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

75–009 PDF 2013

H.R. 6060, ENDANGERED FISH 

RECOVERY PROGRAMS 

EXTENSION ACT OF 2012 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

Tuesday, July 10, 2012 

Serial No. 112–119 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

or 

Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, MA, Ranking Democratic Member 

Don Young, AK 

John J. Duncan, Jr., TN 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Rob Bishop, UT 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

Paul C. Broun, GA 

John Fleming, LA 

Mike Coffman, CO 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Glenn Thompson, PA 

Jeff Denham, CA 

Dan Benishek, MI 

David Rivera, FL 

Jeff Duncan, SC 

Scott R. Tipton, CO 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Kristi L. Noem, SD 

Steve Southerland II, FL 

Bill Flores, TX 

Andy Harris, MD 

Jeffrey M. Landry, LA 

Jon Runyan, NJ 

Bill Johnson, OH 

Mark Amodei, NV 

Dale E. Kildee, MI 

Peter A. DeFazio, OR 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, AS 

Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ 

Grace F. Napolitano, CA 

Rush D. Holt, NJ 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, AZ 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Jim Costa, CA 

Dan Boren, OK 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Martin Heinrich, NM 

Ben Ray Luja ́n, NM 

Betty Sutton, OH 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR 

John Garamendi, CA 

Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI 

Paul Tonko, NY 

Vacancy 

Todd Young, Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel 

Jeffrey Duncan, Democratic Staff Director 

David Watkins, Democratic Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER 

TOM McCLINTOCK, CA, Chairman 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, CA, Ranking Democratic Member 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Jeff Denham, CA 

Scott R. Tipton, CO 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Kristi L. Noem, SD 

Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio 

Jim Costa, CA 

Ben Ray Luja ́n, NM 

John Garamendi, CA 

Vacancy 

Edward J. Markey, MA, ex officio 
(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Tuesday, July 10, 2012 ............................................................... 1 

Statement of Members: 

Bishop, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State of Utah ... 5 

Gardner, Hon. Cory, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Colorado ......................................................................................................... 6 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 7 

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

of California ................................................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3 

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

of California ................................................................................................... 3 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 4 

Tipton, Hon. Scott R., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Colorado ......................................................................................................... 7 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 8 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Garlick, Kevin, Energy Director, Provo City Power, Provo, Utah ................ 13 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 14 

Kirkpatrick, L. Randy, Executive Director, San Juan Water Commission, 

Farmington, New Mexico ............................................................................. 20 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 21 

Payne, Grayford F., Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Administration and 

Budget, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Washington, D.C. .......................................................................................... 17 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 18 

Raley, Bennett W., Counsel, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy 

District, Berthoud, Colorado ........................................................................ 10 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 11 

Shields, John W., Interstate Streams Engineer, Wyoming State 

Engineer’s Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming ....................................................... 25 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 26 

Additional materials supplied: 

Kuhn, R. Eric, General Manager, Colorado River District. Letter 

submitted for the record by The Honorable Scott Tipton .......................... 9 

List of documents retained in the Committee’s official files ......................... 36 

(1) 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 6060, TO 

AMEND PUBLIC LAW 106–392 TO MAINTAIN 

ANNUAL BASE FUNDING FOR THE UPPER 

COLORADO AND SAN JUAN FISH RECOVERY 

PROGRAMS THROUGH FISCAL YEAR 2019. 

‘‘ENDANGERED FISH RECOVERY PROGRAMS 

EXTENSION ACT OF 2012.’’ 

Tuesday, July 10, 2012 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Water and Power 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:59 p.m., in Room 

1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Tom McClintock 

[chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives McClintock, Tipton, Noem; Napolitano, 

and Luja ́n. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. The Committee will come to order. The bad 

news is that we are an hour late. And for that I sincerely apologize 

to all concerned. The good news is we are now not going to be interrupted by votes. So we can go through from beginning to end, 

I think, without interruption. 

We are meeting today to hear testimony on H.R. 6060, the Endangered Fish Recovery Programs Extension Act of 2012. Before 

we proceed further, I would ask unanimous consent that Mr. 

Bishop of Utah and Mr. Gardner be allowed to sit with the Subcommittee and participate in the hearing. 

[No response.] 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Hearing no objection, so ordered. We will 

begin with five-minute opening statements by myself and the 

Ranking Subcommittee Member. And with that, we will start the 

timer. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. TOM McCLINTOCK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. As I said, we have before us H.R. 6060 by 

Congressman Bishop. He is joined by a bipartisan group of cosponsors in the affected States. The bill extends a cooperative program 

affecting the Upper Colorado and San Juan River Basins making 

it possible for local water and power authorities to deal with the 

Endangered Species Act, while at the same time continuing oper-
2 

ations that serve more than 2,300 water and power projects in a 

5-State region. 

The Colorado River Storage Project is absolutely vital for the 

economies of Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico. 

And yet the project operates under a sort of Damocles, the threat 

of litigation or regulatory excess under the Endangered Species Act 

that could catastrophically impact these projects. 

The 106th Congress enacted legislation to allow for a cooperative 

agreement between the non-Federal water and power agencies, the 

affected States, and the Federal Government to manage these conflicts and bring some common-sense reforms to the administration 

of the Endangered Species Act as it applies to the CRSP and other 

projects. Chief among these reforms is to allow hatchery fish to be 

counted in the fish restoration program, a sensible and cost-effective option that is denied in many other areas. 

For example, in the Klamath Region, in my district, continued efforts are being made to tear down four perfectly good hydroelectric 

dams capable of generating 155 megawatts of hydroelectricity in 

the name of boosting salmon populations. But the Iron Gate Fish 

Hatchery on the Klamath is producing burgeoning salmon populations—5 million salmon each year, 17,000 of which return as fully 

grown adults to spawn. But they are not allowed to be counted for 

ESA compliance. And if the dams are removed, the Iron Gate Fish 

Hatchery can no longer operate, and then you have a catastrophic 

plunge in the salmon populations on the Klamath. 

It is this sort of environmental radicalism that the cooperative 

agreement here was able to suppress, and has been renewed and 

augmented in the 109th and 111th Congresses. Specifically, 

H.R. 6060 would continue authorization of this agreement for the 

maximum 7 years permitted under House protocols, the central 

feature of which is to continue the cost-sharing arrangements between Federal and non-Federal agencies, with the non-Federal portion paid by rate-payers who benefit from these facilities. 

The action of the 106th Congress, however, double-counted local 

revenues as both funding for fish recovery and, at the same time, 

for CRSP loan repayments. Continuing this arrangement amounts 

to a Federal match of the Federal match, adding about $3.5 million 

a year of red ink to the deficit. The Congressional Budget Office 

has flagged this provision. And, under the pay-go rules of the 

House, it will have to be offset by other cost savings when it is 

brought to the Floor. 

Assuming this infirmity can be corrected, the measure adds important reforms that were notably absent with the House last visited this issue. It does not ask for Federal appropriations to pay for 

the program. It keeps bureaucrats from spending taxpayer money 

to lobby on this program. It reduces unnecessary and duplicative 

overhead, so that more money can be devoted to fish recovery. And, 

most importantly, it provides a sunset and long-overdue transparency and accountability. In short, this bill requires results, and 

I commend Congressman Bishop for his leadership. This and future 

congresses still have a lot of work to do on reforming the Endangered Species Act. But, in the meantime, this legislation offers 

some common-sense solutions. With that, I yield back the balance 
3 

of my time and recognize the Ranking Member, Mrs. Napolitano, 

for five minutes. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McClintock follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Tom McClintock, Chairman, 

Subcommittee on Water and Power 

We have before us today H.R. 6060 by Congressman Bishop, joined by a bi-partisan group of co-sponsors in the affected states. The bill extends a cooperative program affecting the Upper Colorado and San Juan River Basins, making it possible 

for local water and power authorities to deal with the Endangered Species Act while 

at the same time continuing operations that serve more than 2,300 water and power 

projects in a five state region. 

The Colorado River Storage Project is absolutely vital for the economies of Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico, and yet the project operates under 

a sword of Damocles: the threat of litigation or regulatory excess under the Endangered Species Act that could catastrophically impact these projects. 

The 106th Congress enacted legislation to allow for a cooperative agreement between the non-federal water and power agencies, the affected States and the federal 

government to manage these conflicts, and bring some common sense reforms to the 

administration of the Endangered Species Act as it applies to the CRSP and other 

projects. 

Chief among these reforms is to allow hatchery fish to be counted in the fish restoration program, a sensible and cost-effective option that is denied in other areas. 

In the Klamath Region in my district, for example, continued efforts are being made 

to tear down four perfectly good hydro-electric dams capable of generating 155 

megawatts of hydro-electricity in the name of boosting salmon populations. 

The Iron Gate fish hatchery on the Klamath produces 5 million salmon smolts 

each year, 17,000 of which return as fully grown adults to spawn—but they are not 

allowed to be counted for ESA compliance. And if the dams are removed, the Iron 

Gate Fish hatchery can no longer operate. 

It is this sort of environmental radicalism that the cooperative agreement was 

able to suppress, and it has been renewed and augmented in the 109th and 111th 

Congresses. 

Specifically, H.R. 6060 would continue authorization of this agreement for the 

maximum seven years permitted under House Republican protocols (note: this is a 

Republican leadership rule, not a House rule), the central feature of which is to continue the cost-sharing arrangements between federal and non-federal agencies, with 

the non-federal portion paid by ratepayers who benefit from these facilities. 

The action of the 106th Congress, however, double-counted local revenues as both 

funding for fish recovery and at the same time for CRSP loan repayments. Continuing this arrangement amounts to a federal match of the federal match, adding 

$3 1/2 million a year of red ink to the deficit. The Congressional Budget Office has 

flagged this provision. Under the pay-go rules of the House, it will have to be offset 

by other cost-savings if and when it is brought to the floor. 

Assuming this infirmity can be corrected, the measure adds important reforms 

that were notably absent when the House last visited this issue: 

• It does not ask for federal appropriations to pay for this program 

• It keeps bureaucrats from spending taxpayer money to lobby on this program 

• It reduces unnecessary and duplicative overhead so that more money can be 

devoted to fish recovery 

• Most importantly, it provides a sunset and long overdue transparency 

In short, this bill requires results and I commend Congressman Bishop for his 

leadership. 

This and future Congresses still have a lot of work to do on reforming the Endangered Species Act, but in the meantime this legislation offers some common-sense 

solutions. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, by the way, 

happy birthday. 
4 

As the Chairman stated, H.R. 6060 authorizes the use of power 

revenues as base funding for the two recovery programs in the 

Upper Colorado and the San Juan Rivers. We support the intent 

of this legislation to recover listed species, while allowing for water 

and power operations, which is a win-win for all. We support the 

Administration’s position and commitment to the continuation of 

these programs, and welcome the Majority’s recognition that compliance with the Endangered Species Act doesn’t mean that water 

and power projects in the West must go dry or go dark. 

As we hear from the witnesses today—and thank you for being 

here, all of you—the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program have the dual goals of recovering populations of endangered fish while providing ESA compliance for 2,320 water 

projects. These projects deliver more than 3.7 million acre-feet per 

year in the States, as recognized: Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, and 

New Mexico. It is also important to note that no lawsuits have 

been filed on the ESA compliance for any of these water projects. 

The need for the programs is clear. And a hearing on this legislation is very welcomed. We do, however, have some concerns regarding the legislation itself. Per Republican Rules, H.R. 6060 only extends the authorization for the programs until 2019, conflicting 

with the program’s recovery goal date of 2023. This date has been 

recognized in prior versions of this bill during three consecutive 

sessions of Congress, and reflected in the Tribal, State, and local 

agreements. 

We are also concerned about the limited time left in this Congress to enact this legislation into law. We recognize reclamation 

may already have the authorization to utilize power revenues specifically for these programs. While we would welcome this clarification through H.R. 6060, we also believe that the programs should 

not come to a halt because of the question of reclamation’s existing 

authorities and this Congress’s inability to act. 

We are also disappointed that H.R. 2064, the Hydro 2.0 Act, 

sponsored by Ranking Member Markey and myself was not scheduled for a hearing. We hope that we will be soon. And we look forward to working with my colleagues on a schedule for the future. 

Again, welcome to the witnesses, and yield back the balance of 

my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Napolitano follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Grace F. Napolitano, Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Water and Power 

Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

As the Chairman stated H.R. 6060, authorizes the use of power revenues as base 

funding for two recovery programs in the Upper Colorado and San Juan Rivers. We 

support the intent of H.R. 6060: to recover listed species while allowing for water 

and power operations. We support the Administration’s position and commitment to 

these programs. We also welcome the Majority’s better-late-than-never recognition 

that compliance with the endangered species act does not mean that water and 

power projects in the west must go dry or go dark. 

As we will hear from the witnesses today, the Upper Colorado River Endangered 

Fish Recovery Program and San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program have the dual goals of recovering populations of endangered fish while providing ESA compliance for 2,320 water projects. These projects deliver more than 

3.7 million acre-feet per year in the states of Wyoming, Utah, Colorado and New 

Mexico. 
5 

It is also important to note that no lawsuits have been filed on ESA compliance 

for any of these water projects. 

The need for these programs is clear and a hearing on this legislation is welcomed. We do however have some concerns regarding the legislation. Per Republican 

rules, H.R. 6060 only extends the authorization for the programs until 2019, conflicting with the Program’s recovery goals date of 2023. This date has been recognized in prior versions of this bill during three consecutive sessions of Congress and 

reflected in tribal, state and local agreements. 

We are also concerned about the limited time left this Congress to enact this legislation into law. We recognize that Reclamation may already have the authorization 

to utilize power revenues specifically for these programs. While we would welcome 

this clarification through H.R. 6060, we also believe that the program should not 

come to a halt because of a question of Reclamation’s existing authorities and this 

Congress’s inability to act. 

We were also disappointed that H.R. 6024, the Hydro 2.0 Act sponsored by Ranking Member Markey and myself, was not scheduled for this hearing. We look forward to working with my colleagues on schedule for the future. Welcome to our witnesses today. Yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you. 

The Chair next recognizes the sponsor of the measure, Mr. 

Bishop of Utah. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROB BISHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member. Let 

me just do a couple of things in housekeeping at the very beginning 

of this. I want to thank all of those who are stakeholders who have 

had a portion and a say in the helping and crafting this particular 

bill. This is a bipartisan piece of legislation from those of us who 

are in the West. 

I ask that letters of support be placed into the record. I have 19 

letters of those. If I could ask—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Without objection. 

[NOTE: The letters submitted by Mr. Bishop have been retained 

in the Committee’s official files. A list of documents submitted can 

be found on page 36.] 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. Specifically from the Central Utah 

Water Conservancy District, the Southern Ute Indian Tribe, the 

Utah Waters Association, and also the Bureau of Reclamation has 

supported this bill. 

I would also like to welcome, specifically from Provo City Power, 

Kevin Garlick, who is the energy director there, who will be testifying on this particular bill. This is one where, once again, you 

know, we have an endangered fish recovery program extension. 

There are, what, four different types of endangered fish—kind of 

fish that actually need to be protected. If we don’t do this, and we 

lose the control of this project, then how we manage the water system for the entire Intermountain West is going to be in jeopardy. 

So it is one of those things were we really do have to go forward. 

I think, though, as this has been drafted, it has a couple of areas 

in which we have tried to make provisions to make sure that the 

bulk of the money is actually going to the issue itself and to the 

project. We have tried to cut down administrative overhead and 

tried to smooth out some of those areas to at least use the money 

wisely in this particular area. So I am proud of that. 
6 

So, I want to thank those who are here. I also wish to apologize 

that I—by all rights I should stay for the entire meeting. I have 

Rules Committee that is going right now. So I will beg for your— 

you are not going to give me an apology, are you? I am just going 

to have to bolt out without having—without asking permission—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. The Subcommittee will miss you intensely. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BISHOP. Oh, thank you. I don’t believe any of us. But I appreciate that. It is very kind of you to say that. 

But I thank you for holding the hearing on this. I thank the witnesses who are going to be here. I think this is something that we 

all need for the Intermountain West, specifically in this particular 

area. And I think—I hope we have made some improvements on 

this bill that actually move us forward on the entire issue. 

And with that, I will yield back the remainder of my time. Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you. 

Mr. Gardner? 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. CORY GARDNER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO 

Mr. GARDNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, as 

well, to Ranking Member Napolitano and other colleagues on this 

Committee for allowing me the opportunity to participate in this 

hearing. And I would also like to thank our colleague from Utah, 

Mr. Bishop, for introducing the Endangered Fish Recovery Programs Extension Act of 2012. 

The legislation before the Committee today is needed to protect 

western water projects, hydropower development, and to ensure 

these projects are compliant with the Endangered Species Act. The 

bill assists over 2,300 water projects that withdraw more than 3 

million acre-feet of water, while at the same time protecting 4 endangered species of fish. It also makes important reforms by cutting overhead and prohibiting travel by Federal employees. This 

bill finds common ground and ensures Endangered Species Act protections continue, while giving the Bureau of Reclamation the authorization to continue with this effective and necessary program. 

The bill has two main components. First, the reauthorization of 

this program keeps water projects in the Western Region online, 

and I think that is important. This bill will help keep Western 

projects online. 

And second, the goal is, by 2019, to delist the Humpback Chub, 

Razorback Sucker, Bonytail, and the Colorado Pikeminnow from 

ESA restrictions. Another very worthy goal, to delist these species 

because of their recovery. 

When former Congressman Wayne Aspinall brokered legislation 

to create the Colorado River Storage Project in the 1950s and 

1960s, he knew the importance of developing water infrastructure 

for the West. Through the development of dams, hydroelectric 

power plants and water storage projects, we can preserve the livelihood of rural communities, and help to fight devastating drought, 

produce power, and help local businesses. 

I had the opportunity earlier this year—thank you very much to 

the Chairman again—to participate with this Committee in a hear-
7 

ing about water storage projects. In the hearing I expressed the importance of developing new water projects for surface water storage, because conservation alone cannot meet the needs that Colorado and the West will face. This is particularly true this year in 

the devastating drought conditions that we face. 

Congressman Aspinall knew the difficult challenges on how to 

balance conservation needs with traditional demands for resource 

development. The legislation before the Committee strikes the appropriate balance. This program keeps water projects operating at 

high capacity while continuing to protect endangered species. It is 

an important step, and I am proud to cosponsor H.R. 6060. And 

again, thank you to the Chairman and thank you to the sponsor. 

I yield back my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gardner follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Cory Gardner, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Colorado 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank Chairman McClintock, Ranking 

Member Napolitano, and my other colleagues on this committee for allowing me the 

opportunity to participate in this hearing. I would also like to thank Mr. Bishop for 

introducing the Endangered Fish Recovery Programs Extension Act of 2012. 

The legislation before the committee today is needed to protect western water 

projects, hydropower development, and to ensure these projects are compliant with 

the Endangered Species Act. The bill assists over 2,300 water projects that withdraw more than 3 million acre-feet of water, while at the same time protecting four 

endangered species of fish. It also makes important reforms by cutting program 

overhead and prohibiting travel by federal employees. This bill finds common 

ground and ensures ESA protections continue, while giving the Bureau of Reclamation the authorization to continue with this effective and necessary program. The 

bill has two main components: first, the reauthorization of this program keeps water 

projects in the western region online. Secondly, the goal is by 2019, to delist the 

humpback chub, razor back sucker, bonytail, and the Colorado pikeminnow from 

ESA restrictions. 

When former Congressman Wayne Aspinall brokered legislation to create the Colorado River Storage Project in the 1950s and 1960s, he knew the importance of developing water infrastructure for the west. Through the development of dams, hydroelectric power plants and water storage projects we can preserve the livelihood 

of rural communities and help to fight drought, produce power, and help local businesses. I had the opportunity earlier this year to participate with this committee 

in a hearing about water storage projects. In the hearing I expressed the importance 

of developing new water projects for surface storage, because conservation alone 

cannot meet the water needs that Colorado and the west will face. Congressman 

Aspinall knew the difficult challenges on how to balance rising conversation needs 

with traditional demands for resource development. The legislation before the committee strikes an appropriate balance. This program keeps water projects operating 

at high capacity while continuing to protect endangered species. It is an important 

step, and I am proud to cosponsor H.R. 6060. I thank the committee again for allowing me the opportunity to participate, and I thank the witnesses for being here. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you, Mr. Gardner. 

Mr. Tipton? 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. SCOTT R. TIPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO 

Mr. TIPTON. Thank you, Chairman McClintock, Ranking Member 

Napolitano, for convening today’s hearing. And I would also like to 

thank Chairman Bishop for his leadership in bringing forward this 

critical legislation. 
8 

The Upper Colorado and San Juan River Basins provide key 

water and power resources to the third congressional district of 

Colorado, and other districts in Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, 

and New Mexico. These rivers are also home to native fish species 

at risk of jeopardy findings under the Endangered Species Act. 

Such a finding would impose on Western constituents dramatic 

losses in water availability and hydropower production, resulting in 

lost jobs and increased power rates at a time when we can least 

afford it. 

The Endangered Fish Recovery Act—Species Fish Recovery Act 

of 2012, extending the authorization for the Upper Colorado and 

San Juan fish recovery programs will continue much-needed efforts 

to recover four endangered fish species, and provide Endangered 

Species Act compliance for the Federal, Tribal, and non-Federal 

water projects. These programs are supported by a broad swath of 

stakeholders from local towns and counties to environmental 

groups to private industry, and are excellent examples of local solutions in lieu of onerous Federal management and over-regulation. 

I am also pleased to see the cost reforms in this legislation included at the request of Chairman McClintock. By cutting overhead 

costs and eliminating inefficient agency spending, we can help ensure the success of the programs, while minimizing the taxpayer 

investment necessary to be able to achieve that end. I am optimistic that these programs can reach their goals in the coming 

years, recover the species at issue, and safeguard the economic 

well-being of our communities and the jobs connected to these efforts. 

Thank you. And with that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Tipton follows:] 

Statement of The Honorable Scott R. Tipton, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Colorado 

Thank you Chairman McClintock for convening today’s hearing. I would also like 

to thank Chairman Bishop for his leadership in bringing forward this critical legislation. 

The Upper Colorado and San Juan River Basins provide key water and power resources to the 3rd Congressional District of Colorado and other districts in Colorado, 

Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico. These rivers are also home to native fish 

species at risk of a ‘‘jeopardy’’ finding under the Endangered Species Act. Such a 

finding would impose on western constituents dramatic losses in water availability 

and hydropower production, resulting in lost jobs and increased power rates at a 

time when we can least afford it. 

The Endangered Fish Recovery Act of 2012 extending the authorization for the 

Upper Colorado and San Juan fish recovery programs will continue much needed 

efforts to recover four endangered fish species and provide Endangered Species Act 

compliance for federal, tribal, and non-federal water projects. These programs are 

supported by a broad swath of stakeholders, from local towns and counties to environmental groups, to private industry, and are excellent examples of local solutions 

in lieu of onerous federal management and over-regulation. 

I am also pleased to see the cost reforms in this legislation included at the request 

of Chairman McClintock. By cutting overhead costs and eliminating inefficient agency spending we can help ensure the success of the programs while minimizing the 

taxpayer investment necessary to achieve that end. 

I’m optimistic that these programs can reach their goals in the coming years, recover the species at issue, and safeguard the economic well being of our communities and jobs connected to these efforts. 

[A letter submitted for the record by Mr. Tipton from the 

Colorado River District follows:] 
9 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you very much. Now we will hear from 

our panel of witnesses. We have a five-minute time limit, as was 

outlined in the invitation letter. Monitor that. We have an electronic timing system. When you are down to one minute you will 

have a yellow light. When the light turns red you will notice that 

the Members will start fidgeting uncontrollably, and ultimately 

start throwing things. So I would suggest you stop when the red 
10 

light goes on. Of course, anything that you have submitted in writing will be reprinted in full in the Committee’s proceedings. 

And with that, I am pleased to introduce our first witness, Mr. 

Bennett Raley, Counsel from Denver, Colorado, representing the 

Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF BENNETT W. RALEY, COUNSEL, NORTHERN 

COLORADO WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT, BERTHOUD, 

COLORADO 

Mr. RALEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Napolitano, members of the Committee. It is good to be before this 

Subcommittee again. This Subcommittee has always treated me 

better than I deserved, and I thank you. 

I am here to testify in strong support of H.R. 6060. I am here 

on behalf of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, 

which is one of the premier reclamation projects in the West. It is 

the project that diverts water from the headwaters of the Colorado 

over to the Eastern Plains. It serves roughly 640,000 acres of some 

of the most productive agricultural land in the Nation, and serves 

around three-quarter-million people, with a water supply yearround. It is incredibly important. 

The Colorado-Big Thompson Project, which is not a CRSP 

project, nonetheless relies on the program that will be reauthorized 

by H.R. 6060. 

I am also authorized to speak on behalf of the Front Range 

Water Council. The Front Range Water Council are the water utilities that stretch from Pueblo in the south to Colorado Springs, 

Denver, Aurora, Northern, clear up to Fort Collins in the North, 

the entire front rage of Colorado. That constitutes 80 percent of the 

population in Colorado. It is roughly 80 percent of the GDP of the 

State of Colorado. And all of these entities rely in substantial part 

on a water supply that is covered by the program. They have evidenced their strongest support for it. 

I would like to provide a little history as to the intense need for 

this program. Back in the 1990s, when I was representing Northern Colorado, we almost went into a catastrophe scenario. We were 

threatened with target flows at the Utah-Colorado State Line, that, 

to meet those target flows for Endangered Species Act purposes, 

would have frozen all development in the Upper Colorado River in 

Colorado, and would have forced water users on the East and West 

Slope to put back in the stream hundreds of thousands of acre-feet 

of water. 

Now, some of the members, hundreds of thousands—given you— 

are in systems that are much larger than that—is a small amount. 

For Colorado, that is a huge amount. It would have been a catastrophe. We were close to entering into the litigation zone. We were 

able to negotiate the terms of the program. As a result, we have 

not had the litigation, as a number of you have mentioned. So, we 

are in strong support of this program. 

I would like to make two additional points. When we negotiated 

and came up with a program in 1999, we very much intended that 

this program be reauthorized by Congress periodically. We thought 

that was of great value to build the trust that is necessary to have 

a functioning program. We wanted Congress, the Administration, 
11 

the States, power, the environmental community, and water users 

all to join in a transparent process, and one where it was not a secret, and one that had support of all the major players. 

And so, back in 1999, when we pulled back from the cliff, we 

then hoped that Congress would periodically reauthorize this bill. 

I will close by saying that I have had the experience of dealing 

with the Endangered Species Act in five States. It doesn’t make me 

an expert. All I can do is claim survivor status. In fact, I confess 

that when I went home to Colorado I was happy that the Central 

Valley did not follow me home. I admit that somewhat of cowardice. 

But that experience in five States, what it has taught me is that 

if there is a program like this that is mutually acceptable, it is superior in all respects to the chaos of litigation. Because the chaos 

of litigation and a failure of this program, what it means is it is 

good for lawyers, and nothing else. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Raley follows:] 

Statement of Bennett W. Raley, Trout, Raley, Montano, Witwer & Freeman, 

P.C., Counsel, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District 

Chairman McClintock, Ranking Member Napolitano, Members of the Subcommittee, it is an honor to be before you today to discuss H.R. 6060. I serve as 

Counsel to the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. Northern Water is 

the repayment entity for the Colorado-Big Thompson Project, which is one of the 

most successful federal reclamation projects in the West. Northern Water and its 

Municipal Subdistrict also own, operate and are in the process of developing other 

major water supply projects in Colorado in the Colorado River and South Platte 

River Basins. Approximately 850,000 people live within the boundaries of Northern 

Water and its Municipal Subdistrict. Northern Water and its Municipal Subdistrict 

provide year-round water supplies to over 40 municipalities and domestic water supply districts. Northern Water also delivers water to more than 120 ditch, reservoir, 

and irrigation companies that serve thousands of farms and more than 640,000 

acres of some of the most productive farmland in the western United States. Northern Water participates in and supports the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish 

Recovery Program. 

My perspective on H.R. 6060 is also shaped by my experience over the years, with 

varying levels of intensity, with aquatic and terrestrial Endangered Species Act 

issues in Colorado, the Klamath River Basin, the Central Valley of California and 

the Middle Rio Grande in New Mexico, and with ESA-related litigation in federal 

courts in New Mexico and Arizona. I have also had some experience with the MultiSpecies Conservation Plan in the Lower Colorado River, the Adaptive Management 

Program in the Grand Canyon of the Colorado, the Platte River Recovery Implementation Program, the Middle Rio Grande Endangered Species Collaborative Program, 

and finally, the Upper Colorado River and San Juan River Endangered Fish Recovery Programs that are the subject of today’s hearing. 

I am also authorized to state that the Front Range Water Council, which includes 

Aurora Water, Denver Water, Colorado Springs Utilities, Northern Water, Pueblo 

Board of Water Works, Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District and the 

Twin Lakes Reservoir and Canal Company, is in full support of H.R. 6060. The 

Front Range Water Council entities collectively provide a water supply derived from 

Colorado River projects covered by the Upper Colorado River Program to approximately 4 million people and over 900,000 acres of irrigated lands. 

I know that the Members of this Subcommittee and your staff are very knowledgeable about the Upper Colorado and San Juan Endangered Fish Recovery Programs, and that the testimony of other witnesses and the legislative history of this 

and prior related legislation contain a complete Program description, so I will focus 

my testimony on two points in order to avoid needless repetition. 

First, I cannot overstate the importance of the Upper Colorado River Endangered 

Fish Recovery Program to Northern Water and the other Front Range Water Council entities. These entities are in the process of spending millions of dollars in support of the Program in addition to the contributions by the States and power customers. These entities have the obligation and responsibility to provide a safe and 
12 

reliable water supply for approximately 80% of Colorado’s economy. The Front 

Range Water Council entities support the Program because it is the best way to 

avoid uncertainty and the economic and social costs experienced by other areas of 

the West that have been plunged into chaos by conflicts between water supply needs 

and endangered species. The risks of not having a successful Program are far too 

great. And as the Members of this Subcommittee well know, those risks include 

years of litigation at best, and potentially a devastating disruption of water supplies 

that are critically important to cities, agriculture and industry. 

Many years ago my Congressional testimony was to the effect that in a perfect 

world the Endangered Species Act would be repealed and replaced with a program 

that does more in the real world to protect species and their habitat and does less 

for lawyers and consultants. However, we do not live in a perfect world, and reauthorization and reform of the Endangered Species Act as a whole does not appear 

to be imminent. As an attorney who has participated in ESA-related litigation and 

has the responsibility of advising clients regarding the risks of litigation under the 

ESA, I can tell you that my advice to clients who wish to focus on delivering water 

instead of spending their time in court defending their water supplies is to support 

a reasonable program that achieves ESA objectives without sacrificing operational 

flexibility and yield of their water supply projects. Entities like Northern Water and 

the other Front Range Water Council entities have concluded that programs like the 

Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program are the best way for 

them to avoid potentially catastrophic conflicts under the Endangered Species Act 

and to continue to provide safe and reliable water supplies for cities, for farms, and 

for industry. I do not mean to suggest that Northern Water and other water entities 

will not have scientific and legal defenses to attempts to use the ESA to interfere 

with their water supply projects, but the certainty of the Program is clearly preferable to the uncertainty of litigation. 

Second, my testimony in support of the swift passage and enactment of H.R. 6060 

is also shaped by a portion of the history of the Upper Colorado River Endangered 

Fish Recovery Program. While this Program had been in existence for a number of 

years, in the late 1990’s water users in Colorado were suddenly confronted with 

threats to use the Endangered Species Act to impose ‘‘target flows’’ for listed species 

for the Colorado River at the Colorado-Utah State line. The threatened target flows 

were substantial—under some hydrologic conditions meeting the target flows would 

have required no new depletions in the Colorado River Basin in Colorado and the 

cessation of hundreds of thousands of acre-feet of existing diversions. Simply put, 

we were about to go over a precipice into the chaos of litigation and court-directed 

operations of the Colorado River water supply projects that are the lifeblood of the 

State of Colorado. 

Things looked quite grim until some of the major water users in Colorado, Ralph 

Morganweck, the then-Regional Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife 

Service, and leading members of the environmental community in Colorado developed the trust that was necessary to develop a mutually acceptable cooperative recovery program that avoided the looming conflict between water and hydropower 

projects and the endangered species in the Upper Colorado River Basin. The Upper 

Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program, as currently constituted and 

implemented through the 1999 Programmatic Biological Opinion, was the result of 

this trust. While not perfect, this Program has so far survived two record-setting 

droughts in the Colorado River Basin and produced continuing gains for the listed 

species and a means by which over 2,300 existing and future water-related activities 

could receive ongoing Section 7 coverage. 

I participated in those negotiations on behalf of Northern Water. At the time, 

Northern Water believed that periodic Congressional reauthorization of the Program 

was critically important to creating a sound program that was supported by Congress, the Department of the Interior, the Upper Colorado River Basin States, water 

users and power customers, and the environmental community. As a result, in 2000 

Northern Water supported the legislation that was enacted as Public Law 106–392. 

Today, Northern Water strongly believes that Congress should reauthorize the Program as was originally contemplated back in 2000. 

Your oversight and support of the Program is essential, as the future success of 

this Program is dependent on a continuation of the trust that allowed the Upper 

Colorado River Basin to avoid the catastrophic conflicts between endangered species 

and water development and use that exist elsewhere in the West. That trust is best 

preserved by your continued oversight of the Program and its expenditures. Northern Water and the Front Range Water Council entities support H.R. 6060, including appropriate measures that are designed to ensure that the available funds are 

used in the most effective manner possible. 
13 

A failure of the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program will be 

good for lawyers and not much else. More importantly, a failure of the Program will 

put at risk the water supply for 4 million people and 900,000 acres of irrigated land 

in the Front Range of Colorado. Accordingly, Northern Water and the Front Range 

Water Council urge the swift passage and enactment of H.R. 6060. 

Thank you for allowing me to testify today. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you for your testimony. 

The Committee next welcomes Mr. Kevin Garlick, Executive Director for the Provo City Power Department in Provo, Utah. 

STATEMENT OF KEVIN GARLICK, ENERGY DIRECTOR, 

PROVO CITY POWER, PROVO, UTAH 

Mr. GARLICK. Chairman McClintock, Ranking Member 

Napolitano, members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to testify 

today on behalf of Provo City Power and CREDA, which represents 

the Colorado River Energy Distributors Association, in support of 

H.R. 6060, the Endangered Fish Recovery Programs Extension 

Act. 

Before I state our reasons for supporting this bill, I would like 

to thank Representatives Rob Bishop, Jim Matheson, and Jason 

Chaffetz from Utah, and the other original cosponsors of 

H.R. 6060, for introducing this bill and working to get this hearing 

scheduled today. 

Provo City Power is a non-profit, electric municipal utility that 

serves over 35,000 electrical customers in the City of Provo, Utah. 

CREDA is a non-profit organization that represents consumerowned electric utilities, including municipal utilities like Provo City 

Power, electrical cooperatives, State agencies, and the Indian 

Tribes that purchase clean, renewable, and hydropower for multipurpose Federal Colorado River Storage Project. CREDA members 

include—utilities currently serving over 4 million electric consumers in Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming. 

The Upper Colorado River and the San Juan River Recovery Programs, which I will refer to collectively as the RRP, were authorized to recover four endangered species in the two river basins: the 

Colorado Pikeminnow, the Bonytail Chub, the Humpback Chub, 

and the Razorback Sucker. The RRP is a multi-year collaborative 

effort between the Federal Government, the Upper Colorado River 

Basin States, the water and power customers who benefit from the 

CRSP, Indian Tribes, and others to recover these species, while 

preserving the value of the Colorado River for water and power development and operations. 

I have attached a list of the participants in the RRP program to 

my written testimony. The RRP provides compliance with the Endangered Species Act for over 2,300 water projects in 5 States, 

which collectively would draw about 3.7 million acre-feet of Colorado River water per year, and allows continued operation of the 

Flaming Gorge Dam and the Aspinall unit of the CRSP for water 

and power delivery. The program has two funding mechanisms, a 

capital funding component, and an annual funding component. The 

CRSP power customers provide funding for the RRP from the cell 

of CRSP hydropower to help finance both components, as do the 

Federal Government, the States, and the water users. 
14 

The capital component funds an activity—the capital funds activities such as the fish hatcheries, the passages and screens, water 

acquisitions, and flood plain restorations to recover the endangered 

species. Annual funding provides money for the non-capital funding 

of the RRP, such as predator control, public outreach, and administrative expenses, including program management. The bill before 

the Subcommittee today would reauthorize the use of the power 

revenues for the annual funding for the RRP through 2019. The 

use of power revenues for these purposes originally authorized by 

Congress in 2000 expire at the end of 2011. 

Absent reauthorization, funding for these non-capital activities 

would be at risk, and the success of the program would be jeopardized. Provo City Power and CREDA believe the RRP is an excellent 

example of the private-public cooperation and collaboration to balance the use of the Colorado River and restore endangered species. 

We commend Congress for its foresight in authorizing the RRP in 

2000. We strongly support H.R. 6060, and hope the Subcommittee 

will act promptly to move this bill forward. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Garlick follows:] 

Statement of Kevin Garlick, Energy Director, Provo City Power, 

Provo, Utah 

Chairman McClintock, Ranking Member Napolitano, Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to be here today to testify on behalf of Provo City Power 

and the Colorado River Energy Distributors Association (CREDA) on H.R. 6060, the 

Endangered Fish Recovery Programs Extension Act. 

Provo City Power is a not-for profit, municipally-owned electric utility that serves 

approximately 35,000 retail electric customers in Provo, Utah. 

CREDA is a non-profit organization that represents consumer-owned electric systems that contract for the delivery of federal hydropower from the Colorado River 

Storage Project (CRSP), transmitted over the federal transmission system of the 

Western Area Power Administration (WAPA). The CRSP includes several dams and 

reservoirs that provide municipal and industrial (M&I) and irrigation water supplies 

and generate clean, renewable hydropower for over 5 million consumers in six western states. 

CREDA members are all non-profit organizations, serving over four million electric consumers in Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. 

Members include political subdivisions—like Provo City Power—electric cooperatives, state agencies, municipalities and tribal utilities. 

CREDA members (listing attached) purchase over 85 percent of the CRSP hydropower generation, the revenues from which are a primary funding source of the 

Upper Colorado River and San Juan River Endangered Fish Recovery Implementation Programs (Recovery Programs). CREDA has been an active participant in these 

Recovery Programs since their authorization. 

The Recovery Programs provide Endangered Species Act (ESA) compliance for 

over 2,320 water projects that withdraw about 3.7 million acre-feet of water annually. The goals of the programs are to recover four endangered fish species—the 

humpback chub, razorback sucker, bonytail chub and the Colorado pikeminnow— 

while continuing operations and development of water projects in the Upper Colorado River and San Juan River basins, and operation of the Flaming Gorge Dam 

and Aspinall Unit facilities of the Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP.) 

THE COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT (CRSP) 

The CRSP was authorized in the Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956 

(P.L. 485, 84th Cong., 70 Stat. 50), as a multi-purpose federal project that provides 

flood control and water storage for irrigation, municipal and industrial purposes, in 

addition to the generation of hydropower. The operations of two of CRSP’s features—Flaming Gorge Dam and the Aspinall Unit—are affected by decisions relating to recovery of the endangered species in the Upper Colorado and San Juan Basins. Since the early 1990’s, as part of the Recovery Program, studies have been undertaken to determine endangered fish needs in this regions and operations of the 

dams have been adjusted. 
15 

Flaming Gorge Dam is on the Green River, a major tributary of the Colorado 

River, and is located near Vernal, Utah. Flaming Gorge has three units producing 

about 152 MW of generation. In 2007, the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) finished an environmental impact states and issued a Record of Decision on the operations of Flaming Gorge Dam, which is intended to assist in recovery of the endangered fish species. 

Changes in the operation of the Flaming Gorge generating units were estimated 

in the EIS to impact CRSP hydropower generation by $118.7 million over a 25-year 

period. 

The Aspinall Unit includes three dams and generating units along the Gunnison 

River near Gunnison, Colorado. Blue Mesa is the first dam on the river and has 

two generating units producing about 97 MW. Morrow Point is the second dam in 

the series and consists of two generators producing a total of 146 MW. Crystal is 

the final dam and has one 32 MW generator. Morrow Point and Crystal Reservoirs 

allow some regulation of the river flow so that releases from Crystal can be used 

to regulate downstream flows as necessary. 

Reclamation completed an Environmental Impact Statement on the operation of 

the Aspinall Unit, and issued a Record of Decision on May 3, 2012. The changed 

operations are intended to assist in the recovery of endangered fish species while 

maintaining the authorized purposes of the Unit, and will result in impacts to CRSP 

hydropower generation. 

HISTORY OF THE RECOVERY PROGRAMS 

The Recovery Programs were established through Cooperative Agreements among 

the Upper Basin States of Colorado, Utah, New Mexico and Wyoming and federal 

agencies in 1988 (Upper Colorado) and 1992 (San Juan) for an initial 15-year period 

to help recover four species of endangered fish in the two river basins. In August 

2009, the Cooperative Agreements were extended through 2023. 

In October 2000, Congress passed legislation (P.L. 106–392) which authorized a 

$100 million capital improvements program. The legislation required ‘‘matching 

funds’’ for the capital program so that, in the event State funding for the program 

ceased, so too would power revenue funding. 

CREDA testified in support of this legislation in both the House and Senate. The 

legislation also had the support of the Upper Basin States, federal agencies and 

some environmental groups. 

The 2000 law also authorized the use of CRSP power revenue funding for ‘‘base 

funding’’ of activities including operation and maintenance of capital features, and 

recovery actions other than capital projects, including monitoring and research, and 

program management. 

The law states that, ‘‘The utilization of power revenues for annual based funding 

shall cease after fiscal year 2011, unless reauthorized by Congress; except that power 

revenues may continue to be utilized to fund the operation and maintenance of capital project and monitoring.’’ 

This partial sunset reduced the availability of annual power revenue funding from 

approximately $7.5 million to approximately $4.0 million per year. The shortfall of 

approximately $3.5 million may eliminate several ongoing annual activities (such as 

research and non-native fish control) needed to maintain ESA compliance. 

To date, CRSP power revenues have provided over $79.7 million of annual, or 

‘‘base’’, funding. 

NEED FOR H.R. 6060 

CREDA has been an active participant in the Recovery Programs since their inception, and believes that the programs are an excellent model of federal/non-federal 

collaboration. Efforts towards endangered fish recovery have had success and continue, but recovery has not been achieved. 

In order for there to be a reliable, certain source of funding for annual ‘‘base’’ 

funding, H.R. 6060 would extend the authorization for the Upper Colorado and San 

Juan Recovery Programs through FY 2019, at current levels. 

As under current law, after 2019 use of annual base funding would be limited to 

operation and maintenance of capital projects and monitoring. 

H.R. 6060 would also make the following changes in the program: 

• Require a report by the Secretary of the Interior in FY 2018 regarding the 

status of the species and the use of power revenues for base funding, in order 

to provide Congress with more timely information; 

• Limit the overhead rate applied to funds transferred to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service from federal agencies to 3%; and 

• Limit the use of federal funds by Department of Interior staff to travel to locations other than their duty station to advocate for the program. 
16 

Provo City and CREDA continue to support the Recovery Programs and urge passage of H.R. 6060. 

COLORADO RIVER ENERGY DISTRIBUTORS ASSOCIATION (CREDA) 

MEMBERSHIP 

ARIZONA 

Arizona Municipal Power Users Association 

Arizona Power Authority 

Arizona Power Pooling Association 

Irrigation and Electrical Districts Association of Arizona, Inc. 

Navajo Tribal Utility Authority (also New Mexico, Utah) 

Salt River Project 

COLORADO 

Colorado Springs Utilities 

Intermountain Rural Electric Association 

Platte River Power Authority 

Tri-State Generation & Transmission Cooperative (also Nebraska, Wyoming and 

New Mexico) 

Yampa Valley Electric Association, Inc. 

NEVADA 

Colorado River Commission of Nevada 

Silver State Electric Association 

NEW MEXICO 

Farmington Electric Utility System 

Los Alamos County 

Tri-State Generation & Transmission Cooperative 

City of Truth or Consequences 

UTAH 

City of Provo 

City of St. George 

South Utah Valley Electric Association 

Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems 

Utah Municipal Power Agency 

WYOMING 

Wyoming Municipal Power Agency 

Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program Partners 

• State of Colorado 

• State of Utah 

• State of Wyoming 

• Bureau of Reclamation 

• Colorado River Energy Distributors Association 

• Colorado Water Congress 

• National Park Service 

• The Nature Conservancy 

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

• Utah Water Users Association 

• Western Area Power Administration 

• Western Resource Advocates 

• Wyoming Water Association 

San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program Partners 

• State of Colorado 

• State of New Mexico 

• Jicarilla Apache Nation 

• Navajo Nation 

• Southern Ute Indian Tribe 

• Ute Mountain Ute Tribe 

• Bureau of Indian Affairs 

• Bureau of Land Management 

• Bureau of Reclamation 

• The Nature Conservancy 
17 

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

• Water Development Interests 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you for your testimony. 

Our next witness is Mr. Grayford Payne, a Deputy Administrator 

for Policy Administration and Budget from the Bureau of Reclamation. 

STATEMENT OF GRAYFORD PAYNE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER 

FOR POLICY, ADMINISTRATION AND BUDGET, BUREAU OF 

RECLAMATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you, Chairman. Chairman McClintock, Ranking Member Napolitano, and members of the Subcommittee, I am 

Grayford Payne, Deputy Commissioner of Policy, Administration, 

and Budget at the Bureau of Reclamation. I am pleased to provide 

the views of the Department of the Interior on H.R. 6060, the Endangered Fish Recovery Programs Extension Act of 2012. With 

some clarifications, I will summarize today. 

The Department supports H.R. 6060. The Upper Colorado River 

Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan River Basin 

Recovery Implementation Program share the dual goal of recovering populations of endangered fish, while enabling water development. Program actions provide Endangered Species Act compliance 

for more than 2,300 Federal, Tribal, and non-Federal water 

projects depleting 3.4 million acre-feet of water per year in the Colorado and San Juan Rivers and their tributaries. 

The programs expressly authorized under Public Law 106–392 in 

2000 were first established under cooperative agreements in 1988 

for Upper Colorado and 1992 for San Juan, respectively. Program 

partners include the State of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming, as well as Western Area Power Administration, Bureau of 

Reclamation, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, Indian Affairs, along with Native 

American Tribes, environmental organizations, water users, and 

power customers. 

Public law 106–392 provides clear parameters for the use of the 

$6 million per year, indexed for inflation, of Colorado River Storage 

Project hydropower revenues from Glen Canyon Dam and other 

CRSP facilities to support the base funding needs of the programs. 

Base funding is used for program management, scientific research, 

fish population monitoring, fish stocking, control of non-native fish, 

and operation and maintenance of capital projects. 

The Department believes that the CRSP Act of 1956 provides the 

underlying authority for the use of hydropower revenues to support 

the base funding needs of the program. From that perspective, 

H.R. 6060 provides the complementary authority to continue using 

power revenues for base funding, in our view. 

We understand the program partners’ desire for certainty, and 

we recognize that P.L. 106–392 provides a good approach to implementing the programs. For that reason, we support the complementary use of that authority, and support H.R. 6060. The Department, however, reserves the right to comment on any specific funding offsets that may be suggested in order to meet the Committee’s 
18 

funding requirements. Section 2 of H.R. 6060 would require— 

would extend the authorization to utilize CRSP hydropower revenues at the current level, approximately $7.6 million in 2012 dollars through 2019 to support the base funding needs of both programs. 

Section 2 of H.R. 6060 would also direct the preparation of a second report to Congress on the utilization of hydropower revenues 

by 2018, with new requirements that the report describe the status 

of listed fish with projected dates for downlisting and delisting 

them under the ESA. 

Section 3 of the bill would limit rates for cost recovery by the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on transfers from other agencies. 

And Section 4 would limit the use of Federal funds for advocacy by 

departmental employees. 

My written statements speak more fully to these sections of this 

legislation, as they pertain more directly to the Fish and Wildlife 

Service. I will otherwise defer on addressing these issues during today’s testimony. 

In closing, the Upper Colorado River and San Juan River recovery programs take a successful cooperative approach to recovering 

aquatic native fish species, avoiding litigation and providing ESA 

compliance to Federal and non-Federal water users. The continued 

use of CRSP hydropower revenues is critical to the ability of these 

programs to realize their goal. 

This concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer any 

questions at the appropriate time. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Payne follows:] 

Statement of Grayford F. Payne, Deputy Commissioner for Policy, 

Administration and Budget, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of 

the Interior 

Chairman McClintock and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Grayford Payne, 

Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Administration and Budget at the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). I am pleased to provide the views of the Department of the 

Interior (Department) on H.R. 6060, the ‘‘Endangered Fish Recovery Programs Extension Act of 2012.’’ With some clarifications described below, the Department 

would support H.R. 6060. 

The Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and San Juan 

River Basin Recovery Implementation Program (Programs) share the dual goals of 

recovering populations of endangered fish while water development continues to 

meet current and future human needs. Program actions provide Endangered Species 

Act (ESA) compliance for more than 2,300 federal, tribal, and non-federal water 

projects depleting 3.4 million acre-feet of water per year in the Colorado and San 

Juan rivers and their tributaries. The Programs, authorized by Public Law 106–392, 

as amended, were established under cooperative agreements in 1988 (Upper Colorado) and 1992 (San Juan) and were funded through the Colorado River Storage 

Project Act of 1956 (CRSP). Program partners include the states of Colorado, New 

Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming; the Bureau of Reclamation, Western Area Power Administration, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, National 

Park Service, and Bureau of Indian Affairs; Native American tribes; environmental 

organizations; water users; and power customers. 

Public Law (PL) 106–392 expressly authorized the use of a maximum of $6 million 

per year (indexed for inflation) in CRSP hydropower revenues from Glen Canyon 

Dam and other CRSP facilities to support the base funding needs of the Programs 

through 2011. Base funding is used for program management, scientific research, 

fish population monitoring, fish stocking, control of non-native fish, and operation 

and maintenance of capital projects. 

Section 2 of H.R. 6060 as introduced would extend the authorization to utilize 

CRSP hydropower revenues at the current level (up to $6 million per year adjusted 

for inflation, or approximately $7.6 million in 2012 dollars) through 2019 to support 
19 

1The most recent drafts of the recovery goals (2008) contain the following time frames for 

delisting the four endangered fish species: humpback chub (2016), Colorado pikeminnow (2021), 

razorback sucker (2023), and bonytail chub (2023). These documents are currently under review 

and final documents are not yet available. 2 H.R. 7169 (110th Congress), H.R. 2288 (111th Congress), S. 1453 (111th Congress), and 

S. 1224 (112th Congress). 3 Reclamation submitted the first report pursuant to Section 3(d)(2) of PL 106–392 on 

April 28, 2010. 

the base funding needs of both Programs. The Program’s recovery goals extend to 

the year 2023 1, and that date has been recognized in prior versions of this bill during three consecutive sessions of Congress 2. However we understand that 

H.R. 6060’s extension to the year 2019 is linked to a limitation in the House’s current rules regarding the length of authorizations for all programs, and has no linkage to these specific Programs. Section 2 of the bill would also direct the preparation 

of a second report to Congress on the utilization of hydropower revenues 3 by 2018, 

with new requirements that the report describe the status of listed fish with projected dates for downlisting and delisting them under the ESA. 

The Department believes that the CRSP Act of 1956 provides the underlying authority for the use of hydropower revenues to support the base funding needs of the 

Programs. From that perspective, H.R. 6060 provides complementary authority to 

continue using power revenues for base funding in our view. We understand the 

Program partners’ desire for certainty, and we recognize that PL 106–392 provided 

a good approach to implementing the Programs. For that reason we support the 

complementary use of that authority and support H.R. 6060. The Department, however, reserves the right to comment on any specific funding offset that may be suggested in order to meet the Committee’s funding requirements. 

Section 3 of H.R. 6060 would limit the rates of cost recovery by the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service on any transfers to the agency for activities associated with the Programs. The Bureau of Reclamation transfers funds to the Fish and Wildlife Service 

to conduct work under the Recovery Programs. With the funds provided by Reclamation, the Service conducts biological research, monitors fish populations and their 

responses to recovery actions, implements non-native fish control, produces endangered fish for stocking and provides program management services. The Service 

charges Reclamation a reduced overhead rate of 11% for these activities. Fish and 

Wildlife Service Policy (264 FW 1) and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 

Circular A–25 require that the Service recover full costs of providing goods and services to private entities, States, tribes, and other government agencies. This achieves 

the dual objectives of ensuring that the service, sale, or use of Service goods or resources are provided to agencies in a self-sustaining manner; and promoting efficient allocation of our resources by establishing charges that reimburse the Service 

for these activities. Limiting the cost recovery rate to 3 percent would make it impossible for the Service to recover the full costs of providing these services. We 

would be happy to work with the Committee to explore alternative language regarding cost recovery. 

Section 4 of H.R. 6060 would direct that no federal funds may be used for any 

Departmental employees or detailees to travel to any locations to ‘‘. . .advocate, 

lobby, or attend meetings that advocate or lobby. . .’’ for the Programs. Existing law 

restricts lobbying with appropriated funds and is applicable to all executive branch 

agencies, including the Department. This existing provision makes Section 4 unnecessary and duplicative of existing law. 

The Upper Colorado and San Juan River Recovery Programs have been nationally 

recognized for their cooperative approach to recovering aquatic native fish species, 

avoiding litigation, and providing ESA compliance to federal and non-federal water 

users. The continued use of CRSP hydropower revenues is critical to the ability of 

these Programs to realize their goals. There appears to be strong support for this 

legislation from the Program’s non-federal stakeholders. 

This concludes my written statement. I would be pleased to answer questions at 

the appropriate time. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Great. Thank you for your testimony. 

Our next witness is Mr. Randy Kirkpatrick, Executive Director 

for the San Juan Water Commission in Farmington, New Mexico. 

Welcome. 
20 

STATEMENT OF RANDY KIRKPATRICK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

SAN JUAN WATER COMMISSION, FARMINGTON, NEW MEXICO 

Mr. KIRKPATRICK. Chairman McClintock, Ranking Member 

Napolitano, members of the Water and Power Subcommittee, it is 

a pleasure to be before you in support of the Endangered Fish Recovery Programs Extension Act of 2012. Both of the programs, the 

Upper Colorado and the San Juan Recovery Program, are recognized successes. 

Today I will focus on the San Juan Basin Recovery Implementation Program, as others before you will today address the Upper 

Basin Program. 

I am the Executive Director of the San Juan Water Commission 

established in 1986 to develop, administer the Animas-La Plata 

Water Project, and plan, protect, and secure sufficient water supplies for existing and future uses in San Juan County, New Mexico. 

The Commission has participated in the development implementation of the San Juan Recovery Program for 23 years, and continues today in working to a successful meeting of the program 

goals. And those goals are to conserve the population of Colorado 

Pikeminnow and Razorback Sucker in the Basin, consistent with 

the recovery goals established under the Endangered Species Act, 

and to proceed with water development and compliance with Federal and State laws, inter-state compacts, Supreme Court decrees, 

and Federal trust responsibility to the Southern Ute Tribe, Ute 

Mountain Tribe, Jicarilla Nation, and the Navajo Nation. 

Program participants include 12 parties: State, Federal agencies, 

environmental interests, Tribes, and water users, a list of which is 

on my written testimony. In the San Juan Basin, 319 projects representing 880,000 acre-feet have met ESA compliance as a result 

of this program, including those needed to meet the Federal settlement of four Native American Tribes—Nations in the Basin. 

The two endangered fish have been recovering since 1990. The 

Colorado Pikeminnow has grown from as few as 20 to well over 

2,500 in the San Juan River. The Razorback Sucker, virtually from 

none to over 1,200 adults in 2010. The defined end point for the 

program is the delist dates for the Colorado Pikeminnow, 2020, and 

the Razorback Sucker, 2023. 

Following delisting, the Federal Government, States—and possibly other parties will enter into agreements to prevent the fish 

becoming listed again. Cost support for the program has been provided by a combination of State, power customers, water users, and 

the Federal Government. Support has always been across the 

board, and continues thus, as evidenced by the sponsor of the 

amendment before you today. 

Without this amendment, long-term improvements, protection of 

the fish status, and our ability to fully develop and use our already 

limited water supplies may be in jeopardy. Public Law 106–392 

should be amended to allow continued use of power revenues for 

annual base funding of all activities, as originally authorized. 

I appreciate this opportunity to provide this testimony to the 

Water and Power Subcommittee. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kirkpatrick follows:] 
21 

Statement of L. Randy Kirkpatrick, Executive Director, 

San Juan Water Commission, Farmington, New Mexico 

My name is Randy Kirkpatrick. I am Executive Director, San Juan Water Commission, Farmington, New Mexico. I am here to testify in support of H.R. 6060. 

The San Juan Water Commission (Commission) was established in 1986 to receive 

and administer Animas-La Plata Project water and secure additional water supplies 

for existing and future demands for San Juan County. The Commission holds water 

rights, monitors water supplies and collects data. The Commission advocates water 

resource conservation and water development. The Commission represents more 

than 120,000 people in northwestern New Mexico. 

The Commission participated in negotiations initiated in 1989 regarding Endangered Species Act compliance for water projects that resulted in creation of the San 

Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program (San Juan Program). The 

Commission has been actively involved in implementation of the San Juan Program 

since its inception in 1992. 

My testimony will focus on the San Juan Program, the benefits of the Program 

to federal, non-federal and tribal water users in the San Juan basin, and the need 

for H. R. 6060. 

I believe you will be receiving or have received letters of support for H.R. 6060 

from numerous non-federal participants in the San Juan program. 

UPPER COLORADO AND SAN JUAN RIVER BASIN RECOVERY PROGRAMS 

The programs have the goals of recovering four federally listed endangered fish 

species in the Upper Colorado River basin while water development and management activities proceed in compliance with state and laws, interstate compacts, tribal water rights, Indian trust responsibilities of the United States, and the Federal 

Endangered Species Act. Activities of the programs provide Endangered Species Act 

compliance for more than 2,300 water projects depleting approximately three million 

acre-feet per year in the Upper Colorado River and San Juan River basins, including every Bureau of Reclamation project in the Upper Basin upstream of Lake Powell, water projects that meet the United States trust obligations to American Indian 

tribes, and literally hundreds of non-federal water projects providing water for municipal, irrigation, industrial, and recreational uses. No lawsuits have been filed as 

a result of ESA compliance for water projects under the recovery programs. 

The programs have been hailed by administrations of both parties for their successes. In 2000, Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt referred to the Upper Basin 

recovery programs as ‘‘an ongoing success story’’ (Colorado River Water Users Association, 2000). Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton referred to the programs as a 

national model of how the Endangered Species Act should be implemented (Colorado 

Water Congress, 2006). In 2008, Secretary Dirk Kempthorne awarded the Upper 

Basin and San Juan programs the Department of the Interior’s Cooperative Conservation Award for the successful history of stakeholder collaboration resolving 

‘‘seemingly intractable water use conflicts...’’ 

The programs have substantial grassroots support among participants. Since the 

inception of these programs, they have enjoyed strong support in Congress, as indicated by the substantial bi-partisan support for H.R. 6060. 

THE SAN JUAN RECOVERY PROGRAM 

The San Juan Program was established in 1992. The San Juan Program includes 

the San Juan River drainage in Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah, totaling approximately 23,000 square miles. The two goals of the Recovery Program are: 

1) to conserve populations of Colorado pikeminnow and razorback sucker in the 

basin consistent with the recovery goals established under the Endangered 

Species Act, and 

2) to proceed with water development in the basin in compliance with federal 

and state laws, interstate compacts, Supreme Court decrees, and federal 

trust responsibilities to the Southern Ute Tribe, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, 

Jicarilla Apache Nation, and the Navajo Nation. 

The dual goals guide actions by the San Juan Program. 

San Juan Program participants include: 

• Bureau of Reclamation 

• U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

• Bureau of Indian Affairs 

• Bureau of Land Management 

• States of Colorado and New Mexico 

• Jicarilla Apache Nation 

• Navajo Nation 
22 

• Southern Ute Tribe 

• Ute Mountain Ute Tribe 

• The Nature Conservancy 

• Water Development Interests 

ESA Compliance for Water Depletions in the San Juan Basin 

The San Juan Program implements actions to achieve recovery of the species and 

provide ESA compliance for Federal, non-Federal and tribal water development and 

management activities. These actions avoid jeopardy, avoid adverse modifications of 

critical habitat, and provide measures to minimize any incidental take of endangered fish that occurs. Federal Reclamation Projects include Navajo Dam, Reservoir, 

the Animas-La Plata Project and others. ESA compliance for water projects in New 

Mexico, Colorado, and Utah is summarized in the table below: 

In addition to in-basin water use, the Recovery Program provides ESA compliance 

for the Reclamation’s San Juan-Chama Project. San Juan-Chama diverts 100,000 

acre-feet/year of critical water supplies to Rio Grande basin municipalities, industries, agriculture, and Native American pueblos in central New Mexico. 

ESA Compliance for Tribal Water Projects 

Reservations of four Native American tribes are located wholly or partially within 

the San Juan basin: Navajo Nation, Jicarilla Apache Nation, Southern Ute Tribe, 

and Ute Mountain Ute Tribe. The Secretary of the Interior has a trust responsibility 

to assert and protect the trust water resources of the four tribes in the basin. The 

San Juan Program allows the United States to carry out its trust responsibilities 

in compliance with the ESA for a number of activities that benefit the tribes including: 

• Colorado Ute Settlement 

• Navajo Water Settlement 

• Jicarilla PNM Water Contract 

• Navajo Gallup Pipeline 

• Navajo Indian Irrigation Project 

• Jicarilla Water Settlement 

The San Juan Program also provides ESA compliance for small water projects on 

tribal lands benefitting the tribes. 

Recovery of Endangered Fish in the San Juan Basin 

The originators of the San Juan Program recognized that factors other than flows 

contributed to the endangerment and affect the recovery of the endangered fish species. To achieve recovery, the multifaceted Program includes: 

• provision of water for fish habitat, 

• habitat development (fish screens, fish passages, braided reaches), 

• research and monitoring, 

• stocking of endangered fish, 

• controlling non-native fish species, and 

• water quality protection. 

The San Juan Program also includes information/education and program management components. 
23 

Some 180 miles of critical habitat are now accessible to the endangered fish and 

other native species due to fish passages. Hatcheries are producing genetically diverse Colorado pikeminnow and razorback suckers for stocking to restore these species. The impacts of introduced non-native species are being reduced. Research and 

monitoring continue to evaluate the populations, impacts of recovery actions on 

those populations, and the need for scientifically based adaptive management. When 

the San Juan Program was initiated, there were an estimated 20 to 60 Colorado 

pikeminnow and virtually no razorback sucker in the San Juan River. The numbers 

of Colorado pikeminnow and razorback sucker, once almost gone in the basin, have 

dramatically increased as shown in the graphs below. 

Razorback sucker and Colorado pikeminnow adult and sub-adult numbers continue to increase in the San Juan River, showing that the adult fish are surviving 

in the system. Both species are also spawning as evidenced by constant larval fish 
24 

captures. Juvenile razorback sucker have been captured indicating that larval fish 

are surviving. 

END DATES FOR RECOVERY PROGRAMS 

Recovery of the listed species is the goal of the San Juan Program. Recovery provides a defined end point for the Program. Recovery is dependent on the status of 

the species in both the Upper Colorado and San Juan river basins. The projected 

delist date for the Colorado pikeminnow is 2020. For the razorback sucker, it is 

2023. Therefore, the projected end date for the San Juan Program is 2023. Following 

delisting, the Federal government, the states and possibly other parties will enter 

into agreements to ensure that conditions resulting in delisting are maintained so 

that the species don’t become listed again. 

RECOVERY PROGRAMS AUTHORIZING LEGISLATION—P.L. 106–392 

P.L. 106–392 was signed into law on October 30, 2000. The law authorizes the 

Bureau of Reclamation to provide cost sharing of capital construction and annual 

operations for both the Upper Colorado and San Juan River endangered fish recovery programs. The law recognizes significant and specific cost sharing contributions 

to the programs by the States of Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, and New Mexico, power 

customers, and water users for these purposes. 

P.L. 106–392 has been amended three times with strong bi-partisan support. 

P.L. 107–375 extended the period for capital construction to 2008 for both programs. P.L. 109–183 extended the period for construction of capital projects for both 

programs through FY 2010, authorized an additional $15 million in capital expenditures for the Upper Colorado River Recovery Program, and recognized an additional 

$11 million in non-federal cost share contributions. P.L. 111–11 provided an additional $27 million in federal authority, recognized an additional $56 million in nonfederal contributions, and extended the funding authority to FY 2023, the expected 

date for recovery of the four endangered fish species. 

H.R. 6060 Amendments Regarding Authorization of Continued Annual Base 

Funding from Power Revenues 

Annual base funds from power revenues contribute significantly to the successful 

implementation of recovery actions by both recovery programs, including instream 

flow identification, evaluation, and protection; habitat restoration and maintenance; 

management of nonnative fish impacts; endangered fish propagation and stocking; 

research, monitoring, and data management; public information and involvement; 

and program management. Subsequent to passage of P.L. 106–392, $46,465,562 in 

power revenue base funds have been expended or obligated by the Upper Colorado 

Recovery Program, and $22,269,167 by the San Juan Recovery Program (2001– 

2012). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the four participating states, American 

Indian Tribes, and water users also provide additional annual funding and in-kind 

contributions for these activities. 

The authorization for use of power revenues for annual base funding of recovery 

program actions, other than for operation and maintenance of capital projects and 

monitoring, ceased as of fiscal year 2011. 

The approximate fiscal impacts of reductions in annual base funding (estimates 

in fiscal year 2008 dollars) after fiscal year 2011 without reauthorization are summarized as follows: 

The fiscal impacts are based on 2011–2011 expenditures by the two recovery programs. Without reauthorization, annual base funding from power revenues for nonnative fish management, research, public information and involvement, and program management would be eliminated from both recovery programs. This would 

delay and significantly impede the recovery programs’ achievements in restoring 

populations of the endangered fishes. As a result, ESA compliance provided by re-
25 

covery program actions for more than 2,300 water projects, as well as future 

projects, would not likely continue. ESA compliance depends not only on implementing recovery actions, but is ultimately and directly linked to long-term improvement in the status of fish populations. 

Continuation of Current Levels of Annual Funding from Other Sources 

The language in the existing legislation that base funding and depletion charges 

previously agreed upon will be retained: ‘‘Nothing in this Act shall otherwise modify 

or amend existing agreements among participants regarding base funding and depletion charges for the Recovery Implementation Programs.’’ This provides that annual 

and in-kind contributions by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the four participating States, American Indian Tribes, and water users identified in the original 

agreements will continue. 

RECOMMENDATION REGARDING BASE FUNDING 

P.L. 106–392 should be amended to allow continued use of power revenues 

through 2019 for annual base funding of all activities as originally authorized and 

which are necessary to achieve recovery. The expected date of recovery of the razorback sucker and bonytail is 2023. H.R. 6060 implements these recommendations. I 

recommend that Congress pass amendments to insure continued base funding at 

current levels. H.R. 6060 accomplishes this. 

I appreciate the opportunity to provide this testimony to the Water and Power 

Subcommittee. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you for your testimony. 

Our final witness is Mr. John Shields, the Interstate Streams 

Engineer for the Wyoming State Engineer’s Office from Cheyenne, 

Wyoming to testify. Welcome to the Committee. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN W. SHIELDS, INTERSTATE STREAMS 

ENGINEER, WYOMING STATE ENGINEER’S OFFICE, 

CHEYENNE, WYOMING 

Mr. SHIELDS. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman McClintock, 

Ranking Member Napolitano, and members of the Subcommittee. 

As the Chairman indicated, my name is John Shields. I work for 

the Wyoming State Engineer’s office. I have represented Wyoming 

on the management committee of the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program since the program’s initiation. 

Wyoming participated in the negotiation of the Upper Colorado 

Program, and has participated in implementing it since it got underway in 1988. I am very pleased to testify in support of 

H.R. 6060, the Endangered Fish Programs Recovery Extension Act 

of 2012 [sic]. 

H.R. 6060 addresses the needs of both the Upper Colorado River 

Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan River Basin 

Recovery Implementation Program. Extension of authority to continue all use of Colorado River Storage Project hydropower revenues for all annual base funding purposes is critical to the ability 

of these programs to realize their goals to recover the four endangered fish species. 

Absent reauthorization, we foresee significant issues arising with 

Endangered Species Act compliance for the more than 2,300 water 

projects relying on these programs. Failure to provide full annual 

base funding would cripple the programs. The programs face losing 

about $3 million in funding used for critically important non-native 

fish management and control, scientific research, administrative 

program management, and public information activities, as the 

other witnesses have described to you today. That $3 million 
26 

amount is more than 40 percent of the 2 programs’ total annual 

base funding. 

Elimination of these recovery activities will impede and significantly delay the program’s ability to restore the four endangered 

fish species to self-sustaining population levels, which is the all-important benchmark to achieve recovery of the fish. These outcomes 

are unacceptable to all of the recovery program’s participants. The 

programs are using innovative, cost-effective measures to recover 

the fish, while water development and management activities proceed in compliance with State laws, interstate compacts, and the 

Federal Endangered Species Act. 

The programs have recovery goals containing objective, measurable criteria for downlisting and delisting the species, including numeric population goals, and site-specific management actions necessary to minimize threats. The recovery goals allow the programs 

to monitor progress toward achieving recovery, to assess the effectiveness of management actions, and to adjust recovery efforts 

through adaptive management. 

Section 4 of the ESA requires status reviews of each listed species’ progress toward recovery each 5 years. The U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service’s current five-year reviews include timelines projecting recovery of the four fish species will occur by the end of 

2023, at which time the programs will end. The programs have 

been designed to end when the four fish species have been recovered. Recovery of the endangered fish will achieve the ultimate goal 

of the ESA. Recovery provides the greatest regulatory certainty for 

Federal and non-Federal water development and management activities. 

H.R. 6060 should be enacted into law. Enactment will allow the 

two recovery programs to continue to use CRSP hydropower revenues for all annual base funding activities through 2019 at currently authorized levels. All of the ongoing annual base funding activities are critical to these programs, accomplishing the primary 

goal of recovering the four endangered fish species by 2023. 

I greatly appreciate the opportunity to provide this testimony 

supporting the enactment of H.R. 6060, and will be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shields follows:] 

Statement of John W. Shields, Interstate Streams Engineer, 

Wyoming State Engineer’s Office 

Chairman McClintock, Ranking Member Napolitano, and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is John Shields. I am the Interstate Streams Engineer for the 

Wyoming State Engineer’s Office in Cheyenne, Wyoming. I represent Wyoming on 

the Management Committee of the Upper Colorado Endangered Fish Recovery Program. That committee reports to the Program’s governing committee. Wyoming participated in negotiation of the Program and has participated in implementation of 

the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program since its inception in 

1988. I am here to testify in support of H.R. 6060, the Endangered Fish Recovery 

Programs Act of 2012, a bill to amend Public Law 106–392 to maintain annual base 

funding for the Upper Colorado and San Juan fish recovery programs through fiscal 

year 2019. 

H.R. 6060 addresses the needs of both the Upper Colorado River Endangered 

Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation 

Program (Programs). Extension of the authority to continue use of Colorado River 

Storage Project (CRSP) hydropower revenues is critical to the ability of these Programs to realize their goals. Absent such reauthorization, the Programs face losing 

more than $3 million in annual base funding (more than 40 percent of the annual 
27 

total) used for critically important nonnative fish management and control, scientific 

research, administration/program management and public information activities. As 

a result, the Programs’ ability to restore the four endangered fish species to selfsustaining population levels, which is the all-important benchmark to achieve recovery of the fish would be both impeded and significantly delayed. In turn, we foresee 

that Endangered Species Act compliance being provided for water projects across 

the Upper Colorado and San Juan river basins would be impacted. Both outcomes 

are unacceptable to all of the recovery programs’ participants. 

Upper Colorado And San Juan River Basin Recovery Programs 

The Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan 

River Basin Recovery Implementation Program are using innovative, cost-effective 

measures to recover four species of endangered Colorado River fishes. At the same 

time, water and hydroelectric power resources are being managed within state and 

federal laws and tribal rights to meet the needs of people in growing western communities. 

The Programs have the goals of recovering the four fish species in the Upper Colorado River basin while water development and management activities proceed in 

compliance with state laws, interstate compacts, and the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). 

These Programs have recovery goals that provide objective, measurable criteria 

for downlisting and delisting the species, including numeric population goals and a 

set of specific recovery activities. The recovery goals allow the Programs to monitor 

progress towards achieving recovery, to assess the effectiveness of management actions, and to adjust recovery efforts through adaptive management. The U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is required, pursuant to Section 4 of the ESA, to provide a status review of each listed species’ progress towards recovery each five 

years. The Service has projected recovery of the four fish species will occur by the 

end of 2023, at which time the Programs will end. These timelines to achieve recovery are found in the recently published five-year reviews for the Colorado 

pikeminnow and humpback chub and the in-draft species’ status reviews for the 

bonytail and razorback sucker. The recovery programs will end when the four species of endangered fish have been recovered. 

The Programs have substantial grassroots support among their participants, 

which include the four Upper Basin states (Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming), American Indian tribes (Navajo Nation, Jicarilla Apache Nation, Southern 

Ute Tribe and Ute Mountain Tribe), water users, power customers and environmental organizations. Five federal agencies (USFWS, Bureau of Reclamation, National Park Service, and Western Area Power Administration and Bureau of Indian 

Affairs) participate in the Programs. These diverse interests continue to demonstrate that working cooperatively produces far greater results than independent 

efforts. 

The recovery programs are currently providing ESA compliance for 2,320 federal, 

tribal, and nonfederal water projects, including every Bureau of Reclamation project 

in the Upper Basin upstream of Lake Powell, water projects that meet the United 

States’ trust obligations to American Indian tribes, and literally hundreds of nonfederal water projects providing water for municipal, irrigation, industrial, and recreational uses. No lawsuits have been filed as a result of ESA compliance under the 

Programs. The programs use adaptive management to evaluate and revise management actions as new information becomes available. 

Public Law 106–392 and its Subsequent Amendments 

P.L. 106–392, signed into law on October 30, 2000, authorizes the Bureau of Reclamation to provide cost-sharing for capital construction and fund annual operations 

for these two endangered fish recovery Programs. The law recognizes significant and 

specific cost-sharing contributions to the Programs by the States of Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, and New Mexico, power customers, and water users for these purposes. 

P.L. 106–392 has been amended three times with substantial bi-partisan support 

in both the House of Representatives and United States Senate. P.L. 107–375 extended the period for capital construction to 2008 for both Programs. P.L. 109–183 

extended the period for construction of capital projects for the Programs through FY 

2010, authorized an additional $15 million in capital expenditures for the Upper 

Colorado Program, and recognized an additional $11 million in non-federal costshare contributions. P.L. 111–11 provided an additional $27 million in authority for 

federal funding of capital projects, recognized an additional $56 million in non-federal contributions, and extended the authority to expend funding for capital projects 

through the end of FY 2023, which is the expected recovery date for the endangered 

fish species. 
28 

Capital project funds have been used to construct hatchery facilities, fish passages 

and screens, complete water acquisition projects and restore floodplain habitat 

across the San Juan and Upper Colorado basins. P.L. 106–392 provided for three 

sources of capital funds within these programs: federal appropriations (provided 

within Reclamation’s ‘‘Endangered Species Recovery Implementation Program’’ 

budget line-item) along with $17 million of CRSP power revenues from CRSP power 

users and $17 million provided by the States of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and 

Wyoming. 

P.L. 106–392 expressly authorized the use of a maximum of $6 million per year 

(indexed for inflation) of CRSP hydropower revenues to support the annual base 

funding needs of the Programs through the end of fiscal year 2011. As noted, operation and maintenance of the hatcheries, fish passages, fish screens, and flooded 

bottomland facilities, monitoring of the four endangered fish populations, and nonnative fish management, scientific research, administration/program management 

and public information activities are all conducted with annual base funding. 

H.R. 6060 Will Extend Authority to Use Power Revenues For Annual Base 

Funding 

Annual base funding activities contribute significantly to successfully completing 

recovery actions specified in the species’ recovery goals, including instream flow 

identification, evaluation, and protection; habitat restoration and maintenance; 

management of nonnative fish impacts; endangered fish propagation and stocking; 

scientific research, monitoring, and data management; public information and involvement; and administrative program management. The USFWS, the four participating states, the four American Indian Tribes, and water users also contribute— 

and will continue to provide—additional annual funding and in-kind contributions 

for these activities. The cooperative agreements for both programs reflect that all 

participants have committed to the conduct of these Programs through the end of 

FY 2023. 

The extension of authority to the end of fiscal year 2019 contained in H.R. 6060 

complies with the current House of Representatives’ protocol limiting authorizations 

to 7 years after the year of enactment. The recovery programs’ participants anticipate the need to seek an additional extension of authority prior to the end of fiscal 

year 2019 based on current projections that each of the four species of endangered 

fish will not be delisted (e.g., recovered) until 2023. 

Importantly, H.R. 6060 will extend the authority to use CRSP hydropower revenues through fiscal year 2019 at currently authorized levels. At that time, authority 

to use annual base funding for activities other than operation and maintenance of 

capital projects and monitoring will terminate without continuing authorization by 

the Congress. 

Recommendation: Enact H.R. 6060 

H.R. 6060 should be enacted into law. Enactment will allow the two recovery programs to continue to use CRSP hydropower revenues for all annual base funding 

activities through 2019. All of the ongoing annual base funding activities are critical 

to these Programs accomplishing their primary goal of recovering the four endangered fish species by 2023. 

I greatly appreciate the opportunity to submit testimony supporting the enactment of H.R. 6060. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you very much for your testimony. We 

will now begin Committee questions, also under the 5-minute rule. 

And I would like to begin with Mr. Raley. 

What would happen if this bill was not passed? 

Mr. RALEY. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that we would be plunged 

into great uncertainty. The original legislation contemplates reauthorization. And if it is not reauthorized, from the perspective of 

the people that I speak for, the water supply for 4 million and close 

to a million acres of land will be put in jeopardy. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Why would it be put in jeopardy? 

Mr. RALEY. Without a successful program, a robust program, 

there will be the opportunity for litigation. And, as I have learned 

in other basins, if there is the opportunity, if there is a weakness 
29 

or an opening, there are entities that will litigate simply to bring 

programs like this to a halt. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. But we just heard that the ESA works great. 

Look at this project. 

Mr. RALEY. This program is based on some unique circumstances. And, unfortunately, I don’t believe it can be replicated 

everywhere. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Are there lessons we could draw from the success of this project to modify the ESA in a manner that would reduce litigation as this agreement obviously has in this case? 

Mr. RALEY. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Could you give us some examples? 

Mr. RALEY. Yes. I think that the first lesson is it requires—and 

I am not pointing fingers at anyone in particular—it requires a circumstance where all the players have an incentive to sit down and 

work out something that is workable. And when one of the entities—when one player has the ability to litigate and litigate on 

pretty much an infinite basis, they lose the incentive to sit down 

and work out something that is reasonable. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you. Mr. Shields, you have had a lot of 

experience with this. What lessons can we draw, from your perspective? 

Mr. SHIELDS. Mr. Chairman, I think that one of the greatest 

strengths of this program is that we have established checks and 

balances within the governance structures of both the Upper Colorado and the San Juan Programs. Through a system of checks and 

balances, there is a necessity to work toward compromise. And I 

would point out, with respect to the Upper Colorado Program, we 

actually operate on a unanimous consensus basis within the management committee’s activities. And in making decisions. 

Now, that is inherently inefficient, in the sense that the majority 

can’t rule. But it forces everyone to compromise, to work toward 

the middle and find that common ground that Representative 

Gardner mentioned—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. One of the provisions that are the result of 

that compromise that struck my attention, and that we have been 

trying to get, frankly, in other regions without result, and that is 

simply counting hatchery fish. What role do hatcheries play in recovering endangered fish on the Upper Colorado and San Juan 

River Basins? 

Mr. SHIELDS. Yes, sir. May I please answer that question? Seven 

hatchery facilities produce Bonytail, Razorback Sucker, and Colorado Pikeminnow necessary to meet the annual and long-range 

stocking targets of these two recovery programs. Brood stock and 

propagation of young are managed to maximize the genetic diversity of the stock fish to increase the likelihood that they are going 

to survive in the wild. 

Stock fish count toward recovery goal criteria when they are reproducing in the wild, and their offspring are surviving to adulthood. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Well, how is it that you are able to get a compromise on that matter in this project, but that compromise has 

evaded us here in Congress? I have cited one case—there are 

many—where hatchery fish are deliberately not counted in the pop-
30 

ulation counts for ESA purposes. And, in fact, by ignoring those 

hatchery fish, they then use that as an excuse to, in the case of 

Klamath, tear down perfectly good dams, in the case of the Central 

Valley, to dump billions of gallons of water into the Pacific Ocean. 

It seems to me that is a very common-sense approach, counting the 

damn hatchery fish. 

Mr. SHIELDS. I would agree with you, sir. I think the distinction 

that is made, though, is that the fish that have been stocked have 

to start to reproduce before they are counted in that population 

number. And I believe that the circumstances are such with these 

ocean-going fish, that that is much more difficult to do. It is a very 

good question that you ask, and I would be happy to augment my 

answer in writing, sir. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Great. Well, thank you very much. That concludes my questions. Mrs. Napolitano? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Raley, I 

couldn’t agree with you more about cooperation versus litigation. It 

gets the job done. 

And a question to all of you, and it is in the back of my mind. 

I kind of mentioned it to Mr. Barton, is the ability—would it help 

to be able to extend it, the deadline, from 2019 to 2023? 

Mr. PAYNE. I am sorry. From Reclamation’s standpoint, yes, it 

would, because we feel that the 2023 deadline allows us to fully accomplish our goal of getting these four species out of—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Anybody else? 

Mr. RALEY. I would add that we welcome Congress’s attention at 

any time. So a shorter period, it is entirely acceptable. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. But would it be helpful to be able to extend 

it to the end of the recovery, if you will? 

Mr. RALEY. Congresswoman, perhaps. But not if the extension 

removed the oversight of Congress. There is great value in this program coming back to Congress periodically. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, assuming, though, that the bill passes 

and there is this oversight, you are only going to have the 2019 

deadline. Is it helpful to move to the 2023 deadline? Would it be 

beneficial to the parties? 

[No response.] 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. You agree now that 2019 is a good deadline. 

Would it be helpful to extend it to the full 2023? 

Mr. RALEY. I will be very blunt, Congresswoman. The ability to 

have Congress check in 2019 that the Service and Reclamation are 

still committed to recovery by a date certain, so that we don’t reach 

that point and go, ‘‘Oh, the goal post has moved,’’ the ability to 

have that check in 2019 will be very helpful. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Then would it be helpful if there were language inserted in an amendment, if you will, to ensure that in 2019 

there is a follow-up to have a measurement at that point, but extend it to 2023? 

Mr. RALEY. You know, I would want to look at the language. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Anybody else? 

Mr. SHIELDS. Congresswoman Napolitano, I will not disagree 

with anything that Bennett Raley has said to you. Previous 

versions of the legislation that is before you today were drafted 

with 2023 as the date. 
31 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Correct. 

Mr. SHIELDS. An amendment that would change that would not 

be in conformance with the Majority leader’s protocol. However, if 

your amendment was to leave in place the requirement that the 

Secretary of the Interior provide a report to the authorizing Committees on both the House and Senate side at the end of Fiscal 

Year 2018, I would see no harm in that amendment. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, I will suggest it to the author of this bill, 

which—I think he is ready to at least sit down and talk about it. 

Anybody else? 

Mr. KIRKPATRICK. Yes, I would concur with what Mr. Shields 

said, that as long as we have the oversight, 2023, biologically, 

would be very helpful. We would know when we are trying to seek 

recovery. However, we do recognize the rules that you operate 

under. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. Mr. Gray Payne, the program is 

often talked about from strictly the species restoration. And what 

is Reclamation’s priority in participating in these programs? 

Mr. PAYNE. Well, our first priority is definitely for the delivery 

of water and power to our customers. That is priority one for us. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And does Reclamation’s participation in these 

programs allow you to meet the core goals and overall mission? 

Mr. PAYNE. Well, as I said earlier, our core mission is providing 

water and power. And in order to do that, both the San Juan RRP 

and the UC RRP provide our ESA compliance, which then allows 

the 2,300 projects along the Colorado River Storage Project to meet 

their ESA compliance. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. Mr. Garlick, what would be the 

impact of power production in the region, if the recovery programs 

were not in place? 

Mr. GARLICK. Well, if there would be an impact on the power production if there wasn’t this recovery program in place. Obviously, 

there has been some reduction in the operations of both the Flaming Gorge Dam and the Aspinall unit in power production. And if 

this recovery plan doesn’t go forward, we would expect further reductions, which would be impacts to this great renewable hydroelectric resource, and would be replaced with market-priced power 

from fossil fuels. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you. And, Mr. Tipton? 

Mr. TIPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Raley and Mr. 

Garlick, you might want to comment on this, as well. Both of you 

represent water and power users who have a direct interest in 

avoiding ESA jeopardy. Do these programs in the bill adhere to the 

beneficiaries pay principle, where water and power users pay their 

way? 

Mr. RALEY. For power? I am sorry. For water? Yes, sir. 

Mr. TIPTON. Yes. 

Mr. RALEY. My clients are spending tens of millions of dollars to 

provide resources to the program. 

Mr. TIPTON. And then my understanding is with this bill we are also going to see that this is going to actually provide $3 million, 

an additional $3 million for construction? Is that correct? Did you 

follow that in the bill? 
32 

Mr. RALEY. I apologize, Congressman. I haven’t focused on that 

portion—— 

Mr. TIPTON. OK, OK. Well, that is fine. Would it be fair to say, 

Mr. Raley and Mr. Garlick—and, Mr. Shields, you might want to 

comment on this—that if this bill goes through, or doesn’t go 

through, that water supplied in the State of Colorado, which I represent, it will impact about 4 million people, 900,000 acre-feet of 

irrigated land, and 80 percent of Colorado’s economy, and curtail 

some power production, and that is the importance of this legislation? 

Mr. RALEY. Congressman, actually, those numbers are only a 

part. Those numbers are from the Eastern Slope. 

Mr. TIPTON. Right. 

Mr. RALEY. And when you add together the beneficiaries on the 

Western Slope, the numbers would be simply greater. 

Mr. TIPTON. Right. 

Mr. GARLICK. And I would simply add your reference to the revenues from the power users contribute to about $3.5 million annually in this program. And so, without that, we would not be ESA 

compliant, and have major impacts to the production. 

Mr. TIPTON. You know, it seems we get a lot of debate on ESA. 

And I think everybody is in concert. We want to make sure that 

we are getting species recovery. 

But, Mr. Raley, would you maybe like to expand maybe a little 

more in regards to some of the moves that we need to have, and 

perhaps ESA reform, to be able to deal with some of the challenges 

of achieving the goal, still delivering the power that the Bureau of 

Reclamation is charged with, as well? 

Mr. RALEY. Yes, sir. I would start with the fact that the ESA 

itself doesn’t contemplate programs like this. These programs have 

been workarounds that have been put in place over time, sometimes successfully, sometimes not. So a cohesive authorization for 

programs to function, and a requirement that the agencies participate in those programs would be of enormous value. That would be 

the first place to start. 

Then one could move to the section 7 consultation itself. And 

there are any number of suggestions that have been tossed around 

in Congress for improving the efficiency of section 7. And then, because I want to keep my answer short, reduction in litigation. Litigation is good for lawyers. And putting more dollars into the species recovery and fewer opportunities for litigation would be of 

great value. 

Mr. TIPTON. I appreciate that. Mr. Shields, the bill that we are 

hearing today reduces overhead so that more funding is dedicated 

actually to fish recovery and eventually delisting. Yet Mr. Payne’s 

testimony indicates opposition to overhead reductions, specifically 

a reduction in something called administrative cost fee. Do you 

have any comment on that? 

Mr. SHIELDS. Representative Tipton, the Subcommittee, in drafting the bill, has exercised professional judgment as to what is required to get this legislation—and primarily to get the extension of 

authority the sufficient votes needed so that it will pass the House 

of Representatives. To make it out of this Committee, first of all. 
33 

We have had an arrangement in place for the Upper Colorado 

River Recovery Program for over 15 years that has put—that has 

cut the overhead rate charged by the Fish and Wildlife Service in 

half. If this Subcommittee believes that the overhead should be further reduced to 3 percent, we are willing to accept that. 

Mr. TIPTON. Well, would I be correct in saying that such costs 

are 11 percent of transfers from the Upper Colorado Program and 

22 percent from the San Juan Program? 

Mr. SHIELDS. The San Juan Program recently, through Region 

2’s concurrence, has had their overhead reduced to 15 percent, as 

well. But, as you know, this will make the overhead for both of 

these programs a matter of law. This is a global issue with respect 

to other types of conservation and recovery programs across the 

Western United States. Other programs will continue to charge at 

the standard indirect cost recovery rate, which I believe, sir, is currently 22 percent. 

Mr. TIPTON. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. We have had a request for another round of 

questions. So let me follow up on Mr. Tipton’s point. 

Mr. Shields, this basically is an ATM fee, is it not? It is a fee 

for transferring funds. There is not a lot of administrative work involved, is there? 

Mr. SHIELDS. The indirect cost recovery rate that is assessed 

yields money that is transferred by the Fish and Wildlife Service 

to their Washington office and to their regional office. I am not 

knowledgeable about the particulars of what they use those funds 

for. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. What would the justification be for 22 percent 

overhead for a simple funds transfer? 

Mr. SHIELDS. The—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. I mean if a bank charged that for an ATM 

withdrawal, my suspicion is we would have a revolution on our 

hands. 

Mr. SHIELDS. You are correct, sir. But I am simply not qualified 

to speak on behalf of the Fish and Wildlife Service with regard to 

that amount of overhead, and the uses to which it is applied. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Maybe Mr.—— 

Mr. SHIELDS. I would be happy to follow up. I have submitted information in the past to the Subcommittee from the Fish and Wildlife Service, and I would be happy to submit additional information, 

if that would be useful, sir. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Mr. Payne, can you offer any enlightenment on 

this subject? 

Mr. PAYNE. Well, sir, I don’t want to speak for the Fish and 

Wildlife Service, but I will say that normally overhead costs are— 

of course they are indirect charges for support functions back at 

headquarters, as well—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Yes, but these are funds transfers. What support functions could possibly justify a 22 percent ATM fee? 

Mr. SHIELDS. I completely understand where you are coming 

from. I don’t know where Fish comes up with their numbers. I 

haven’t seen their numbers. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Right. Thank you. That does it for me. Mrs. 

Napolitano. 
34 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, thank you. Just a very quick one. And 

I understand, Mr. Raley, you said that this was touted as a model, 

yet the circumstances are quite different. But the cooperation issue 

is vital in many of these project agreements that are working 

collaboratively. 

Is there any message that we in Congress need to take from everybody coming to the table, the Tribes, the government, the water 

entities, all of you? The whole list of them is impressive. How did 

you do that? And how can others emulate at least beginning to 

bring everybody, as you say, to the table? 

Mr. RALEY. Congresswoman, I would start with Congress fully 

explaining how recovery programs are supposed to work, and to authorize them across the board, because it is not there. And we end 

up with workarounds. And in other basins, it doesn’t work. And I 

think that Congress paying attention to it and forcing programs 

like this would be of great value. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Anyone else? 

Mr. KIRKPATRICK. Ranking Member Napolitano, I will just give 

the example of how we in the San Juan Basin came together. We 

were working on the development of a water project known as the 

Animas-La Plata Project. Certain parties were using the Endangered Species Act to tort the development of that project to meet 

the settlement requirements of the two Ute Tribes in Colorado, primarily, and water supplies for New Mexico, including the Navajo 

Nation. And we were somewhat forced by the circumstances of the 

Endangered Species Act to find solutions. 

We looked to the north, looked to the Upper Basin Program, and 

to the best of ability, developed the same with the challenge of 

working together. And to say that was a pretty process would not 

be truthful. It was very tense, difficult. But we decided it was far 

better to find a solution than it was to go to court with little chance 

of success. We had just followed some other things that we knew 

about. 

And it has to be a common goal to resolve an issue. When we 

began this project, we felt the ESA Act was a problem. We found 

a solution. And the solution has certainly worked well for us in our 

basin. And, as I said, we will see recovery by 2023. And we have 

never had a challenge—we are about to conclude the Navajo settlement, the largest Indian rights settlement in the United States, as 

we sit here today. We will be finished by December of next year 

with that. We have the two Utes settled. The Hickory Apache, as 

well, is settled. So we have settled the four entities. 

I gave to your staffers some maps. And if you look at the San 

Juan Basin you will understand why the Native American involvement is so critical. All right? Thank you. I hope that helped. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Yes, it does. And one of the reasons is I have 

been involved with the removal of the uranium tailings in Moab for 

years, because the Colorado River provides Southern California 

with a third of our potable water. So getting some of these projects 

moving and working together cooperatively has always been something that I have advocated, and hope to see more of these in this 

day and age where we utilize more litigation than we use cooperation. So thank you for your answer. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 
35 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Mr. Luja ́n? 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And I want to 

thank our witnesses who are with us today, especially our executive director, Mr. Kirkpatrick, from the San Juan Water Commission. It is always an honor to see you, sir, someone that is relentless when it comes to his advocacy for the strength of our communities, but also for water. It is also an honor to be in front of you, 

sir. 

With that being said, Mr. Kirkpatrick, I know that you have 

some concerns about Reclamation’s assertion of the ability to provide hydropower revenues under their current authority. Can you 

tell us a little bit more about why that is a concern? 

Mr. KIRKPATRICK. Congressman Luja ́n, it is a pleasure to speak 

to you. And responding to that is while we have been orally informed that the Bureau can, in fact, allocate these funds, a little 

bit in the history in the past is before the San Juan program, actually, they were providing this funding. We did, in fact, change administrations, and then there was some concern that the numbers 

of dollars we were spending were getting too large. And, therefore, 

they needed congressional authorization. 

And this program requires certainty through 2023. And without 

that certainty, we could still fail. I know the question was asked 

earlier why we need this legislation passed. Having worked on this 

for those 23 years that I spoke of earlier, I recognize that we need 

that congressional authorization. 

While we do trust and respect the managerial staff of the Bureau 

of Reclamation, we are not certain that we will have this money. 

And any delay—let us be candid; I have been working on it for 23 

years, we have been working on projects as long as—since 1908, 

when the Animas-La Plata started, so we understand how long 

these projects can take. We don’t want a reversal. A year or two 

of loss, just like the droughts have done to us, have slowed us 

down. We don’t need a drought of money any more than we need 

a drought of water in the river. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. I appreciate that, Mr. Kirkpatrick. And the next 

question leads a little bit from there, as well. Do you have any concerns that the current legislation has changed the authorization of 

base funding from power revenues from 2023 to 2019? 

Mr. KIRKPATRICK. That question was asked earlier. And, yes, we 

have some concerns because of that certainty issue. 

I also concur with the other witnesses here that we do need that 

check and balance from Congress periodically, and with language 

that makes clear that will occur. I believe that 2023 would be an 

adequate date. In fact, I am aware that the similar legislation in 

the Senate will have 2023, as we sit here today. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. I appreciate that. And, Mr. Kirkpatrick, I appreciate 

the maps, as well, that you have put together pertaining to the importance of these settlements, namely with the Hickory Apache Nation and the Navajo Nation. But some things are worth repeating. 

Can you tell us why the completion and success of these projects 

is important to the Tribal communities of the Navajo Nation and 

the Hickory Apache Nation and the integrity of water settlements 

involving Tribes? 
36 

Mr. KIRKPATRICK. Those settlements are the final tribal settlements within the San Juan Basin. And they will give surety not 

only to the Tribes that they will have water supplies adequate for 

their current and future requirements, but they equally assure that 

the existing uses by non-Indians and any future development of 

any water by the non-Tribal parties will also have surety of their 

water supplies. 

One who deals in water in the West understands that Tribes 

have a reserve water right that is superior to all other water 

rights. In other words, they are normally earlier. And if you understand the priority system, that is a very critical nature. In the San 

Juan Basin—actually, the Navajo Nation’s is the second most senior water right in the San Juan Basin. The one that is most senior, 

which is the one we don’t hear often about, is the Mountain Ute 

Tribe, which has not settled its rights in New Mexico. They have 

settled them in Colorado. 

So, it is very important to everyone’s certainty and the economic 

engine that I am sure, Congressman Luja ́n, you understand what 

San Juan Basin has been for New Mexico, that we do have this certainty of water supply. 

Mr. LUJA ́ N. I appreciate that, Mr. Kirkpatrick. And, Mr. Chairman, we appreciate you bringing this hearing, as well, and the 

work of Mr. Bishop and that of the Majority and Minority staff on 

this. This is an important issue to many of us, and I hope we can 

get this one done. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Very good. Thank you. I want to thank all for 

their testimony today. I want to apologize again for the delay in 

the hearing, because of the votes on the House Floor. 

We may have members with additional questions for witnesses, 

and we would ask that you respond to those in writing. The hearing record will be open for 10 business days to receive those responses. And if there is no further business, without objection the 

Subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:02 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:] 

The documents listed below have been retained in the 

Committee’s official files. 

• Board of Water Works of Pueblo, Colorado—Letter of Support for H.R. 6060 

• Central Utah Water Conservancy District—Letter of Support 

for H.R. 6060 

• City of Aurora, Colorado—Letter of Support for H.R. 6060 

• Colorado Springs Utilities—Letter of Support for H.R. 6060 

• Colorado Water Congress—Letter of Support for H.R. 6060 

• Denver Water—Letter of Support for H.R. 6060 

• Front Range Water Council—Letter of Support for 

H.R. 6060 

• Grand Valley Water Users’ Association—Letter of Support 

for H.R. 6060 

• Green River, Rock Springs, Sweetwater County—Letter of 

Support for H.R. 6060 

• Jicarilla Apache Nation—Letter of Support for H.R. 6060 
37 

• Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District—Letter of 

Support for H.R. 6060 • Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, Municipal 

Subdistrict—Letter of Support for H.R. 6060 • PNM Resources, Inc.—Letter of Support for H.R. 6060 • San Juan Water Commission—Letter of Support for 

H.R. 6060 • Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District—Letter 

of Support for H.R. 6060 • Southern Ute Indian Tribe—Letter of Support for H.R. 6060 • Southwestern Water Conservancy District—Letter of Support for H.R. 6060 • State of Wyoming—Letter of Support for H.R. 6060 • State of Colorado—Letter of Support for H.R. 6060 • The Nature Conservancy—Letter of Support for H.R. 6060 • The Uncompahgre Valley Water Users Association—Letter of 

Support for H.R. 6060 • Tri-County Water Conservancy District—Letter of Support 

for H.R. 6060 • Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District—Letter 

of Support for H.R. 6060 • Utah Water Users Association—Letter of Support for 

H.R. 6060 • Western Business Roundtable—Letter of Support for 

H.R. 6060 

Æ