scope than that currently proposed. 

The NE New Mexico Regional Water Plan (June 2006) specifically identifies the 

ENMRWS as a priority strategy for long term sustainable water supply to the region. 

There is no viable or more cost effective alternative to a Ute pipeline project. 

Other than the surface water from Ute Reservoir available to New Mexico through 

the Canadian River Compact, there is not a sustainable water supply available to 

the citizens of eastern New Mexico. 

A brackish water supply project using aquifers located below the Ogallala is not 

viable economically nor is it sustainable. The only potential alternative for making 

the fresh groundwater supply sustainable is rapid, large-scale buyout and retirement of irrigated agriculture at massive cost and an undesirable (some say catastrophic) socio-economic impact. 

A sustainable supply of municipal and industrial water is critical to the socio-economic future of eastern New Mexico and is in the national interest. The area supports large scale food production (peanuts, cheese, milk and milk products), an expanding ethanol industry, a regional education complex (Eastern NM University), 

extensive railway commerce, a critical military presence at Cannon AFB, and regional large scale wind power development. 

The City of Clovis’ Comprehensive Plan (2007) identifies the development of a 

long-term sustainable water supply for the region as its #1 Infrastructure Goal, with 

five main components: 

• Implement the ENMRWS as quickly as possible. • Protect the quality of existing water supplies in Ute Reservoir and the Ogallala 

aquifer. • Implement an effective water conservation program. • Implement an effective wastewater reuse program. • Continue to identify, evaluate and plan for new long-range water sources. 

Stringent conservation and reuse programs, coupled with retirement of much agricultural pumping could prolong the present groundwater supply in the Ogallala, but 

probably for only a decade or two based on simulations made with several groundwater models. 

Failure to use the supply of New Mexico water available in Ute Reservoir for municipal and industrial purposes could lead to it being lost to NM users under provisions of the Canadian River Compact. 

A large body of work has been completed over the past two years by the 

ENMRWA consultant team in close coordination with Reclamation, the NM Environment Department, the Office of the State Engineer, the NM Interstate Stream 

Commission and member communities. Engineering work completed, in progress, or 

programmed for the near term includes: 

• Executive Summary 

• Planning Memoranda 

—ENMRWA Member Existing Water System Facilities 

—Fresh and Brackish Groundwater Resource Assessment 

—Conservation and Reuse Assessment 

—Member Needs for Project 

—Conceptual Cost Estimating Guide 

—Dynamic Simulation Hydraulic Modeling 

—Treatability Testing and Water Treatment Plant Alternatives Evaluation 

—Alternatives Evaluation Summary 

—Alternative Pipeline Route Analysis 

—Wind Energy Feasibility Study 
24 

—Environmental Issues 

—Benefit Cost Comparison 

—Reservoir Operations 

—Financial Analysis 

• Best Technical Alternative (BTA) Preliminary Engineering (10%) Technical 

Memoranda 

—Raw and Finished Water Pipelines Process/Mechanical 

—Raw and Finished Water Pump Stations Process/Mechanical 

—Water Treatment Plant Process/Mechanical 

—Structural Preliminary Engineering 

—Architectural 

—Civil/Site Preliminary Engineering 

—Building Mechanical/Plumbing 

—Electrical Preliminary Engineering 

—Instrumentation and Controls 

—Corrosion Protection 

—Cost Opinion 

• Best Technical Alternative Preliminary Engineering Drawings (10% design) 

• Surveying and Mapping 

—Survey Control Map 

—Land Ownership Maps 

—Utility Mapping 

—Geophysical Test Sites Map 

—Survey Report 

—Topographic, planimetric and digital orthophoto mapping 

• Geohazard and Geotechnical 

—Geologic Hazards Report 

—Schematic Level Geotechnical Investigation Report 

• Schematic Level Design (30%) 

—Pipeline Design Criteria Technical Memorandum (TM) 

—Pipeline Hydraulics TM 

—Draft and Final Pipeline Alignment Selection TM 

—Pipelines Plan and Profile Schematic Design 

—Pressure Control, Metering, and Member Interconnections 

—Updated Cost Opinion 

—Pipeline Standard Details 

—Pipeline Master Specifications 

—Pump Stations 

—Water Treatment Plant 

• Process Schematic Design TM’s 

• Engineering Disciplines Schematic Design TM’s 

• Cost Opinion 

• SCADA System 

Environmental Assessment (EA) activities began in mid-2007, with approval of a 

scope of work for the NEPA consultant. Scoping, the first step in the NEPA process, 

was initiated in September 2007. Three public meetings were held in Logan, Clovis 

and Portales from September 18 through 20, 2007. The public provided feedback on 

the project and asked questions about the process. Meetings were held with area 

experts in hydrology, cultural resources, and socioeconomic resources to elicit information. Agency meetings have been ongoing since September 2007. A meeting was 

held in Santa Fe with State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) representatives 

to commence early communication about the project. Coordination with New Mexico 

Department of Transportation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, and other agencies is ongoing. Reclamation is preparing to initiate contracts necessary to complete U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Coordination Act requirements. A report summarizing scoping activities is now available on the project 

website. 

Three ‘‘methods of analysis’’ technical memos for hydrology, cultural resources, 

and socioeconomics have been prepared and approved by Reclamation. Work is continuing on the first two chapters of the EA; Purpose and Need (Chapter 1) and Alternatives (Chapter 2). Compilation of current and project water supply, demand, 

conservation, and background information, as well as a summary of required project 
25 

permits, is included in Chapter 1. A meeting among Reclamation, NMISC, and 

ENMRWA to discuss the alternatives and options available to meet the purpose and 

need for the project is scheduled for April 28. In addition, information collection for 

resource studies is underway. Detailed field studies will commence in the spring, following finalization of the pipeline alignment. At this time, a public review for the 

EA is anticipated by September 2008, and an EA/FONSI is anticipated by February 

2009. 

The consultant team has proposed and members of the ENMRWA have adopted 

a conceptual Finance Plan for the project utilizing federal, state and local funding. 

Federal funding (75%) is assumed over a 10 year period with State contributions 

(15%) over six years. Local cash contributions (10%) will begin in FY 2009 at approximately $1,000,000 per year with debt issuance in FY 2015 and FY 2017. Water 

rates will be phased in and adjusted up to the initial water rate that will be sufficient to pay all operation, maintenance, renewal and replacement, and debt service 

costs of the system. The ENMRWA will need to issue bonds in order to provide the 

local portion of the non-Federal match. These bonds will be issued by the ENMRWA 

and are expected to be fixed rate utility revenue bonds payable from the net revenue 

of the water supply system. The bonds will be issued in two installments to be amortized over 25 years at an estimated interest rate of 5.25%. The draft finance plan 

proposes an initial pre-construction (FY 2009) wholesale water rate of $0.19 per 

1000 gallons of water reserved on the system. This will be followed by a construction 

period wholesale water rate of $0.28 per 1000 gallons reserved. An initial fully adjusted water rate of $2.05 per 1000 gallons is proposed with the system in operation. 

Most of the ENMRWA members have enacted one or more programs to begin to 

generate capital for the local cost share of the project such as water rate increases 

and gross receipts increments. 

The resources for the efforts described above have been provided by NM’s Congressional Delegation, the State of New Mexico through the Water Trust Board, and 

ENMRWA member agencies. At the end of the day, all of the recent study efforts 

and those going back over the past 44 years conclude that the Ute Pipeline project 

is the solution. 

The layout and capacity of the presently proposed BTA water supply project has 

been optimized in the latest engineering work by design consultants to be the most 

hydraulically efficient, cost effective project possible. The latest engineering work 

validates the work of at least three previous studies done by various agencies and 

consultants—each of which recommended a project with a configuration and route 

similar to that now proposed. 

The current cost estimate is $436 million (2006$) and the project is expected to 

incur an $8 to 9 million annual operation and maintenance (O&M) cost. O&M will 

be entirely borne by the users and these costs are included in the projected wholesale water rates. 

To date, the State of New Mexico has provided significant investment in the 

project having authorized or appropriated approximately $11 million to advance the 

planning and design of the project and to prepare associated environmental investigations and documentation (NEPA). This does not include the major investment 

the State made in the 1950’s and 1960’s (approximately $140 million in 2008$) to 

construct Ute Dam creating the water supply storage reservoir. Out of hundreds of 

projects submitting applications for funding through the NM Water Trust Board 

since its inception, the ENMRWS has consistently ranked in the very top tier of 

projects. 

The recent steep escalation in construction costs indicates that postponing the 

project may lead to greatly increased costs—escalation of construction costs is outpacing general economic inflation by 2-3% per year. 

Unlike many other water projects in New Mexico and the southwest, the proposed 

ENMRWS project has no known or anticipated significant environmental issues, no 

associated Native American settlement, and no water rights disputes. The water in 

Ute Reservoir is owned by the State and administered by the NM Interstate Stream 

Commission (ISC). The ISC and the members of the Ute Reservoir Water Commission, which includes the eight ENMRWA members, have a relatively straightforward water purchase agreement in effect. 

On behalf of the eight member entities of the ENMRWA and our citizens and 

businesses we sincerely appreciate your consideration of this critical project and for 

holding this hearing. Collectively, we have made major investments in this project 

in time, energy, resources and funds with the full recognition that the cost and consequences of inaction will be much greater down the road without it. 

Senator JOHNSON. Mr. Chavarria. 
26 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH MICHAEL CHAVARRIA, GOVERNOR, SANTA CLARA PUEBLO, CHAIRMAN, EIGHT NORTHERN INDIAN PUEBLOS COUNCIL, ESPANOLA, NM 

Mr. CHAVARRIA. Un Bi Agin Di, Un Sengi Thee’, with due and 

proper respect and good afternoon. Greetings to all of you, in my 

Tewa language. Good afternoon, Chairman Johnson, Ranking member Corker and members of the committee. Out of respect I come 

before you to testify in support of Senate bill 2805 titled Rio 

Grande Pueblos Irrigation Infrastructure Improvement Act. 

My name is Joseph Michael Chavarria. I am the Governor of 

Santa Clara Pueblo in the great State of New Mexico. We are located 25 miles northwest of the city of Santa Fe. 

I also serve as Chairman of the Eight Northern Indian Pueblos 

Council and also represent 1/19th of the all new Pueblos Council 

in New Mexico. Before I proceed, Chairman, may I say a few words 

in my Tewa language? 

[Prayer in Tewa language] 

In my prayer I have asked the Creator to look down upon us 

today to give us the strength and courage and wisdom that are 

needed to give each and every one of us the insight to examine how 

Senate bill 2805 will positively impact the Pueblos located along 

the Rio Grande River from Taos to Silva. 

Thank you for scheduling this hearing pertaining today to learn 

more about the critical irrigation infrastructure needs of the Indian 

Pueblos in New Mexico. I also want to thank our Senator, Jeff 

Bingaman, who of course, serves as Chairman of the Energy and 

Natural Resources Committee for introducing this important bill 

and to commend Senator Domenici and the rest of our delegation 

in New Mexico for the great support they have shown to the Pueblos over the years. 

As Chairman of the All Indian Pueblos Council the Honorable 

Joe A. Garcia wanted to be here today to testify in support of this 

bill for the All Indian Pueblos Council. However he was unable to 

do so. He asked me to convey his best wishes and concerns of the 

Pueblos for him. In my capacity as Chairman of the Eight Northern Indian Pueblos Council I will try to speak generally for all the 

Pueblos that could benefit from the enactment of this legislation. 

I hope I do justice for both the Northern and Southern Pueblos in 

New Mexico. 

This bill is vitally important to the health, welfare and cultural 

survival of the Pueblos in the Rio Grande River Drainage Basin. 

Since time immemorial all of the Pueblos located along the Rio 

Grande River and its tributaries have utilized irrigation structures 

to irrigate the many thousands of agricultural acres located within 

aboriginal and current land holdings. Agriculture has played a significant role by providing the sustenance needed to survive and 

continue to be an important part of our traditional and cultural activities within our communities. 

The cultural activities of the Pueblos are linked to the water and 

to the growing of certain crops that we use in our practices 

throughout the year. Today because of the importance of our traditional way of life, the Pueblo communities continue to farm our 

land even though our irrigation systems have fallen into disrepair 

due to age, deterioration and lack of adequate fundings to ensure 
27 

proper maintenance. But the many funding cuts experienced within 

the Department of the Interior through the Bureau of Indian Affairs the Pueblos have struggled to maintain our current irrigation 

infrastructure. 

At least since 1995 which is when Santa Clara Pueblo started 

consistently tracking the BIA line item with very few exceptions for 

a few pre-existing contractual obligations or mandates, zero dollars 

have been appropriated to the BIA irrigation program. To assist 

the Pueblos in maintaining our irrigation structures and extremely 

limited dollars have been allocated to New Mexico from BIA for irrigation engineering work. Currently many of the Pueblos have to 

utilize funds from other agencies or in other ways in order to address emergency repairs on the many hundreds of miles of degraded irrigation systems. This has resulted in a band aid approach at the best. 

This legislation introduced by Senator Bingaman will greatly 

benefit the Pueblos along the Rio Grande River. It will direct the 

Secretary of the Interior through the Bureau of Reclamation to assist Pueblo irrigation infrastructures within a set timeframe. Then 

authorizes the provisions of grants or cooperative agreements to 

the Pueblos to repair, rehabilitate or reconstruct existing, deteriorating irrigation infrastructure. Participation by any of the affected 

Pueblos is optional. 

For those Pueblos that want to participate this legislation provides a means for the Bureau of Reclamation to work with the 

Pueblos to look comprehensively at the problems, establish priorities for the actual projects within a set time line and provide the 

necessary authorization of funding so that appropriations can be 

sought to finally get the job done. The bill also provides a mechanism to allow for partnering with other Federal and State agencies 

to maximize limited dollars. While there is a cost share element to 

the bill, which is unfortunate, given the Department of the Interior’s trust responsibility I am pleased to see that the in kind contributions of the Pueblos can be recognized as cost share. There is 

an ability to waive that cost share requirement if any of the Pueblos have financial hardship. 

I have also submitted for the record a written testimony which 

includes additional and more detailed information regarding the 

need for this legislation, a document in the form of a resolution 

from the All Indian Pueblos Council asking for this legislation back 

in 2000. Also a survey of all the Pueblos conducted in 2000 identify 

the damaged irrigation systems and outlining infrastructure problems the Pueblos have experienced through the severe funding cuts 

to the BIA. Postponing resolution of this irrigation infrastructure 

problems will only result in additional deterioration which will only 

increase the cost of rehabilitation at a later date. 

Thank you, Senator Bingaman, who has been a champion of 

many Native American issues, for introducing this bill. Chairman 

Johnson and members of the committee, it is an honor to testify 

before you on this very important legislation which will benefit the 

Pueblos located along the Rio Grande River in New Mexico. We ask 

for your support. 
28 

Ku’ Da’ Wo’ Haa’. Thank you very much. I now stand for any 

questions the Chairman or the members may have at this time. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Chavarria follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH MICHAEL CHAVARRIA, GOVERNOR, SANTA

CLARA PUEBLO, CHAIRMAN, EIGHT NORTHERN INDIAN PUEBLOS COUNCIL, 

ESPANOLA, NM 

S. 2805

Un Bi Agin Di, Un Sengi Thee’: With due and proper respect and good afternoon. 

Greetings to all of you in my Tewa language. 

Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Corker, and distinguished members of the 

Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water and 

Power, I am pleased to testify in support of S. 2805, the Rio Grande Pueblos Irrigation Infrastructure Improvement Act. 

I would first like to thank Chairman Johnson for scheduling this hearing and 

thank the members of the Committee for attending today to learn more about the 

critical irrigation infrastructure needs of the Indian Pueblos in New Mexico. I also 

want to thank our Senator, Jeff Bingaman, who is, of course, the Chairman of the 

Energy and Natural Resources Committee, for introducing this important bill and 

to commend Senator Domenici and the rest of our delegation in New Mexico for the 

great support they have shown for the Pueblos over the years. 

The Honorable Joe A. Garcia, who serves not only as the President of the National Congress of American Indians but is also the Chairman of the All Indian 

Pueblo Council in New Mexico, wanted to testify about the importance of this bill 

to all of the Pueblos in the Rio Grande drainage basin but he was unable to do so 

today. He asked me to convey his best wishes and the concerns of the Pueblos for 

him. 

My name is Joseph Michael Chavarria. I am Governor of Santa Clara Pueblo. We 

are located approximately 25 miles to the northwest of the City of Santa Fe in the 

Land of Enchantment in the Great State of New Mexico. My people are blessed to 

live along the mainstem of the Rio Grande. Santa Clara Pueblo also receives its 

water from two tributaries that feed into the Rio Grande, the Santa Clara Creek 

and the Santa Cruz River. As Governor of Santa Clara, I represent 1/19th of the 

All Indian Pueblo Council in New Mexico. However, I am here today in my capacity 

as the Chairman of the Eight Northern Indian Pueblos Council. In 1961, the Eight 

Northern Indian Pueblos Council was established as a collaborative effort of the 

Pueblos of Ohkay Owingeh, Nambe, Picuris, Pojoaque, San Ildefonso, Santa Clara, 

Taos, and Tesuque. Since then, the Council’s monthly meetings have become an ongoing forum where Pueblo leaders from the Northern Pueblos discuss common 

issues. 

In my capacity as the Chairman for the Eight Northern Indian Pueblos Council, 

I will try to speak generally for all the Pueblos that can benefit from enactment of 

this legislation and I hope I do justice for both the Northern Pueblos and the Southern Pueblos. I must note there are some distinctive twists on the irrigation infrastructure issues for those six Southern Pueblos, Cochiti, Santo Domingo, San Felipe, 

Santa Ana, Sandia, and Isleta, that are part of the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy 

District and have to interact with the Conservancy District, which the legislation 

recognizes. However, the basic need for rehabilitation of our existing deteriorating 

irrigation infrastructure is similar for all of the Pueblos, from Taos Pueblo all the 

way south to Isleta Pueblo, and it is that issue I will address today. If I use examples from Santa Clara Pueblo to illustrate the problem, it is simply because I am 

the most familiar with my home, but similar problems exist throughout all of the 

Pueblos. This bill is vitally important to the health, welfare, and cultural survival 

of the Pueblos in the Rio Grande drainage basin. 

There are actually nineteen Indian Pueblos in New Mexico, but there are eighteen 

Pueblos which farm in the Rio Grande drainage basin and are therefore included 

in this bill. The drainage basin includes the Rio Grande and all of the tributaries 

that feed into the Rio Grande. Since time immemorial, all of the so-called Rio 

Grande Pueblos have utilized irrigation structures to irrigate the many thousands 

of agricultural acres within our aboriginal and current landholdings. Our ancestors 

at Santa Clara Pueblo first used farming techniques that others refer to as dry-land 

farming when our ancestors lived in the mesa tops before they moved closer to the 

rivers (in the 1300s, long before the Europeans arrived) but we have always had 

to grow certain crops that are necessary for our religious practices. The culture and 
29 

traditional way of life of all of the Pueblos is linked to the water and to the growing 

of certain crops to share within our community and that we use in various practices 

throughout the year. Agriculture has played a significant role by providing the sustenance needed to survive and continues to be an integral component of our traditional and cultural activities within our communities. Today, because of the importance of our traditional way of life, the Pueblo communities continue to farm our 

lands even though our irrigation systems have fallen into disrepair due to age, deterioration, and lack of adequate funds to ensure proper maintenance. We know there 

are over 900 miles of ditches belonging to the 18 Rio Grande Pueblos. 

The level of disrepair is shocking. At Santa Clara Pueblo, we have a pull gate to 

divert water off of our main irrigation conveyance system that is so deteriorated 

that we have to cover up the gate opening with sand bags so that the water is not 

wasted. It is not rare to find diversion structures and conveyance ditches that are 

unsafe or barely operable on all of the Pueblos. Some of the Pueblos have diversion 

structures made only of rock and brush or bermed-up materials that wash out during thunderstorms every single year. Those of us with concrete ditches are not in 

better shape, however. At many of the Pueblos, our concrete ditches are so deteriorated and structurally deficient that they no longer divert water efficiently or dependably. In fact, at Santa Clara Pueblo and for many of the Pueblos along the 

mainstem Rio Grande, the turnouts that we have to divert water onto our fields are 

now far above the actual water flow because of the way the river has incised over 

the years. Because of the poor state of our systems, we and other Pueblos often find 

that our fields that we’ve used for many generations now end up being either too 

high or too low so that some historic fields are too easily flooded and others cannot 

get water at all. 

This is very upsetting to the Pueblos on many fronts. At many Pueblos, we simply 

cannot get the water conveyed onto those historic fields reliably or efficiently anymore because of the sad state of our irrigation system, not because we don’t need 

or want to use those fields. It is also upsetting to us when it takes too much water 

to get the job done. Water supplies are very limited in New Mexico. What is a 

‘‘creek’’ here in Washington D.C. would be a mighty river in New Mexico. Pueblo 

people understand the importance of water conservation. You will not see lush green 

lawns at the homes of Pueblo people. Water is precious to the Pueblos and, culturally, as native people, we hold water to the highest degree of reverence. It is holy 

to us. 

The poor condition of the Pueblo irrigation facilities is not the result of lack of 

care or interest on the part of the Pueblo users. Pueblo people have traditional 

cleaning of their ditches every year. This is a very important activity for the Pueblos. The deterioration of our infrastructure has resulted from a lack of adequate 

funding through the Bureau of Indian Affairs to ensure adequate irrigation operation and maintenance. 

The Pueblos actually brought this up as a key issue with Secretary Bruce Babbitt 

during a national consultation with tribes regarding Indian water rights in the late 

1990s. In 1998, Secretary Babbitt directed that an assessment be made of the status 

of those irrigation water systems along the Rio Grande and its tributaries that are 

used by eighteen of the Indian Pueblos in New Mexico. That assessment was completed by the Commissioner of Reclamation and the Assistant Secretary for Indian 

Affairs in 2000 and confirms the problems I’ve described here. 

Has BIA funding improved since that study was issued in 2000? No, it has actually gotten worse. Except for situations involving pre-existing contractual obligations 

or existing Congressional mandates, there has been no Bureau of Indian Affairs dollars for irrigation operation and maintenance at all since 2000. Occasionally, BIA 

could reprogram a few dollars here and there but it has been done in a shoestring 

approach, unreliable and unknown from year to year, which does not allow for any 

real planning or methodical rehabilitation work. The Pueblos have done what we 

could with Tribal funds to deal with emergencies and to search out limited funds 

from other agencies but that has resulted in a band-aid approach at best. 

Again, I can offer an example from Santa Clara Pueblo to illustrate the point. Our 

Pueblo is one of the few self-governance compacting Tribes in New Mexico and we 

remain one of the few self-governance Tribes in the nation. Self-governance means 

we assume responsibility for carrying out various programs instead of the BIA, such 

as irrigation, but based only upon our share of BIA funding allocated to assist the 

Tribes in our area. As a self-governance compacting Tribe, Santa Clara Pueblo does 

not have access to more resources than do other Tribes or Pueblos; we only take 

responsibility for our share of the funding that is appropriated to the BIA. Thus, 

we have actually searched the BIA budget for funding for our irrigation system for 

a long time, but our search has largely produced no results. 
30 

* Resolution and document entitled ‘‘Pueblo Irrigation Facilities Rehabilitation Report’’ have 

been retained in subcommittee files. 

In fact, BIA funding for irrigation systems has always been minimal and is only 

getting worse over time. The Irrigation Maintenance line item in the BIA budget 

for our region and our agency has been zero dollars ($0) every year since we first 

looked at this budget item in 1995 and remains zero dollars continuing through 

today. So, in an attempt to do emergency repairs for our irrigation system, Santa 

Clara Pueblo has taken responsibility since 2002 for our share of the BIA’s Irrigation Engineering/Supervision program line item. However, that irrigation line item 

is also dwindling over time. 2002 marked our high point when we received approximately $9,600 of year-end money. After that, for four years, from 2003 to 2006, we 

received approximately $8,000 per year through our self-governance compacting 

process but then the funds fell to an all-time low of just $547 in 2007. In 2008, BIA 

operation and maintenance funding for irrigation was again zero dollars so our portion was zero also, and our portion of the BIA’s Irrigation/Engineering program line 

item rose to the paltry sum of $858. There are 45 miles of ditches within Santa 

Clara Pueblo. Think about that: $858 to address long-standing rehabilitation needs 

for 45 miles of ditches within my Pueblo. We have done what we can to reallocate 

funding within our compact process to allow for emergency repairs and maintenance 

of our irrigation system but you can imagine just how little we can do with the kind 

of funding that has been available. 

That is why S. 2805 is so important to the Rio Grande Pueblos. It will direct the 

Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau of Reclamation, to work with the 18 

Pueblos to assess Pueblo irrigation infrastructure within a set timeline and then authorizes the provision of grants or cooperative agreements to the Pueblos to repair, 

rehabilitate, or reconstruct existing deteriorated irrigation infrastructure. Participation by any of the affected Pueblos is optional. For those Pueblos that want to participate, this legislation provides a means for the Bureau of Reclamation to work 

with the Pueblos to look comprehensively at the problems, establish priorities for 

actual projects within a set timeline, and provide the necessary authorization of 

funding (a total of $10 million dollars, with part allocated to the study and the rest 

allocated to actual projects) so that appropriations can be sought to finally get the 

job done. It also provides mechanisms to allow for partnering with other federal or 

state agencies to maximize limited dollars. While there is a cost-share element to 

the bill, which is unfortunate given the Department of Interior’s trust responsibility, 

I am pleased to see that in-kind services of the Pueblos can be recognized as costshare and there is an ability to waive the cost-share requirement if any of the Pueblos has financial hardship. We hope the assessment portion of this process will not 

take too long since some initial work was already done for the 2000 report but we 

are encouraged by the fact that bill specifies timelines for completion. This work is 

long overdue. 

There are many benefits that can be achieved by enacting this bill into law, including improved safety, increased water use efficiency and agricultural productivity 

as well as the preservation of the culture for the Pueblos and the opportunity for 

our community to continue an important way of life which we have maintained for 

many generations. The Pueblos understand that we have many neighbors now on 

the river and that all have to do their part for better water management. Neglecting 

this problem or postponing the issues for another day will only result in further deterioration, increasing the cost of rehabilitation at a later date. 

We thank Senator Bingaman for introducing this bill. This is an issue that has 

long been supported by the All Indian Pueblo Council. I am including with this testimony a copy of a resolution* of the All Indian Pueblo Council from the year 2000 

in which the All Indian Pueblo Council urged our Congressional delegation to support the authorization and funding of a rehabilitation program to repair the irrigation systems of the Pueblos of New Mexico. Chairman and members of the Committee, it is an honor to testify before you on this important legislation which will 

benefit the Pueblos located along the Rio Grande and its tributaries in New Mexico. 

Ku’ Da’ Wo’ Haa’: Thank you very much. We ask for your support for this important legislation. 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Ms. Rudolph. 
31 

STATEMENT OF MARTHA RUDOLPH, DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS, COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC 

HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT, DENVER, CO 

Ms. RUDOLPH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

subcommittee. My name is Martha Rudolph. I am the Director of 

Environmental Programs for the Colorado Department of Public 

Health and Environment. I would like to thank you today for the 

opportunity to present Colorado’s views on S. 2680, the Leadville 

Mine Drainage Tunnel Environmental Improvement Act of 2008. 

I am here today to express Colorado’s firm support for this bill. 

This bill provides the clear authority and direction to the Secretary 

of the Interior and through the Bureau of Reclamation to take action necessary to reduce the current level of the mine pool associated with the Leadville mine drainage tunnel. But more importantly to maintain the mine pool at a safe water level and to operate and maintain the tunnel in a manner to protect the public 

health and the environment and also to participate in the implementation of the California Gulch Superfund site selected remedy. 

As you heard before this tunnel was constructed in the late 

1940s and early 1950s as part of the war effort to support mining 

in support of the war effort. The tunnel was used to drain water 

from the mine workings in the Leadville Mining District. In 1959, 

the Bureau of Reclamation acquired ownership of this tunnel, hoping to acquire water rights associated with the tunnel. With that 

acquisition, we believe, the Bureau of Reclamation also took over 

the requirements to maintain that tunnel 

In 1979, the Bureau of Reclamation began treatment of the discharge at the mouth of the tunnel pursuant to requirements under 

the Clean Water Act, largely after a suit was brought by the Sierra 

Club. The tunnel unfortunately has fallen into disrepair, largely, 

we believe, to poor maintenance. Many collapses began in the 

1960s and have continued through today. 

The most recent collapse has resulted in a significant increase in 

the mine pool that feeds into the tunnel, the highest ever seen raising ground water levels to historic proportions and resulting in 

many new seeps and springs in the California Gulch area. Because 

of this elevated mine pool, EPA wrote to the Bureau of Reclamation 

last fall expressing its concerns that the tunnel would experience 

a catastrophic blow out. 

The Lake County Commissioners declared a state of emergency 

and Governor Ritter sent letters to both President Bush and Secretary Kempthorne urging them to take action to treat the water 

behind the collapse to reduce this mine pool. Action is now being 

taken to reduce this mine pool and we are grateful for that. But 

we are very disappointed that the Administration is not supporting 

this bill because we think it is necessary to preserve and to maintain and to enhance this tunnel. 

Colorado also supports the Bureau’s participation in the remedy 

for the California Gulch Superfund site. The upper reaches of the 

tunnel are under several waste piles that are part of the Superfund 

site that contaminate surface water runoff, particularly in the 

spring. Both EPA and Colorado have identified as the remedy to 

deal with this contaminated surface runoff the pumping of this 

water into the Leadville mine drainage tunnel through a mine 
32 

shaft and to treat this water at the facility owned and operated by 

the Bureau of Reclamation. 

S. 2680 will accomplish several things that are very important to 

address issues related to the Leadville mine drainage tunnel. It 

will require the Bureau of Reclamation to take immediate action to 

reduce the water level in the mine pool associated with this tunnel. 

But again, more importantly, to maintain the water level at a safe 

level in the future and to operate and maintain the tunnel in a 

manner to protect public health and the environment, a responsibility that Colorado believes the Bureau of Reclamation already 

has. 

It will require the Bureau of Reclamation to participate in the 

remedy for the California Gulch OU 6. It will require the Bureau 

of Reclamation to study the tunnel to determine whether and how 

any blockages in the tunnel has or are affecting the water quality 

and the aquatic life in the Arkansas River watershed. It will, importantly, provide the necessary funding to accomplish these goals. 

We believe this bill addresses an important issue to the people 

of Colorado. Its passage is critical to the long term protection of the 

local residents in Lake County and to the long term protection of 

the Arkansas River ecosystem. Thank you for the opportunity to 

testify today. I would be happy to answer any questions you may 

have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Rudolph follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARTHA RUDOLPH, DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS, COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT, DENVER, 

CO 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I would like to thank you today 

for the opportunity to present Colorado’s views on S. 2680, the Leadville Mine 

Drainage Tunnel Environmental Improvement Act of 2008. I am here today to express Colorado’s support for this bill. This bill provides the clear authority and direction to the Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau of Reclamation to take 

action necessary to reduce the current level of the mine pool associated with the 

Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel (LMDT), to maintain the mine pool at a safe water 

level, and to participate in the implementation of the California Gulch Superfund 

Site selected remedy. We believe this bill addresses an important issue to the people 

of Colorado, and its passage is critical to the long-term protection of local residents 

in Lake County and to the long-term protection of the Arkansas River ecosystem. 

To understand the significance of this bill to the people of Colorado, some background information is required. The LMDT is located in Lake County, just outside 

the City of Leadville. Located at an elevation of 10,152 feet, Leadville is the highest 

incorporated city in the United States. It is currently home to 3000 people. 

Leadville’s history centers around mining. So much so that, during World War II, 

miners in Leadville were given exemptions from the draft in order to support the 

war effort by producing strategic metals. 

To facilitate the mining of these strategic metals, the U.S. Bureau of Mines began 

construction of the LMDT in 1943 to provide continuous drainage of the mines in 

the Leadville Mining District. The LMDT was completed in 1952 to a length of approximately 12,000 feet. In 1959 the Bureau of Mines declared the LMDT excess 

real property, and the Bureau of Reclamation acquired ownership of the LMDT to 

augment its potential sources of water supply for the Fryingpan-Arkansas project. 

Following the passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972, the EPA issued the first National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for the LMDT in 

1975. After several years of attempting to meet the limitations in this permit, the 

Bureau of Reclamation eventually constructed a water treatment plant at the mouth 

of the LMDT and began to treat the drainage in 1979. 

In the early 1980s, another mine drainage tunnel, the Yak Tunnel, had what was 

called a ‘‘surge event’’ discharging enough tainted water to turn the Arkansas River 

red for 20 miles. This caught the attention of the EPA’s Superfund Program, and 

in 1983 the site was added to the National Priorities List. The listed elements of 
33 

the Superfund site were the Yak Tunnel, mine waste piles in California Gulch and 

its tributaries, the waters in California Gulch that empty into the Arkansas River, 

and 11 miles of the Arkansas River directly below the confluence with California 

Gulch. The EPA specifically excluded the Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel from the 

Superfund site based on the Bureau of Reclamation’s then existing responsibilities 

to treat the LMDT discharge under the Clean Water Act. 

Some confusion about whether the LMDT is part of the Superfund site has arisen 

because one of the selected remedies for an area overlying the LMDT sought the 

use of the LMDT and would require the Bureau of Reclamation to treat contaminated surface water from the Stray Horse Gulch area of the Superfund site. The 

Stray Horse Gulch area of the site (called Operable Unit 6) has many mine waste 

piles contributing contaminated surface runoff to California Gulch. The EPA and 

Colorado identified different remedies to handle this surface runoff, and ultimately 

selected the remedy that would collect contaminated water from the area and direct 

it down a mine shaft connected to the LMDT. In order to implement this remedy, 

the Bureau of Reclamation’s cooperation was needed to treat this contaminated 

water at its existing plant. 

In an effort to minimize the additional impact on the Bureau of Reclamation 

caused by treating this additional contaminated surface water, and for other practical considerations, EPA incorporated the following design aspects into the remedy: 

• Construction of a bulkhead in the LMDT to isolate the contaminated mine 

water naturally draining into the LMDT from clean alluvial groundwater; • Installation of wells behind the bulkhead and construction of a pipeline to convey the contaminated water to the Bureau of Reclamation’s treatment plant; • Backfilling the LMDT’s lower portions to prevent clean ground water from entering and flowing to the treatment plant, and to protect against collapse and 

failure (since the Bureau of Reclamation currently treats water that is significantly diluted by clean groundwater, this would decrease the volume of water 

to be treated and therefore decrease the Bureau of Reclamation’s overall treatment costs); and, • Routing contaminated surface water from the Stray Horse Gulch area during 

spring runoff into the mine workings connected to the LMDT. 

Ultimately this remedy would treat contaminated mine pool water including 

spring run-off (thereby protecting the Arkansas River), reduce the amount of water 

treated by the Bureau of Reclamation (thereby decreasing its operating costs), and 

provide protection against structural failure of the LMDT. 

Unfortunately, despite many attempts by Colorado and EPA to convince the Bureau of Reclamation to participate in this proposed remedy for Operable Unit 6, the 

Bureau contends that it lacks the statutory authority or mandate to treat this additional contaminated surface water from the Stray Horse Gulch area. This longstanding position of the Bureau of Reclamation has stymied Colorado’s and EPA’s 

efforts to implement the selected remedy for Operable Unit 6. S. 2680 is needed to 

provide the Bureau of Reclamation with the clear authority, mandate and funding 

to take responsibility for the LMDT, and to participate in the selected remedy for 

Operable Unit 6. 

This Congressional action is more critical now than ever before. Since the Bureau 

of Reclamation assumed ownership of the LMDT in 1959, there have been many 

concerns regarding tunnel safety and potential environmental threats. Due to a lack 

of maintenance, the condition of the LMDT has deteriorated over time. There have 

been many collapses within the LMDT beginning in the 1960’s. Most recently, the 

mine pool that feeds into the LMDT has increased to a level never before seen, resulting in many new seeps and springs in the area, likely due to a recent collapse 

within the LMDT. In November, 2007 the EPA sent a letter expressing its concerns 

regarding the potential for a catastrophic blowout of the LMDT to the Bureau of 

Reclamation, and on February 13, 2008 the Lake County Commissioners declared 

a state of emergency. Colorado Governor Bill Ritter sent a letter to President Bush 

asking him to request Secretary Kempthorne to direct the Bureau of Reclamation 

to treat the water accumulating behind the blockage in the LMDT at its water 

treatment plant to help reduce the build up of water draining into the LMDT. Governor Ritter made the same request directly to Secretary Kempthorne. 

Fortunately, to address the immediate concerns of the high levels of the mine pool 

and the pressure within the LMDT, EPA has begun pumping water from the Gaw 

shaft located near the LMDT, and EPA is poised to commence drilling directly into 

the LMDT to pump water from the upper reaches of the LMDT and to transfer the 

water through a pipeline to the Bureau of Reclamation’s treatment facility where 

the Bureau has agreed to treat this water before it is discharged into the Arkansas. 

While this action responds to the immediate concerns of a LMDT blowout, it will 
34 

not address the long-term need for LMDT maintenance and a commitment to reduce 

the mine pool and to treat contaminated mine and surface water discharging from 

the LMDT in perpetuity. S. 2680 would provide the Bureau of Reclamation with the 

necessary funding and the requisite statutory authority to make that long-term commitment. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before this Subcommittee today. I would 

be happy to answer any questions you might have. 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Mr. Davies. 

STATEMENT OF MILTON G. DAVIES, DIRECTOR, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, FALLBROOK PUBLIC UTILITIES DISTRICT, 

FALLBROOK, CA 

Mr. DAVIES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to come here and summarize 

the benefits of H.R. 29 today. One of the two primary objectives of 

the project presented to you today is the resolution of 80 years of 

water rights disputes and litigation on the Santa Margarita River. 

Over 60 years of which have been with the Federal Government. 

Second this project will provide an environmentally sound and financially feasible water resource development for where it is most 

needed in coastal Southern California. The availability of supplemental water source from the Santa Margarita River has become 

increasingly important to the district’s capability to meet all the 

water demands at a reasonable price. A long term safe yield for 

this project will provide 100 percent of Camp Pendleton’s water 

supply and 20 to 40 percent of the district’s total needs. 

1954 Public Law 83547, the Santa Margarita Project Act authorized the Bureau to construct a dam on the Santa Margarita River 

at a cost of $22 million. That’s approximately 330 million in today’s 

dollars. With a yield of 14 to 16,000 acre fee the Conjunctive Use 

Project that this bill authorizes replaces that project and produces 

the same amount or possibly a little bit more water at a lower cost. 

The four major components of this project are, one, enhance to recharge system and enhance ground water recovery system, advance 

water treatment facilities and finally distribution facilities that 

have been enhanced. 

We have two independent ground water models that predict an 

average annual project yield of 16,000 acre feet a year. The current 

Camp Pendleton demand and the use of the ground water for the 

base is less than 8,000 acre feet of water per year. So the project 

results in 8,000 acre feet of new water for Southern California reducing the demand on Northern California water and the Colorado 

River. 

The current project cost is estimated between $120 and $150 million—which gives us a higher yield than the 1954 project. Camp 

Pendleton’s share of the project cost would primarily come from already approved MILCON funds for the facilities that will be needed 

by Camp Pendleton regardless of whether the Conjunctive Use 

Project proceeds. 

These facilities, if used by the Conjunctive Use Project will provide a credit against the total project cost in Camp Pendleton’s 

favor. I believe I heard Commissioner Johnson say that his only objection to this project was the fact that the fiscal element. Of the 
35 

six bills before you today, I believe H.R. 29 is the only one that will 

repay itself over the term of the project. 

The benefits of this is it will finally settle the Federal case of 

1950 case of the U.S. vs. Fallbrook. Some of the environmental benefits that we hope to achieve with this is. It will preserve the entire 

riparian length of the Santa Margarita River from the city of 

Temecula to the Pacific Ocean and public ownership. 

No. 2, it will provide 1,400 hundred acres of mitigation lands for 

this and future military construction projects on Camp Pendleton. 

Third, it will provide operating the ground water basins on Camp 

Pendleton to preserve critical habitat for the largest population of 

Lease Bell’s Vireos in the United States. 

No. 4, permitting periodic high flows of the Santa Margarita 

River to flow unimpeded across Camp Pendleton will scour the 

lower river valley opening and flushing the estuary and providing 

nourishing sands to the beaches of Oceanside and Camp Pendleton. 

Over time the project will improve the ground water quality on 

Camp Pendleton, assist in removing the estuary from the listing of 

impaired waters and preserve the endangered nesting habitat of 

the Least Tern on the estuary bar. 

Finally the Fallbrook portion of the Santa Margarita River including the Sandia and Rainbow Creek tributaries will provide an 

extensive network of hiking and riding trails as well as educational 

and open space benefits. 

In summary, the need for this project, the project facilities will 

provide supplemental local water sources. This has become particularly important due to the dwindling imported water supplies in 

Southern California. In addition the economics and metrics of this 

project are as good or better than future imported water costs. 

I am confident that the current effort underway by the Bureau 

of Reclamation to update the economic and environmental aspects 

of the feasibility study will show the cost benefit ratio to be extremely positive and that the extra study time that has been required to achieve a superior solution will prove to be very beneficial 

to all the stakeholders. Gentlemen, we’ve had this before the House 

on three separate Congresses. It has passed all three times without 

any controversy, this bill. 

We need this now. As mentioned by Commissioner Johnson, the 

State is holding our permits for this, the Bureau is. I think they 

want to see some positive movement on this so we don’t lose those 

permits. Thank you very much for letting me testify today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Davies follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MILTON G. DAVIES, DIRECTOR, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, 

FALLBROOK PUBLIC UTILITIES DISTRICT, FALLBROOK, CA 

H.R. 29

Mr. Chairman, I am Milton Davies, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the 

Fallbrook Public Utility District (FPUD). The people of Fallbrook appreciate this opportunity to discuss the need for the Santa Margarita River Conjunctive Use 

Project. It appears there really may be a light at the end of the tunnel for this 

project after 80 years of water rights litigation, studies, hearings, re-restudies and 

much frustration. The spirit of cooperation between the Bureau of Reclamation, the 

Navy Department, local Marine Corps officials and the District has never been better. The time to move forward on this project is not only ripe, but has reached the 
36 

* Exhibits have been retained in subcommittee files. 

point of absolute necessity. Exhibit A* is a vicinity map showing the general location of this project. Exhibit B depicts the proposed Conjunctive Use Project. 

Project History 

This process started in 1930 when the state of California issued the first water 

appropriation permit on the Santa Margarita River to the Fallbrook Irrigation District (later to become FPUD) for a dam on the River. 

In 1926, the Vail Ranch, a large land grant occupying almost the whole Temecula 

Valley was sued by the Rancho Santa Margarita (later to become Camp Pendleton), 

over water rights to the Santa Margarita River. The Fallbrook Irrigation District 

was unsuccessful in trying to resolve the dispute amicably. This litigation was settled in 1940 with a stipulated judgment dividing the water resources between the 

litigants but setting the stage for the present, unresolved dispute since it failed to 

account for the 1930 appropriative permit issued to Fallbrook. (include 2.5 cfs direct 

diversion at the sump) 

Since 1941 numerous attempts have been made to develop a ‘‘physical solution’’ 

to the water rights issues between Camp Pendleton and FPUD. From the 1940’s 

through the 1980’s these included a 2 dam project and a 1 dam project on the river. 

There were many studies, starts and stops during those 4 decades but no project 

was completed. High costs, and environmental concerns were the main deterrents 

to completing any dam project. 

In 1990, a two-party agreement was signed by FPUD and Camp Pendleton which 

recognized that if upstream dischargers put recycled water into the Santa Margarita 

River, then these two parties would benefit from the water supply out of those discharges and that they would enter into a joint project to operate the groundwater 

basin and treatment facilities. This was the birth of the Conjunctive Use Project. 

At that point it was necessary to pursue feasibility and environmental work. The 

Conjunctive Use Study was prepared in 1994 as a follow-up to the two-party agreement. This study was the basis for the project that is being proposed today. 

One of the two primary objectives of the project presented to you today is the resolution of eighty years of water rights disputes and litigation on the Santa Margarita 

River, over 60 years of which involve the federal government. Secondly, this project 

will provide for an environmentally sound, financially feasible, water resource development where it is most needed, in coastal Southern California. 

The availability of a supplemental local water source from the Santa Margarita 

River has become increasingly important to the District’s capability to meet all 

water demands at a reasonable price. The long-term safe yield from this project will 

provide 100% of the needs of Camp Pendleton and 20 to 40% of the District’s total 

needs. 

Project Description 

The proposed Santa Margarita Conjunctive Use Project provides for enhanced recharge and recovery through aggressive groundwater management strategies on 

Camp Pendleton to provide a water supply for both Camp Pendleton and Fallbrook 

to resolve a long-standing water rights dispute between the United States and 

Fallbrook. In 1954, P.L. 83-547, the Santa Margarita Project Act, authorized the Bureau of Reclamation to construct a dam on the Santa Margarita River at a cost of 

$22 million (approximately $333 million in 2008 $) with a yield of 14-16,000 acrefeet. The Conjunctive Use Project that this bill authorizes replaces that project and 

produces the same amount or possibly more water at a lower cost. 

The project, as proposed, is financially feasible, environmentally beneficial and 

will result in the conservation and preservation of the entire Santa Margarita River 

riparian zone from Temecula to the Pacific Ocean, while at the same time providing 

16,000 acre-feet per year (AF/yr) of vitally needed local supply in coastal Southern 

California. 

Project Facilities 

The project facilities include: 

• Enhanced Recharge.—Groundwater recharge is enhanced by the construction of 

a new collapsible diversion weir and 46 acres of new recharge ponds. The enhanced recharge potential is 14,000 AF/yr in addition to the naturally occurring 

recharge. The collapsible weir will divert low flows and permit flood flows to 

pass, flushing the lower river and estuary as well as providing beach sand replenishment. 
37 

• Enhanced Groundwater Recovery.—Groundwater recovery is enhanced by the 

construction of up to five new wells, predictive monitoring, monitoring, and a 

collection system to provide a total of 18,000 AF/yr of extraction capability. 

• Advanced Water Treatment.—Treatment will be provided to exceed all requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act. The construction of membrane filtration, 

disinfection, and brine disposal facilities at the Rattlesnake Canyon site on 

Camp Pendleton will allow treatment of 20 million gallons per day. 

• Distribution Facilities.—Project water will be distributed to the existing Camp 

Pendleton and Fallbrook distribution systems through construction of two pump 

stations and approximately nine miles of transmission pipeline. This pipeline 

will also provide Camp Pendleton with a critically needed connection to San 

Diego County Water Authority’s imported water delivery system in case of 

emergency, thus ensuring uninterrupted water service at one of our country’s 

most important military establishments. 

Project Yield 

Two independent groundwater models predict an average annual project yield of 

16,000 acre-feet (AF/yr). The current Camp Pendleton demand and use of the 

groundwater system is less than 8,000 AF/yr so the project results in 8,000 AF/yr 

of new water, reducing demand on diversions from imported supplies from Northern 

California and the Colorado River. 

Project Cost 

The current project cost estimate is $120-$150 million resulting in a higher 

project yield than the 1954 project, then estimated at $22 million, an amount that 

equates to approximately $333 million today. Camp Pendleton’s share of the project 

cost will primarily come from already approved MILCON funds for facilities that 

will be needed by Camp Pendleton regardless of whether the Conjunctive Use 

Project proceeds. These facilities, if used by the Conjunctive Use Project will provide 

a credit against the total project cost in Camp Pendleton’s favor. 

Current Project Status 

The Conjunctive Use Project is in the forth year of management by the Bureau 

of Reclamation’s Southern California office in Temecula, California (located in the 

upper Santa Margarita River basin). Project funding currently comes from several 

Federal sources, including Camp Pendleton, Military Construction, and Reclamation 

Planning , as well as local funds contributed by FPUD. At the direction of Congress, 

the Bureau is conducting this feasibility analysis. 

The major current activity is the Bureau’s in-house feasibility assessment as well 

as management of the EIS/EIR outside contract. This work involves the Bureau’s 

project team completing the preliminary design of the necessary facilities and alternatives in order to complete a jointly managed EIR/EIS/FA. The Bureau and Camp 

Pendleton are joint Federal leads and FPUD is the state lead agency on the environmental documentation. An agreement has been reached to codify this effort to 

produce an environmental ROD/NOD and completion of the Feasibility Assessment. 

Reclamation staff is conducting these planning operations and administering the 

EIR/EIS contract by outside contract funded by Camp Pendleton and FPUD. This 

effort is overseen and directed by an Executive Management Team comprised of 

Reclamation, Camp Pendleton, and FPUD. 

Project Benefits 

The Santa Margarita Project is somewhat unique among water resources projects 

in that the benefits are vast and project liabilities are almost non-existent. The 

project has failed to proceed over the preceding eighty years because of institutional, 

political, and legal disagreements among and between the basin’s stakeholders. At 

this point, these issues are largely resolved and the success of H.R. 29 will provide 

for the final settlement of the case of U.S. v. Fallbrook, . In identifying project benefits, this settlement should not be overlooked—it is the action from which all other 

project-related benefits flow. 

Other benefits include: 

• Water Supply.—The project develops a new supply of 8,000 AF/yr from local resources in San Diego at a cost that is competitive with today’s cost for imported 

water. San Diego, like much of coastal Southern California, is largely dependent 

upon water imported great distances from the Colorado River and Northern 

California. The recent drought in the Colorado River Upper Basin and the 

emergence of the Quantification Settlement Agreement, along with the recent 

cutback in Delta deliveries due to endangered species protection, have demonstrated the limits and risks attendant to this imported supply. 
38 

In addition to the new component of supply, the total project yield of 16,000 AF/ 

yr will receive advanced water treatment prior to distribution. Water quality in 

the Camp Pendleton distribution system will be dramatically improved and the 

operational costs related to water hardness will be eliminated. 

• Project Cost.—The current preliminary studies indicate this new supply can be 

developed for roughly one-third to one-half the cost of the project Congress authorized in 1954 (P.L. 547, Chapter 593) for the same project yield, making it 

one of the most cost-effective new water supply projects that you will be asked 

to consider. 

• Environmental Benefits.—The proposed project has no opposition from environmental interests and is generally supported by them because, aside from localized, construction-related impacts, the project is environmentally beneficial. 

These benefits include: 

1. Preserving the entire riparian length of the Santa Margarita River from 

Temecula to the ocean in public ownership. 

2. Providing 1400 acres of mitigation lands for this and future military construction projects on Camp Pendleton. 

3. Operating the groundwater basins on Camp Pendleton to preserve critical 

habitat for the largest population of Least Bell’s Vireos in the United States. 

4. Permitting periodic high storm flows of the Santa Margarita River to flow 

unimpeded across Camp Pendleton, scouring the lower river valley, opening and 

flushing the estuary, and nourishing the beaches. 

5. Over time, the project will improve groundwater quality on Camp Pendleton, assist in removing the estuary from the listing of impaired waters, and 

preserve the endangered nesting habitat for the Least Tern on the estuary bar. 

6. The Fallbrook portion of the Santa Margarita River, including the Sandia 

and Rainbow Creek tributaries, will provide an extensive network of hiking and 

riding trails, as well as education and open-space benefits. 

In summary, the need for the Project facilities to provide a supplemental local 

water source has become particularly important due to dwindling imported water 

supplies. In addition, the economics of the Project are as good, or better, than future 

imported water costs. 

I am confident that the current effort underway by the Bureau of Reclamation to 

update the economic and environmental aspects of the feasibility study will show 

the benefit-cost ratio to be extremely positive and that the extra study time that 

has been required to achieve a superior solution will prove to be very beneficial to 

the stakeholders. 

I urge your speedy favorable action on HR 29 so that final planning and design 

can begin on this project that is so vital to the well being of our District and the 

Marine Corps. 

Thank you very much for this opportunity to appear before you today and offer 

this testimony in support of H.R. 29. 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you. I yield to the chairman of the full 

committee. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me 

just ask, Mayor Ortega a few questions and then Governor 

Chavarria also. Mayor Ortega, let me just give my impression. 

Maybe you could just comment on it. 

My impression is that the construction of this pipeline project is 

really, absolutely essential to the communities that are going to 

benefit from it. That you have a depleting, vanishing water supply 

in Eastern New Mexico which is not getting any better. Unless this 

is done, unless we get on with this project, there really is no alternative way to provide water for those communities. Am I right 

about that? 

Mr. ORTEGA. Mr. Chairman, Senator Bingaman, you’re absolutely right. Our situation is permanent depletion. Recharge is 

very, very minimal. We have looked at it and recharge is about half 

an inch per year in the Ogalalah, in that area. We’re depleting it 

about two to four feet per year on average. 
39 

The CHAIRMAN. In this legislation that we’ve introduced, Senator 

Domenici and I have introduced, we call for a 75 percent Federal 

share and 25 percent State and local cost share. Then we call for 

the State and local government to cover 100 percent of the operation and maintenance from then on. If we’re able to enact legislation with these provisions in tact are the participating communities 

going to be able to cover their share of this cost? 

Mr. ORTEGA. Mr. Chairman, Senator Bingaman, we’ve been 

working, each community has been working with financial consultants that know and understand our communities finances. With 

that we’ve already put measures in place that have started to generate funds that will go toward our portion. We feel very confident 

that our communities can afford this project. 

The CHAIRMAN. Now am I also right that if the Federal Government does not agree in this project as they have in many other 

Western rural water projects to go ahead and be a sizable and 

takeover a responsibility for a sizable portion of this project then 

what would be the result there if—is the project just a non-viable? 

Is it unachievable if the Federal Government backs away from any 

responsibility here? 

Mr. ORTEGA. Mr. Chairman, Senator Bingaman, I tell you that 

without a sustainable supply of water, we would suffer tremendously. Not only economically, but we would begin to lose population. We have already experienced some events where industry 

has looked in our area of the State for coming in and doing business with us, but we haven’t been able to meet their water demands or water requests. As time goes on, you know, our future 

looks very bleak. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me just ask on one other question. I think 

the Bureau of Reclamation testimony is that they think more studies are needed. What’s your perspective, as Mayor of Portales? 

I noticed that the first study by the Bureau of Reclamation was 

done, completed in 1966. That was the first year I was in law 

school. I wondered if you think that we need a few more studies 

before we decide what to do here? 

Mr. ORTEGA. Mr. Chairman, Senator Bingaman, no, I don’t think 

so. I think we’ve studied this thing to death, quite honestly. As was 

mentioned by the Bureau of Reclamation, Commissioner Johnson, 

he mentioned the conceptual design. He also mentioned that there 

were critical questions about that. 

We are way beyond the conceptual design. In fact we completed 

a 10-percent and are in the process of completing a 30-percent design on this project. You know, again we feel that this project, for 

some reason, has been looked at and has been just asked so much 

of. We feel that we are ready to move forward with construction of 

this project. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Let me ask, Governor 

Chavarria about the bill which he’s here testifying on today. First 

I take it from your testimony that you believe part of the Federal 

trust responsibility includes helping the Pueblo with maintaining 

this irrigation infrastructure that we’re talking about here. Is that 

an accurate interpretation of what you said? 

Mr. CHAVARRIA. Yes, that’s correct, Chairman, Senator. 
40 

* EPA letter, EPA Superfund Record of Decision, and the Third Five-Year Review Report have 

been retained in subcommittee files. 

The CHAIRMAN. The other thing—my impression is that theoretically at least there are two Federal sources of funds that you can 

look to, you the Pueblo or the eight Pueblos that you’re here representing can look to. One would be the Bureau of Reclamation and 

that’s what our bill contemplates, but also the BIA is available to 

provide funds. Now, why do you conclude that the BIA assistance 

is not adequate? 

Mr. CHAVARRIA. I have information from the South Government 

Office here in Washington that clearly shows since 2000 those Federal fundings have been dwindling. An example is 2000 we had 

zero dollars. 2001 was zero dollars again. 2002 actually went up to 

$9,619. Recently in 2008 we actually got $858 through our self governance compact to help irrigation infrastructure needs within 

Santa Clara Pueblo. 

The other Eight Northern Pueblos have also probably got that 

same limited amount of funding. So it is a trust responsibility 

through the Department of the Interior, BIA, to assist the Pueblos 

in that responsibility of taking care of the infrastructure needs. 

The CHAIRMAN. So you don’t believe that the $858 that you got 

for the current year is enough—— 

Mr. CHAVARRIA. I think—— 

The CHAIRMAN [continuing]. To maintain this infrastructure? 

Mr. CHAVARRIA. We could probably only do about a foot. 

The CHAIRMAN. I see. 

Mr. CHAVARRIA. It’s very limited, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Alright. I would tend to agree with that. I hope 

very much we can succeed with enacting this legislation. I think 

that I asked the head of the Bureau of Reclamation what portion 

of the Water 2025 grants had gone to Indian Pueblos. Do you happen to know the extent to which any of the Eight Northern Pueblos 

have received grants under that? 

Mr. CHAVARRIA. I am not knowledgeable on that, sir. Myself and 

former Governor Viarrial spoke about this before the testimony and 

we haven’t received any information from the Santa Clara Pueblo. 

The CHAIRMAN. We’ll try to run that down and ask them what 

grants they’ve made to the Eight Northern Pueblos because I think 

that would be good information for us to have on the record. 

Mr. CHAVARRIA. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me thank Governor Chavarria and Mayor 

Ortega and also Mayor Brumfield for being here and testifying on 

this. I think this is very useful testimony for us and again, Mr. 

Chairman, thank you for giving us so much time to consider these 

bills in this hearing. 

Senator JOHNSON. Senator Salazar. 

Senator SALAZAR. Thank you very much, Chairman Johnson. In 

a letter* dated November 8, 2007, from the United States Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region Eight stated the following 

and I quote, ‘‘we are concerned that an uncontrolled, potentially 

catastrophic release of water to the Arkansas River from the LMDT 

is likely at some point, not only endangering human life, people living at the East Fork trailer park and BOR employees. The sudden 
41 

release of water, rock, sediment and heavy metals to the Arkansas 

River would be an environmental disaster.’’ Mr. Chairman, I would 

ask unanimous consent that this letter be included as part of the 

record. 

Senator JOHNSON. Ok. 

Senator SALAZAR. Mr. Chairman, I’d also ask unanimous consent 

that the EPA Superfund record of decision* of March 15, 2003 also 

be included in the record. That is September 25, 2003. 

Senator JOHNSON. Ok. 

Senator SALAZAR. I would ask for unanimous consent that the 

third, 5-year review report* on California Gulch dated September 

28, 2007, also be included as part of the record. 

Senator JOHNSON. Ok. 

Senator SALAZAR. I have a question, Ms. Rudolph. First of all, 

thank you for coming from Colorado all the way to Washington, 

DC., to testify in connection with this bill. My question to you is 

simply this, would this legislation improve, from your point of view, 

the understanding of the respective obligations of the Bureau of 

Reclamation with respect to the Leadville mine drainage tunnel 

and the responsibilities of EPA? 

Ms. RUDOLPH. I believe it would. I believe it’s necessary for that 

purpose so that we will have a clear understanding of the responsibilities. Who needs to do what with regard to the tunnel and with 

regard to the OU Six facility. 

Senator SALAZAR. Thank you, Ms. Rudolph. Thank you to all the 

witnesses and thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator JOHNSON. Mr. Davies, BOR does not support H.R. 29, in 

part because the engineering, economic and environmental studies 

have not yet been completed. Your testimony indicates that the 

project is financially feasible and environmentally beneficial and 

that the current estimated cost of the project is at the $120 million 

to $150 million range. Do you believe that the project is ready to 

proceed based on the studies that have been completed and how 

certain are you of the accuracy of the cost estimates? 

Mr. DAVIES. Mr. Chairman, we’ve been studying this for 4 years 

now and of course the feasibility study has not yet been completed. 

But the preliminary analysis and design is indicating that we’ll be 

able to come in within budget. Our portion is $60 million of that 

and the Bureau was going to complete that and we’re assured that 

that will be an excellent joint project for both the military and the 

district. 

Senator JOHNSON. I have no additional questions. Thank you to 

all the witnesses for your participation today. For the information 

of Senators and their staffs questions for the record are due by 

close of business tomorrow. With that this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:53 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.] 

(43) 

APPENDIXES 

APPENDIX I 

Responses to Additional Questions 

RESPONSES OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY TO QUESTIONS FROM

SENATOR SALAZAR

S. 2680

I appreciate the swift and decisive action that EPA and Reclamation have taken 

to begin pumping and treating water behind the LMDT blockage. These operations 

have provided some measure of relief and peace of mind to the citizens of Leadville 

and the communities downstream of the LMDT. We must not, however, lose sight 

of the need for a long-term solution to the problem. 

A permanent solution to the problems with the LMDT has long been stymied by 

jurisdictional and liability questions related to EPA’s remedy selected in the California Gulch Superfund Site Record of Decision for Operational Unit (OU) 6. 

Regrettably, the Administration’s testimony today suggests that many of those 

questions remain unanswered. 

Question 1. Have the agencies reached any agreement with respect to the federal 

government’s responsibility for a long-term solution to the LMDT? 

Answer. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will have a better understanding of long-term actions needed 

for the LMDT now that the draft risk assessment conducted by Reclamation is complete and EPA has an opportunity to review and comment on the document during 

the public comment period this summer. The agencies have also been working to 

pump and treat some of the water to reduce water levels inside the LMDT this year, 

and Reclamation recently submitted changes to Congress that would amend existing 

law to better fit the existing conditions. 

EPA is taking action to address immediate risk. EPA will complete two removal 

actions that are underway, including the construction of a relief well, pump and 

pipeline to transport water from the Leadville Mine Discharge Tunnel and mine 

pool to Reclamation’s treatment plant. Reclamation will operate and maintain the 

treatment plant, relief wells, pump and pipeline, and will determine future actions 

based on the risk assessment. 

In addition, EPA also installed a pumping system in the nearby Gaw mine shaft 

and has been pumping at a rate of 450 gallons per minute since late February. This 

action may lower water levels in the mine pool and it appears to have diminished 

seeps and springs that had recently appeared in the lower California Gulch. 

Question 2. What is EPA’s position with respect to the Bureau’s legal liability 

under CERCLA (as an owner of the LMDT) for the remedy selected in the OU6 

ROD? 

Answer. The LMDT is owned by Reclamation as is the LMDT treatment plant. 

Pursuant to CERCLA Section 120 and E.O. 12580, Federal agencies have authority 

to address releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances from sites which 

are not on the National Priorities List, and removal actions other than emergencies, 

where either the release is on or the sole source of the release is from a facility subject to that agency’s jurisdiction, custody or control. Section 9(i) of the Executive 

Order provides that the Administrator of EPA can ‘‘pay for removal actions for releases or threatened releases from facilities...under the jurisdiction, custody or control of Executive departments and agencies but must be reimbursed to the Hazardous Substances Superfund by such Executive department or agency.’’ 

Question 3. Did the Bureau of Reclamation concur in the remedy selected for 

OU6? Was Bureau concurrence necessary? 
44 

Answer. Concurrence from Reclamation was not required to select the remedy and 

complete the OU6 ROD. Although Reclamation submitted comments, they did not 

provide concurrence on the OU6 ROD. 

Question 4. Has EPA determined what is needed for a long-term solution for 

LMDT? What is it? 

Answer. Reclamation and EPA will have a better understanding of what actions 

may be needed for the LMDT now that the draft risk assessment conducted by Reclamation is complete and is being reviewed by EPA and others in July. 

Question 5. Did EPA perform an analysis of the risk of a sudden discharge of 

water from the LMDT? 

Answer. No. Based on experience with other mine drainage tunnels throughout 

the Rocky Mountain region, EPA believes that there is a potential for tunnel failure. 

The Reclamation risk assessment will provide a more thorough evaluation of this 

risk. 

Question 6. What is the status from your point of view of EPA’s negotiations with 

the Bureau with respect to this issue? 

Answer. EPA and the Bureau continue to discuss appropriate steps to address the 

situation at this site, and both agencies are coordinating closely to ensure continued 

protection of human health and safety. State and local stakeholders will also have 

an important responsibility in devising future actions that may be part of the safety 

solution. The safety of the Leadville community is our top priority. 

Question 7. Does EPA intend to reopen the ROD for OU6 or otherwise to modify 

its proposed remedy for treating contaminated water entering the LMDT? 

Answer. Not at this time. 

Question 8. Would this legislation, in your opinion, address BOR’s concerns regarding its legal liability and responsibility for the remedy, as it relates to LMDT? 

Would it provide the necessary funding to implement the remedy and treat the 

water in perpetuity? 

Answer. No. The Administration does not support the legislation as drafted for 

the reasons provided in the Commissioner’s testimony submitted to the Subcommittee. 

Question 9. What is your current estimate of the cost of a long-term solution for 

LMDT/OU6? Is the $40 million authorized in the legislation sufficient? 

Answer. Reclamation and EPA will have a better understanding of actions that 

may be needed for the LMDT once we review Reclamation’s draft risk assessment 

this summer. We are not in a position to discuss proposed funding levels. 

Question 10. The legislation does not specifically mention drilling at the Canterbury Tunnel (either vertical or horizontal whichever is more cost effective over the 

long-term) or fluming in Evans Gulch to prevent large volumes of surface water 

from entering the mine pool. Does EPA believe these options would be important 

to permanently resolving the mine pool problem? 

Answer. EPA does not believe these items are necessary for the solution for the 

LMDT. 

RESPONSES OF ORLANDO ORTEGA TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR DOMENICI

S. 2814

Question 1. Do you think that the bill should move forward, even if the full design 

has not yet been completed? 

Answer. Yes, federal authorization is a critical milestone in the development of 

the project and time is of the essence. Planning and design is far advanced on this 

project relative to other similarly authorized regional rural water supply projects 

around the country. The current cost estimate, based on a Preliminary Engineering 

Report and 10% level design, includes a 20% contingency factor or approximately 

$70 million. Both S.2814 and HR. 5710 recognize the likelihood of a multi-year construction period and accordingly include a clause to index future funding levels to 

construction costs. This is recognized and accounted for at the state and local levels 

as well. The 30% level design and environmental efforts are well underway and thus 

far indicate no unusual technical or environmental ‘fatal flaws’’. 

Question 2. Please describe the willingness of the State to secure the funding necessary to fund their share of the project. 

Answer. The State of New Mexico is strongly in support of the project on several 

levels. The state made a considerable investment around 1960 in the construction 

of Ute Dam to create the reservoir intended to store New Mexico’s share of Canadian River water for exactly the type of use envisioned by this project. In today’s 

dollars that investment is likely worth around $140 million. Additionally, we have 
45 

in hand over 45 letters of support from the Governor’s office on down. On April 

23rd, as we were traveling to Washington, DC to provide testimony to your committee, the NM Water Trust Board took action to appropriate $4,525,828 toward the 

continued development of the project. This brings the State’s investment in the 

project to a little over $12 million since 2002. 

Question 3. Are all the communities involved in the Project supporting the bill? 

Answer. Absolutely. Please understand that the eight member agencies of the 

Eastern NM Rural Water Authority are facing a very uncertain future without this 

project. All of the realistic alternatives to this project evaluated for providing a long 

term sustainable water supply to the eastern NM region—including ‘status quo’ 

groundwater development—are more expensive and not sustainable. There is strong 

recognition that no viable alternatives exist. The member agencies support the bill 

and its financial consequences including the local commitment to operate and maintain the infrastructure facilities once constructed over the long term at approximately $8-9 million annually. 

RESPONSE OF MARTHA RUDOLPH TO QUESTION FROM SENATOR JOHNSON

S. 2680

Your testimony indicates that the LMDT is not part of the Superfund site, but 

that the EPA/Colorado remedy for Operable Unit 6 still requires Reclamation to participate in its implementation. 

Question 1. Is Reclamation’s participation required under the Superfund law or 

because, as you reference, it makes practical sense and will ultimately decrease its 

operating costs? 

Answer. The remedy for Operable Unit 6 (OU 6) of the California Gulch Superfund site addresses the control of contaminated surface water runoff from mine 

waste piles in an area known as Stray Horse Gulch. Originally, EPA and the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (‘‘CDPHE’’) had preferred a 

remedy that called for the consolidation and capping of these waste piles. This remedy would have controlled the source of contamination by eliminating the contact 

between mine waste and surface water. This remedy would have been more expensive than the current remedy, but it would have dealt with the problem in the most 

permanent fashion and would have required little continuing operation and maintenance. However, this remedy was not selected due to local opposition that was based 

on protection of historic resources. 

As an alternative, the EPA and CDPHE selected the current remedy. Instead of 

controlling the source of contamination, this remedy recognizes that the surface 

water will become contaminated, and treats the contaminated water. The most cost 

effective way to provide that treatment would be to utilize Reclamation’s existing 

treatment plant, rather than to construct a new treatment plant for that purpose. 

During the development of this remedy concept it became apparent that by constructing the bulkhead within the LMDT we could also address the historic issue 

of potential blowouts of the LMDT, and substantially decrease Reclamation’s water 

treatment volumes and costs. EPA and CDPHE believed that by lowering Reclamation’s overall treatment costs, and by significantly reducing or eliminating the risk 

of a blowout of the LMDT, for which, as the owner of the LMDT, Reclamation would 

be responsible, Reclamation would be more inclined to participate in the remedy. 

Although EPA and CDPHE believe that this remedy provides sufficient benefit to 

Reclamation to warrant its participation, and it makes practical sense to use an existing treatment plant instead of constructing and operating a second plant, Reclamation has never expressed any willingness to participate in this remedy, and 

Reclamation is not legally required to participate in the OU6 remedy under Superfund law. Reclamation has also taken the position that its statutory authority does 

not allow it to participate in the remedy. 

RESPONSES OF MILTON G. DAVIES TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR JOHNSON

H.R. 29

The BOR does not support H.R. 29, in part, because the engineering, economic, 

and environmental studies have not yet been completed. Your testimony indicates 

that the project is financially feasible and environmentally beneficial, and that the 

current estimated cost of the project is in the $120 million to $150 million range. 

Question 1. Do you believe that the project is ready to proceed based on the studies that have been completed, and how certain are you of the accuracy of the cost 
46 

estimate? What other studies do you see that are needed before proceeding to construction of the project? 

Answer. H.R. 29 anticipated this issue being raised by the Bureau and specifically 

predicates authorization upon a finding by the Bureau that the project is feasible 

(H.R. 29-Sec. 2(b)4. Preliminary design, a feasibility study and an EIS/EIR are all 

currently being conducted by the Bureau of Reclamation. The preliminary Draft 

EIS/EIR is expected this Fall and the feasibility study (based on the preliminary design) is expected be completed in Spring 2009. Final design would still need to be 

done prior to beginning construction. We are confident of the current estimated cost 

estimate of $120-150 million in 2008 $$. This is based on the Bureau’s preliminary 

design work which is nearly complete and has not identified any large unforeseen 

expenditures. 

Question 2. Reclamation’s testimony notes that construction of the project is contingent on the State granting a permit to use water. 

What is your view on the status of a water use permit for the project? Does a 

permit already exist that can be used for the project? 

Answer. Fallbrook P.U.D. and Camp Pendleton have 3 existing permits from the 

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) authorizing diversion of 

water from the Santa Margarita River to surface storage. These permits expire on 

12/31/08. We are working with staff from the SWRCB to extend the expiration date 

and amend these permits to allow diversion to underground storage on Camp Pendleton as well as allow direct diversions from the River to our planned treatment 

plant during high flow conditions. Based on discussions with SWRCB staff we are 

optimistic that the permits will be extended and modified. 

Question 3. Your testimony states that ‘‘Camp Pendleton’s share of the project cost 

will primarily come from already approved MILCON funds. . . . ’’ 

If such funds have already been approved, is it possible that they could be provided up-front to avoid having to appropriate new funds for the Navy’s share? 

Answer. Yes, that is the intent of the parties. Funds in excess of $64 million for 

the inflatable dam, percolation ponds and Camp Pendleton’s share of the Advanced 

Water Treatment Plant have already been appropriated. These portions of the joint 

project with Fallbrook PUD are necessary for Camp Pendleton even if the joint 

project does not proceed. They will be built and then Camp Pendleton will receive 

credit towards their share of the $120-150 million joint project if it proceeds. 

RESPONSES OF HON. JOSEPH MICHAEL CHAVARRIA TO QUESTIONS FROM

SENATOR DOMENICI

S. 2805

Question 1. In the 2000 BIA/BOR report, several agencies were identified as possible federal partners that could assist with the Pueblo irrigation and infrastructure 

rehabilitation work. These agencies included the BIA, the National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and the Corps of Engineers. 

Have any of these agencies assisted you with this work? 

Answer. As described more fully in my written statement, BIA irrigation funding 

has been virtually nonexistent for decades, which is why S. 2805 is desperately 

needed. As I stated in my testimony, occasionally BIA has been able to offer limited 

assistance for emergencies for various Pueblos but it has been done in a shoestring 

approach, unreliable and unknown from year to year, which does not allow for any 

methodical rehabilitation work. I would defer to the so-called Six Middle Rio Grande 

Pueblos to describe their relationship with the BIA regarding rehabilitation of structures that are part of the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District. To the extent 

that Santa Clara Pueblo has received any BIA irrigation engineering funding, it has 

only been our fair share of the dwindling pot of BIA irrigation money through our 

Self-Governance compacting, and it has been less than one thousand dollars ($1,000) 

annually in recent years, as described more fully in my written statement. 

With respect to the Corps, it is my understanding that existing authorities for the 

Corps generally cover studies about the feasibility of irrigation repairs but separate 

Congressional authorization is still needed for actual construction or rehabilitation 

work. Santa Clara Pueblo, along with Ohkay Owingeh, and San Ildefonso Pueblo, 

are partners with the Corps in a General Investigation Watershed Feasibility Study 

for the Espanola Valley, an effort which Senator Domenici and the rest of our New 

Mexico Congressional delegation have championed. Through that study, the Corps 

is investigating the feasibility of implementing measures for environmental restoration, and to improve flood control and water quality along the three Pueblos’ reach 

of the Rio Grande and related tributaries. That study also includes investigation of 
47 

irrigation improvements for Santa Clara Pueblo. The study is supposed to be completed within the next year or two which will determine the feasibility and costs 

of various irrigation improvements. However, it may be many years before funding 

may be available if and when appropriations are requested for the actual final design and construction of specific irrigation improvements for Santa Clara Pueblo’s 

needs. It is important to note that these sorts of irrigation improvement feasibility 

studies that the Corps can perform under existing authorities could easily be blended into the implementation of actual rehabilitation work through S. 2805. 

As for the NRCS, it is my understanding that many of the Pueblos have had small 

rehabilitation projects throughout the years through the programs that NRCS runs. 

At Santa Clara Pueblo, we have used NRCS funds from the EQUIP program for 

pipe and open channel work on a part of our irrigation system. 

Although Santa Clara Pueblo has not been the recipient of such funds, it is my 

understanding that, on occasion, the Bureau of Reclamation, through limited authorities for its Native American Affairs Program, has made limited funds available 

to some Pueblos to assist with irrigation rehabilitation, but, again, only on a small 

project basis. Although the Senator’s question asks only about federal partners, S. 

2805 recognizes that there may be opportunities to partner with the State of New 

Mexico. Santa Clara Pueblo sought and received direct appropriations from the 

State to assist with design and planning for irrigation improvements because such 

improvements are so desperately needed at our Pueblo. Although the State provided 

some funding for planning, it will take years to obtain sufficient construction funds, 

and, of course, a $2 million project today could cost $4 million by the time it is funded given inflation and other escalating costs. Again, it is important to note that any 

of these initial planning efforts could easily be blended into the implementation of 

S. 2805, and would not duplicate efforts. 

Question 2. Please describe the Pueblo resources that have been used to improve 

and rehabilitate your existing irrigation works. 

Answer. For this question, I can only answer on behalf of Santa Clara Pueblo. For 

our work with the Corps and NRCS, we have had cost-share obligations to meet. 

Thus, our limited resources are dedicated to that effort. In addition, Tribal equipment and labor crews are used for preventative maintenance. However, because our 

irrigation system overall is in disrepair, and because BIA irrigation funding does not 

even cover the cost of diesel for our equipment anymore, our limited resources usually must go to annual emergency patchwork on our irrigation system. We consider 

this to be, at best, a band-aid approach to rehabilitation, which is why Santa Clara 

Pueblo strongly supports the enactment of S. 2805. 

I hope these answers are helpful in garnering understanding of the critical irrigation infrastructure improvement needs of the New Mexico Indian Pueblos. Please let 

me know if I can be of further assistance. 

RESPONSES OF BOB JOHNSON TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR JOHNSON

Question 1. Rural Water General Question.—In December 2006, we enacted the 

Rural Water Supply Act which required BOR to determine eligibility criteria by December 2007, and feasibility criteria for rural water projects by June 2008. 

What is the status of those actions called for in the legislation? 

Answer. Title I of the Rural Water Supply Act of 2006, P.L. 109-451 (Act), enacted 

on December 22, 2006, authorizes Reclamation to establish a rural water program 

and requires us to develop three sets of criteria to implement the program. Section 

103 of the Act requires the development of programmatic eligibility and 

prioritization criteria within one year after the date of enactment; Section 105 requires the promulgation of criteria for the completion of appraisal investigations 

within one year of the date of enactment; and Section 106 requires the promulgation 

of criteria for the completion of feasibility studies within 18 months of the date of 

enactment. The Act requires Reclamation follow the formal rulemaking process as 

required in the Administrative Procedures Act in developing the criteria for the 

Rural Water Program. In order to expedite the rulemakings in an efficient manner, 

Reclamation is completing one comprehensive rulemaking process, instead of doing 

three separate rulemakings to address each of these three requirements. We believe 

this is a more timely and efficient option than the alternative. However, because 

of the specific procedural requirements associated with completing a rulemaking— 

which includes a 90-day review by the Office of Management and Budget and a 60- 

day public comment period—Reclamation published the comprehensive criteria in 

the Federal Register as an Interim Final Rule on November 17, 2008. Reclamation 

is currently reviewing public comments for the interim final rule. 
48 

Question 2. H.R. 29 (Santa Margarita Bill).—Your testimony indicates that construction of the Santa Margarita project is contingent on the State of California 

granting the permits necessary to use water for the project. You also mention that 

Reclamation currently holds permits to construct dams to develop a water supply 

on the Santa Margarita River for the Fallbrook District and Camp Pendleton. 

Can Reclamation use the permits it presently holds from the State of California 

for the Project proposed in H.R. 29? If so, is it true that activity under those permits 

must be initiated by the end of this year or the permits may not longer be valid? 

Answer. Reclamation presently holds three water rights permits issued by the 

California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Reclamation, in cooperation with Camp Pendleton and the Fallbrook Public Utility District, is presently preparing the documentation for requesting an extension of time for putting the waters 

to beneficial use. Reclamation will file the request and documentation for an extension of time to exercise the permits with the SWRCB prior to the end of 2008. The 

river is fully allocated at this time, and if the request is not granted, Reclamation 

understands that the permits could eventually expire. 

As previously stated in our testimony, Reclamation does not support this proposed 

project. 

Question 3. H.R. 29 (Santa Margarita Bill).—You note that the engineering studies and environmental analysis for the Santa Margarita project have not yet been 

completed. 

What is the status of those studies? At a minimum, has an appraisal level analysis been completed? 

Answer. An appraisal level analysis of the Santa Margarita River Conjunctive Use 

Project was completed in January 2005. The feasibility analysis is well underway 

and is scheduled for completion in early 2009. Reclamation has entered into a contract with The Environmental Company (TEC) for the environmental compliance 

analysis and document. We anticipate that the Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) will be publicly distributed in April 

2009. 

Question 4. (Santa Margarita).—Testimony on the 2nd panel indicated that 

‘‘Camp Pendleton’s share of the project cost will primarily come from already approved MILCON funds . . .’’ 

Has Reclamation had discussion with the Navy regarding its participation and, 

if so, is it possible that the Navy could pay its share up-front as opposed to receiving 

a repayment contract? 

Answer. Yes, Reclamation has had discussions with the Navy concerning the possibility of the Navy paying its share of construction costs up-front, and it is Reclamation’s understanding that the Navy’s intention to pay construction costs upfront is contingent upon the availability of Military Construction funds. 

Question 5. H.R. 123 (San Gabriel Basin Fund).—Your testimony indicates that 

the Administration opposes reauthorizing the San Gabriel Basin Fund because Reclamation’s budget is not the appropriate place for this funding. 

Notwithstanding which agency provides the funding, is there a Federal responsibility to help clean-up the groundwater contamination in Southern California? 

Answer. The Federal government believes there is a shared public interest in seeing groundwater basins in southern California cleaned so that water from these basins could be used as a source of potable water. However, it is difficult to assert 

that there is a Federal responsibility to help clean up the groundwater contamination throughout all of southern California, because the situation in each basin is 

unique. In the San Gabriel Basin, the local water agencies have argued that the 

Federal government does have responsibility for the groundwater clean up, basing 

this argument on the belief that a great deal of the contamination (including all of 

the perchlorate contamination) was a result of the activities of defense contractors. 

This was the premise behind the establishment of the San Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund and the subsequent appropriations into the fund. It is important to note 

that the establishment of the fund does not mean that the Federal government, including the Department of the Defense, has a legal responsibility for the clean up 

when a contractor has polluted in violation of applicable laws. 

Question 6. S. 2680 (Leadville).—Testimony by the State of Colorado asserts that 

Reclamation’s participation in the EPA/Colorado remedy for OU6 will ‘‘reduce the 

amount of water treated by the Bureau of Reclamation (thereby decreasing its operating costs)’’. 

Do you agree with the State of Colorado assessment? If not, has Reclamation estimated the additional costs that it will incur by participating in the remedy for OU6? 

What is the magnitude of additional cost that Reclamation believes it will incur? 

What other recommendations does Reclamation have for a long-term remedy for the 

clean-up of OU6? 
49 

Answer. The Record of Decision for OU6 that was prepared by the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) with concurrence from the State of Colorado, evaluated 

several remedy alternatives to address the issues associated with OU6. The selected 

remedy includes the relief well and pipeline that were recently constructed by EPA 

to address any immediate threat from the rise in groundwater and abundant 

snowpack. Reclamation will treat the water delivered from the relief well - up to 

the available, existing capacity of the treatment plant. Reclamation believes it is 

prudent to evaluate the effects of these recent activities before fully implementing 

any additional selected remedy actions. Based on the results, it may be necessary 

to re-evaluate the remedy for OU6. We also believe it may be beneficial to revisit 

capping the remaining tailings piles to prevent or minimize future contaminated 

runoff. Reclamation expects to incur additional costs of up to $$1,143,000 per year 

due to treatment of the additional volumes of water from implementation of the recent actions. Reclamation is evaluating the potential for reduced long-term operation and treatment costs that may result from continued analysis of the facility 

seeking improved industrial process and water treatment technologies. Reclamation 

is evaluating with EPA, new hydrologic and water quality data obtained since construction and pumping of the relief well, to determine additional actions that may 

result in future reduction of water volumes that require treatment. 

RESPONSES OF BOB JOHNSON TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BINGAMAN

Question 1. S. 2805.—The Bureau of Reclamation and Bureau of Indian Affairs 

first completed an initial assessment of the Pueblos’ irrigation facilities back in 

2000. That report identified a substantial number of infrastructure related problems 

which all result in the need to divert more water than is necessary to support the 

agricultural needs of the Pueblos. 

Given the substantial water supply and environmental issues in the Rio Grande 

basin in New Mexico, many of which involve Reclamation, doesn’t it make sense to 

facilitate the most efficient use of water possible? If so, why was no action taken 

by the Department after its 2000 Report? 

Answer. Reclamation and BIA completed an initial assessment of the Pueblos’ irrigation facilities in 1999, and subsequently issued a summary report in 2000. We 

agree that with competing demands for water in the Rio Grande River Basin, it 

makes sense to promote water use efficiency. After the Report was completed, it was 

presented to the All Indian Pueblo Council. Since then, Reclamation has worked 

with many of the interested Pueblos to implement those actions described in the report it could carry out, subject to funding and authority limitations, and in some 

cases taking into account the need to defer certain work pending the outcome of 

water rights negotiations involving some of the Pueblos. To date, at least $1.5 million has been expended by Reclamation to carry out this work, with the largest 

amount coming through its Native American Affairs program. 

Question 2. S. 2805.—Your testimony on S. 2805 raises several technical issues 

with the bill. Specifically, you ask for definitions to several terms, including ‘‘onfarm improvements’’; ‘‘drainage facility’’; and ‘‘historically irrigated lands’’. These 

terms were taken directly from your 2000 Report. 

Please provide definitions for those terms as you intended them in the 2000 report. 

Answer. The 2000 report was a condensed version of a larger report written in 

1999 that included these terms. In this context definitions for ‘‘on-farm improvements’’, ‘‘drainage facility’’, and ‘‘historically irrigated land’’ identified in the 1999 

report and preserved in the 2000 report are: 

On-farm improvements: As currently envisioned, the Project will provide for 

efficient delivery of water to farms, but not on-farm improvements. Examples 

of on-farm improvements include fencing, creation of borders, installation of 

sprinkler or drip irrigation systems, provision of tractors and other farm machinery, provision of seed or plants, and planting of windbreaks. The only exceptions to on-farm improvements which might be included in the Project scope of 

work are these water conserving items: land leveling, land smoothing, and installation of water measuring devices... These measures improve the efficiency of the system as a whole by conserving water and thereby maximizing 

the water available to other users.’’ Thus, any ditch which provides delivery of 

water to the farm would not be considered an on-farm improvement and would 

be eligible for improvement under the proposed project. This would take away 

confusion in classifying ditches as main canals, laterals, farm ditches, etc. for 

purposes of the proposed project. 

Drainage Facility: A drainage facility is a drainage ditch which includes either an open ditch drain or subsurface perforated pipe systems or any other 
50 

structure which acts to lower the groundwater table in areas where the water 

table is too high to allow for productive farming. It was envisioned that all 

drainage facilities be included in the scope of work for the proposed project. 

Historically Irrigated Lands: This includes pueblo lands which have been irrigated through a network of ditches from a major water source, such as the Rio 

Grande, Rio Jemez, Rio Chama, Rio Pueblo de Taos, Rio San Jose, etc. It includes such lands even if there are supplemental wells to supply these areas, 

provided that the wells are supplemental to the major water source. It does not 

include lands which were irrigated through dryland farming techniques, i.e., 

rainfall. It does not include lands sporadically irrigated through the diversion 

of arroyo flows which only carry water during storm events. It does not include 

upland areas for which wells are used to provide a water source. It includes 

lands for which there is a valid water right, such as the prior and paramount 

lands and the newly reclaimed lands of the six Middle Rio Grande Pueblos (see 

the Act of March 13, 1928), because these lands are capable of being serviced 

by existing ditches. It was envisioned in the Act of March 13, 1928 that these 

lands would be irrigated through the participation of the six Middle Rio Grande 

Pueblos in the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District. 

Question 3. S. 1805.—Over the last 4 years, through its Water 2025 program, Reclamation has provided grants to water users in the West to implement water conservation projects. 

What portion of the Water 2025 grants have gone to Indian tribes? If the percentage is low, why do you think that is the case? 

Answer. Since 2004, Water 2025 has awarded $3030 million to fund 137 Challenge Grant projects. Navajo, tribal entities in New Mexico received 3 of these 

grants totaling $725,000. While this is a relatively small percentage of the total 

number of Water 2025 grants that have been awarded, it represents 75 percent of 

all the proposals received from the tribal entities; this is a much higher percentage 

than the approval rate for non-tribal proposals. It is likely that Tribes and Pueblos 

have focused on activities other than those funded by the Water 2025 program, such 

as rural water projects It is also important to note that many projects, while not 

awarded directly to tribes, have provided substantial benefits to tribes, tribal fisheries or tribal lands. Specifically, ten projects totaling $33 million have benefited 

tribes. 

Question 4a. S. 1805.—Pursuant to its trust responsibility, the Department is authorized to provide assistance to Indian tribes to maintain its irrigation infrastructure. 

How much funding did the Department provide to tribes from 2002–2008 for Indian irrigation operation and maintenance? How much did it request in its budget? 

Answer. In general, operation and maintenance (O&M) for Indian irrigation systems is paid for through the collection of irrigation assessments from project beneficiaries by BIA. The regulations governing these annual assessments are at 25 CFR 

Part 171. Annual assessments are adjusted to reflect increases in O&M costs. These 

assessments are published in yearly notices, see, e.g., ‘‘Rate Adjustment for Indian 

Irrigation Projects,’’ 73 Fed. Reg. 32043 (June 5, 2008). In addition to revenues generated from project beneficiaries, there is also a line item in the BIA’s budget for 

Irrigation Operations and Maintenance. For 2002-2008, the total amount of funding 

requested for this item was $75,241,000, and the total amount appropriated was 

$76,593,000. A chart showing annual funding levels is provided at the end of this 

response. This line item primarily funds payments for BIA irrigation projects and 

tribal irrigation systems that are mandated by court orders and statutes. When discretionary funds are available, they are used principally for water storage and irrigation service-related contracts. 

In addition to the BIA funding, there are some project-specific authorizations providing for different payment mechanisms for Indian operation and maintenance 

costs. For example, the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe is required to pay in advance a por-
51 

tion of the OM&R costs associated with the Towaoc Highline Canal, operated by the 

Bureau of Reclamation. As part of the 1988 Colorado Ute Water Rights Settlement 

Act, the Secretary may bear all or part of the O&M in the event the Tribe demonstrates that it is unable to satisfy these costs from gross revenues. The total budgeted by Reclamation for these costs from 2002-2008 was $1,150,000, and the amount 

obligated was $1,780,009. 

Question 4b. How much funding did the Department provide to the Middle Rio 

Grande Conservancy District during 2002–2008 to operate and maintain irrigation 

infrastructure for the benefit of the Middle Rio Grande Pueblos? How much was requested in the budget for this activity? 

Answer. Funding for operation and maintenance of the irrigation systems benefiting the Middle Rio Grande Pueblos is provided through BIA. Reclamation has provided no funds to the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District for operation and 

maintenance of the irrigation system for the Middle Rio Grande Pueblos. 

The following table shows the amounts obligated by the BIA for O&M purposes 

for the Middle Rio Grande Pueblos for the years 2002 to 2005. These funds were 

paid out of the BIA Natural Resources Management—Irrigation Operations and 

Maintenance line item discussed above. The Act of February 14, 1927 (44 Stat. 

1098) provided for the designation of an engineer to represent the Department in 

the development of Indian irrigation infrastructure. The position of a Designated 

Engineer has been retained and funded subsequently to assist the Department and 

the Pueblos. 

For years 2006-2008, funding of over one million dollars per year was obligated 

by the BIA to support the Pueblos’ operation, maintenance, and betterment needs. 

The payment of this funding to MRGCD must be based on work completed by 

MRGCD and verified by the BIA, and that process is underway. 

Question 5. S. 1805.—What obligations does the United States have to help Indian 

tribes maintain irrigation infrastructure based on its trust responsibility? 

Answer. Although developing or rehabilitating irrigation infrastructure has often 

been a component of Indian water right settlements, generally the goal of providing 

tribal water infrastructure has been pursued under existing discretionary programs 

such as those of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian Health Service. The 

Bureau of Reclamation, through its Native American Affairs Program, has endeavored to assist tribes in maintaining irrigation infrastructure through its technical 

assistance program, although it has no general mandate to improve or maintain Indian irrigation systems. 

Such infrastructure development is a discretionary function, dependant on Administration policy and Congressional authorization and funding. In the absence of Congressional directives assigning specific fiduciary duties or providing additional Federal funding, the statutes and regulations that establish the framework for the 

BIA’s role in maintaining irrigation infrastructure confirm that the BIA does not 

have a trust obligation to operate and maintain irrigation projects. See, e.g., Grey 

v. United States, 21 Cl. Ct. 285 (1990), aff’d, 935 F.2d 281 (Fed. Cir. 1991), cert. 

denied, 502 U.S. 1057 (1992). See also 25 CFR Part 171 (regulations governing Indian Irrigation and Maintenance and requiring BIA to collect annual operation and 

maintenance assessments to cover annual costs for each irrigation facility covered 

by the regulations). 

RESPONSES OF BOB JOHNSON TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR DOMENICI

Question 1a. S. 2814, Eastern New Mexico Rural Water System.—Please describe 

the process underway to establish eligibility criteria for the loan guarantee program 

that passed during the last session of Congress. In addition, please describe the 

findings by OMB regarding the implementation of the loan guarantee program 

issued on April 3, 2008, and how this will impact the establishment of eligibility 

criteria. 

Answer. Loan guarantees provided to water districts to improve Federally-owned 

assets are financing improvements to Federal assets, and not subject to the Federal 
52 

Credit Reform Act. Consequently, such guarantees would be classified as Federal 

borrowing authority as described by OMB Circular A-11, Appendix B, and would require appropriations up-front for the full amount of the Government’s potential liability. The underlying loan guarantee program (authorized in Title II of P.L. 109- 

451) authorizes Reclamation to offer loan guarantees, subject to the availability of 

appropriations. 

Question 1b. Please describe the level of funding the BOR would be willing to request to support the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water System. 

Answer. This project has not yet been determined to be feasible. The appropriate 

level of funding can only be assessed after the determination of the project’s feasibility. 

Question 1c. Please describe other mechanisms the BOR might employ to help develop regional rural water projects in the future. 

Answer. Title I of the Rural Water Supply Act of 2006 (Act) authorizes the establishment of a rural water supply program in the Bureau of Reclamation. The Act 

provides that Reclamation can plan the design and construction, through the conduct of appraisal investigations and feasibility studies, or rural water supply 

projects in Reclamation States. When the program is fully implemented, we will 

work closely with rural communities to identify regional approaches to meet rural 

water needs. This will encourage partnerships between rural communities and take 

advantage of economies of scale to address water supply needs. The program is focused on allowing Reclamation to collaborate with rural communities early in the 

project development process, during the planning stages, so that we can help formulate an approach that is efficient, cost-effective, and which brings together dispersed 

rural communities. The program embraces a wide array of approaches to solving 

water supply issues, ranging from the more traditional approach of pipelines and 

pump stations, to newer technology such as locally centered desalination facilities 

to treat brackish groundwater, or through other, perhaps market-based, mechanisms, that will help rural communities address their water supply needs. Through 

this program, Reclamation will also explore opportunities to combine resources with 

programs run by other agencies that take a different approach to rural water supply 

issues. For example, a group of rural communities may be able to build on assistance they receive from programs focused on individual, municipal rural water supply systems, by participating in this program, to create a region-wide rural water 

system. 

Question 2a. S. 2805, Rio Grande Pueblos.—Please describe the findings from the 

BOR/BIA Pueblo Irrigation Facilities Rehabilitation Report that was issued in 2000. 

Answer. The 2000 report indentified a need for rehabilitation and repair of Pueblo 

Indian irrigation infrastructure. Inspection of existing infrastructure shows that 

many key facilities such as diversion structures and main conveyance ditches are 

barely operable. Rehabilitating Pueblo irrigation facilities would result in increased 

efficiency and less water usage per acre. This would make more water available to 

help prevent water conflicts which might arise through increased urbanization and 

Endangered Species Act requirements. 

Question 2b. Please describe the current authorities used by the Pueblos to seek 

financial assistance in operating and maintaining their existing irrigation and 

drainage facilities. 

Answer. Under the Snyder Act (25 U.S.C. 13), the BIA is authorized to expend 

appropriated funds for the benefit, care, and assistance of Indians throughout the 

United States. This legislation specifically mentions Indian irrigation systems. The 

Bureau of Reclamation, through its Native American Affairs Program, has endeavored to assist tribes in maintaining irrigation infrastructure through its technical 

assistance program, although it has no general mandate to improve or maintain Indian irrigation systems. The Acts of March 13, 1928 (45 Stat. 312-13), August 27, 

1935 (49 Stat. 887) and June 20, 1938 (52 Stat. 778) provide that operation, maintenance and betterment (OM&B) services are to be provided by the Middle Rio 

Grande Conservancy District at no cost to the Pueblos for the Pueblos’ prior and 

paramount lands. These statutes also authorize the Secretary to enter into an agreement with the District to provide OM&B services for the newly reclaimed lands at 

a per acre cost not to exceed that charged for non-Indian lands in the District. 

Question 2c. In 2000, the BOR/BIA estimated the cost of a feasibility study for 

the Project to be $3 million, and the estimated time to complete the study at 18 

months. Are these estimates still valid? 

Answer. No, the estimates that were developed in 2000 are no longer valid. In 

2004, the BOR/BIA report was updated and new estimates were given for the feasibility study. As introduced, S. 2805 includes $4 million for the feasibility study and 

the estimated time to complete the study has been revised to 24 months. 
53 

Question 3a. S. 2680, Leadville Mine Drainage Act.—It appears that the volumes, 

pressures and levels of contamination associated with the water in the Leadville 

Mine Drainage Tunnel do not, in the opinion of USBR, represent an imminent 

threat to the town of Leadville and surrounding areas. 

Why, in this particular case, is the Bureau of Reclamation the agency to which 

some people are looking for these types of assessments? Would not the Environmental Protection Agency or an agency like the Department of the Interior more familiar with mining be a better source of information? 

Answer. Reclamation is a Bureau within the Department of the Interior. This type 

of risk assessment is focused on tunnel, rock, and soil engineering issues. Reclamation is recognized within the Department of the Interior, the Federal Government, 

and worldwide as a leader in these types of risk assessment methodologies. Our 

methods have been and are being adopted within the Federal government and globally by private and government agencies. Our risk assessment process is based on 

years of experience with a variety of structures and input from other agencies, such 

as the Corps of Engineers, research professionals, and consultants who are leaders 

in their disciplines. 

Reclamation has a full staff of experts in geotechnical engineering, rock mechanics, and mining engineering qualified to assess the level of risk. Reclamation has 

analyzed, designed, and overseen the construction of hundreds of miles of tunnels 

for dams and other water supply projects. 

Question 3b. Since we do have you here today, and not one of these other federal 

entities, does the USBR have an opinion as to what levels of pressure, volume, contamination or combination thereof would, in fact, represent an imminent threat? 

Answer. The risk assessment conducted by Reclamation evaluated whether or not 

the existing tunnel conditions create an imminent threat to public health and safety 

or the environment. The assessment concluded that there was no imminent public 

safety or environmental threat posed by the condition of the tunnel, and the document was provided to the Committee in June. If any threat did arise, Reclamation 

would take action to mitigate that risk and protect the public. 

Question 3c. What is the nature of the area we are talking about? Is it residential 

at this point, or is there some anticipation of it becoming residential? 

Answer. Adjacent to the tunnel portal and Reclamation’s water treatment plant 

is a trailer park called the Village at East Fork which has approximately 80 mobile 

or modular home sites. Additionally, a proposed 87 acre, mixed-use subdivision with 

up to 281 units called the ‘‘Gateway Village’’ is being planned for the area just north 

of the treatment plant and tunnel portal, and above the tunnel alignment. The subdivision proposal has recently been presented to and initially approved by the Lake 

County Planning and Zoning Commission, as well as the Lake County Board of 

County Commissioners. 

Question 3d. I ask this because the Bureau of Reclamation has been involved with 

this tunnel since 1959, and we’re just now starting to hear about this issue. Why 

now is it becoming such an urgent matter in the eyes of some who are involved? 

Answer. The concern is over a rise in the elevation of water behind a potential 

blockage within the Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel. Reclamation conducted a risk 

analysis in 2005 to examine hillside stability in the vicinity of the mine portal and 

concluded then that the likelihood of a failure due to increased water levels was low. 

We conducted the most recent risk assessment to evaluate the conclusions of the 

previous analysis and address the current concern for a potential sudden failure of 

a plug of caved material in the tunnel. To the best of Reclamation’s knowledge, no 

other Federal agency or other party has conducted a risk assessment for the likelihood of a sudden release of water due to failure of a blockage within the tunnel. 

Question 3e. It is my understanding that the bureau of Reclamation has arranged 

for a 3rd party risk assessment to be conducted and the results of that inquiry will 

likely be made available in June of this year. If that inquiry were to find that there 

is, in fact, an imminent threat to Leadville and the surrounding areas, who would 

be required to pay for the remediation of that problem? 

Answer. Reclamation had the draft risk assessment independently reviewed by a 

three person team consisting of a representative from the US Geological Survey and 

experts in mining engineering from private industry. The assessment was then released as a draft final report at the end of June, 2008. If Reclamation found evidence of an imminent threat to the residents of the Village of East Fork, Reclamation would have immediately initiated steps to reduce the level of threat. Fortunately, the completed final risk assessment has shown that there is not imminent 

threat to Leadville and the surrounding areas. Since Reclamation holds title to the 

LMDT, any public safety concerns associated specifically with the tunnel (as opposed to the surrounding Superfund site) are Reclamation’s responsibility. Reclamation is continuing to take a proactive approach to addressing safety issues associ-
54 

ated with the LMDT, including work with other Federal agencies, the State of Colorado, and other affected stakeholders to stakeholders to devise solutions that will 

ensure the continued safe operation of the LMDT. 

Question 3f. Parts of the Leadville Mining District have been designated as Superfund sites. How do the activities undertaken by the Bureau of Reclamation in this 

area interface with the responsibilities of the Environmental Protection Agency for 

clean-up? 

Answer. Reclamation has and will continue to work collaboratively and cooperatively with the EPA and the State of Colorado on appropriate, efficient, and effective 

actions to address the issues associated with the Site. The EPA is the remedial action lead for the California Gulch National Priorities List Site, including Operable 

Units (OUs) 6 and 12. The LMDT, which is owned and operated by Reclamation, 

is addressed by the OU6 remedy. Reclamation has agreed to operate and maintain 

the treatment plant, relief wells, pump and pipeline, and treat the water delivered 

as the result of EPA’s short-term actions up to the available, existing capacity of 

the treatment plant. EPA issued a Record of Decision for OU6 in 2003 which includes the following remedy activities: 

• Installation of a bulkhead in the LMDT upstream of the Pendery Fault to further confine and segregate the contaminated groundwater, • Backfilling a section of the LMDT downstream of the Pendery Fault with select 

materials, • Construction of an aboveground gravity pipeline to deliver surface and ground 

water to Reclamation’s treatment plant, • Infrastructure improvements to the treatment plant (with additional operation 

and maintenance costs) to permit the treatment of waters of greater volume and 

varying chemistry than have historically been received by the plant, and • Installation of one or more new wells upstream of the Pendery Fault to convey 

contaminated groundwater to Reclamation‘s treatment plant via a gravity pipeline. 

RESPONSES OF BOB JOHNSON TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR SALAZAR

Commissioner, as you know, the Lake County Board of Commissioners is very 

concerned that a blockage in the LMDT is preventing mine pool water (contaminated water present in the mine workings in and around Stray Horse Gulch) from 

flowing through the LMDT to the Bureau’s treatment plant and that the increasing 

hydraulic pressure from the LMDT mine pool poses a significant threat to the residents of Lake County living near the LMDT portal if a catastrophic blowout were 

to occur. 

I understand and appreciate that the Bureau, in cooperation with the State of 

Colorado, Lake County, and the EPA, has taken steps to address the immediate risk 

of such a catastrophic discharge of contaminated water from the tunnel. 

Question 1. What is the Bureau’s position and what are the Bureau’s plans with 

respect to the long-term goal of stabilizing the tunnel, installing a permanent plug 

in the LMDT, and treating—in perpetuity—the contaminated water flowing into and 

out of the LMDT? 

Answer. Reclamation has completed a risk assessment of the tunnel’s condition 

and believes at this time that there is not an imminent threat of a catastrophic release from the tunnel. Reclamation is now evaluating with EPA, new hydrologic and 

water quality data obtained since the recent installation and pumping of the relief 

well, to determine potential additional actions that may be appropriate for the longterm management of the LMDT and treatment of discharges. 

Question 2. I have previously asked for a commitment by the Bureau to treat the 

mine discharge water in perpetuity and for assurance that the Bureau’s treatment 

plant has sufficient capacity to treat that water. You have given those commitments 

to me personally. 

Will you please reaffirm the Bureau’s commitments in that regard for the full 

committee today? 

Answer. Reclamation has agreed to operate and maintain the treatment plant, relief wells, pump and pipeline, and treat the water delivered as the result of EPA’s 

short-term actions up to the available, existing capacity of the treatment plant, beyond the amount historically discharged from the tunnel. Reclamation has submitted legislative language to the Congress via a letter to the Committee in 2008 

to permanently provide this authority. 

Question 3. Under current law, does the Bureau have the necessary authority and 

funding to put in place a long-term solution for the LMDT? 

Answer. P.L. 102-575 (1992) authorized Reclamation to build the treatment plant 

but specified that the plant ‘‘shall be constructed to treat the quantity and quality 
55 

of effluent historically discharged’’ from the tunnel. Reclamation is, however, treating water beyond this historical amount. For this reason, Reclamation has already 

submitted legislative language to the Congress to permanently provide the authority 

to treat this additional water. 

Question 4. My legislation (S. 2680) is intended to provide the Bureau with the 

necessary Congressional authority and funding to implement the remedy for OU6. 

Do you agree that it would accomplish those purposes? If not, why not? 

Answer. Yes, S. 2680 would provide Reclamation with authority to implement the 

OU6 Record of Decision. However, in view of the findings from Reclamation’s recently completed LMDT Risk Assessment, as well as progress from EPA actions undertaken this year, the Administration does not believe that enactment of S. 2680 

would be an appropriate use of Reclamation’s limited resources. The EPA relief well 

is completed and water is being pumped from the LMDT, and water levels in the 

Leadville area are declining. There is no imminent public safety or environmental 

hazard posed by the current condition of the LMDT. The Department has proposed 

legislative language to Congress regarding the authorities needed to treat additional 

mine pool water, and we will continue to work with EPA, the State of Colorado and 

Lake County to find the best long-term outcome for the citizens of Leadville. 

Question 5. In your testimony, you say the Bureau does not know what kind of 

a long-term solution is needed, and that you want to wait for the risk assessment 

due in June. But the remedy selected by EPA in 2003 includes: 

• construction of a permanent bulkhead in the LMDT; and 

• dewatering of the mine pool and delivery of the pumped water to BOR’s treatment plant via a buried pipeline 

When is BOR going to step up to the plate and take responsibility for repairing 

and maintaining the structural integrity of the LMDT, to prevent tunnel failure? 

Answer. Reclamation believes the LMDT is in no danger of an imminent tunnel 

failure. 

Question 6. Does BOR dispute that it is necessary to install a permanent plug? 

Answer. Reclamation is now evaluating with EPA, new hydrologic and water quality data obtained since the recent installation and pumping of the new relief well, 

to determine potential additional actions that may be appropriate for the long-term 

stability and management of the LMDT. 

(57) 

APPENDIX II 

Additional Material Submitted for the Record 

STATEMENT OF GAYLA BRUMFIELD, MAYOR, CLOVIS, NM 

Chairman Johnson, Senator Bingaman, Senator Domenici and Members of the 

Committee, my name is Gayla Brumfield and I am Mayor of the City of Clovis, New 

Mexico. The City of Clovis with a population of 32,667 is a member of the Eastern 

New Mexico Rural Water Authority and serves as the fiscal agent for the project. 

I want to thank Senators Bingaman and Domenici for introducing Senate Bill 

2814 and leading the effort in Congress to help meet eastern New Mexico’s future 

water needs by authorizing the federal government to build a pipeline that will 

carry water to several communities in Curry and Roosevelt counties. This legislation 

is vital to the future of Clovis and eastern New Mexico. 

The Eastern NM Rural Water System (ENMRWS) is critical to our ongoing efforts 

to strengthen and diversify our economic base in the region. In addition to being 

a state leader in agricultural production, Clovis and Curry County are host to a 

number of growing industries, including ethanol refining, food processing and railway commerce. We are proud to be the home of Cannon Air Force Base, which plays 

a vital role in protecting our nation’s interests at home and abroad. 

Groundwater resources currently supply municipal water in eastern New Mexico, 

and long-term water supply availability and sustainability are concerns for many 

communities. These concerns stem from the fact that our groundwater source, the 

Ogallala aquifer, is rapidly approaching its limited supply of available water. The 

ENMRWS will address our future water shortage issues by providing a much-needed mechanism for sustainable surface water delivery to Curry and Roosevelt counties. 

We have been able to attract a great deal of new business to our area, though 

some companies have recently expressed concerns about the sustainability and 

availability of our water supply. It is becoming evident that bold steps will be required on the water issue to ensure our region’s standing as a potential site for business relocation and growth. The ENMRWS is the type of bold step that is needed. 

While the cost of its construction will be considerable, its projected delivery of potable surface water to Curry and Roosevelt counties will undoubtedly provide the resources necessary for our region to remain economically viable and prosperous. All 

of the alternatives available to us are more expensive than the ENMRWS and are 

not sustainable. 

The Clovis community always unites to support programs that are vital to the 

well-being and future of the area. The Ute Water Pipeline Project represents the 

best alternative for providing a sustainable water supply well into the next century. 

After 40+ years of research, planning and design, we are now ready to take the 

next big step towards making the Project a reality. If we fail to act, the result could 

mean significant losses to our existing economic base and lost opportunities for future economic development. 

Senate Bill 2814 represents the important next step toward addressing the overarching issue of water in the arid West and we look forward to working with Congress and the United States Bureau of Reclamation to secure its passage. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to present our request at this important 

hearing. 

STATEMENT OF GREG NORDBAK, CHAIRMAN, SAN GABRIEL BASIN WATER QUALITY

AUTHORITY, ON H.R. 123 

Mister Chairman, Committee members, and staff, my name is Greg Nordbak, and 

I am the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority. We very much appreciate you holding this hearing on H.R. 123, which 
58 

would authorize additional federal funding for the San Gabriel Basin Restoration 

Fund. 

The San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority was created and authorized by 

the California State Legislature in 1993 to address the critical need for coordinated 

groundwater cleanup programs in the San Gabriel Basin after harmful amounts of 

contaminants were detected in the region’s groundwater. The Water Quality Authority is committed to protecting public health and safety by prioritizing, facilitating, 

and coordinating groundwater cleanup and supply programs with local water suppliers and the U.S. EPA, while minimizing local financial and economic impacts, including impacts on consumers who rely on local groundwater supplies from the San 

Gabriel Groundwater Basin. 

The San Gabriel Basin underlies 167 square miles of the San Gabriel Valley. The 

San Gabriel Basin holds hundreds of thousands of acre-feet of local, renewable, public drinking water supplies. In fact, the San Gabriel Basin is capable of providing 

a reliable, local drinking water supply for the more than one million people who reside and work in the San Gabriel Valley—as long as we are able to implement effective groundwater cleanup to remove the contaminants. 

In December of 2000, thanks to the leadership of Senator Feinstein, Representative Dreier, Representative Napolitano and the other members of the San Gabriel 

Valley Congressional Delegation, Congress enacted the San Gabriel Basin Water 

Quality Initiative. Senator Feinstein and her colleagues moved to establish the Restoration Fund as a means of expediting the remediation of groundwater contamination caused by industrial solvents and rocket fuel contaminants such as perchlorate. 

The Restoration Fund, which is administered cooperatively by the Water Quality 

Authority and the Bureau of Reclamation, uses Federal and non-Federal monies 

contributed to the San Gabriel Restoration Fund to design, construct, and operate 

facilities to contain and treat the spreading groundwater contamination in the San 

Gabriel and Central Groundwater Basins. 

The Water Quality Authority has benefited tremendously from the Restoration 

Fund by enabling us to continue the collaborative approach of merging cleanup with 

water supply and allowing us to leverage Federal dollars and local funding to bring 

all parties to the table and work in a manner that addresses multiple issues at the 

same time. The Restoration Fund has provided an incentive for the Responsible Parties in the San Gabriel Basin to participate in the cleanup and to reach funding 

agreements with affected water suppliers. It has also allowed the Water Quality Authority and the affected water suppliers to fund projects even before Responsible 

Parties could be identified or when Responsible Parties are no longer viable, cannot 

be located, or are recalcitrant. Without this Federal funding the likelihood for additional well closures would be great, leaving only the option of turning to costly and 

already overburdened imported water supplies. 

Since the Restoration Fund was made available to the Water Quality Authority, 

we have received $74.5 million through the Bureau of Reclamation’s construction account. The Water Quality Authority has allocated the use of these funds to 35 

projects throughout the Basin, 27 of which have been completed, with another 8 currently under construction. To date these efforts have helped to remove over 21 tons 

of contaminants, and treated nearly 350,000 acre-feet of groundwater. 

For example, with the completion of four major groundwater cleanup projects developed and implemented through the Water Quality Authority with the cooperation 

of local water suppliers, participating Responsible Parties, and the U.S. EPA, we remove perchlorate and other toxic chemicals from groundwater at the rate of 24,000 

gallons per minute on a 24/7 year-round basis. These projects will continue to provide safe drinking water to residents and businesses in Baldwin Park, La Puente, 

West Covina, the City of Industry, and surrounding areas for decades to come without burdening the public with higher water bills. Even so, a great deal more effort 

and cleanup is still required. 

Early last year, in recognition of the tremendous success of the Restoration Fund 

and the need to continue the local cleanup efforts, Congressman David Dreier and 

his colleagues in the San Gabriel Valley Congressional Delegation introduced HR 

123. This legislation would increase the authorization ceiling on the Restoration 

Fund by $62.5 million from its current level of $85 million. This additional funding 

would allow us to continue the progress we’ve made and avoid costly litigation that 

only serves to slow down the cleanup. 

Without future Federal assistance for the treatment facilities, local water suppliers would be forced to shut down water wells due to migrating contamination. 

The closures would force purveyors to become reliant on imported water, which 

would come mainly from the Colorado River and the State Water Project. Water 

from wells in the San Gabriel Valley is relatively inexpensive to pump and supply 

to homes and businesses in comparison to imported supplies from the Colorado 
59 

River or northern California. The current price for an acre-foot of treated, readyto-drink Colorado River water in the high-demand summer period is $549, subject, 

of course, to its availability. The typical cost to pump and treat an acre-foot of local 

San Gabriel Basin groundwater is $65 to $250 depending on the levels and types 

of contamination being treated. And as you may know, California’s water allotment 

from the Colorado River is being cut back, and deliveries from the State Water 

Project are seriously restricted. This would severely impair our ability to provide 

water for the residents and businesses in the San Gabriel Basin. With your help 

we have the opportunity today to make certain these closures don’t occur, while ensuring our water suppliers have a safe, abundant, and sustainable water supply to 

draw from in the years to come. 

The Federal assistance provided by the Restoration Fund allows us to carry out 

our mission of facilitating groundwater cleanup and providing a clean, reliable, 

drinking water supply for the over one million residents of the San Gabriel Basin. 

Although the Administration has failed to budget for the San Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund since its enactment, it is vital that we continue our efforts to restore the 

San Gabriel Basin aquifer. Removing harmful contaminants from our communities’ 

groundwater supply should remain a priority of local, state and federal officials. A 

continued commitment by all parties will allow our local water suppliers to better 

meet the needs of local residents at affordable rates and make certain that the 

Basin is able to meet the water supply needs of future generations. Once we are 

able to remediate the contamination, it is our belief that the local groundwater 

basin will be able to meet all of the San Gabriel Valley’s water needs. 

Thank you for allowing me to testify on the successes and on-going progress of 

the cleanup of the San Gabriel Basin today and the importance of HR 123 to our 

future. 

STATEMENT OF THE LAKE COUNTY COLORADO BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, 

ON S. 2680 

The Lake County Board of County Commissioners in Lake County, Colorado 

would like to thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity to present Lake County’s 

views on S. 2680, known as ‘‘The Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel Remediation Act 

of 2008.’’ 

On behalf of Lake County and its citizens, we wish to express support for this 

bill. We also wish to impress upon you today the importance of a comprehensive federal solution to reduce the threat posed by the growing mine pool associated with 

blockages behind the Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel. Such a solution is critical to 

protect the local residents of Lake County as well as the eco-system of the Arkansas 

River and the drinking water supply of the Arkansas Valley Watershed. 

Leadville and its historic mining district sit in the highest valley of the Arkansas 

River in the heart of the Rocky Mountains. Leadville is the site of mining activities 

that have produced gold, silver, lead and zinc. Mining began in the Leadville area 

in 1859 when prospectors working the channels of the Arkansas River tributaries 

discovered gold at the mouth of California Gulch. 

Later, miners tunneled deep into the mountains resulting in extensive development of underground mines in the mining district. Eventually most of these mines 

were abandoned. The U.S. Bureau of Mines began driving the Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel in 1943 to facilitate mine drainage in order for metals such as lead, zinc 

and manganese to be extracted for the World War II effort. 

In 1959, the Bureau of Mines transferred the LMDT to the Bureau of Reclamation. Since that time, the Bureau of Reclamation has declined to take responsibility 

for the upkeep and repair of the tunnel. It has only accepted responsibility for treating the contaminated water flowing out of the mine pool and into the blocked tunnel 

through construction of a water treatment plant in the late 1970’s, built after a Sierra Club lawsuit against the Bureau of Reclamation. 

The lack of repair and upkeep of the tunnel have lead to a series of what appear 

to be collapses deep within the LMDT over time that have brought us to the situation we face today. Groundwater levels in the mining district are now at historic 

highs and blockages in the tunnel have contributed to the elevated mine pool water 

estimated now to be over one billion gallons. 

Lake County has experienced snow pack levels this winter of more than 146% of 

normal. With spring run off set to break loose at any moment, a large volume of 

water is about to be added to a mine pool already bursting at the seams. This historic build up of water behind the blockages in the tunnel presents a serious threat 

to the citizens of Lake County, public and private property, local domestic water 

supply, and the water quality of the Arkansas River Basin. Approximately 750,000 
60 

* Document has been retained in subcommittee files. 

citizens in Colorado rely on the Arkansas River water quality for their drinking 

water supply. 

Based upon this threat, the Lake County Board of County Commissioners declared a State of Emergency on February 13, 2008. Since the Emergency Declaration, both the Environmental Protection Agency and the Bureau of Reclamation 

have quickly moved toward actions to begin dewatering the mine pool by pumping 

water at the Gaw Shaft. A pipeline is under construction by the EPA to by-pass the 

blockages in the LMDT and reconnect the mine pool to the LMDT treatment plant. 

However, this is only a temporary solution to the mine pool problem. A comprehensive long-term solution is needed to solve this problem once and for all. 

The solution is a multi-pronged approach that includes, preventing clean surface 

water from infiltrating the mine pool and implementation of the California Gulch 

Superfund Site Operable Unit 6 remedy. To date, however, both EPA and the Bureau of Reclamation will not take responsibility for the long-term fix of the mine 

pool problem. For decades, Lake County has experienced frustration with the inability of these agencies to sort out responsibilities. Both agencies continue to say to 

the long-term fix, ‘‘This is not my job!’’ 

In fact, we are still basically in the same place with the Bureau of Reclamation 

as we were when previous hearings were held on Capitol Hill in June 1976 to discuss a bill to authorize stabilization and rehabilitation of the Leadville Mine Drainage Tunnel. We refer you to the transcript of the Hearing Before the Subcommittee 

on Energy Research and Water Resources of the Committee on Interior and Insular 

Affairs United States Senate on S. 3394, June 7, 1976. A copy of the transcript* 

from those hearings is attached as a supplement to this written statement. 

At that time, the Assistant Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior, testified that ‘‘As stated in the Department’s letter of June 7, 

1976 to the committee, the Department recommends that the committee defer action 

on the bill at this time pending further review by the Department . . . of various 

alternative solutions.’’ The Assistant Commissioner went on to say, ‘‘Appropriate action needs to be taken with respect to the public safety and water quality problems 

associated with the tunnel. As already indicated, the administration has not completed its review of the available data, and, therefore, does not yet have a position 

as to what action should be taken.’’ 

During these same hearings in 1976, the Colorado Department of Natural Resources submitted testimony regarding the tunnel, ‘‘Finally, there is the ever 

present danger of the loose blockage material being breached by water which is 

pushing against it at a pressure of more than two tons per square foot. This is a 

serious threat to property and human life, particularly because of the mobile home 

park adjacent to the tunnel portal.’’ Yet, here we are today still facing basically the 

same threat as we were in 1976, with the added years of additional tunnel deterioration. Yet again, the Bureau of Reclamation still wants to study the problem. 

We note that during the April 24, 2008 hearing on S. 2680 before this subcommittee, Reclamation Commissioner Robert W. Johnson testified that ‘‘The Administration cannot support S. 2680 at present because we have not yet determined 

what further actions are needed to provide a long-term solution.’’ Mr. Johnson further states ‘‘Reclamation is working to assess the threat level to public safety 

through a detailed risk analysis.’’ 

Yet, the Bureau of Reclamation has nearly 40 years of studies in which over and 

over its own experts have concluded that if water were allowed to back up in the 

LMDT three things could happen: 1) catastrophic blowout, 2) contamination of public drinking water supplies, or 3) mine pool groundwater could report to California 

Gulch in turn contaminating the Arkansas River. We do not understand how further 

studies are justified to again delay legislation that will finally lead to a permanent 

fix after all this time. 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has recently studied this situation indepth and determined that implementation of the remedy for Operable Unit 6 of the 

California Gulch Superfund site is an important part of the long-term solution. The 

Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment testified at the April 24, 

2008 hearing about the importance of the OU6 remedy as a long-term solution necessary to fix the mine pool problem. 

S. 2680 presents an opportunity for Congress to finally tell the Bureau of Reclamation that it is their job to maintain the tunnel and to implement the remedy 

for Operable Unit 6. S. 2680 provides the Bureau with the necessary authority and 

funding to participate in the implementation of the Operable Unit 6 remedy by 

treating water behind the blockage. It also directs the Bureau of Reclamation to 
61 

1 An acre-foot of water is equal to 325,851 gallons and is approximately equal to the amount 

of water used by two Southern California families in a year. 

take necessary steps to maintain the LMDT in a manner that protects human 

health and the environment. 

Lake County and its citizens support the intent of this bill. We have high hopes 

that, finally, the question of which agency bears the responsibility to address the 

rising mine pool problem in Lake County will be answered by Congress. By directing the Bureau of Reclamation to take responsibility and action, the people of Lake 

County and the downstream Arkansas River basin water users will not have to bear 

a terrible price for the inability of federal government agencies to take responsibility 

to fix this serious problem. 

We appreciate the opportunity to present the local community perspective about 

this very important matter. 

JOINT STATEMENT OF JERRY SANDERS, MAYOR, CITY OF SAN DIEGO, AND R. MITCHEL

BEAUCHAMP, BOARD CHAIRPERSON, SWEETWATER AUTHORITY, ON H.R. 1803 

Chairman Johnson, Ranking Member Corker, and members of the Subcommittee, 

thank you for the opportunity to submit joint written testimony for the record for 

the legislative hearing on H.R. 1803, the San Diego Water Storage and Efficiency 

Act of 2007. As the potential local partners for the proposed four-reservoir intertie 

project in the San Diego region, we strongly support this legislation authorizing a 

Federal feasibility study for the project through the Bureau of Reclamation. 

The City of San Diego Water Department (SDWD) provides potable water to more 

than 1.3 million residents with an average of 210 million gallons of treated and delivered water per day. With a service territory of over 403 square miles, the SDWD 

operates a system that includes more than 3,460 miles of pipeline in the potable 

distribution system and management of nine raw-water reservoirs with total storage 

capacity of 415,000 acrefeet.1 Water is pumped across 104 different pressure zones 

with the assistance of 47 pump stations. SDWD has 274,000 metered service connections. Treated water is also provided to the City of Del Mar, and the CaliforniaAmerican Water Company which delivers water to Coronado, Imperial Beach, and 

portions of southern San Diego. 

The Sweetwater Authority is a joint powers, publicly owned, water agency that 

provides drinking water to approximately 177,000 people in National City, Bonita 

and portions of Chula Vista, California. Sweetwater Authority owns and operates 

Loveland Reservoir, Sweetwater Reservoir, a brackish groundwater desalination facility and deep freshwater wells. Water obtained in each of these areas is influenced 

by the 230-square-mile Sweetwater River Watershed, a land stretching from the 

Cleveland National Forest to San Diego Bay. 

Together, the City of San Diego and the Sweetwater Authority strongly support 

H.R. 1803, which would authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to conduct a study of 

the feasibility of an Intertie System in the San Diego region to improve water storage capabilities and water supply reliability. We are joined in this support by the 

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, San Diego County Water Authority, and several other water districts. 

The history of the San Diego region includes an ongoing search for safe, reliable 

water supplies in a semi-arid climate. Our county typically imports 90 percent of 

its water from northern California and the Colorado River. For many years, the region has aggressively developed a diverse supply of local water to add reliability. 

This includes programs and projects to expand water conservation initiatives, increase the use of recycled water, investigate ocean water desalination, ‘‘conjunctive 

use’’ activities that store water in underground aquifers for later use, and seeking 

regionally important agriculture-to-urban water transfers. These activities are significant to improving water supply reliability of both the City of San Diego and 

Southern California as a whole. 

The prospect of long-term drought in Southern California is of greater concern 

today than ever before. Last season was the driest in California since record keeping 

was established, and the Sierra Nevada snow-pack was at 30% of normal content. 

While this season’s snowpack has improved, the region anticipates water delivery 

cutbacks of 30% or more due to recent court-ordered mandates from the San Francisco / San Joaquin Bay-Delta to protect the endangered Delta Smelt and Chinook 

Salmon during spawning season. 

Compounding Southern California’s water supply outlook are the anticipated impacts of climate change. The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) re-
62 

2 July 2006, California Department of Water Resources, ‘‘Progress on Incorporating Climate 

Change into Management of California’s Water Resources. http://baydeltaoffice.water.ca.gov/ 

climatechange.cfm 

* Figure has been retained in subcommittee files. 

cently published a report2 on the matter and concluded that snowpack in the Sierra 

Nevada mountains will gradually melt earlier each year and additional storage is 

needed in order to capture the melted snow. Otherwise, California is at risk of losing hundreds of thousands of acre-feet of potable water supplies. 

The San Diego region has few groundwater basins as compared to other regions 

in Southern California. As such, the region has invested significantly in surface 

storage in order to capture and store as much rainfall as possible. Many of the region’s reservoirs have never been connected to the imported water system nor have 

undersized conveyance connections. Even with aggressive water recycling and conservation programs, the region is approximately 90% dependent on imported water 

from the Colorado River and State Water Project to meet current demands. 

The Intertie System envisioned by H.R. 1803 has the potential to significantly enhance these local efforts by providing new drinking water storage to the San Diego 

region utilizing existing infrastructure with minimal, if any, negative impacts to the 

environment or private property, in an economically efficient manner. 

INTERTIE SYSTEM

The feasibility study authorized by H.R. 1803 would advance a project to tie together four existing water storage facilities—San Vicente, El Capitan, Loveland and 

Murray Reservoirs—to increase the capability to store and manage imported water, 

making the region more resistant to drought and water delivery service interruptions. (Please see the attached Figure.)* 

Currently, some reservoirs in the proposed system are significantly underutilized. 

Loveland Reservoir receives only local runoff from the Sweetwater River. El Capitan 

Reservoir currently receives local runoff and imported water, however due to pipeline limitations the full capacity of the reservoir cannot be utilized. Local rainfall 

in the watersheds to these reservoirs is inadequate to fill the reservoirs except on 

an infrequent basis, typically only twice in ten years. This ‘‘unused’’ capacity is a 

significant water storage volume that could be put to beneficial use if imported 

water was piped to the reservoirs. 

We estimate that the increase in storage capacity from the Intertie System to be 

about 100,000 acre-feet. This increase in capacity would not occur by the laborious, 

expensive, and difficult process of siting of new reservoirs, but by increasing the 

ability to annually store imported water from the Colorado River and/or the State 

Water Project in existing facilities. Each year, more winter water could be stored 

for summer use. In addition, storage could be designated for multiple year carryover to reduce exposures to drought. This improved capability to store imported 

water serves a Federal interest by reducing impacts on environmentally sensitive 

resources and the importation of water during times of relative scarcity. 

The Intertie System would not create new water supply, but rather provides the 

opportunity to move and store water during times of relative excess or periods when 

environmentally appropriate. It would not increase the amount of water imported, 

only the time of year that importation occurs. At the current time, for example, both 

the SDWD and Sweetwater Authority have agreements with the Metropolitan 

Water District of Southern California and San Diego County Water Authority to 

place water in storage at Sweetwater Reservoir during ‘‘offpeak’’ months for use during summer months when demand is highest. This approach improves the efficiency 

and effectiveness of existing infrastructure but can only be used when reservoirs are 

connected to the imported water system. 

DESCRIPTION OF RESERVOIRS TO BE ENHANCED

San Vicente Reservoir: the start of the Intertie System, is owned and operated by 

the City of San Diego and is currently capable of storing up to 90,230 acre-feet of 

water. A current project sponsored by the San Diego County Water Authority to 

raise the San Vicente Dam by 100 feet would provide an additional capacity to supplement emergency storage in the region. This action supports the logic of making 

the reservoir a part of the Intertie System. 

El Capitan Reservoir: is the destination of the First Link of the Intertie System. 

Built in 1934, it is located about six miles north of Loveland and has a capacity 

of 112,000 acrefeet of water. This isolated facility which receives only local seasonal 

runoff and limited imported water has filled to capacity only 11 times in 68 years. 
63 

Loveland Reservoir: at the end of the Second Link, is located in the foothills of 

the Cuyamaca Mountains, 21 miles upstream of the San Diego Bay. Built in 1945, 

Loveland Reservoir impounds water from the Sweetwater River and is capable of 

storing 26,000 acre-feet. Loveland is also filled by local runoff only, and in the 57 

years since it was constructed has filled to capacity only 12 times. 

Murray Reservoir: the destination of Link Three, is comparatively small at 4,800- 

acre feet capacity, but is the site of the Alvarado Water Treatment Plant. Water 

from Alvarado serves a large central portion of San Diego, the City of Coronado and 

all of Navy Military Bases in the City of San Diego’s service territory. 

PROJECT BENEFITS

Although these four reservoirs are owned and operated by the City of San Diego 

and the Sweetwater Authority, the benefits of this project are important to the entire region. In the event of drought, or any other event that would interrupt the 

ability of the region to import drinking water, the additional storage provided by 

this project could supply the constituents of other purveyors in the region, including 

the Helix, Padre Dam and Otay Water Districts. Increasing water supply reliability 

in San Diego also benefits the Southern California region as a whole because it reduces the burden on already-stressed water supplies for others. 

Water agencies in California have long recognized there is a limited supply of 

water for an increasing population, and have encouraged the development of local 

sources of supply to ease impacts on the Bay-Delta and the Colorado River. Connecting the San Vicente, El Capitan, Loveland and Murray Reservoirs would allow 

for an efficient use of existing reservoirs, increase the region’s water supply reliability, minimize environmental impacts at both the water’s source and in our region, increase water storage capability, and increase the ability to efficiently provide 

water at the lowest possible cost. 

As one example of how the project will help us better manage local water resources, we would like to highlight that when the Lake Hodges Dam spilled in 2005, 

the City of San Diego lost 68,000 acre-feet of potable water supplies. Since Hodges 

is linked to the regional system, a significant portion of that water could have been 

utilized locally if the Intertie System were in place by allowing transfer of water 

to other reservoirs as the water level at Hodges began to rise. 

The improved ability to capture and store water, whether local or imported, would 

also enhance the protection of the Bay-Delta. It is simply much better to store this 

water when it is plentiful than when water shortages already cause increased pressure on the sensitive Delta environment. 

The project has the potential of benefiting approximately 1.5 million residents in 

San Diego County, and military bases in San Diego. In addition, the Intertie System 

would complement California’s 2005 Water Plan, which promotes the implementation of regional integrated management of California’s water to promote the reliability of water supplies by maximizing the use of available storage in ways that 

protect the environment. 

The City of San Diego and Sweetwater Authority are prepared to partner with 

the Bureau of Reclamation to conduct the feasibility study of the Intertie System. 

This study would help document the costs and the benefits of constructing the 

project, as well as identifying design and implementation issues that would need to 

be addressed. Connecting the San Vicente, El Capitan, Loveland and Murray Reservoirs would benefit the San Diego region and our military by more efficiently 

using existing reservoirs. It would create an enhanced and integrated reservoir system with the result of increased water supply reliability. The benefits of increased 

water storage capability without negative impacts possibly associated with new reservoirs or new storage capacity would be an especially wise investment in arid 

Southern California significantly dependent on imported water supplies. 

We appreciate the opportunity to present this testimony and for the Subcommittee’s consideration of H.R. 1803. This concludes our joint statement. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN D’ ANTONIO JR., NEW MEXICO STATE ENGINEER AND

SECRETARY OF THE NEW MEXICO INTERSTATE STREAM COMMISSION, ON S. 2814 

Chairman Johnson, Senator Bingaman and Senator Domenici, I am pleased to 

offer testimony for the record in support of S. 2814, the Eastern New Mexico Rural 

Water System Authorization Act. I am the New Mexico State Engineer and the Secretary of the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission. Ute Reservoir is a valuable asset of the State of New Mexico and the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water 

System Project is an important water supply project for eastern New Mexico communities. The State of New Mexico supports the Eastern New Mexico Rural Water 
64 

System Project and has invested funding and staff support toward the planning for 

this project for several years. 

Anticipating the potential water needs in eastern New Mexico and in the interest 

of maximizing New Mexico’s use of water from the Canadian River stream system, 

the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission completed construction of Ute Dam 

and Reservoir in 1962 at a present day cost of over $140 million. The reservoir was 

constructed for the specific purpose of providing a sustainable drinking water supply 

to the people of eastern New Mexico. The Interstate Stream Commission owns and 

operates the dam and reservoir for the benefit of New Mexico. Pursuant to the Canadian River Compact and subject to the requirements of the Stipulated Judgment 

and Decree entered by the U.S. Supreme Court in Oklahoma v. New Mexico, 501 

U.S. 126 (1993), New Mexico is allowed to store up to 200,000 acre feet of water 

for use in New Mexico from the Canadian River system below Conchas dam. Ute 

Reservoir stores approximately 200,000 acre-feet of water pursuant to a permit 

issued by the State Engineer in 1962. New Mexico is committed to maintaining the 

safety of Ute Dam and beneficially utilizing the waters within Ute Reservoir. 

In 1987, the communities of Clovis, Tucumcari, Portales, San Jon, Logan, Texico, 

Melrose, Elida and Grady and the Counties of Curry, Roosevelt and Quay, entered 

into a Joint Powers Agreement forming the Ute Water Commission. In 1997, the 

Interstate Stream Commission entered into a contract with the Ute Water Commission to sell 24,000 acre-feet per year of water from Ute Reservoir to the Ute Water 

Commission’s member communities. Since that time, the Ute Water Commission 

has paid an option payment of $36,000 per year to the Interstate Stream Commission to preserve its contractual allocation of water. 

The Eastern New Mexico Rural Water Authority, (the Authority), members of Clovis, Portales, Texico, Melrose, Elida and Grady and Curry and Roosevelt Counties 

should be commended for the efforts they have put forth over the last few years in 

cooperation with the Interstate Stream Commission toward advancing the Eastern 

New Mexico Rural Water System Project. The development and conveyance of Ute 

Reservoir water to eastern New Mexico communities is critical to addressing the future water needs of those communities. Most of eastern New Mexico now relies on 

non-renewable ground water from the Entrada and Southern High Plains/Ogallala 

aquifers. Consistent groundwater pumping in the area has caused water level declines that have exceeded 100 feet. At current pumping rates, a recent study by 

CH2M Hill indicates the remaining saturated thickness of the aquifer near Clovis 

and Portales will not sustain the existing demand for more than 40 years, much less 

meet additional demand for future development. The water quality in both aquifers 

is also deteriorating. 

The rapid depletion and deterioration of these aquifers places the economic viability of eastern New Mexico communities at risk. In my capacity as State Engineer, 

I have been asked about the availability of water rights for economic development 

projects in eastern New Mexico. On recent occasions, companies have been unwilling 

to locate in the area because of a lack of a sustainable water supply. Ute Reservoir 

provides the only reliable source of renewable water in the region, and the pipeline 

project is necessary to enable communities to utilize that water resource. 

Much deeper, brackish aquifers have been considered—and rejected—as potential, 

future water supply sources. A study by the engineering firm, CH2M Hill, in 2005, 

determined that the brackish water aquifers in the project area are up to 1000 feet 

deep with low ground water yields. The conclusion of this investigation was that reliable, cost-effective treatment and development of these saline aquifers is decades 

away and, in any event, would not provide a renewable water supply. 

In 2003, the Authority prepared a Conceptual Design Report of the pipeline 

project, and in December 2003, the ISC obtained an independent peer review of that 

report. In 2003, the ISC also completed a sedimentation study of the reservoir indicating that the future capacity of the reservoir will allow the pipeline project to be 

viable for at least eighty years. In December 2006, the Authority completed a Preliminary Engineering Report for the project. The Interstate Stream Commission and 

the Bureau of Reclamation reviewed the Preliminary Engineering Report and concurred that the pipeline project was the most economic, environmentally benign, and 

technologically reasonable solution to eastern New Mexico’s water supply problems. 

Since 2006, the Interstate Stream Commission staff has been working with the Bureau of Reclamation and the Authority to continue progress on the project. 

Since 2002, the State of New Mexico has provided funding to the Eastern New 

Mexico Rural Water System project in excess of $11 million. Most recently, on April 

23, 2008, the New Mexico Water Trust Board allocated $4,525,828 to the Authority 

that will be used to complete the 30% design phase for the project and move into 

the final design and construction phases. New Mexico supports the cost-share provisions in S.2814 and concurrent with federal expenditures, New Mexico will support 
65 

additional state and other non-federal funding sources to ensure that the project can 

be completed in a timely manner. New Mexico commends the local communities for 

their work developing plans to finance the local obligations. 

In addition to work relating to evaluation of the engineering aspects of the project, 

work has begun on an Environmental Assessment for the project that builds off of 

preliminary ecological surveys developed by the Interstate Stream Commission. The 

initial studies revealed no significant environmental concerns, and the Interstate 

Stream Commission is confident that progress on the current activities will continue 

expeditiously in order that the Bureau of Reclamation can complete the Environmental Assessment by February 2009. In addition, in 2006, the Interstate Stream 

Commission joined with the State of Texas, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and 

other stakeholders in an Arkansas River Shiner Management Plan for the reach of 

the Canadian River from Ute Reservoir in New Mexico downstream to Lake Meredith in the Texas panhandle. This plan will provide benefits to the Arkansas River 

Shiner and has allowed the US Fish and Wildlife Service to exclude certain areas 

of land from a designation of critical habitat for the fish in the two states. New Mexico supports such continued, cooperative efforts. 

New Mexico also supports the continued efforts toward conservation and the reuse 

programs in the area, and commends the local communities on their progress. But, 

even with additional conservation, completion of this project is necessary to provide 

the eastern New Mexico communities in Curry and Roosevelt counties a reliable and 

renewable source of water to support economic development and current and future 

needs. 

In conclusion, the State of New Mexico, the Office of the State Engineer, and the 

Interstate Stream Commission support S.2814 and the development of the Eastern 

New Mexico Rural Water System and request that you fully support and fund this 

worthy project, without which we will not be able to fully meet the present and future water needs of the citizens of eastern New Mexico. 

STATEMENT OF TAOS PUEBLO, ON S. 2805 

Taos Pueblo is pleased to submit this statement in support of the Rio Grande 

Pueblo Irrigation Infrastructure Improvement Act, S. 2805. We commend Senator 

Jeff Bingaman for his leadership and vision in sponsoring this legislation. 

Taos Pueblo has a centuries-old tradition and culture of agriculture and irrigation 

as attested by early Spanish chronicles, archeological evidence and continuing use 

of the traditional irrigation ditches from both the Bah-bah-til bah-ahna or Rio 

Lucero, Tuahtah-bah-ahna or Rio Pueblo, and other creeks and springs. There are 

more than 5,713 acres of historically irrigated lands and more than 5,220 acres of 

pre-historically irrigated lands at Taos Pueblo. 

There are 24 ditches totaling approximately 100 miles of length on Taos Pueblo. 

Traditional ditches, in use for centuries, are hand-dug earthen conveyance systems 

that are cleaned by hand with community labor. In more recent times, some necessary mechanized rehabilitation has been done on some of these ditches. 

In later years, more ‘‘modern’’ irrigation ditches and systems were constructed by 

the federal government with good intentions, but without provision of the resources 

necessary for the operation, maintenance, rehabilitation and repair of these facilities. As a result, many of these modern ditches and structures fell into disrepair. 

Some diversion structures were replaced over the years, but without the necessary 

resources they, too, fell into disrepair. The deterioration of this infrastructure has 

been exacerbated by ash and debris-laden runoff following the 2003 Encebado Fire. 

The traditional diversions constructed of rock, brush and logs, are referred to as 

‘‘non-engineered diversion structures’’ in the Pueblo Irrigation Facilities Rehabilitation Report prepared jointly by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Bureau of Reclamation in 2000. As described in the Congressional findings for S. 2805, this report 

identified a serious need for the rehabilitation and repair of irrigation infrastructure 

of the Rio Grande Pueblos. The report relies heavily on investigation of infrastructure on Taos Pueblo, as well as several other Pueblos, to document the problems 

requiring federal assistance: 

Non-engineered diversion structures are either rock-and-brush structures 

or simple berms or ditches built across a river or creek as shown in Photos 

1 through 12 [of sites on Taos Pueblo]. These structures are inefficient and 

unreliable. A typical structure is constructed of tree branches and 6-inch to 

18-inch size rocks placed across the full width of the creek bed, usually at 

an angle to the flow. Sandbags, plywood boards, or plastic sheet are used 

to plug gaps between larger rocks. These diversions are highly unstable and 
66 

* Photos have been retained in subcommittee files. 

easily wash out after every spring runoff or thunderstorm event. Reconstruction is necessary after each washout. 

Pueblo Irrigation Infrastructure Facilities Rehabilitation Report at 2. 

The 12 photos* referenced in the above discussion from the Report and the accompanying photo captions illustrate the problems at multiple sites on Taos Pueblo, including for example: 

Photo No. 1—Mirabal Acequia (Taos Pueblo) ‘‘The structure washes out 

after every spring runoff or summer thunderstorm.’’ 

Photo No. 2—Mirabal Acequia (Taos Pueblo) ‘‘Ditch alignment is . . . 

often plugged by sediment after moderate runoffs. A permanent diversion 

structure is recommended.’’ 

Photo No. 3—Mexican Ditch (Taos Pueblo) ‘‘Sediment and debris deposit 

is evident downstream, making this a maintenance intensive site. Construction of a permanent diversion is recommended.’’ 

Other examples in the Report include Photo No. 13—Rio Lucero Diversion (Taos 

Pueblo). The description notes it is a ‘‘Typical radial gate with deteriorated seals 

and severely abraded concrete crest’’ and notes ‘‘the severe leakage.’’ More recent 

photos illustrating the condition of irrigation infrastructure at Taos Pueblo appear 

at the end of this statement. 

Although problems such as these have long been well-known and documented, repairs and rehabilitation under BIA Northern Pueblos Agency responsibility were not 

being done due to funding cutbacks. Funding in small amounts has been secured 

from BOR in recent years to do drought relief projects such as a well for stock water 

and headgate fabrication. However, these funds have been grossly insufficient. The 

funding situation has not improved since Taos Pueblo recently compacted for selfgovernance. Taos Pueblo’s experience with funding for irrigation infrastructure rehabilitation as a self-governance tribe has been similar to the experience of Santa 

Clara Pueblo as reported by Santa Clara Governor Joseph Michael Chavarria in his 

testimony to the Subcommittee. Significant federal funding is needed to redress the 

long history of under-funding and neglect. 

This funding need must be weighed in the context of the fact that water is one 

of the most precious resources for Taos Pueblo and the other Rio Grande Pueblos. 

Taos Pueblo is blessed with a homeland at the headwaters of Bah-bah-til bah-ahna 

or Rio Lucero, and the Tuahtah-bah-ahna or Rio Pueblo, and other creeks and 

springs. The centuries-old culture of ditch irrigation is, and will continue to be, critically important to the culture of Taos Pueblo that is recognized through our World 

Heritage Site designation. Repair and rehabilitation of the infrastructure to enable 

the Pueblo to continue these practices is critical. The Pueblo respectfully requests 

that Congress begin to redress this situation through enactment of the Rio Grande 

Pueblos Irrigation Infrastructure Improvements Act and appropriation of the necessary funds. 

PUEBLO OF LAGUNA, 

Laguna, NM, May 7, 2008. 

Hon. JEFF BINGAMAN, 

Chair, U.S. Senate, Energy and Natural Resources Committee, 304 Dirksen Senate 

Building, Washington, DC. 

RE: S. 2805 Rio Grande Pueblos Irrigation Infrastructure Improvement Act 

DEAR SENATOR BINGAMAN: On behalf of the Pueblo of Laguna, I am writing to 

express the Pueblo’s support for S. 2805, which you introduced in April. I am aware 

that Governor Michael Chavarria testified before the Subcommittee on Water and 

Power on April 22, 2008. We concur with the testimony provided by Governor 

Chavarria. 

The Pueblo of Laguna shares the concerns expressed by Governor Chavarria’s testimony in that it is plagued with irrigation infrastructure problems in all its six villages, and always challenged by the lack of funding to address this issue. We have 

also been subject to a ‘‘zero’’ budget for Irrigation Maintenance in the BIA budget 

for our agency for years. The 2000 BIA/BOR Pueblo Irrigation Facilities Rehabilitation Report also identified numerous irrigation system repairs needed by the Pueblo 

of Laguna. 

Thanks again for your continued support of New Mexico Pueblos and our efforts 

to maintain our irrigation systems. We appreciate the efforts of Subcommittee 
67 

Chairman Johnson and hope you will convey our support to the rest of the Committee. Please also include this letter in the hearing record for S.2805. 

Sincerely, 

JOHN E. ANTONIO, SR., 

Governor. 

STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 

OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER, 

Santa Fe, NM, May 7, 2008. 

Hon. JEFF BINGAMAN, 

U.S. Senate, 703 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 

Hon. PETE V. DOMENICI, 

U.S. Senate, 328 Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 

Re: S. 2805 The Rio Grande Pueblos Irrigation Infrastructure Improvement Act 

DEAR SENATORS BINGAMAN AND DOMENICI: On behalf of the New Mexico Office 

of the State Engineer and the Interstate Stream Commission, I would like to express support for S. 2805, the Rio Grande Pueblos Irrigation Infrastructure Improvement Act. In general, our agency supports infrastructure improvement projects 

that result in more efficient irrigation operations and thus conserve water. 

Specifically, we support Section 4(b) that requires projects to be prioritized in accordance with detailed factors and other criteria to ensure the best use of limited 

funding. We also strongly support the criteria and limitations specified in Section 

5 relating to irrigation infrastructure grants and the limitation on improvements associated with lands that have not been historically irrigated. 

The Office of the State Engineer and Interstate Stream Commission support continued efforts at developing better tools for the measurement and monitoring of 

water uses and for planning and construction that leads to more efficient water uses 

within the State of New Mexico. 

Very truly yours, 

JOHN R. D’ANTONIO, JR., P.E., 

State Engineer. 

Æ