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

81–440 PDF 2013

S. HRG. 113–32 

MISCELLANEOUS WATER AND POWER BILLS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON

S. 211 S. 693 

S. 284 S. 715 

S. 510 S.J. Res. 12 

S. 659 H.R. 316 

S. 684 S. Amdt. 579 

APRIL 16, 2013 

( 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

RON WYDEN, Oregon, Chairman 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

MARK UDALL, Colorado 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

JOE MANCHIN, III, West Virginia 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

TIM SCOTT, South Carolina 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

JOSHUA SHEINKMAN, Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Chief Counsel 

KAREN K. BILLUPS, Republican Staff Director 

PATRICK J. MCCORMICK III, Republican Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii, Chairman 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

JOE MANCHIN, III, West Virginia 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

MIKE LEE, Utah, Ranking 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

TIM SCOTT, South Carolina 

RON WYDEN and LISA MURKOWSKI are Ex Officio Members of the Subcommittee 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS 

Page 

Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator From Montana .................................................. 18 

Johnson, Hon. Tim, U.S. Senator From South Dakota ........................................ 2 

Katz, John, Deputy Associate General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission ........................................................................................................... 3 

Lee, Hon. Mike, U.S. Senator From Utah ............................................................. 2 

Quint, Robert, Senior Advisor, Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the 

Interior .................................................................................................................. 5 

Schatz, Hon. Brian, U.S. Senator From Hawaii ................................................... 1 

APPENDIXES 

APPENDIX I 

Responses to additional questions .......................................................................... 29 

APPENDIX II 

Additional material submitted for the record ........................................................ 33 

(1) 

MISCELLANEOUS WATER AND POWER BILLS 

TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 2013 

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

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in room 

SD–366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Brian Schatz presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BRIAN SCHATZ, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM HAWAII 

Senator SCHATZ. Good afternoon. I’d like to welcome everyone 

here today. 

Today’s hearing involves several bills that are pending before the 

Subcommittee on Water and Power. The bills cover different aspects of our water and power jurisdiction including rural power and 

hydro power. A majority of them have gone through some committee process in the previous Congress. 

I’d like to spend just a few minutes discussing Senate joint resolution 12 because it pertains to my home State of Hawaii and to 

the welfare of those in the native Hawaiian community, who have 

land leases under the Hawaiian Homes Land Program. This program was established by Congress and enacted into law in 1921 

when Hawaii was still a territory in order to ensure native Hawaiian people would have land set aside where their communities 

could continue to thrive. In 1960 under the State of Hawaii Admission Act the United States required the State of Hawaii to administer certain portions of this Federal trust responsibility. 

The State of Hawaii incorporated that delegated responsibility 

into its own constitution and body of law. The program is administered by the Department of Hawaiian Homelands, an agency of the 

State of Hawaii with certain oversight responsibilities retained by 

the United States and exercised by the Department of Interior and 

the Congress. The Congress retained the authority to review and 

consent to certain amendments made to this program by the Hawaii State Legislature. 

Senator Hirono and I introduced this legislation to provide the 

required consent of Congress to 3 amendments enacted by the 

State of Hawaii to the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920. 

The Secretary of the Interior has determined that Congressional 

consent and approval is needed for the amendments to become effective. These amendments would give a homestead leasee the authority to transfer their interest in a lease to certain family mem-
2 

bers and to designate certain family members to succeed to the 

lease hold interest at the time of a death. The amendments would 

also allow the Hawaiian Homes Commission to establish an interest rate on loans from Hawaiian home loan funds. 

I plan to work with the chairman and others on this committee 

to get congressional consent for these amendments. 

There are a number of other bills on the agenda today. I look forward to learning more about them. 

Now I’ll turn to our ranking member, Senator Lee, for his opening comments. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE LEE, U.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH 

Senator LEE. Senator Schatz, it’s a pleasure to be here today. 

I thank you for chairing this hearing on a number of water and 

power measures, two of which are integral to my home State of 

Utah, S. 211, the Provo River Project Transfer Act and S. 510, the 

Scofield Land Transfer Act. I’ve co-sponsored both of these bills 

with my colleague Senator Hatch. 

The Provo River Project Transfer Act will enable the full transfer 

of the Provo Reservoir Canal to the Provo River Water Users Association. 

As contemplated by a previous bill that was passed in 2004, the 

Scofield Land Transfer Act will resolve long standing discrepancies 

with regard to private property near Scofield Reservoir in Carbon 

County, Utah. 

The bills before us today have had hearings in the previous Congress and address many of the issues we’ll be examining over the 

next couple years. These issues include mechanisms to provide safe 

and reliable water supplies for rural communities and opportunities to improve our power supplies. So while the underlying purpose of each bill before us today is different, they all attempt to 

identify tools to ensure that our power and our water and our 

power facilities are both safe and reliable. 

I thank the Federal witnesses for being here today. I thank you, 

Senator Schatz, for conducting this hearing. I look forward to the 

testimony. 

I do note at the outset, I’m also the ranking member on the Antitrust Subcommittee, so I may be having to bounce back and forth 

between these two. So with that understanding, I’ll turn it back 

over to you. 

Thank you. 

Senator SCHATZ. Thank you, Ranking Member Lee. 

Senator Johnson, opening remarks. 

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

SOUTH DAKOTA 

Senator JOHNSON. Thank you, Chairman Schatz and Ranking 

Member Lee. I appreciate this opportunity to speak in support of 

two bills on today’s agenda: the Mni Wiconi Project Act Amendments, S. 684, and the authorized Rural Water Projects Completion 

Act, S. 715. 

The Mni Wiconi Amendments bill addresses a shortfall in construction funding and facilitates key infrastructure improvements 

to ensure that the Mni Wiconi rural water project can be com-
3 

pleted. This project has brought together 3 tribal rural water systems and one non-tribal rural water system to deliver quality 

water to areas that historically faced insufficient and, in too many 

cases, unsafe drinking water. Mni Wiconi also offers economic hope 

to 3 Indian reservations in my State that face some of the most 

challenging levels of unemployment and poverty in the Nation. 

Nearly 25 years after it was first authorized, the ball is on the one 

yard line with this project. I remain committed to seeing it 

through. 

We also need to do more to address the growing backlog of Bureau of Reclamation rural water projects. I’m a co-sponsor and 

strongly support the Authorized Rural Water Projects Completion 

Act. The bill will provide substantial, dedicated funding to speed 

construction of congressionally authorized projects. 

After historic investments in rural water through the Recovery 

Act, discretionary budget requests for projects like the Lewis and 

Clark Regional Water System have fallen to levels insufficient to 

make any meaningful progress. This legislation offers a new approach to get these projects back on track and bring economic development opportunities to the communities they serve. 

I look forward to working with my colleagues on this committee 

to move this legislation forward, and I thank Senator Baucus for 

all his efforts. 

I would also note that the Lewis and Clark Regional Water System will be submitting written remarks in support of this bill that 

I ask be included in the record. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator SCHATZ. Thank you, Senator Johnson. 

I’m informed that Senator Baucus is on his way and should be 

with us very shortly. So we’ll wait for him before we proceed to the 

witnesses. 

[RECESS.] 

Senator SCHATZ. I think what we’ll do is proceed to the FERC 

testimony so that you can provide your testimony on the first bill. 

So could we have John Katz from the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission provide his testimony? Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN KATZ, DEPUTY ASSOCIATE GENERAL 

COUNSEL, FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Mr. KATZ. Good afternoon. 

Thank you very much for asking the Commission to appear before the subcommittee to testify on Senate Amendment 579 and 

H.R. 316 which are both named the Collinsville Renewable Energy 

Promotion Act. These proposed bills relate to two projects that 

were licensed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission some 

time ago to a private developer. The Federal Power Act requires 

the Commission to require a developer to start construction within 

2 years of receipt of a license and allows the Commission to extend 

that once for another 2 years. 

The Commission did that with respect to this developer. At the 

end of that time, again, as required by the Federal Power Act, the 

Commission revoked the license. So between that period and now, 

which is a period of about 6 or 7 years, I think, there’s been no interest in developing the site. The proposed bills would authorize 
4 

the Commission to reinstate the licenses and to transfer them to 

the Town of Canton, Connecticut after performing an appropriate 

environmental review and receiving appropriate public comment. 

While generally the comments that I give are my own and don’t 

reflect the opinions of the chairman or of any commissioner. The 

chairman has authorized me to say that he does not oppose this 

bill because of the lack of competition for the site so that the bill 

in no way adversely affects competition and because of the provisions requiring environmental review. So there’s no question that 

the environmental review done under the previous licensing will be 

stale. 

With that I’ll yield back the balance of my time. I’d be happy to 

answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Katz follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN KATZ, DEPUTY ASSOCIATE GENERAL COUNSEL, FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION

ON S. AMDT. 579 AND H.R. 316

Chairman Schatz, Ranking Member Lee, and Members of the Subcommittee: 

My name is John Katz, Deputy Associate General Counsel for Energy Projects, 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to discuss S. Amdt. 579 and H.R. 316. As a member of the Commission’s 

staff, the views I express in this testimony are my own, and not those of the Chairman or of any individual Commissioner, other than as specifically noted below. 

I. BACKGROUND

On February 23, 2001, the Commission issued original licenses to Summit Hydropower for the 373 kilowatt (kW) Upper and the 920 kW Lower Collinsville Hydro 

Projects, to be located at the Upper and Lower Collinsville Dams on the Farmington 

River, in Hartford County, Connecticut. 

Section 13 of the Federal Power Act requires that licensees commence project 

Construction by the deadline established in the license, which may be no longer 

than two years from the date of license issuance. The Commission may extend the 

deadline once, for no longer than two additional years. If construction does not timely commence, section 13 requires the Commission to terminate the license by written order. 

Consistent with section 13, Article 301 of the licenses for the Collinsville Upper 

and Lower Hydroelectric Projects required the licensee to commence project construction within two years. On November 26, 2002, at the licensee’s request, the 

Commission issued the maximum allowable two-year extension, moving the commencement of construction deadline to February 23, 2005. 

Summit did not commence project construction by the deadline. Accordingly, by 

letter dated November 2, 2007, the Commission gave Summit notice of probable termination of the licenses. Summit did not reply to the notice. By order issued December 4, 2007, the Commission terminated the project licensees. The licensee did not 

seek rehearing of the termination order, which therefore became final on January 

3, 2008. 

II. S. AMDT. 579 AND H.R. 316

S. Amdt. 579 and H.R. 316 would authorize the Commission to reinstate either 

or both of the licenses for the Upper and Lower Collinsville Projects, to extend for 

two years the commencement of construction deadline for the projects, and to transfer the license or licenses to the Town. As specified in S. Amdt. 579, the Town would 

be subject to the terms and conditions of the prior license(s) and both bills provide 

that the Commission will add to the license(s) any additional terms and conditions 

the Commission deems to be necessary. 

In addition, both bills provide that the Commission will supplement the environmental analysis prepared in connection with the issuance of the prior licenses, to 

examine all new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns 

relating to the reinstated licenses. 

Chairman Wellinghoff and the last several Commission Chairmen have taken the 

position of not opposing legislation that would extend the commencement of con-
5 

struction deadline no further than 10 years from the date that the license in question was issued. Where proposed extensions would run beyond that time, there has 

been a sense that the public interest is better served by releasing the site for other 

public uses, that competition in the development of hydropower projects should be 

encouraged, and that environmental information may over time become stale. 

In this instance, the proposed extensions would run at least three years beyond 

10 years from when the licenses for the Upper and Lower Collinsville Projects were 

issued. However, to Commission staff’s knowledge, in the more than five years since 

the project licenses were terminated, no entity has sought to develop the projects 

or proposed other uses for the project sites, thus ameliorating concerns about competition or release of the sites. Moreover, because the bills specifically provide for 

the preparation of an updated environmental analysis, staleness of the environmental record will not be an issue. In consequence, I am authorized to state that 

Chairman Wellinghoff does not oppose S. Amdt. 579 or H.R. 316. 

I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. 

Senator SCHATZ. Mr. Katz, your testimony indicates that FERC 

doesn’t oppose this legislation even though it’s inconsistent with 

the previously held position that FERC does not support extensions 

of time to develop hydropower projects. Has there been a shift in 

the FERC position to allow for more flexibility or is this a one off, 

in your opinion? 

Mr. KATZ. No, I don’t think so. It’s closer to a one off. The past 

few chairmen have indeed held the position that after 10 years 

from when the date a license had been issued is a long enough period for a developer to develop a project. But in this instance the 

extension bill is not benefiting the same developer. It’s benefiting 

a municipality. As I said, two factors, I think, were primary in our 

thinking. 

One was that there’s been no one trying to take the site, so that 

Congress’ action would not in any way adversely affect competition. 

The second issue that comes up over a period of time is that the 

environmental record may become stale. But both of these bills provide that the Commission shall update the environmental records. 

So the Commission’s concerns, as a general matter, have been assuaged in this case. 

Senator SCHATZ. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Katz. 

Mr. KATZ. Thank you very much. 

Senator SCHATZ. Senator Heinrich, would you like to make an 

opening statement? 

Senator HEINRICH. No, thank you. 

Senator SCHATZ. I think we’ll proceed to the second witness, Robert Quint, the Senior Advisor at the Bureau of Reclamation. 

Mr. Quint. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT QUINT, SENIOR ADVISOR, BUREAU 

OF RECLAMATION, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. QUINT. Thank you, Chairman Schatz and members of the 

subcommittee. I’m Bob Quint, Senior Advisor at the Bureau of Reclamation. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on 7 of the bills 

before the subcommittee today. 

I also ask for your consent to submit a Departmental statement 

for the record on Senate Joint Resolution 12 which consents to and 

approves certain technical amendments proposed by the State of 

Hawaii to the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1920. 
6 

Due to the number of Reclamation bills on the agenda I will keep 

my verbal remarks as short as possible and my full written statements have been submitted for the record. 

Let me start with S. 211, Provo River Project Transfer Act. S. 

211 provides a technical correction to the earlier enacted Provo 

River Project Transfer Act, now Public Law 108–382. Our agency 

supported passage of that earlier titled transfer legislation in 2004. 

My written statement provides more detail in the events that 

have transpired since its enactment. But in summary S. 211 addresses the fact that the Provo Canal was converted into a pipeline 

after the title transfer was enacted and the strict language of the 

original title transfer did not allow for that. Reclamation and our 

partners should have foreseen that possibility before the work proceeded, but for reasons described in my written statement, we did 

not. 

We are pleased to support S. 211 to settle the issue and fully 

complete the transfer originally envisioned in 2004. 

Next, S. 284, Fort Sumner Project Transfer Conveyance Act. S. 

284 provides for the title transfer of the Fort Sumner Project in 

New Mexico as well as a long term provision of water for fish flows 

on the Pecos River. 

In June of last year the United States and the Fort Sumner Irrigation District executed a MOA culminating a collaborative process 

to bring about conveyance of title to the Fort Sumner Project in the 

remaining steps required of the Federal and non Federal parties. 

The MOA will facilitate an arrangement between FSID and the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for actions under Section 10 of the 

Endangered Species Act to be finalized prior to the transfer which 

will protect habitat of the federally listed Pecos River bluntnose 

shiner. 

My written statement provides more detail. But in summary, the 

Department is also pleased to support S. 284. 

Next, S. 510, Scofield Land Transfer Act. S. 510 conveys interest 

in certain lands associated with the Reclamation Scofield project in 

Carbon County, Utah. 

In the 1950s individuals began locating structures on flood surcharge lands at Scofield Reservoir without Reclamation concurrence. These encroachments pose a dam safety issue because a 

flood event may float debris or structures into the spillway and 

threaten the dam. S. 510 proposes to resolve these encroachments 

on Federal lands by authorizing Reclamation to transfer a fee interest or life estate to those who claim ownership of the United 

States? lands within the Scofield Reservoir Basin in exchange for 

fair market value. Structures would also be required to be anchored to foundations to prevent displacement during flood events 

and therefore reduce the potential for compromising the dam causing harm downstream. 

My written statement addresses the provisions more specifically 

and proposes some technical clarifications of the bill. 

In summary, the Department does not oppose S. 510 with the improvements recommended in my written statement. 

Next is S. 659, the Emergency Drought Relief Reauthorization. 

S. 659 would reauthorize the Reclamation’s State’s Emergency 

Drought Relief Act. 
7 

While my written statement details how planning and conservation are the most effective means of addressing drought we, none 

the less, recognize that the authorization of Title I of the Drought 

Act as a useful tool in responding to drought emergencies. S. 659 

allows Reclamation the flexibility to continue delivering water to 

meet authorized project purposes, meet environmental requirements, respect State water rights, work with all stakeholders and 

provide assistance. 

We are pleased to support S. 659. 

Next is S. 684, the Mni Wiconi Project Act Amendments. S. 684 

would amend the original Mni Wiconi Project Authorization with 

additional project features and obligations for new Federal appropriations. 

The Mni Wiconi Project will be substantially complete with the 

allocation of appropriations provided in the current Fiscal Year 

2013 budget. We recognize that this legislation has been significantly revised since Reclamation last testified it in 2012. However 

as stated in testimony on the prior legislation Reclamation has a 

significant backlog of authorized but not constructed rural water 

projects. Therefore we continue to have serious concerns about adding to the scope of an existing project that is nearly complete. 

For reasons described in my written statement mainly driven by 

the serious budget situation confronting Reclamation and all Federal agencies, the Department cannot support S. 684. 

Next is S. 693, Hermiston Title XVI. S. 693 would authorize Reclamation to co-fund a water recycling and reuse plant in the city 

of Hermiston, Oregon. 

Working together the city and Reclamation have completed specific actions that are necessary for the proposed project. This includes environmental compliance, issuance of the license to the 

city, granting authorization to construct and operate a facility on 

Reclamation Fee Title land and issuance of a permit allowing this 

water to be discharged into Reclamation’s West Main Canal. 

However, for reasons described in my written statement standing 

policy is we do not support new authorizations while that backlog 

remains as high as it is. 

Next is S. 715, Rural Water Project Completion Act. The Department testified on a prior version of S. 715 in July 2012. Our position remains the same on S. 715. We support the goals of the bill 

and recognize the benefits of the potential dedicated rural water 

construction fund in the United States Treasury which would enable earlier completion of projects. 

Section 3B3 of S. 715 provides that the bill’s cost would be offset 

so as not to increase the deficit. The Department supports such 

language. 

Finally, Senate Joint Resolution 12 amends the Hawaiian Homes 

Commission Act to allow the interest rate on loans from the Hawaiian Home Loan Fund and the Hawaiian Home Loan Fund to be set 

by the Hawaiian Homes Commission through an administrative 

rule rather than by law. Senate Joint Resolution 12 also changes 

the qualifications of homestead leasees by authorizing a Hawaiian 

Homes Commission Act Homestead leasee to transfer or designate 

to a successor to their leasehold interest to a brother or sister who 

is at least one quarter native Hawaiian. 
8 

The Department supports the United States consenting to and 

approving of Act 107 and remains neutral on the consenting to and 

approval of Acts 12 and 16. 

I’d be happy to follow up with the Department regarding any 

questions you may have. 

That concludes my verbal remarks. I’d be pleased to answer any 

questions you may have. 

[The prepared statements of Mr. Quint follow:] 

PREPARED STATEMENTS OF ROBERT QUINT, SENIOR ADVISOR, BUREAU OF

RECLAMATION, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

ON S. 211

Chairman Schatz and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Bob Quint, Senior Advisor at the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). I am pleased to present the views 

of the Department of the Interior (Department) regarding S. 211, an amendment to 

the Provo River Project Transfer Act (Act) authorizing the Secretary of the Interior 

(Secretary) to convey the recently-enclosed Provo Reservoir Canal to the Provo River 

Water Users Association (Association). The Department supports S. 211. 

A principal feature of the Provo River Project is the Provo Reservoir Canal 

(canal). It extends 22 miles from the mouth of Provo Canyon to Salt Lake County. 

Once it meandered through pastures and fields. By the late 1990s, suburban development had surrounded it. During this time, the Association concluded that owning 

the canal and associated project features would facilitate its ability to obtain financing for its eventual enclosure of the canal. Enclosing the canal into pipe offered significant potential new benefits in terms of water conservation, water quality, in 

stream flows, public safety and upstream recreation. 

In 2004, Congress agreed that transfer of the Provo River Project was in the public interest. The Provo River Project Transfer Act (Public Law 108-382) was enacted, 

authorizing the transfer to the Association of the Provo Reservoir Canal and the site 

of the Association’s Office. It further authorized the transfer of the Salt Lake Aqueduct to the Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake and Sandy. The Department 

supports transferring ownership of certain Reclamation project facilities to non-Federal entities in cases where transfers create benefits for those who take title as well 

as for other stakeholders and the public. For this reason, the Department supported 

passage of the Act in 2004. 

In the years since enactment of the Act, Reclamation has conveyed the Salt Lake 

Aqueduct to the Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake and Sandy. One of the 

requirements of the Act was that all of the water users—including the Association, 

the Central Utah Water Conservancy District, the Metropolitan District of Salt 

Lake and Sandy and the Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District needed to develop a comprehensive agreement to govern the operations, ownership financing and 

improvement of the PRC (Section 3.a.1B of the Act). Consequently, following its enactment, the parties began meeting regularly to discuss and negotiate the Master 

Agreement. From late 2004 through mid-2009, all of the parties acted on the belief 

that, after the parties reached agreement as required in the Act, Reclamation would 

transfer title and, after transfer, the Association would begin the piping of the PRC. 

However, in May of 2009, the Association determined that the approach being considered for title transfer, funding, and enclosure placed the Association’s tax-exempt 

status in jeopardy and threatened the entire project. 

In response, an alternative strategy for the canal portion of the transfer was developed by the parties, whereby the Association, the partners and Reclamation proceeded with piping the canal under Reclamation’s operation, maintenance, and replacement authority in 2009. Today, crews are constructing a recreation trail on the 

surface of the ground over the piped Provo Reservoir Canal. Below the surface, a 

10.5-foot-diameter pipe continues to convey Provo River Project water. 

Unfortunately, the parties, including Reclamation, moved forward with the titletransfer-after-piping option without realizing that this sequence was out of compliance with the original statutory authority to transfer the Provo Reservoir Canal to 

the Association ‘‘as in existence on the date of enactment[.]’’. In retrospect, we all 

should have more carefully considered the potential effects of this change in the title 

transfer/construction sequence on title transfer as provided for in the Act. That 

brings us to the need for the technical amendments provided by S. 211. This technical amendment alters the definition of the Provo Reservoir Canal to authorize the 

transfer of the pipeline as well as to eliminate any confusion about the facilities to 
9 

be transferred. The amendment authorizes transfer of the newly constructed pipeline by removing the term ‘‘canal’’ in the definition and replacing it with ‘‘water conveyance facility historically known as the Provo Reservoir Canal’’, and by eliminating the phrase ‘‘as in existence on the date of enactment of this Act.’’ The bill 

also directs the transfer of ‘‘all associated bridges, fixtures, structures, facilities, 

lands, interests in land, and rights-of-way held’’, which Reclamation also supports 

since appurtenant facilities are currently used by the Association. The majority of the $150 million cost of piping the canal was born by the Association, the Central Utah Water Conservancy District, the Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District, and the Provo Reservoir Water Users Company. Federal funding 

applied to the project was $39 million provided by the Central Utah Project Completion Act Office. This amount, provided under the water conservation provisions of 

the Central Utah Project Completion Act, ensured that 8,000 acre-feet of conserved 

water would be made available to the Secretary to provide in-stream flows on the 

lower Provo River. These flows benefit fish and wildlife including the endangered 

June sucker, a species native only to Utah Lake and its tributary streams. Reclamation provided no funding to the piping project. 

As a condition of title transfer, the 2004 Act (PL 108-382) requires the Association 

to remit to the United States its repayment obligation associated with the canal— 

the amount it continues to owe Reclamation for reimbursement of the original costs 

of construction. This obligation does not change under the technical amendment proposed by S. 211. 

Reclamation sees the issue being addressed by S. 211 as purely technical. Concurrent to consideration of S. 211, Reclamation, the Association and the other partners 

continue to move ahead to complete all the other steps necessary to transfer title 

and believe that with passage of this bill, we will be able to move forward expeditiously to finalize this title transfer. We continue to support the title transfer and 

the excellent work that has gone on with the enclosure of the canal. 

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

the appropriate time. 

ON S. 284

Chairman Schatz and members of the Subcommittee, I am Robert Quint, Senior 

Advisor at the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). I am pleased to provide the 

views of the Department of the Interior (Department) regarding S. 284, which would 

authorize the Secretary of the Interior to convey title to all of the works of the Fort 

Sumner Project (including the diversion dam, easements, ditches, laterals, canals, 

drains, and other rights) to the Fort Sumner Irrigation District (FSID). The Department supports S. 284. 

In 2011, S. 1225 was introduced in the 112th Congress, which would have authorized the United States to convey title to all of the works of the Fort Sumner Project 

to the FSID. At the time of the hearing on June 23, 2011 before this Committee 

on that bill, it was the view of the Administration that a number of issues had yet 

to be resolved between the United States and FSID, including a net financial loss 

to the Treasury of approximately $250,000, the need for an open and transparent 

process for the public to provide input prior to conveyance of title, and the need for 

Reclamation and FSID to work through a collaborative process to ensure that operational, fiscal, environmental, and other issues are identified and addressed. However, since that time, Reclamation and FSID have worked together and a number 

of those issues are addressed in S. 284. Specifically, in 2012, the ‘‘Memorandum of 

Agreement between the United States and the Fort Sumner Irrigation District Concerning Principles and Elements of Proposed Transfer of Title to Fort Sumner Irrigation District’’ (MOA) was executed, which addresses the issues we had with the 

previous legislation as described below. 

BACKGROUND

There are two Reclamation projects on the Pecos River located in southeastern 

New Mexico: the Carlsbad and Fort Sumner Projects. The Fort Sumner Project was 

developed by private interests at the turn of the last century. In the 1950s, this 

project was reconstructed and rehabilitated by Reclamation. In 1948, in order to 

make this happen, Reclamation and the FSID executed a contract to provide for the 

repayment of construction costs to rehabilitate the project. As part of the process, 

Reclamation law required that Reclamation take title to the Project. Currently, the 

FSID has an annual repayment obligation of about $54,500 with an outstanding balance of approximately $597,697.00 

The FSID holds a senior water right for not more than 100 cubic feet per second 

from the natural flow of the Pecos River. Reclamation must bypass the FSID’s water 
10 

through Sumner Reservoir prior to storing water for the Carlsbad Project. Over the 

past ten years, Reclamation has consulted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(Service) to ensure that Federal actions are not jeopardizing the existence of the 

Pecos bluntnose shiner or adversely modifying its critical habitat located below 

FSID’s diversion dam. In these consultations, Reclamation has committed to the 

Service to maintain the shiner population level by minimizing river drying. A significant cause of drying on the Pecos is due to the FSID diverting its senior water 

right. The only way Reclamation has been able to keep the Pecos River flowing is 

by purchasing water from willing sellers and by paying the FSID not to divert water 

through a forbearance agreement. 

In August 2009, Reclamation and FSID entered into a mutually beneficial agreement whereby FSID would forbear the diversion of up to 2,500 acre-feet of water 

annually for ten years when they would otherwise be in priority. Instead, this water 

goes into Sumner Lake reservoir where it is stored and delivered for Reclamation 

to prevent intermittency of flows on the Pecos River in compliance with the 2006 

biological opinion. Reclamation pays FSID $60,000 annually plus $20 per acre-foot 

for the water. In addition to the forbearance of this water, FSID agreed to pursue 

ESA Section 10 consultation with the Service and Reclamation agreed to assist 

them in this process. Also in this agreement, FSID indicated its desire to take title 

to the facilities and Reclamation agreed to work with them on that process. The forbearance agreement further provides that the annual payments of $60,000 from 

Reclamation to FSID will cease upon both the passage of title transfer legislation 

and the conveyance of title. To date, this has been a mutually beneficial agreement. 

The forbearance water has afforded Reclamation with an additional tool to meet the 

biological opinion to ensure that the Pecos River does not run dry in a cost effective 

manner. 

As drafted, S. 284 protects the financial interests of the taxpayers of the United 

States. Under the terms of the Forbearance Agreement that is currently in place, 

Reclamation pays FSID $60,000 annually plus $20 per acre-foot for water. Under 

the terms of S. 284, after title transfer, the $60,000 annual payments from the 

United States to FSID would cease. At the same time, FSID’s repayment obligation 

of $597,697 to the United States would also cease. These two revenue streams—one 

to FSID and one to the United States would offset. Further, the United States 

would continue to receive, in perpetuity rather than just for the ten years, the 

below-market-cost of $20 per acre-foot for up to 2,500 acre feet of water annually 

that they need in order to meet the 2006 biological opinion—thereby saving the taxpayers in costs associated with this important water acquisition effort. 

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT

On June 22, 2012, the United States and FSID executed MOA, numbered 11-WC40-406. This agreement was the culmination of a collaborative process between Reclamation and the FSID which articulated the principles elements for any legislation 

to authorize conveyance of title to the works of the Fort Sumner Project, as well 

as the steps required to complete the title transfer process, the responsible parties 

for each activity and spelled out the prerequisites to the actual conveyance of title 

to FSID. 

The MOA takes an important step in resolving our concern regarding compliance 

with Federal and state laws—more specifically—with the terms of agreement to be 

developed between FSID and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service required under Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act. While it would be our preference to complete 

all of the activities required under the National Environmental Policy Act, the National Historic Preservation Act and the Endangered Species Act prior to acting 

upon legislation to transfer title, as a compromise, S. 284 requires that all the activities associated with these laws, including whatever mitigation may be necessary 

be completed prior to the transfer of title to these facilities. As part of that, before 

the conveyance of title, Reclamation must concur with the ESA Section 10 agreement thus ensuring that the United States’ interests are not compromised. 

Because S. 284 requires National Environmental Policy Act compliance and completion of ESA Section 7 and Section 10 consultations as prerequisites to conveyance 

of title, Reclamation and FSID will have the opportunity to complete a public process to determine whether other interested citizens of New Mexico have concerns and 

any issues that arise during that public process can be collaboratively be addressed 

in the title transfer agreement that must be prepared to articulate the terms and 

conditions of the title transfer as defined in Section 2(7) of the Act. 

S. 284 also authorizes Reclamation to cost-share with FSID for both environmental compliance as well as the cost of conveyance of title. 
11 

Lastly, Reclamation believes that S. 284 would assure the continuation of the 

partnership Reclamation has developed with FSID in meeting the 2006 Biological 

Opinion requirements. With the challenges of persistent drought in the Pecos River 

basin and the need for Reclamation to consult, in partnership with FSID and the 

Carlsbad Irrigation District, with the Service in obtaining a new biological opinion 

by 2016, this title transfer legislation will enable us to meet this critical objective. 

As a result of the efforts, hard work and compromises by both Reclamation and 

FSID, we believe that we have reached an agreement that protects the interests of 

FSID, the citizens of the States of New Mexico and the interests of the United 

States. 

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

appropriate time. 

ON S. 510

Chairman Schatz and members of the Subcommittee, I am Bob Quint, Senior Advisor at the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). Thank you for the opportunity 

to provide the Department of the Interior’s views on S. 510, legislation to authorize 

the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain interests in Federal lands acquired 

for the Scofield Project in Carbon County, Utah. The intent of the legislation is to 

resolve certain issues associated with decades-long encroachment on Federal lands 

in the Scofield Reservoir basin while maintaining the safety of the public downstream. If the revisions described below are made, the Department would not oppose 

an amended S. 510. 

The Scofield Project is located on the Price River about 85 miles southeast of Salt 

Lake City, Utah. It provides irrigation and municipal and industrial water to Carbon County, Utah. The reservoir is a popular fishing destination. Under contract 

with Reclamation, the State of Utah operates a state park at the site. 

At Scofield Reservoir, the vertical distance between the normal water surface elevation of the reservoir and the flood surcharge elevation (the level to which the 

water level may rise in a flood event) is approximately 19 feet. Given the sloping 

sides of the reservoir basin, this flood surcharge capacity translates into a wide 

band of land around the perimeter of the reservoir above the normal water surface 

elevation and below the flood surcharge elevation. The United States owns in fee 

most of the lands within this band. In a flood event, water would inundate these 

lands. It is Reclamation’s practice to keep these lands free of structures and chattel 

that, in a flood event, might be floated into the spillway. 

In the 1950s, an individual purported to subdivide and sell some of these flood 

surcharge lands—in spite of United States’ ownership. The purported ‘‘owners’’ (referred to in the Scofield Land Transfer Act as ‘‘claimants’’) began locating mobile 

homes and building cabins on these lands. There are over sixty encroaching cabins 

and trailers today. These encroachments pose a dam safety issue because a flood 

event may float debris or structures into the spillway, creating a logjam that would 

reduce the spillway’s capacity and threaten the dam. The sudden collapse of such 

a logjam would create a wall of water, scouring the canyon below the dam and flooding the downstream communities of Helper, Price, and Wellington. Reclamation recently completed an assessment on the risk imposed by this scenario entitled, Scofield Dam—Report of Findings Risk Analysis Considerations for Reservoir Surcharge (January 2013). This assessment revealed that should a logjam of structures 

and chattel in the spillway suddenly give way, it would release a flood downstream 

of up to 8,000 cubic feet per second, which is 40 to 50 times the normal expected 

flow in the Price River below Scofield Dam. 

In 2000, Reclamation initiated a quiet title action on lands within the band on 

the east side of Scofield Reservoir and was joined in that action by 15 claimants. 

A 2009 decision by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed ownership by the 

United States. Reclamation has removed the encroachments on the lands that were 

the subject of the quiet title action. Because of similar underlying facts, quiet title 

actions associated with the remaining encroachments would likely affirm United 

States’ ownership. 

The bill proposes to resolve these encroachments on Federal lands by authorizing 

the Secretary of the Interior to transfer a fee interest or life estate to those who 

claim ownership of United States’ lands within the Scofield Reservoir basin in exchange for fair market value. Claimants have a period of five years during which 

they may seek a fee interest or life estate. If a claimant does not elect to acquire 

a fee interest or life estate, Reclamation will remove the encroachment under existing law and policy, including the removal of encroaching structures. 

Although the bill addresses in part key objectives for Reclamation, the ideal scenario for Reclamation is for no structures or dwellings to fall within a facility’s flood 
12 

surcharge elevation. Having said that, the bill does address concerns such as improved protection of public safety and resolving certain issues of encroachment on 

United States’ lands. In addition, the bill imposes conditions on transferred lands. 

First, it limits the number and types of structures to those in place on the date of 

enactment. Second, it requires that structures be anchored to foundations to prevent 

displacement during a flood event and thereby reduce the potential for clogging the 

spillway, compromising the dam, and causing harm downstream. Third, it requires 

Reclamation to retain the ability to store flood flows on the transferred lands without liability to the United States. 

While Reclamation supports, in general, some specific provisions in the bill, the 

legislation perpetuates occupancy within the flood surcharge elevation, which poses 

public and dam safety concerns. In addition, the bill’s language raises a number of 

technical concerns: 

Cost of Implementation—The proposed legislation does not provide any monies to fund Reclamation’s work in surveying, appraising, and transferring fee interest or life estates to claimants. The legislation furthermore does not provide 

any monies to conduct environmental compliance, provide notice to claimants of 

existing trespasses or encroachments on Federal lands, or enforce deed restrictions. These costs should not be absorbed by the Federal Government. 

Cost of Administration—After the legislation is fully implemented, Reclamation will likely face a patchwork of ownership (private fee interest, private life 

estates, Reclamation fee interest, and Reclamation flood easements) at the reservoir in the band between the normal water surface elevation and the flood 

surcharge elevation. On the transferred lands, Reclamation will be required to 

monitor construction and the retrofitting of structures to ensure that they are 

properly secured. In addition, Reclamation will be required to preserve public 

access to Reclamation fee lands that are not encumbered by life estates. The 

administration costs and enforcement obligations pursuant to any conveyance 

restrictions are best left to the local government, subject to oversight by Reclamation. 

Scofield Reservoir Fund—The proposed legislation calls for revenues from the 

sale of fee interests and the sale of life estates to be deposited into a ‘‘Scofield 

Reservoir Fund.’’ The fund would be used to finance ‘‘enhanced recreation opportunities at Scofield Reservoir.’’ The Department of the Interior has serious 

concerns about the establishment and use of the Scofield Reservoir Fund because of the costs associated with administering a small and narrowly focused 

fund. Also, the fund could better be used to defray administration and enforcement costs associated with these lands rather than being directed toward the 

beneficiaries of the conveyance. 

Precedent—On one level, the proposed legislation amounts to rewarding encroachment with an opportunity to purchase or acquire private exclusive use of 

Federal lands. The Department of the Interior is concerned about the bill setting a precedent or expectation that there can be a path from encroachment to 

ownership; however, the Department also finds merit in amicably resolving encroachment issues on the Scofield Reservoir without embarking on protracted 

litigation. 

Report to Congress—Reclamation believes the bill’s objectives can be accomplished consistent with Congressional intent and with support from the local 

community. Because of the proliferation of required reports to Congress, and the 

demand on finite budget resources, the Department in general does not support 

new and narrow reporting requirements. 

In addition to those issues raised above, Reclamation has a number of technical 

concerns: 

Land Disputes—Among claimants there are disputes about the boundaries of 

their claims. The resolution of these claims would likely erode the five years 

that the claimants have to decide whether to submit notice of a desire to acquire a fee interest or life estate. The legislation should direct claimants to accept the result of the Reclamation survey required under Section (3)(a)(1). 

Hold Harmless Clause—The life estate option requires the claimant to hold 

the United States harmless for damages due to ‘‘design, construction, operation 

and replacement.’’ The list of causes from which damages may arise should also 

include ‘‘maintenance.’’ In addition, there is no requirement for claimants seeking fee interest in claimed land to hold the United States harmless. Reclamation recommends that a hold harmless requirement be added to the fee interest 

option. 
13 

Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT)—The proposed legislation should explicitly 

state that PILT payments will be discontinued for lands transferred in fee to 

claimants. 

Mineral Rights—The proposed legislation should state that there will be no 

conveyance of subsurface or mineral rights. 

Water Rights and Sewer System A number of the claimants have developed 

wells that are also part of their encroachment. To the extent these wells are 

supported by valid State of Utah water rights, the legislation should address 

the fate of these wells under conveyance in fee or life estate. The sewer system 

serving encroachments is included in a Reclamation license agreement for the 

State Park. The license agreement is with the Scofield Special Service District 

for which Carbon County has oversight responsibility. 

Sunset—The proposed legislation requires claimants to submit notification to 

the Secretary of their interest in a fee interest or life estate in the claimed portion of the Federal land within five years of the date of enactment of the proposed legislation, in order to stay enforcement proceedings on the Federal land. 

This could allow claimants to submit notice of their intent to receive a fee interest or life estate, without requiring the claimants to take any affirmative steps 

to effectuate the transfer. The proposed legislation should contain a sunset provision whereby notice and transfer must occur within a reasonable timetable. 

In closing, Reclamation recognizes that, in spite of its serious concerns, the proposed legislation does offer an acceptable five-year solution to a problem Reclamation has wrestled with for many years. In light of this, the Department of the Interior will not oppose S. 510 if appropriate clarifying language and revisions are 

added. 

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

ON S. 659

Chairman Schatz and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Bob Quint, Senior Advisor at the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). I am pleased to provide the views 

of the Department of the Interior on S. 659 which reauthorizes Title I of the Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief Act of 1991 until the year 2018, and increases the amount of authorized federal appropriations from the current ceiling of 

$90 million up to $110 million. The Department supports extending the authorization of this program through 2018; however, as explained below, we do not believe 

an increase to the authorization of appropriations is necessary at this time. An April 

3rd update to the U.S. Drought Monitor shows that 83% of the Western United 

States, where Reclamation operates, is abnormally dry, with 63% being in moderate 

to exceptional drought status. 

Title I of the Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief Act of 1991 provides 

Reclamation the authority for construction, management, and conservation measures to alleviate the adverse impacts of drought, including mitigation of fish and 

wildlife impacts. This authority is most often implemented through drilling new private wells. Wells are the only permanent construction authorized under the Act. All 

other Title I work must be of a temporary nature. No new Reclamation projects are 

authorized under Title I; Reclamation does not own, operate, or maintain projects 

funded under it. S. 659 would extend the expiration date as well as increase the 

authorization for appropriations from $90 million to $110 million to allow for greater capacity in Reclamation’s assistance to States, tribes, and local governments in 

addressing the impacts of drought. 

Title I also provides Reclamation with the flexibility to meet contractual water deliveries by allowing acquisition of water to meet requirements under the Endangered Species Act, benefiting contractors at a time when they are financially challenged. We believe that our existing WaterSMART Program provides some lessons 

applicable to the communities where Drought Act authorities are used. 

Additionally, Title I authorizes Reclamation to participate in water banks established under state law; facilitate water acquisitions between willing buyers and willing sellers; acquire conserved water for use under temporary contracts; make facilities available for storage and conveyance of project and nonproject water; make 

project and nonproject water available for nonproject uses; and, acquire water for 

fish and wildlife purposes on a nonreimbursable basis. 

Reclamation’s primary approach to drought is to continue working with our stakeholders on a proactive basis to assess the implications of water shortages, develop 

flexible operational plans that account for expected periods of drought, and support 

projects that conserve water and improve the efficiency of water delivery infrastructure. Federal Drought relief is a ‘‘last resort’’ to be employed only in the most ex-
14 

treme of cases. Given the extreme weather conditions currently facing the nation, 

we will continue to consider ideas to make drought relief even more effective 

through improved interagency cooperation and other changes. 

Title II of the Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief Act of 1991 provides 

Reclamation with permanent authority to assist States, Tribes, and local governments with planning and technical assistance related to drought planning, preparation, and adaptation strategies. This authority allows Reclamation to assist nonFederal entities to prepare for drought so that they are less vulnerable when 

drought inevitably happens. This authority for drought-related Federal coordination 

and technical assistance does not automatically expire and will remain in effect 

without the authorities that S. 659 would extend. 

Given that there remains a capacity for over $15 million in authorized appropriations for this program, the Department does not believe an increase in the authorized appropriations ceiling is necessary at this time. If the authorized appropriations ceiling should become a more urgent constraint, we will evaluate the need for 

an increase to the appropriations ceiling at that time. 

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

ON S. 684

Chairman Schatz and members of the Subcommittee, I am Bob Quint, Senior Advisor at the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). I am pleased to provide the views 

of the Department of the Interior (Department) on S. 684, the Mni Wiconi Project 

Act Amendments of 2013. The Department recognizes that meaningful changes to 

this bill have been made since prior related legislation was heard during the 112th 

Congress. However, if enacted, this updated version of the bill would still expand 

the scope and authorization ceiling of the Mni Wiconi Rural Water Supply Project, 

and have significant impacts on the budgets of both Reclamation and the Bureau 

of Indian Affairs. For the reasons described below, the Department cannot support 

S. 684. 

The Mni Wiconi Rural Water Supply Project is a municipal, rural and industrial 

project that serves both tribal and non-tribal populations of the Pine Ridge, Rosebud, and Lower Brule Indian Reservations and the West River Lyman-Jones Rural 

Water System in seven counties of southwestern South Dakota. Responsibilities of 

the Secretary under the Mni Wiconi Rural Project Act (Public Law 100-516) include 

the operation and maintenance of existing water systems, including the core treatment plant and pipelines, and appurtenant facilities on the Pine Ridge, Rosebud 

and Lower Brule Indian Reservations. With the funding requested in the President’s 

FY 2013 budget, the majority of the population of the project will be served. The 

Lower Brule and West River Lyman-Jones portions of the project will be completed. 

Generally those not connected to the project (approximately 2.5% of the population 

on Rosebud and Pine Ridge Reservation) are served by community water systems 

or individual wells. Reclamation would be happy to facilitate or coordinate action 

with other federal agencies to address the needs identified by the bill’s sponsor. Reclamation has a backlog of authorized but not constructed projects. Therefore, we 

have concerns about adding to the scope of an existing project that is nearly complete. 

Section 2 of S. 684 directs the Secretary of the Interior to develop a plan for completion of the Oglala Sioux Rural Water Supply System, the Rosebud Sioux Rural 

Water Supply System, and the Lower Brule Sioux Rural Water System. Planning 

the completion of the systems is dependent on future appropriations as well as Reclamation’s need for flexibility in decision-making relative to all authorized rural 

water projects. Reclamation must constantly assess and prioritize these kinds of 

projects to maximize the agency’s ability to meet its programmatic goals, to maximize water deliveries to rural communities as efficiently as possible, and to reflect 

the diverse needs and circumstances facing each individual project. The Department 

would like to work with project sponsors of the bill to discuss plans for completion, 

and clarifying the roles, responsibilities, and authorities of Federal agencies involved in the project. An interagency agreement, as proposed by Reclamation during 

the August 8, 2012 Joint Consultation Meeting with Federal Agencies, has the potential to achieve many of these objectives. Further, Reclamation is continuing to 

evaluate the facility improvements needed to transfer and incorporate existing community water systems. 

Section 2 also directs the Director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, through the 

use of existing programs and annual appropriations, to assist the Secretary in completing the Oglala Sioux Rural Water Supply System, the Rosebud Sioux Rural 

Water System, and the Lower Brule Sioux Rural Water System by constructing, re-
15 

pairing, and upgrading plumbing fixtures, skirting, and other necessary features, 

such as septic tanks and drainfields, to ensure that houses within the service areas 

are able to meet the standards for connecting to those systems. The Bureau of Indian Affairs has no existing programs or annual appropriations for the construction, 

repair, or upgrading of plumbing fixtures or septic systems on private residence. 

Such function has usually been the responsibility of Health and Human Service or 

Indian Health Service. 

Section 3(a) of S. 684 would increase the authorized Mni Wiconi cost ceiling by 

an additional $14,308,000, based on October 1, 2011, price levels. Reclamation has 

worked closely with the project sponsors to ensure completed features will be functional and provide intended benefits within the currently authorized cost ceiling. 

The Department continues to believe that the FY 2013 President’s request of $23 

million for construction provides sufficient funding to meet the objectives of the 

Project as authorized. Recently enacted final appropriations for FY 2013 will determine final allocations to the project. In FY 2014, the Department is continuing to 

meet its longer-term obligation to fund operations and maintenance for the Mni 

Wiconi project’s Indian sponsors features through Reclamation’s request for $12 million in new FY 2014 appropriations. 

Section 3(b)(5) would transfer existing public or tribal water systems ‘‘in trust to 

the applicable rural water system’’ upon requests from the Tribes or owner of such 

system. This language leaves some uncertainty in ownership as it doesn’t identify 

the nature of the ‘‘trust’’. Language in sections 3A(e) and 3B(e) of the current Act 

identifies that ownership is to be held in trust for the tribe by the United States. 

Section 3(b) also authorizes appropriations for operation and maintenance to be 

used for the improvement, repair, and replacement of existing public or tribal water 

systems prior to and after their transfer into the respective project system. Reclamation had previously determined that the costs of upgrading existing community facilities should be properly allocated to the construction component of the project. 

Since these existing systems were originally constructed using funds and authorities 

of other agencies, Reclamation believes any funding for improvements needed to correct deficiencies in existing systems should be discussed among the various responsible agencies before those systems are accepted into the project. 

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

the appropriate time. 

ON S. 693

Chairman Schatz and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Bob Quint, Senior Advisor at the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). I am pleased to provide the views 

of the Department of the Interior (Department) on S. 693, the City of Hermiston, 

Oregon, Water Recycling and Reuse Project. For reasons I will discuss below, the 

Department cannot support the bill. 

S. 693 would amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and 

Facilities Act (Public Law 102-575, 43 U.S.C. 390h et seq.), commonly called Title 

XVI, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the design, planning, 

and construction of permanent facilities needed to reclaim and reuse water in the 

City of Hermiston, Oregon. The project is being implemented by the City of 

Hermiston. 

The City of Hermiston (City), located in north central Oregon, is one of the largest 

communities within Reclamation’s Umatilla Project area. The project proposed by 

the City includes upgrades and construction at their existing wastewater treatment 

facility and construction of a delivery system that would deliver recycled water to 

the West Extension Irrigation District. This recycled water would be used by the 

District to irrigate agricultural lands. By 2031, it is estimated that this proposed 

project would provide the District with approximately 2,000 to 3,000 acre-feet of 

drought resistant water supply during the irrigation season. The 2011 total estimated cost for this project was approximately $25.8 million. 

In January 2010, the City of Hermiston submitted their feasibility report to Reclamation for review under the Title XVI program. In April 2010, Reclamation’s review team completed the review and made the certification that the proposed project 

‘‘Meets Requirements’’ as defined under section 1604 of Public Law 102-575, as 

amended. In 2011, Reclamation completed the determination of financial capability 

and communicated the final approval to the City. 

The City and Reclamation’s Pacific Northwest Region have completed Reclamation 

specific actions that are necessary for implementation of the proposed project. This 

includes environmental compliance, issuance of a license to the City granting authorization to construct, own, operate, and maintain their facility on Reclamation 
16 

fee title land, and issuance of a permit allowing this water to be discharged into 

Reclamation’s West Main Canal. 

S. 693 would authorize the City of Hermiston’s project under Title XVI for Federal 

funding not to exceed 25 percent of the total cost of the project. 

While the Department supports efforts to increase local water supplies and increase recycled water use, this project would compete for funds with other needs 

within the Reclamation program, including other Title XVI projects currently under 

construction. In general, the Department supports the Title XVI Reclamation and 

Reuse program. The 2014 budget request includes funding for the Department’s 

WaterSMART Program, of which Title XVI is an important element, and the full 

2014 request for WaterSMART is $35.4 million. 

As part of this total, the Department is requesting $14 million to fund Title XVI 

projects selected through competitive funding opportunity processes which uses criteria finalized in 2010 to identify activities most closely aligned with Title XVI statutory and program goals. Reclamation plans to invite sponsors of Congressionally 

authorized Title XVI projects to submit applications for funding under the program 

and will review and rank proposals against those criteria to identify projects for 

funding, subject to appropriations in fiscal year 2014. 

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

supplies in the West, and I believe the FY 2014 budget request has demonstrated 

the emphasis placed by this Administration on this Program. However, given that 

there are 53 already authorized Title XVI projects and numerous competing mission 

priorities and demands on Reclamation’s limited budget, the Department cannot 

support the authorization of new Title XVI projects or extensions of existing authorized cost ceilings at the current time. Federal budget realities, however, should not 

detract from the fact that the Hermiston Recycling and Reuse Project would prove 

valuable in Oregon’s efforts to address current and future water resource challenges 

posed by drought and the competing demand for scarce water resources. 

This concludes my written statement. I am pleased to answer any questions at 

the appropriate time. 

ON S. 715

Chairman Schatz and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Bob Quint, Senior Advisor at the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). I am pleased to be here to provide the views of the Department of the Interior (Department) on S. 715, the ‘‘Authorized Rural Water Projects Completion Act’’. My statement today will draw upon 

the testimony provided by Commissioner Mike Connor in July 2012 on S. 3385, 

prior legislation discussed in this Committee during the 112th Congress. 

Like the sponsors of this legislation, the Department supports the goals of encouraging vibrant rural economies and ensuring safe, reliable sources of drinking water 

for rural residents. Rural water projects help build strong, secure rural communities 

and are important to our non-federal sponsors, which is why the President’s FY 

2014 Budget includes $40 million for rural water projects. 

As a threshold matter, the Obama Administration has supported Reclamation’s 

rural water program over the last four years, allocating $231 million of funding, in 

the FY 2010-2013 budgets, to construct, operate, and maintain authorized rural 

water projects in addition to $232 million provided for these projects in the Recovery 

Act. Still, the rural water program must compete with a number of other priorities 

within the Budget, including aging infrastructure, Indian water rights settlements, 

environmental compliance and restoration actions, and other priorities intended to 

address future water and energy related challenges. Notwithstanding the importance of rural water projects, current budget constraints have limited the ability to 

make Federal investments that match on-the-ground capabilities. 

Despite such constraints Reclamation has made progress in promoting certainty, 

sustainability, and resiliency for those who use and rely on water resources in the 

West and in supporting the basic drinking water needs of rural communities, as directed by the Congress. S. 715 provides a constant level of mandatory funding to 

support the construction of authorized rural water projects to deliver water to smaller, isolated communities. However, the Department believes Federal investments in 

such projects must recognize the current fiscal constraints and the need to make 

tough choices in prioritizing those investments. The Administration supports the 

goals embodied by S. 715 of advancing the economic security of Americans living 

in rural areas, and constructing these important infrastructure projects will not only 

help provide the economic benefits of a clean, reliable, drinking water system that 

most Americans take for granted, but will also assist in creating jobs in the shortterm through ongoing construction, but the Administration supports discretionary 

funding for these projects. 
17 

Since the 1980s, Congress has authorized Reclamation to undertake the design 

and construction of specific projects intended to deliver potable water supplies to 

rural communities located in North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, New Mexico, 

Minnesota and Iowa. These projects exist in communities that are experiencing urgent needs for water due to poor quality of the existing supply or the lack of a secure, reliable supply. For example, in rural Montana, some communities have, from 

time-to-time, been subject to ‘‘boil water’’ orders due to the unsafe conditions of the 

existing drinking water supplies. In Eastern New Mexico, the existing communities 

currently rely on the diminishing Ogallala Aquifer and the current drinking water 

systems are projected to be depleted within 40 years. Reclamation’s Rural Water 

Program provides a resource to rural communities under those circumstances and 

the Congress has authorized federal assistance to meet those needs. 

The Rural Water Supply Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-451) authorized Reclamation to establish a program to work with rural communities, including tribes, in the 17 Western States to assess rural water supply needs and conduct appraisal and feasibility 

studies without individual acts of Congress. Pursuant to the Rural Water Supply 

Act, Reclamation created a rural water program to enable coordinated examination 

of the various options to address rural communities’ water supply needs through a 

cost effective, priority-based process. 

In addition to authorizing appraisal investigations and feasibility studies, Section 

104 of the Rural Water Supply Act required that the Secretary of the Interior, in 

consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Director of the Indian Health Service, the Secretary 

of Housing and Urban Development and the Secretary of the Army, to develop a 

comprehensive assessment of the status of the existing, authorized rural water 

projects. Section 104 also directs Reclamation to describe its plans for completing 

the design and construction of the authorized rural water projects. 

In response to Section 104, Reclamation issued a draft assessment report titled 

‘‘Assessment of Reclamation’s Rural Water Activities and Other Federal Programs 

that Provide Support on Potable Water Supplies to Rural Water Communities in the 

Western United States’’ which is posted on Reclamation’s website (www.usbr.gov/ 

ruralwater/docs/Rural-Water-Assessment-Report-and-Funding-Criteria.pdf). Comments on the draft report were submitted through September 10, 2012. In addition 

to providing a report of the status of the existing authorized rural water projects, 

the assessment report describes how Reclamation’s Rural Water Supply Program 

will be carried out and coordinated with other Federal programs which support the 

development and management of water supplies in rural communities in the western states and to maximize efficiency of the various programs by leveraging Federal 

and non-Federal funding to meet the shared goals of the programs. 

As described in the assessment report, with the exception of Title III of P.L. 107- 

331 that authorized the Jicarilla rural water supply system, each of the Acts of Congress authorizing Reclamation’s involvement in the rural water supply projects required that the cost ceilings included in the original authorizing legislation be indexed to adjust for inflation which is estimated to be 4% annually. The result of 

these indexing requirements is that the overall cost of the authorized rural water 

projects has risen and continues to rise during the time needed for construction, 

such that the total estimated funding that would be required to complete these 

projects is now $2.6 billion, which is substantially higher than the original authorization amounts, which totaled $2.0 billion. 

Reclamation has recognized the need to make meaningful progress in constructing 

authorized rural water projects and has budgeted $40 million in FY2014 toward 

that effort. At the levels provided in the 2013 budget, and without additional nonFederal funding, progress would be made towards project completion, but some of 

the currently authorized projects would be completed much later, perhaps not until 

well after 2063 despite close to $4.0 billion being invested by that time. It is estimated that as of 2063, an outstanding balance of approximately $1.1 billion would 

remain to complete construction of currently authorized projects. 

Across the country, state, local, and Tribal governments are taking a greater leadership role in water resources investments, including financing projects the Federal 

government would have in the past. Constrained Federal budgets do not preclude 

the ability of non-Federal parties to move forward with important investments in 

water resources infrastructure and the Department stands ready to support that effort. Even with the additional resources made available through S. 715, we would 

expect that non-Federal entities will likely need to increase their share of funding 

to build these projects in the timeframes they have envisioned. 

S. 715 establishes a dedicated Reclamation Rural Water Construction Fund in the 

United States Treasury comprised of funds that would otherwise be deposited into 

the Reclamation Fund established by the first section of the Act of June 17, 1902 
18 

(32 Stat. 388, chapter 1093). This funding source would enable earlier completion 

of projects. Section 3(b)(3) of S. 3385 provides that the bill’s cost would be offset so 

as to not increase the deficit. The Department supports such language. However, 

even if an equivalent and acceptable offset is identified, use of those funds must be 

weighed against other priorities across the Federal government, including deficit reduction. 

Section 3 of S. 715 provides that for each fiscal year from 2014 through 2030, $80,000,000 per year will be deposited into the Fund in addition to interest earned 

on invested money that is available in the Fund but not utilized for the current 

withdrawal. Section 3(c) of S. 715 limits expenditures from fiscal year 2014 through 

2035 from the Fund to not more than $80,000,000 in addition to interest accrued 

in that same fiscal year, with an allowance for the use of funds carried over from 

prior years. 

S. 715 also provides that if a feasibility study has been submitted to the Secretary 

by September 30, 2012, and those projects are subsequently authorized by Congress, 

they may be eligible to receive funding through the Reclamation Rural Water Construction Fund. S. 715 directs the Secretary of the Interior to develop programmatic 

goals enabling the expeditious completion of construction of the existing rural water 

projects and to establish prioritization criteria for the distribution of funds. Reclamation’s draft assessment report would meet these requirements when complete. 

Reclamation’s first goal is to advance the construction of rural water projects that 

meet the most urgent water supply needs in the shortest amount of time, given our 

current budget constraints. The second goal is to give priority to rural water projects 

that address Indian and tribal water supply needs. 

Within the context of the above goals, Reclamation recognizes that current and 

projected funding levels may not be sufficient to expeditiously complete the federal 

funding portion of every project and that it must prioritize the allocation of available funding. The draft assessment report outlines prioritization criteria to guide 

Reclamation’s decision making to maximize the agency’s ability to meet its programmatic goals, to maximize water deliveries to rural communities in as short a 

period as possible, and to reflect the diverse needs and circumstances facing each 

individual project. The six criteria identified by Reclamation for rural water construction prioritization are: 

• Is there an urgent and compelling need for potable water supplies? 

• How close is the Project to being completed and what is the commitment of the 

project sponsors to making that happen? 

• What is the financial need of the communities and what is the relative economic 

effect of the Project? 

• Does the Project fulfill Reclamation’s authorized niche for taking a regional and 

watershed approach to rural water projects? 

• Does the project minimize water and energy consumption and encourage the development of renewable energy resources such as wind, solar, hydropower, etc., 

to meet local needs? 

• Does the project serve the needs of tribal communities and tribal members? 

The analysis outlined in the draft assessment report underscores that in times of 

constrained federal budgets, non-federal funding in excess of the minimum contributions originally contemplated will be required to expedite project completion and reduce the effects of indexing over the construction period. 

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

Senator SCHATZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Quint. 

In order to accommodate Chair Baucus’ busy schedule, I think 

what we’ll do is move to Senator Baucus for a statement regarding 

rural water projects. 

Thank you, Senator Baucus. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM MONTANA 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also thank very 

much other witnesses who are subsequently appearing for letting 

me proceed. 

I’m here on behalf of something that’s really important to my 

State. I think the states of most everybody here with the possible 
19 

exception of you, Mr. Chairman, and that’s water. In our parts of 

the country it doesn’t rain. Now it rains a little bit in Hawaii, at 

least some parts of Hawaii. In other parts it does not. 

But in the Western states, generally, we don’t have a lot of 

water. West of the 100th meridian it doesn’t rain a lot. That’s why 

we have section lines and grids. It’s not leaps and bounds like the 

Eastern part of the country. 

There’s a development of horses and 6 guns and barb wire and 

all that driven and caused by the mere simple fact that we don’t 

have a lot of water, and, you know, horses were necessary to go 

great distances because there’s no people, because there’s no water. 

A 6-gun, as developed, is light to carry on a horse. It’s required. 

Barbed wire, required. There’s nothing like the necessity to foster 

invention. We just don’t have a lot of water in the West. We’re trying to do what we can based upon that. 

This is a support of a bill. It’s bipartisan. Senator Hoeven has 

joined me in it. It’s the Authorized Water Projects Completion Act. 

Again I thank Senator Hoeven to make it bipartisan, also other 

Senators are a part of this. 

As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote in the early days of the 

Bureau of Reclamation and I’ll quote him. ‘‘A river is more than an 

amenity. It is a treasure. It offers a necessity of life that must be 

rationed among those who have power over it.’’ 

In arid places like Montana we know that water is more than an 

amenity. We treasure water because we don’t have much of it. Like 

so many of us who grew up in our part of the world we are off the 

grid. We’re off the power grid and we’re off the water grid. We live 

unconnected to the centralized systems that most Americans take 

for granted. 

In places like Box Elder and Brockway, my fellow Montanans 

have relied too long on old wells that go dry. You know, folks in 

communities they just have to have wells. There’s no water system. 

They’ve spent too many years drinking salty water. It’s terrible 

water, believe me. I’ve had a good bit of it. It fails Federal drinking 

water standards. 

This fellow named Bruce Sunchild. He’s the chairman of the 

Chippewa Cree Tribe. He testified before this committee last July 

about all the e-coli in wells on Rocky Boy’s Reservation. That’s his 

reservation. That was in 2011. 

Today in Eastern Montana, as the Senator from South Dakota 

certainly knows, in Eastern Montana, Western North Dakota the 

Bakken oil boom is providing a lot of good jobs. But there’s a problem. It’s also challenging small towns that barely meet their own 

water standards. 

So this bill, I believe, is an overdue step in using the Reclamation fund for its intended purpose and that is making the West 

habitable. The current rate of appropriations from the fund it will 

be twice as expensive as it should be to reconstruct Reclamation 

projects in states like Montana and the Dakotas and New Mexico. 

Investing more water up front will result in less spending over 

time. 

It was just made that the $40 million for the Reclamation’s rural 

water projects in the President’s budget last week. I believe it dem-
20 

onstrated once again why Congress needs to act. We can’t rely on 

the Administration. 

My bill will speed up construction, create good paying jobs and 

cost taxpayers less money in the long run. This is about one thing. 

It’s about jobs in rural America. It’s about people who need water. 

The bill supports good paying jobs in the near term and allows 

rural communities to support businesses in the long haul. It doesn’t 

add one thin dime to the deficit. I urge you to consider it favorably. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator SCHATZ. Thank you, Senator Baucus. 

Senator Johnson has questions for the testifiers. 

Senator Baucus, thank you very much. 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you. 

Senator SCHATZ. I don’t think we’ll have any questions for you. 

Senator BAUCUS. You bet. Thank you. 

Senator SCHATZ. Senator Johnson. 

Senator JOHNSON. Mr. Quint, thank you for being here. 

In the authorization statute for Mni Wiconi Congress found that 

the U.S. has a trust responsibility to ensure that adequate and safe 

water supplies are available to meet the economic, environmental 

water supply and public health needs of the Pine Bridge Indian 

Reservation, Rosebud Indian Reservation and Lower Brule Indian 

Reservation. Incorporating the existing communities systems into 

the Mni Wiconi Project is central to ensuring these needs are met. 

My understanding is that BOR will not allow these systems to be 

incorporated into Mni Wiconi until they are sufficiently upgraded. 

Yet BOR has resisted using funding for upgrades. 

Although you testified that the BOR is interested in working 

with other agencies I’m not convinced that will happen outside of 

legislation. What assurances can you provide that these needs will 

be addressed? 

Mr. QUINT. I want to say that the Department and the Bureau 

of Reclamation takes the tribal trust responsibilities very seriously. 

As part of taking those seriously we try to work with the tribes as 

much as possible to meet the needs that they have. It’s a complicated system. 

Many Federal agencies have been involved in building these systems. Have different levels of responsibilities and funding for these 

systems. We’re committed to work with all those entities to try to 

resolve these issues. 

Senator JOHNSON. Mr. Quint, in last July’s report on the status 

of rural water projects BOR indicated that with overall construction funding levels of $50 million annually some of the authorized 

projects will extend well beyond 2063 with substantial outstanding 

balance remaining. Taking out the operations and maintenance 

funding, the FY2014 budget request for construction on authorized 

projects is actually down around $22 million. How would starting 

with $80 million annually from Reclamation funding impact project 

timelines and overall costs for projects like Lewis and Clark? 

Mr. QUINT. Let me find my data here. 

The current information that I have that with an $80 million annual funding most significant progress can be made for all the currently authorized projects. We would expect by the year 2039 that 
21 

at a total cost of $34 billion we could finish the currently authorized rural water projects. 

Senator JOHNSON. That is just about a quarter of a century sooner. 

Mr. QUINT. That’s correct. 

Senator JOHNSON. I yield back. 

Senator SCHATZ. Thank you, Senator Johnson. 

Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Quint, thanks so much for being here. It’s good to see you. 

You know, Mr. Chairman, I believe that developing water for our 

rural areas is vital to economic growth in the West. In my home 

State of Wyoming I agree completely with Senator Baucus’ comments about water in the Rocky Mountain West, jobs and our economy. I believe that Senator Baucus’ bill, S. 715, the Authorized 

Rural Water Projects Completion Act can help achieve that goal. 

I do have some concerns regarding some of the language in the 

bill. So I’d like to get some clarification on the language. I’m more 

than willing to work with other Senators to address the concerns. 

The first, Mr. Quint, I’d ask you to define what a ‘‘rural water 

project’’ is supposed to mean with regard to this bill? 

Mr. QUINT. Our definition of a rural water project is a project 

that supplies water for agricultural, municipal and industrial uses 

in a rural community. 

Senator BARRASSO. Because as you know in the 2006 Rural 

Water Supply Act that term—they then defined rural water supply 

project to not rural water project. I’m just trying to figure how the 

Bureau of Reclamation is going to define the term rural water 

project because the term really isn’t defined in the bill. That’s why 

I’m just trying to figure out what projects it would actually cover 

because we know the specific words in the bill have a huge impact 

on some of these things. 

I don’t know if we need a little—— 

Mr. QUINT. I would rather get back to you with more specifics 

for the record. 

Senator BARRASSO. OK. That’s fine. Now on page 3 of the bill 

with regard to expenditures from the rural water fund it says the 

Secretary may and I emphasize may, expend from the fund not 

more than the sum of $80 million. 

Section two, page four, it states that the Secretary may use the 

amounts from the fund to complete construction of rural water 

projects. 

So I look at that language and say, does this language give the 

Secretary the ability not to spend the money on some of the authorized rural water projects that qualify for funding or is this mandatory spending? I’m trying to just get a handle around that. 

Mr. QUINT. I, again, I think I’ll have to answer that for the 

record. I’m not a lawyer. So I don’t understand the legal wills, 

shalls, mays. 

Senator BARRASSO. Yes, because it clearly has an impact. Specifically if this is mandatory spending, but it says it seems like why 

are we then giving the Secretary some discretion in the mays. So 

if we could get clarification. 

Mr. QUINT. I appreciate that. 
22 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Also with regard to page 3 under the section entitled, ‘‘Limitation.’’ It states that, ‘‘no amounts may be deposited in or made 

available from the fund under those paragraphs if the transfer or 

availability of the amounts would increase the deficit.’’ 

So I heard Senator Baucus say it wouldn’t cost one thin dime. 

So I would ask if you could provide us a list of all the projects. I 

know you don’t have this now—or programs that will be reduced 

or revenue accounts that will be increased to make sure that this 

bill actually is deficit neutral. 

Mr. QUINT. We’d be glad to provide that. But I can say that probably knowing what specific year those projects are it will be a case 

by case basis, year by year. 

Senator BARRASSO. Yes, cause you take a look at this and, you 

know, I’m trying to figure out what the differences are and the different ways that the Secretary can then use this to make these 

transfers deficit neutral and if this should maybe be a formal process to do that. 

Another is, I think you’re familiar with the GAO report in February 2006 entitled, ‘‘Indian Irrigation Projects.’’ It continues in the 

title, under the quote, ‘‘Numerous issues need to be addressed to 

improve project management and financial sustainability.’’ 

I don’t know if you’re familiar with that project or not. OK. 

I just want to point out that the GAO study says that there are 

16 different irrigation projects initiated, I think, in the late 1800s, 

early 1900s by the Department of Interior. They actually were 

never completed and/or not sustaining themselves. All but one of 

the projects are now managed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, but 

they were previously, you know, through the Department. 

My question is we’re looking newer projects and funding newer 

projects in this bill when there are many authorized Bureau of Reclamation projects for tribes that are, you know, more than 100 

years old. I went and visited a number of them and had a field discussion and forum in Wyoming in a location. They have severe deferred maintenance backlog, not completed, but yet we’re looking at 

starting new projects. 

So I just wondered if you have some thoughts on that. 

Mr. QUINT. The only thoughts I have right off the top of my 

head, not being aware of the report, is that part of the reason we’ve 

developed some of our criteria for prioritizing projects is hopes to 

address those types of issues. 

Senator BARRASSO. You know, just finally, Mr. Chairman, as my 

time is expired. I just want to say that these Indian irrigation 

projects need to be addressed, I believe, as part of this bill so that 

these tribes can get the assistance that they need. 

So, thank you, Mr. Quint. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. QUINT. Thank you. 

Senator SCHATZ. Chairman Wyden. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Chairman Schatz. 

Senator Heinrich, you were here ahead of me. If I took no more 

than 3 minutes, could I go because I’m trying to get back to that 

other committee you and I share? You want to get there too. 

Senator HEINRICH. Absolutely. Go right ahead. 
23 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank my colleague. 

I’m going to be very brief and will submit a couple of questions 

for the record as well. 

Your hearing today, Mr. Chairman, S. 693, the city of Hermiston 

Water Recycling and Reuse Project, this is extraordinarily important to Hermiston, one of our Eastern Oregon communities. The 

City is going to bear the lion’s share of the cost. If we can put it 

in place as it’s presently constituted, agricultural production will go 

up. 

The local economy will get a boost. It’s going to be good for fish, 

the environment, and habitat. You are giving the right expression 

on your face this afternoon, Mr. Quint, and I appreciate it. 

The other bill is S. 659, the Reclamation State’s Emergency 

Drought Relief Act Authorization. I think we all understand what 

happened last summer with respect to this devastating drought. 

The reason that we’re going to try to fast-track this legislation, Mr. 

Quint, is according to the most recent information from the Bureau 

of Reclamation, the Klamath Basin, which has really been a flash 

point for this debate, not just in Oregon, but in the country, has 

experienced the second driest January through March period on 

record. 

So you’ve got those water users in the basin understandably very 

worried about the prospect of a very difficult and treacherous season. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you. Glad to see you in that chair’s position 

as well. 

I’ll submit some additional questions for the record. 

The CHAIRMAN. Also, thank my colleague from New Mexico for 

his courtesy to be able to get that in very briefly. I yield. 

Senator SCHATZ. Thank you, Chairman. 

Senator Franken. 

Senator FRANKEN. I would also like to thank the Senator from 

New Mexico for his courtesy or for his courtesy, again. 

I’m balancing two committees, so by the early bird—you know 

what we’re doing. 

Senator HEINRICH. Now just get to your questions. 

Senator FRANKEN. Just get to it. Is that what you’re saying? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator FRANKEN. Now I might take my sweet time. 

Mr. Quint, the Authorized Rural Water Projects Completion Act 

would spend funds that would otherwise be deposited in the Reclamation fund. The average annual surplus in the Reclamation 

fund from fiscal year 2005 through fiscal year 2011 was $960 million a year. At the end of fiscal year 2011 the fund had more than 

$9.6 billion in it. 

Now compare that to the $40 million, that’s 40 with an m that 

your budget would spend on rural water projects next year. So 

there is an existing fund that is intended to fund these projects. It 

has an astronomical surplus, certainly compared to what is being 

budgeted. So I don’t understand why this is so hard. 

Why does not the Administration’s budget simply request that 

we spend the fraction of that surplus that it would take to get 

these projects done? I have a project in mind, by the way. 

Mr. QUINT. I am sure you do. 
24 

Generally we support the concept of that. The issue that the Administration has and the Department has is that the mandatory 

funding requirement from the fund itself takes away the discretionary part of being able to decide what the priorities ought to be 

in each budget year. 

Senator FRANKEN. OK. I don’t understand. What is the mandatory funding requirement? 

Mr. QUINT. The bill basically would require that that be spent on 

rural water projects and not, if that wasn’t the highest priority in 

that particular budget year, that money would still be spent for 

those rural water projects as opposed to that amount being discretionary and put toward other higher priority projects in a given 

year. 

Senator FRANKEN. Let me talk about a project. This is the Lewis 

and Clark Project. Are you familiar with that? 

Mr. QUINT. Yes, I am. 

Senator FRANKEN. Secretary Salazar called it a priority project. 

This is a project that starts in South Dakota, in Southeastern 

South Dakota. South Dakota basically has all of its water an hour, 

almost all of its water. 

Minnesota has no water. The local governments have and Minnesota has paid in its full share. This year’s budget request is $3.2 

million which doesn’t really even pay for the inflation on the 

project. At this rate the thing will never get done. 

Minnesota and the local communities have paid their full share 

in this project. Yet, they don’t have any. They aren’t getting any 

water at all. 

We have Rock County spent $1.75 million on system maintenance and upgrades including new wells because the project isn’t 

finished. 

Pipes, Lincoln Pipestone spent $6 million to secure an interim 

water supply. 

Laverne spent $650,000 on a water reclamation system and a 

new well. 

We’ve had economic development projects that have not gotten 

done. 

This is a quote from chairman of the project, Red Arndt. ‘‘There 

are no words left but cuss words to describe this travesty. This 

leaves us completely dead in the water.’’ 

We made a commitment to these communities that we match 

their funding and get them water. After 3 years of extremely low 

budget requests my constituents are wondering if the Bureau of 

Reclamation wants to keep its commitment. What am I supposed 

to tell my constituents? What? Is the Bureau of Reclamation ignoring the funding commitment that the Federal Government made? 

Mr. QUINT. My answer to that is absolutely not. The problem is 

that there’s a lot more need than there is supply of funds for the 

projects. We’ve come up with a prioritization system to prioritize 

projects. We’ve worked with stakeholders to develop that process. 

We apply that for the amount of funding that’s available each year. 

Unfortunately every project that’s authorized and every project 

that is in a similar situation can’t be funded because of the difficult 

financial situation. 
25 

Senator FRANKEN. Last year the request was for $70 million. This year it’s $40 million. 

The Mni Wiconi Project has received its funding and it’s done, I guess. So and they received $30 million last year. If you subtract 

what they got from last year you get to $40 million. What happened to the money? I mean, $9.6 billion in the Reclamation fund. Where is that money going? 

Mr. QUINT. I’m not an expert on the Reclamation fund. I do know 

that that money comes in and then it’s used to fund a number of 

other projects, not just rural water projects. 

Senator FRANKEN. OK. Thank you and the last thing I’m going 

to do is go over it now after that stern reproach on my colleague. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator HEINRICH. You did great once you got started. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you. 

Senator SCHATZ. Thank you, Senator Franken. 

Senator Heinrich. 

Senator HEINRICH. Thank you very much. I’ll apologize to my colleague here. I want to congratulate you on chairing the meeting 

today and for allowing me to sit in on what is not my subcommittee. So, thank you very much. 

Mr. Quint, I wanted to ask you a couple of things. 

One, thanks for joining us today, and certainly thank you for the 

Bureau’s support of the Fort Sumner Title Conveyance Act and for 

all the diligent work at the Bureau to finalize what’s really a mutually beneficial agreement with the Fort Sumner irrigation district. 

I’m hopeful that this can possibly serve as a model for other basins 

that are also home to some of the drought and endangered species 

challenges that we face in the West. 

Can you talk a little bit about what lessons we can learn from 

this process and how we might implement water forbearance and 

leasing in other basins to aid in the recovery of endangered species? In particular, one of the things that I’ve heard a little bit 

about in recent months is the possibility of using forbearance as an 

option in the middle Rio Grande Valleys as well and get your 

thoughts on that? 

Mr. QUINT. We do feel like leasing could be an option for other 

commitments in other basins similar to what’s going on here. 

Regarding the middle Rio Grande basin my understanding is 

that there are some leases that are already being used on a year 

to year basis to procure water for some of the ESA needs. There’s 

also water from Price’s Dairy that’s being made available to try to 

meet some of those needs. We’re looking and working with MRGDC 

to extend some other leasing arrangements to try to take care of 

the issues there. 

Senator HEINRICH. Great. 

I’d love to get a little bit of an update on the status of that. I 

appreciate your efforts there. 

Mr. QUINT. We’d be glad to do that. 

Senator HEINRICH. As you know Senator Baucus’ rural water 

project bill has a particular project in New Mexico that’s been in 

the works for a long time, a very critical project, the Eastern New 

Mexico Rural Water System. That would build a pipeline to provide 

drinking water to several rural communities in my State, as well 
26 

as Cannon Air Force Base. So far Reclamation has contributed just 

under $5 million to that project while the State and local sponsors 

have spent more than $26 million getting that off the ground. 

The communities in that area are in dire need. It’s not unlike the 

situation that Senator Franken just described in terms of the local 

community really stepping up and putting their money where their 

mouth is. The long term situation there is quite dire. 

Portales is expected to run out of ground water in about 10 

years. That’s not a long time in terms of our planning horizon. 

Clovis is projected to run dry in 20 years. 

So when you look at the current funding rate the project is on 

track to be completed by about the year 2200. That’s about 187 

years from now. Congress has committed to partnering with local 

communities on this project but the slow pace of Federal funding 

means that these towns may run out of water long before the pipeline is ever completed and construction costs, as you know, go up 

every single year making it even more challenging. 

How can we fulfill our commitment to these communities and 

make sure that this project is actually completed in our lifetime in 

particular if we don’t pass Senator Baucus’ bill? 

Mr. QUINT. My answer is going to sound a little generic, but we, 

every project is unique and with the limited amount of funding we 

have we have developed a prioritization list to try to get the money, 

the most bang for the buck for the projects that we have in the list. 

We have a lot more need than we have resources to put toward 

them. So we’ll continue to work with the locals and we’ll work with 

them on a year by year basis to see where they fit in the priority 

list and get as much money to all the projects that deserve it that 

we can. 

Senator HEINRICH. I’m going to, sort of, reiterate what Senator 

Franken touched on because you can prioritize $40 million all day 

long, but it’s still only $40 million. It is, you know, forgive the pun, 

but it’s a drop in the bucket in this case. We need to do something 

to open the tap here. 

Mr. QUINT. We would love to work with you to come up with options. 

Senator HEINRICH. Thank you. 

Senator SCHATZ. Thank you, Senator Heinrich. Mr. Quint, is it true that there’s $9.6 billion in this fund and 

that we’re pushing out $40 million a year? Are those numbers correct? 

Mr. QUINT. I have no reason to doubt Senator Franken’s numbers. But I do not know. 

Senator SCHATZ. OK, well for the committee’s record. 

Mr. QUINT. We can get that information for you. 

Senator SCHATZ. Can we have a better understanding of revenue 

and expenses and the cash balance there. I understand there may 

be a need to keep some cash reserves to make sure that projects 

can be pushed out. But that ratio sounds fat especially given that 

members of this committee has expressed such urgency in their 

various communities. 

So if you could get a more rigorous response to the committee for 

the record, we’d appreciate that. 

Mr. QUINT. We would love to. 
27 

Senator SCHATZ. Thank you very much. 

If there are no further questions I’d like to thank our witness for 

his testimony. Testimony and any statements we received related 

to today’s hearing will be made part of the official hearing record. 

We will also keep the record open for 2 weeks to receive any additional statements. 

With that, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:20 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(29) 

APPENDIXES 

APPENDIX I 

Responses to Additional Questions 

RESPONSE OF ROBERT QUINT TO QUESTION FROM SENATOR SCHATZ

Question 1. Is Congressional approval of these Acts in the best interest of the 

beneficiaries? 

Answer. The Department’s positions on the seven bills before the Subcommittee 

was specific to each of their Reclamation-specific provisions. In every case, the Department believes its position is in the best interest of the United States and taxpayers as a whole. 

RESPONSES OF ROBERT QUINT TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR WYDEN

Question 1. What I heard the administration say at Tuesday’s hearing are the 

same objections from the Bureau that I heard last time—namely that the Title XVI 

list is chock full and there’s no room for any newcomers. How long will it take at 

current funding levels to get through the current Title XVI backlog? 

Answer. The remaining Federal cost share for all authorized Title XVI projects 

is approximately $568 million. Projects considered active have an outstanding Federal cost share of approximately $375 million. The President’s budget request for the 

Title XVI Program was $20.2 million in FY 2013 and is $14 million in FY 2014. 

Assuming that no additional projects are authorized, and assuming annual appropriations within the range of recent requests, the time required to provide the maximum authorized Federal cost share for active projects would be between 18 and 26 

years. 

Question 2. I’m concerned the Bureau’s self-imposed policy of opposing any additions to the list ignores a prospective project’s individual merit, progress through the 

process, and expected benefits. How does the Bureau take those qualities into consideration when evaluating projects on the list? Does the Bureau make similar evaluations of prospective projects for which its assistance is requested? 

Answer. In 2010, Reclamation developed funding criteria to identify Title XVI 

projects that most effectively stretch water supplies and contribute to water supply 

sustainability; address water quality concerns or benefit endangered species; incorporate the use of renewable energy or address energy efficiency; deliver water at a 

reasonable cost relative to other water supply options; and that meet other important program goals. Reclamation has incorporated these criteria into funding opportunity announcements used each year to invite sponsors of authorized projects to 

apply for funding. Proposals are evaluated against these criteria to identify projects 

for funding. We believe this process has been successful at allowing Reclamation to 

prioritize the projects that most closely match program goals through a process that 

is transparent to all potential applicants and the public. When sufficient program 

funding is available, Reclamation also uses those criteria in funding opportunities 

that invite sponsors of potential new projects to request a small amount of assistance to develop new Title XVI feasibility studies. 

RESPONSES OF ROBERT QUINT TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR JOHNSON

Question 1. In response to my question regarding incorporating the existing community systems into the Mni Wiconi Project and the trust responsibility of the 

United States, you answered that the BOR takes the federal trust responsibility seriously and that BOR will work with the other agencies. I would like additional detail, however, on exactly how you plan to work with the other agencies, specifically 
30 

on the community upgrades effort? Would not legislation directing the agencies to 

come together with timelines for action work best to ensure true coordination and 

the desired outcomes? 

Answer. Reclamation supports the goal of interagency cooperation and efforts to 

engage other agencies to participate in the Mni Wiconi Project utilizing their existing authorities. An interagency agreement, as proposed by Reclamation during the 

August 8, 2012 Joint Consultation Meeting with Federal Agencies, has the potential 

to achieve this objective. The draft agreement discussed at that meeting provides 

that the agencies will meet quarterly during the first year to evaluate and prioritize 

the needed system improvements. The agencies then would develop a schedule to 

fund and implement these improvements. By coordinating this effort, the agencies, 

utilizing existing authorities, would leverage multiple funding sources, and make 

more effective use of available federal funds to accomplish the system improvements. 

This proposed interagency agreement and effort also meets the intent of the 

‘‘Memorandum of Understanding Among the Department of Agriculture, Department Of Health and Human Services, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of the Interior, and the Environmental Protection Agency to Better Coordinate the Federal Government Efforts in Providing Infrastructure and Promoting Sustainable Practices to Support the Provision of Safe Drinking Water and 

Basic Sanitation in American Indian and Alaska Native Communities’’ signed in 

March 2013. 

Reclamation agrees that language in this amendment to the Mni Wiconi Project 

Act would provide further direction to the agencies to work together on this effort. 

Question 2. Given that the existing community systems are in operation and many 

are currently in a fine state [of] repair to successfully distribute water, is it not a 

reasonable approach to transfer these systems into the Project as the Act intended 

so they can be eligible for OMR funding and regular maintenance per BOR standards while also having other federal agencies assist in the systems’ improvement, 

repair and replacement as the legislation would provide? 

Answer. Reclamation’s assessment of the existing community water systems identified a number of serious deficiencies. The majority of the valves and hydrants are 

inoperable on the older systems. The inability to perform regular flushing compromises capabilities of disinfectants needed to meet water quality standards. Water 

reservoirs lacked regular cleaning, inspection, and require coating repairs. Water 

service needed to be shut off to an entire community to repair pipeline leaks on 

some systems. Reclamation is also pursuing further investigations to ascertain the 

condition and potential degradation of the asbestos cement pipe installed in many 

of these communities. Reclamation had previously determined costs for existing 

community upgrades to be properly allocated to the construction component of the 

project. Since these existing systems were originally constructed using funds and 

authorities of other agencies, Reclamation believes any improvements needed to correct deficiencies in existing systems should be funded by those other agencies before 

those systems are accepted into the project. These communities are, or will be, connected to and provided water from the Mni Wiconi Project which will significantly 

reduce their current and future operating expenses in the interim while deficiencies 

are being addressed. Once existing facilities have been upgraded, community water 

systems may be transferred into, and operated and maintained as a part of, the entire Mni Wiconi Project. 

Question 3. The Mni Wiconi Project Act is clear that the existing community systems are to be a part of the Oglala Sioux Rural Water Supply System, the Rosebud 

Sioux Rural Water System and the Lower Brule Sioux Water System and the Act 

authorizes the use of operation and maintenance appropriations for these systems. 

Given this and the fact that a majority of the population on each of the three reservations is served by these existing systems, wouldn’t you agree that these authorized appropriations need to be used to upgrade these systems prior to and after the 

transfer in order to fulfill the intentions of the Act and the trust responsibility of 

the United States which is specifically set forth in the authorizing Act? 

Answer. While the Act authorizes existing water systems to be part of the project, 

it does not authorize the use of O&M funds for the initial costs to remedy water 

system deficiencies. The initial costs to remedy the deficiencies in the existing water 

systems should appropriately be allocated to the construction costs of the project. 

However, the Final Engineering Report for the project and the remaining construction ceiling does not include funds for the needed improvement to integrate some 

existing community systems into the project. In view of this situation, under the existing ceiling most of these communities will be connected and served water from 

the Mni Wiconi Project, thereby fulfilling the intent of providing reliable, quality 

water to the residents of these reservations. The communities that will not be con-
31 

nected within the existing construction ceiling currently have an adequate water 

supply system. Reclamation estimated the cost to remedy the existing water system 

deficiencies at $29 million. Placing the burden of the cost of improving existing 

water systems on Reclamation’s O&M program reduces funding needed for ongoing 

maintenance for Reclamation’s critical water and power infrastructure (including 

Mni Wiconi) and jeopardizes their reliability and safety. Since authorities to address 

these community water system deficiencies reside under other agencies, we believe 

the interagency agreement, prioritization, and funding approach previously described would best address this issue. 

Question 4. You mentioned an interagency agreement proposed by Reclamation 

during an August 2012 Joint Consultation meeting. Could you please tell us the 

progress that has been made in developing such interagency agreement and what 

specifically Reclamation is doing to further progress? 

Answer. A draft agreement was distributed and discussed at that meeting. The 

agencies in attendance concurred with the intent of the agreement. After that meeting, the Oglala Sioux Tribe requested that further discussions and revisions to the 

agreement be delayed while the Mni Wiconi Amendment was introduced and acted 

upon. 

RESPONSES OF ROBERT QUINT TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BARRASSO

Question 1. Can you define what a ‘‘rural water project’’ is supposed to mean with 

regard to S. 715? The term that is defined in the 2006 Rural Water Supply Act is 

‘‘rural water supply project’’ not ‘‘rural water project.’’ 

a) How would the Bureau of Reclamation define the term ‘‘rural water 

project’’ if the term is not defined in this bill? 

b) What projects would this cover? 

Answer. Reclamation defines a ‘‘rural water project’’ as a specific project that has 

been authorized by Congress and meets the criteria in the Rural Water Supply Act 

(the Act) of 2006, which became P.L. 109-451. Although the term in S. 715, ‘‘rural 

water project’’ does not exactly match ‘‘rural water supply project’’ as defined in the 

Act, Reclamation believes the intent to be the same and would use the definition 

for new projects that meets the Act’s criteria. The term ‘‘rural water supply project’’ 

means a project that is designed to serve a community or group of communities each 

of which has a population of not more than 50,000 inhabitants, which may include 

Indian tribes and tribal organizations, dispersed homesites, or rural areas with domestic, industrial, municipal, and residential water. It also includes incidental livestock watering and noncommercial irrigation of vegetation and small gardens of less 

than 1 acre. 

There are currently seven remaining authorized rural water supply projects: Garrison Diversion Unit; Mni Wiconi Rural Water System (RWS); Lewis and Clark 

RWS; Fort Peck Reservation-Dry Prairie; North Central-Rocky Boys; Jicarilla 

Apache RWS; and Eastern New Mexico. The bill would also cover any projects recommended by the Secretary and subsequently authorized by Congress on the basis 

of a feasibility study submitted to the Secretary on or before September 30, 2012. 

Reclamation received two feasibility studies before that date: the C.C. Cragin Reservoir Water Supply Project (Payson, Arizona) and Dry Redwater Rural Water System (east central Montana) feasibility studies. If authorized by Congress, these 

projects would be eligible for funding. 

Question 2. On page 3 of S. 715, with regard to expenditures from the rural water 

fund, it says the Secretary ‘‘may expend from the fund not more than the sum of 

$80 million.’’ In section (2) on page 4, it states again that ‘‘the Secretary may use 

the amounts from the fund to complete construction of rural water projects.’’ 

a) Does this language give the Secretary the ability not to spend the money 

on some of the authorized rural water projects that qualify for funding in this 

bill? 

b) Is this mandatory spending? If this is mandatory spending, why would it 

make sense to give the Secretary this discretion? 

Answer. a) Yes, the Secretary has the discretion to allocate appropriations among 

the authorized projects, including the ability to not spend money on some authorized 

projects. However, the Secretary’s discretion is limited by the conditions in Section 

(3) on pages 5 through 7, which stipulate that appropriations must be used to 

achieve defined programmatic goals and that the Secretary must develop 

prioritization criteria to distribute funds from the rural water construction fund. 
32 

In compliance with previous direction from received from Congress in 2012, Reclamation developed and applied funding prioritization criteria that meet the requirements of this bill. The criteria were published in Reclamation’s 2012 draft assessment report ‘‘Assessment of Reclamation’s Rural Water Activities and Other Federal 

Programs that Provide Support on Potable Water Supplies to Rural Water Communities in the Western United States’’ (www.usbr.gov/ruralwater/docs/Rural-WaterAssessment-Report-and-Funding-Criteria.pdf). 

Answer. b) No, the spending is discretionary. There are two reasons the Administration supports discretionary funding for these projects. First, spending on rural 

water construction projects competes with other priorities within Reclamation’s 

budget, including aging infrastructure, Indian water rights settlements, environmental compliance and restoration actions, facilitating more sustainable water supplies, and other priorities intended to address future water and energy related challenges. The bill requires offsets for any amount expended from this fund. Therefore, 

use of those funds must be weighed against other Federal priorities, including deficit reduction. 

Second, the Secretary’s discretion will enable Reclamation to prioritize the allocation of funds in a way that will expedite the delivery of water and other project benefits as intended, while emphasizing program priorities. As noted above, Reclamation has already developed and applied project prioritization criteria that meet the 

requirements of the bill. In addition, Reclamation has stated that while it would allocate larger amounts of available funding to higher-ranked projects, all projects 

would receive some funding unless special circumstances dictated otherwise. An example of a special circumstance would be a project for which previous years’ appropriations had not been fully expended. The Secretary’s discretion would allow Reclamation to direct more funding toward the completion of authorized projects in the 

year funds are appropriated. 

Section 3 (b) (1) of the S. 715 states that the Secretary of the Treasury shall deposit in the Fund $80,000,000 of the revenues that would otherwise be deposited 

for the fiscal year in the Reclamation fund. This section further states that the 

amounts deposited in the Fund shall be made available in accordance with this section without further appropriations. This language clearly removes some discretion 

from the administration for other uses of this funding. The use of the term ‘‘may’’ 

as referenced in your question provides some discretion on whether the funds are 

fully expended each year and the timeframe under which expenditures occur. If a 

rural water project did not have plans, specifications, and rights-of-way prepared, 

they may not have the capability to expend all of the funds in a specific year, whereby the funds would be held until needed. 

Question 3. With regard to page 3 of S. 715 under the section entitled ‘‘Limitation’’ 

it states that ‘‘no amounts may be deposited in, or made available from, the Fund 

under those paragraphs if the transfer or availability or the amounts would increase 

the deficit.’’ 

a) Can you provide me a list of all projects or programs that will be reduced 

or revenue accounts that will be increased to make this bill deficit neutral? 

b) What are the different ways that the Secretary can use to make these 

transfers deficit neutral? 

c) Shouldn’t there be a formal process to ensure this bill will be deficit neutral? 

Answer. The legislation is silent as to which projects or programs should be reduced under its provisions, as well as means to assure that there is no impact on 

the deficit. As such, if the bill were enacted, implementation of this language would 

require the Department to go through a process, working with the Department of 

the Treasury and Office of Management and Budget, to transfer the funds called 

for under Section 3(e). 
(33) 

APPENDIX II 

Additional Material Submitted for the Record 

STATEMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ON S.J. RES. 12 

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

its views on Senate Joint Resolution 12 which proposes to consent to and approve 

three amendments, Act 107, 2000 Hawai‘i Session Laws, Act 12, 2002 Haw. Sess. 

Laws, and Act 16, 2005 Haw. Sess. Laws., proposed by the legislature of the State 

of Hawai‘i to the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act (HHCA), 1920, as amended. Specifically, S.J. Res. 12 seeks to amend the HHCA to allow the interest rate on loans 

from the Hawaiian home-loan fund and the Hawaiian home general loan fund to 

be set by the Hawaiian Homes Commission through an administrative rule, rather 

than by law. S.J. Res. 12 also changes the qualifications of homestead lessees by 

authorizing a Hawaiian Homes Commission Act homestead lessee to transfer, or 

designate a successor to, their leasehold interest to a brother or sister who is at 

least one-quarter Native Hawaiian. 

By way of background, Congress enacted the HHCA in 1921 to provide a homesteading program on approximately 200,000 acres of land, called the ‘‘available 

lands,’’ for native Hawaiians. In section 4 of the Hawai‘i Admission Act, 73 Stat. 

4, Congress required ‘‘the consent of the United States’’ to certain State of Hawai‘i 

enactments amending the HHCA. In section 204 of the Hawaiian Home Lands Recovery Act (HHLRA) of November 2, 1995, 109 Stat. 361, Congress formalized the 

role of the Department in securing any required congressional consent and approval 

to State enactments. 

The HHLRA provides that the Department is to review proposed state amendments to the HHCA to determine whether congressional approval is needed to effectuate the United States’ consent required under Section 4 of the Hawai‘i Admission 

Act. If the Department deems that congressional approval is not required, it so notifies the State of Hawai‘i and Congress. If the Department deems that congressional 

approval is required, as the Department has for the three proposed amendments 

that are the subject of S.J. Res. 12, the Department is to submit a draft joint resolution approving the amendments to Congress, together with a recommendation on 

whether they should be approved. Here, we wish to acknowledge that the introduced 

bill was a product of close collaboration among the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, the Department, and the Hawai‘i Senate delegation. 

In carrying out the Department’s statutory trust responsibilities to the beneficiaries of the HHCA, the Department obtained input from participants during a 

Beneficiary Forum with the Department’s Office of Native Hawaiian Relations. The 

forum was held in May 2008 in Hawai‘i to discuss with leaders of the Native Hawaiian beneficiary community the State enactments proposed to amend the HHCA. Due 

to public request, the Department extended the comment period and conducted an 

electronic consultation with the Native Hawaiian community. 

Based upon the Department’s review and the criteria listed in section 4 of the 

Hawai‘i Admission Act, the Department determined that Act 107, 2000 Haw. Sess. 

Laws, Act 12, 2002 Haw. Sess. Laws, and Act 16, 2005 Haw. Sess. Laws, require 

congressional consent before such proposed amendments take on the force of law. 

The Department supports the United States consenting to and approving of Act 107 

and remains neutral on the consenting to and approving of Acts 12 and 16. 

This concludes the Department’s prepared testimony on S.J. Res. 12, and the Department would be happy to answer any questions the Subcommittee may have. 

STATEMENT OF LENNIS ‘‘RED’’ ARNDT, CHAIRMAN, LEWIS & CLARK

REGIONAL WATER SYSTEM, ON S. 715 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member and Members of the Committee: 
34 

My name is Red Arndt, Chairman of the Lewis & Clark Regional Water System. 

On behalf of our Board of Directors, I am pleased to submit this statement in strong 

support for the Authorized Rural Water Projects Completion Act. 

Our Executive Director, Troy Larson, testified in support of the bill at last year’s 

hearing. We were disappointed that the bill did not become law, but optimistic that 

with renewed effort S. 715 will pass the 113th Congress and be signed by the President. This bill was and is perhaps the last, best opportunity for Lewis & Clark and 

other authorized rural water projects to receive the federal funding that is due and 

ensure the estimated 300,000 people in the tri-state region can benefit from the 

Lewis & Clark Regional Water System. 

Authorized and signed into law in 2000, the project is according to the Bureau 

of Reclamation, currently 76 percent complete. Last July we began producing treated water from our treatment plant, which is being delivered to 11 of our 20 members. Lewis & Clark is now an operational system, which is the good news. However, the bad news is the schedule to connect the remaining nine members is entirely dependent upon federal funding, which for the last four years has been gutted 

to the point where it does not even cover the rate of inflation on the remaining federal cost share ($2 million in FY11, $5.5 million in FY12, $4.5 million proposed for 

FY13 and $3.2 million proposed for FY14). 

The three states and 20 local members have pre-paid close to $154 million, representing 100 percent of the non-federal cost share. Many members pre-paid millions a decade before expecting to receive water, showcasing the strong local support 

and importance of Lewis & Clark to the region. By contrast the remaining federal 

cost share increased from $194.3 million in 2010 to $200.6 million in 2011. That 

number will increase when the Bureau of Reclamation provides us with the 2012 

number sometime in May of this year. This demonstrates how federal funding is not 

even keeping pace with inflation. We are on a path to infinity. Even if Lewis & 

Clark receives $10 million a year, our engineers estimate the project would not be 

completed until 2050. 

This delay is a double-whammy for taxpayers. Not only does the project become 

more expensive, but it takes longer to realize the economic benefits. Lewis & Clark 

would create thousands of jobs on the front end through construction and manufacturing, and more importantly many more long-term jobs on the back end through 

expanded economic development. As has been noted by our tri-state congressional 

delegation, Lewis & Clark will pay for itself many times over. 

We have a number of economic impact examples. A large pork processing plant 

in Worthington, Minnesota cannot expand because of the lack of water. Ethanol 

plants have been turned away in northwest Iowa and southwest Minnesota. Proposed dairies have been turned away in southwest Minnesota. 

When times get tough you go back to the basics. What is more basic than drinking 

water? It’s the cornerstone of life and economic development. The three states and 

20 local members have gone above and beyond by pre-paying their share of the 

project. To be perfectly frank, there are no words left but cuss words to describe the 

members’ anger and outrage that the federal government is not honoring its commitment. Given the drought, the federal government is leaving us high and dry at 

a time when we need water the most. 

Lewis & Clark greatly appreciates the strong bi-partisan support it has enjoyed 

through the years from our tri-state congressional delegation. We applaud Chairman Baucus for his leadership on this issue and the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee for this hearing. We respectfully urge Congress to pass this bill 

so Lewis & Clark and the other projects that are languishing on the Bureau of Reclamation’s plate can be completed in a timely manner, bringing much needed water 

to our nation’s heartland. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF ED BROOKSHIER, CITY MANAGER, CITY OF HERMISTON, OR, ON S. 693 

Chairman Schatz and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for holding this 

hearing and allowing me to testify in support of S. 693 that will authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to participate in the construction of the City of Hermiston 

Water Recycling project. My name is Ed Brookshier and I am the City Manager for 

the City of Hermiston, Oregon. I wish to publicly thank Senator Ron Wyden for introducing this important piece of legislation that is crucial to the City’s reclamation 

and reuse of its municipal wastewater. This reclamation effort will provide high 

quality recycled water for reuse as a source of irrigation supply. The City’s recycled 

water production is estimated to be 3,600 acre-feet annually, of which 1,800 acrefeet will supply irrigation and 1,800 acre-feet will be discharged to the Umatilla 

River in winter. This new partial source of drought proof irrigation water will pro-
35 

vide an added supply to the Bureau of Reclamation-owned and locally operated West 

Extension Irrigation District (WEID). 

The City has negotiated an easement license with the Bureau of Reclamation for 

the recycled water pipeline that will deliver the recycled water to the WEID Main 

Canal. This license allows the City to construct and operate the recycled water pipeline for a period of 25 years with the ability to extend the license based on mutual 

agreement of the Bureau of Reclamation and the City. The City is also in the process of negotiating the NPDES permit to discharge the recycled water to the irrigation canal. This permit will establish the water quality criteria and operating conditions for the recycled water discharge to the irrigation canal. The Bureau of Reclamation and the City met to finalize this agreement in June 2011 and the final 

permit was signed in 2012. A comprehensive feasibility study has been completed 

on the project and the Bureau of Reclamation has verified that it meets the requirements to be eligible for the Bureau’s Title XVI Water Recycling Program. 

Hermiston, Oregon is a progressive, growth-oriented urban center with a total 

trade area population of 320,900. Located in a relatively dry section of the State of 

Oregon, positioned between the Cascade Mountains to the west and the Blue Mountains to the east, Hermiston is placed in a unique geographical area that offers an 

extended growing season and a variety of agricultural crops and products. The immediate Hermiston area has been able to diversity its economy with food processing, 

cold storage, warehousing, and distribution facilities. 

The benefits of developing a high quality source of recycled water followed by its 

use as a source of irrigation are numerous and extend to: the West Extension Irrigation District, the City of Hermiston, The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian 

Reservation and the region as a whole. 

The West Extension Irrigation District benefits from this project by obtaining an 

additional source of supply, which is both high in quality and drought proof. Since 

water is delivered to the District, energy required for pumping is also reduced by 

approximately $13,000 annually. In addition, the 1,800 acre-feet of irrigation water 

provided annually will supply water to 600 acres, reducing the demand on the District’s surface water supply sources. Finally, this added source of partial irrigation 

water improves the District’s operational flexibility. 

The City of Hermiston benefits primarily through meeting its upcoming National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES), which is currently being 

negotiated with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). The 

City has received support for this project at the highest levels of ODEQ and has 

been promised that the resources will be made available to complete the permitting 

process in 2013. This permit requires the City to both develop high-quality recycled 

water and remove its discharge from the Umatilla River continuously from April 1 

to October 31 of each year. The West Extension Irrigation District provides the longterm, multi-farm discharge option that allows the City to remove its discharge from 

the River during this period of each year. If the City is unable to discharge to the 

District, it will be in continuous violation of current temperature standards and 

periodic violation of the ammonia standard contained within the City’s NPDES Permit. Secondary benefits to the City include a reduction in energy cost from reduced 

pumping, estimated to be $42,000 annually, and the certainty that this solution, 

though expensive, will provide service for decades to come. 

The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation will also benefit from 

development of high-quality recycled water throughout the year. These benefits include a significant improvement in the quality of recycled water discharged to the 

Umatilla River in winter, further protection of sensitive salmonid habitat during 

summer when the recycled water is used for irrigation in lieu of River discharge, 

increased environmental monitoring at the recycled water treatment facility and 

long-term nature of this solution. 

The region as a whole also benefits from the treatment that develops high-quality 

recycled water. This water source is protective of the environment in both summer 

and winter and provides an added source of irrigation supply to agriculture, which 

is the backbone of the Hermiston economy. The City is planning on beginning construction of the Recycled Water Plant in early 2013 to take advantage of a very competitive construction-bidding environment. This effort will have an immediate economic impact to our local economy as much needed jobs will be created through an 

infrastructure project of this size. More importantly, the addition of the new and 

reliable water source created by this project will have a profound long-term impact 

to the farming industry in our area, which faces an uncertain future due to dwindling water supplies. 

Mister Chairman, while I understand and appreciate the strict budgetary limitations that your Committee and Congress as a whole are faced with, I believe that 

the Hermiston Recycled Water Facility is a worthwhile federal investment due to 
36 

the numerous federal objectives that will be advanced through this project. Combined with the serious regulatory issues the City of Hermiston is faced with and 

the need for added drought proof sources of recycled water in the Hermiston area 

for irrigation, it is essential that we complete construction of this project in a timely 

manner. The City has secured the necessary local matching funds for this project 

and is prepared to contribute 75 percent of the total project cost. Federal participation in this endeavor is vital to ensure that this becomes a reality. 

NORTH CENTRAL MONTANA REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY, 

Havre, MT, April 25, 2013. 

Hon. BRIAN SCHATZ, 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Water & Power, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

Hon. MIKE LEE, 

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Water & Power, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

Re: Comments Submitted to U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources; ‘‘Authorized Rural Water Projects Completion Act’’ (S. 715) 

On behalf of the North Central Montana Regional Water Authority (NCMRWA), 

we appreciate the opportunity to submit comments to the Senate Subcommittee on 

Water and Power regarding Senate Bill 715, the ‘‘Authorized Rural Water Projects 

Completion Act’’. The NCMRWA appreciates the ongoing efforts of the Montana 

state delegation, as displayed by this legislation, to work within the halls of Congress to ensure that such basic necessities as adequate water infrastructure is made 

available to all of the citizens of Montana. 

It is with this sentiment in mind that we draw upon the words that Senator Max 

Baucus used in his official testimony regarding S. 715; Senator Baucus referenced 

the number of Montanans that must still rely upon outdated and unreliable wells 

for their domestic water needs. This bipartisan bill will aid in securing the necessary Congressional authority and direction to continue the construction and work 

being done to bring water to all of those in Montana and the surrounding regions. 

As represented in the President’s Fiscal Year 2014 budget, there are proposed 

funds of $5.4 million that, if enacted, will be allocated to the Montana water project. 

However, the uncertainty of today’s budget environment in D.C. does not lend certainty to this issue moving forward, which makes the passage of S. 715 paramount 

in order to secure the establishment of a Reclamation Rural Water Construction 

Fund within the Treasury. Were S. 715 passed, the fund will require a designated 

appropriation of funds within the account for each fiscal year between 2014 and 

2030, to be used solely for the purpose of the completion of rural water projects. 

While a reliable water infrastructure system is taken for granted by many Americans, those in Montana know the precious nature of such a luxury that is not yet 

made widely available to the population. While we appreciate the $40 million that 

has been proposed as allocated to the Bureau of Reclamation within the President’s 

FY 2014 budget, we ask that Congress also take action on this issue and provide 

certainty to all Montanans that a permanent and secure water supply be made 

available. Through the passage of S. 715, rural communities across the country will 

be provided not only with the necessary means by which to secure such a basic necessity but also the federal support by which to do so. 

We appreciate the opportunity to submit comments on this needed legislation; if 

you require any additional information or have any further questions regarding S. 

715 and its impact on Montana we encourage you to contact Larry Bonderud 406- 

450-5196. 

Sincerely, 

LARRY BONDERUD. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE OGLALA SIOUX TRIBE, ROSEBUD SIOUX TRIBE, LOWER

BRULE SIOUX TRIBE AND WEST RIVER/LYMAN-JONES, ON S. 684 

INTRODUCTION

Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on this most important legislation, S.684, the Mni Wiconi Project Act Amendments of 2013. This testimony has 

been developed conjunctively and is offered on behalf of the Oglala Sioux Tribe, 

West River/Lyman-Jones, Inc., the Rosebud Sioux Tribe and the Lower Brule Sioux 

Tribe, the four beneficiaries and sponsors of the Mni Wiconi Rural Water Supply 
37 

* Figure has been retained in subcommittee files. 

System in southwestern South Dakota (Figure 1)*. S. 684, Re-authorization of the 

Mni Wiconi Project, will: 

• increase the authorized Project ceiling for construction by $14.308 million (October 2012 dollars) for completing drinking water distribution projects on the Pine 

Ridge and Rosebud Indian Reservations, • extend the completion of construction through 2016, • transfer existing community water systems to the Project within 5 years of enactment of S. 684 and • provide for interagency agreements between the Bureau of Reclamation and 

—EPA, 

—Department of Agriculture 

—Department of Health and Human Services and 

—Department of Housing and Urban Development 

—Bureau of Indian Affairs 

to assist with completing the tribal rural water systems including the upgrade 

of existing water systems in reservation communities, and in the case of the Department of Agriculture and Bureau of Indian Affairs, assist in completing the 

livestock distribution system to reservation rangelands consistent with the 

original intent of the Project. 

In an effort to reach an agreement with the Bureau of Reclamation on the scope 

of the reauthorization, the Project Sponsors have eliminated the following provisions 

from S. 3464, which was introduced in 2012 and is now embraced in S.684: 

• extension of the service area of the Oglala Sioux Rural Water Supply System 

(OSRWSS) to include a small area of reservation trust land in Nebraska; • recover water costs for Rosebud Sioux tribal members on Trust Land in the 

community of White River 

• the Mni Wiconi Project Emergency Plan 

• mitigation of fish and wildlife losses 

• feasibility studies of wastewater systems 

The Bureau of Reclamation continues to oppose the reauthorization despite our 

good-faith efforts to reach agreement. 

Since introduction of S. 3464 in 2012 and the hearing of this Subcommittee on 

September 19, 2012, additional construction needs have been identified on the Pine 

Ridge and Rosebud Indian Reservations, but no increase in the reauthorization is 

requested. 

On the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, for example, the need for a new interconnecting pipeline between the east and west side of Pine Ridge Village was identified by the Bureau of Reclamation. The facility has an estimated cost of $620,000. 

Parts of the supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system for the Reservation may not be covered by the authorized construction ceiling. Rural services 

in the Wounded Knee and Rainbow Valley areas may exceed the authorized construction ceiling. These costs are in addition to the $8.6 million in additional funding needed to serve the Allen/Batesland/Martin service area, which is the Pine 

Ridge part of the $14.308 million construction reauthorization request brought forward from S. 3464 to S.684. 

Offsetting the increases in construction costs, the Director of the Oglala Sioux 

Rural Water Supply System (OSRWSS), for example, has been identifying real savings in the SCADA system and in the elimination of other unnecessary costs. Combined with favorable bidding results since last fall, it is contemplated that the Directors (and Tribal leadership) of both the OSRWSS and the Rosebud Sioux Rural 

Water System (RSRWS) can re-prioritize construction segments and complete the 

drinking water portion of the Mni Wiconi Project within the $14.308 million reauthorization request. In the event of surplus funds, they will be applied to much 

needed community system upgrades. 

Individually and collectively, the Project Sponsors support S. 684 and seek the 

support of the Subcommittee. 

PROJECT HISTORY

The Mni Wiconi Project Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-516) authorizes and directs 

the Secretary of the Interior to construct the Mni Wiconi Rural Water Project to provide a safe and adequate municipal, rural, and industrial water supply to both Indian and non-Indian residents of southwestern South Dakota. The Act recognizes 
38 

the poverty on the reservations and severely poor water quantity and quality on the 

reservations and in the West River/Lyman—Jones service area. Significantly, the 

Act also recognize the United States trust responsibility to ensure that adequate 

and safe water supplies are available to meet the economic, environmental, water 

supply, and public health needs of the reservations. 

The Mni Wiconi Project has reached an historic milestone following the long 

struggle beginning in 1988 of the Oglala Sioux Tribe and West River/Lyman-Jones 

to complete this invaluable drinking water project. The Rosebud Sioux Tribe began 

work on their rural water system in 1984 and became part of the Mni Wiconi 

Project with the passage of P.L. 103-434 in 1994. The Lower Brule Sioux Tribe also 

joined the Project in 1994 and its water system is completed pursuant to an agreement among the Sponsors for early completion which resulted in substantial savings 

for the Project. S.684 provides the means to fulfill the vision of safe and adequate 

water supply for Oglala Sioux and the Rosebud Sioux Tribes. 

The Project is a testament to the ability of the tribal sponsors and non-Indian 

neighbors to collaborate to improve the health and welfare of our respective constituencies. When the Project was initiated, relationships between us were strained 

at best and governed by events many generations before us but still fresh in the 

minds of our peoples. As the Project reaches its conclusion, we have built mutual 

respect and a relationship that evolved from the necessity of working together toward a common good. None of this would have been possible without the continuous 

efforts of the Subcommittee and the South Dakota delegation, and especially the 

sponsor of S. 684, the Honorable Tim Johnson. 

It is important that the Committee understand the background upon which we 

embarked to build the largest rural water project in the world. In the beginning we 

were joined by our partners in the project, West River/Lyman-Jones, for the purpose 

of bringing good quality water from the Missouri River to the Badlands of Western 

South Dakota. The Missouri River as a water source is important to the Lakota people because the River is contained within the Great Sioux Reservation established 

by the Treaty of 1868. Our forefathers saw to it that the entire Missouri River was 

included in the lands reserved to us. The water users in the West River/LymanJones service area live within the boundaries of the Great Sioux Reservation, which 

includes all of South Dakota west of the left high bank of the Missouri River. 

As formulated in the late 1980s, the Project was of great concern to the members 

of the Oglala Sioux Tribe. They felt the history of water projects on Indian reservations at that time would be played out on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation: that 

non-Indian interests would receive water and Project benefits quickly and Indians 

would be left with delay and necessary Project features unfinished. They looked at 

the projects authorized on the San Juan River in June 1962, and observed that nonIndians received project benefits immediately, but the Indians still struggle to get 

their projects completed decades later, even though they were authorized half a century before. They also observed opposition to Indian projects from the Office of Management and Budget. Based on these concerns, the majority of members of the Oglala Sioux Tribe were opposed to the Project in its early years. 

The initial concerns were overcome by a better understanding of the provisions 

of the Mni Wiconi Project Act, a reformulation of the Project in the Final Engineering Report of May 1993 and amendment of the Act to include the Rosebud Sioux 

Tribe and Lower Brule Sioux Tribe. Significantly and of high importance to the 

Tribe, the United States acknowledged in the Act a trust responsibility in the Mni 

Wiconi Project Act to ensure that adequate and safe water supplies are available 

to meet the economic, environmental, water supply, and public health needs of the 

Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. Also, important to the comfort level of the Oglala 

Sioux Tribe was the Act’s provision that title to the OSRWSS would be held in trust 

by the United States for the Tribe. This includes the principal components of the 

Mni Wiconi Project such as the intake on the Missouri River, the regional water 

treatment plant on the Missouri River and the main transmission pipelines from the 

Missouri River to West River/Lyman-Jones, the Rosebud Sioux Tribe, the Lower 

Brule Sioux Tribe and the Oglala Sioux Tribe. Further, pursuant to the Act, the Oglala Sioux Tribe entered into a PL 93-638 (Indian Self-Determination and Education 

Act) cooperative agreement with the Bureau of Reclamation to plan, design, construct, operate, maintain and replace OSRWSS. 

The Mni Wiconi Act Amendments of 1994 (Public Law 103-434, Title 8) added the 

Rosebud Sioux and the Lower Brule Sioux Rural Water Systems to serve their respective reservations, thereby increasing the number of Project ‘‘Sponsors’’ to four. 

The amendments also raised the authorized appropriation ceiling for the Project 

from $87.5 to $263.2 million (1993 dollars), subject to cost indexing, and provided 

that the systems would generally be constructed in accordance with the Project’s 

Final Engineering Report, dated May 1993 for the purposes of providing domestic, 
39 

commercial, municipal, rural, industrial, and livestock water. Completion of project 

construction was expected in 2003. 

The overall Project includes a 14.5 million gallon per day regional water treatment plant, 4,500 miles of pipeline, 60 booster pump stations, and 35 water storage 

reservoirs. The Project will ultimately serve more than 52,000 people, including 

more than 40,000 on the three Indian reservations. It is a monumental endeavor 

which is providing myriad benefits to those most in need. It is a project that must 

be reauthorized to complete the drinking water components on the Pine Ridge and 

Rosebud Indian Reservations. 

IMPACT ON QUALITY OF LIFE AND HEALTH

It is respectfully submitted that the Project is unique and that no other project 

in the Nation has greater human needs. The Project beneficiaries, particularly the 

three Indian Reservations, have the lowest income levels in the Nation. Poverty in 

the Indian service areas is consistently deeper than elsewhere. At the beginning of 

the third millennium one could not find a region in our Nation in which social and 

economic conditions are more deplorable. 

Before the Mni Wiconi Project, health risks to the Indian people from drinking 

unsafe water were severe. Health effects of water borne diseases were consistently 

more prevalent than elsewhere in the Nation, due in part to (1) lack of adequate 

water in the home and (2) poor water quality where water was available. Higher 

incidences of impetigo, gastroenteritis, shigellosis, scabies and hepatitis-A were well 

documented on the Indian reservations of the Mni Wiconi Project area. 

Poverty is the harbinger of the severe health care crisis facing the Indian people 

in the Northern Great Plains. The extra costs of health-care during the lifetime of 

each 24,000 members of the Indian population in the Mni Wiconi Project are estimated at $2.25 billion (in 2010 dollars). This is not total costs of health care; it is 

the present value of the extra cost of life time health care relative to the rest of 

the population off the reservations. Regional data suggests clear relationships between income levels and higher mortality rates for heart disease, cancer and diabetes with correspondingly higher federal health-care costs. 

The Mni Wiconi Project is part of the solution. It brings much needed employment, both direct and through economic development projects, which, in turn, engages part of our unemployed and underemployed and brings about measurable improvement in the health of the Lakota Nation, thereby reducing federal health-care 

costs and, most of all, the tragedy in the families affected. Mni Wiconi builds the 

dignity of many, not only through improvement of drinking water, but also through 

increased employment and earnings during planning, construction, operation and 

maintenance and from commercial enterprises supplied with Project water. 

The Project has accomplished much improvement of water quality using a combination of water from the Missouri River and from the Ogallala Aquifer. Homes 

previously reliant on water laced with unsafe levels of arsenic, uranium and nitrite/ 

nitrates have been placed on a safe and reliable drinking water system, and we expect reductions in mortality. 

PROJECT FUNDING STATUS

The authorized construction funds will be 100 percent expended at the end of FY 

2013. With construction funding at the $23 million level as proposed in the President’s FY 2013 budget, the project will have expended $470,357,000 within the current authorization. The funds will not be adequate to complete the Project as originally planned. 

The reauthorization request of $14,308,000 would bring total funding to 

$484,665,000, an increase of 3.0 percent, and would complete the drinking water 

portion of the Project. The livestock portion will require programmatic funds from 

the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Department of Agriculture that are not included 

in the reauthorization request. The increase compares with unbudgeted overhead 

costs of $26,696,000 that the Project will incur through 2013 due to inadequate levels of funding that delayed the project: a factor completely outside the control of the 

Oglala Sioux and Rosebud Sioux Tribes. These necessary overhead costs are 5.7 percent of the authorized Project costs and nearly double the amount requested in the 

reauthorization. 

The extension of the Project from 2008 to 2013 did not provide for budgeting of 

Reclamation oversight, administration or other ‘‘overhead’’ costs, which will have diverted $26.696 million from construction. These costs have been and will continue 

to be incurred at the expense of construction elements. The slow pace of budgeting 

and appropriations has extended the Project by seven additional years from 2008 

through 2016. The overhead costs in those years have depleted construction funds 
40 

* Figure has been retained in subcommittee files. 

by $26.696 million. S.684 will restore $14.308 million of the $26.696 million in diminished construction capability. 

The $23 million remaining in authorized construction funds was included in the 

President’s FY2013 Budget Request. The budgeting will be adequate to complete the 

allocation of currently authorized funding but will be inadequate to fully complete 

the drinking water system to persons in need. These are residents that were contemplated in the Final Engineering Report and included in the Project design. 

CONSTRUCTION CEILING INCREASE

Reauthorization of the funding ceiling by $14.308 million and a time extension 

through 2016, the fourth construction sunset date, are needed on the Pine Ridge 

and Rosebud Indian Reservations to complete the drinking water systems. The West 

River/Lyman-Jones and Lower Brule Rural Water Systems are complete. Underbudgeting and the slow pace of appropriations underlie the need to reauthorize and 

extend the Project. 

The Project authorization date was extended by PL 110-161 (2008) from 2008 

through 2013 without accompanying budgeting for administration and other overhead costs after FY 2007. The extension was necessary because funds had not been 

appropriated at a rate sufficient to complete funding of Project construction within 

the authorized construction ceiling. However, since no additional overhead costs 

were budgeted for with the extension of the date, funds that would have gone to 

construction were necessarily used to cover annual overhead costs, and Reclamation 

encouraged the diversion of construction funds allocated for livestock to cover overhead. Overhead costs for the OSRWSS ($17.990 million) and the Rosebud Sioux 

Rural Water System (RSRWS) ($8.706 million), a total of $26.696 million, severely 

impacted the funding available for construction. 

Because the budgeting of non-contract costs was not included in previous funding 

authorities after FY 2007, the necessary expenditures for Reclamation oversight and 

Project administration have reduced the funds to complete construction projects. 

The overhead costs for years after 2007 have depleted construction funds by $26.696 

million. OSRWSS would have ended the Project with a surplus in its construction 

budget of $5,101,000 after finishing its construction projects if it had not been required to expend unbudgeted funds on non-contract costs after FY 2007. The surplus 

could have been applied to community systems upgrades or the livestock program. 

S.684 seeks to restore $14.3 million of the $26.696 million unbudgeted overhead 

costs that diminished construction capability. 

The Concept Paper for completing the Project (prepared in several versions in 

2011 and included for the record as Exhibit A) documented a need for an increase 

in the authorized construction ceiling of $29.369 million. Since the Concept Paper 

was completed the Director of OWRWSS , Mr. Frank Means, took every possible 

step to achieve cost savings and to limit activities strictly to our first priority of 

completing the drinking water systems to serve the present and future growing populations on the Reservation. The Rosebud Sioux Tribe did likewise. Lower Brule 

dropped $1.74 million in reservoir expansions that would improve their system, 

which was completed 5 years ago. The cost reductions limit the necessary reauthorization to $14.308 million as presented in Table 1 and as shown in Figure 2* on 

the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. 

In an effort to be reasonable yet steadfast to complete the Project, our request for 

reauthorization of the Project is focused only on completing the drinking water systems. We propose to use other avenues to accomplish community system upgrades 

and livestock watering projects: 

1. Funds to upgrade existing community systems on the Reservations, a prerequisite, according to Reclamation, for transferring them to the Project as contemplated by the Act and the Final Engineering Report (FER) are not requested. The reauthorization requires Reclamation to submit a plan to Congress 

for upgrades and transfer within two years of the reauthorization and to implement the transfer within 5 years of enactment of S. 624. Upgrades may continue for 15 years. We disagree, but Reclamation requires transfer before making operation, maintenance and replacement funding available. S. 684 will resolve the issue by making transfers mandatory and communities eligible for operation, maintenance and replacing funding to avoid further deterioration of 

those systems 

2. The high level of investment now required by Reclamation for upgrading 

the community systems was not contemplated by Reclamation in the 2002 reau-
41 

thorization (PL 107-367), December 19, 2002. This high level of cost has prevented the transfer of existing 

3. community systems to the Project and enabled their continued deterioration due to absence of funding for operation, maintenance and replacement. 

4. The livestock components of the Project on the Pine Ridge and Rosebud Indian Reservations will be developed outside the new authorization through existing programs of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Department of Agriculture, and new funding authorization is not requested. The reauthorization 

requires Reclamation, Agriculture and the Bureau of Indian Affairs to work together on the livestock components. 

5. While $26.969 million in unbudgeted overhead costs from 2007 through 

2015 will be spent, an amount that has and will be expended at the expense 

of construction elements, we are only requesting $14.308 million to complete the 

drinking water systems on the Pine Ridge and Rosebud Indian Reservations. 

The $14.308 million is necessary to ensure that all intended beneficiaries will be 

served. We support the bill on this ground. We also support it for its several other 

provisions that address the other needs for finishing the Project as intended which 

are not covered by the $14.308 million increase. 
42 

COMMUNITY SYSTEM UPGRADES

The Mni Wiconi Act clearly states that the OSRWSS, RSRWS, and Lower Brule 

Rural Water System (LBRWS) shall include the purchase, improvement and repair 

of existing water systems, including systems owned by individual tribal members 

and other residents on the reservations. Sections 3(a)(4), 3A(a)(4), and 3B(a)(4). Further, Sections 3(a)(8), 3A(8), and 3B(a)(8) state that the aforementioned authorized 

rural water systems shall also include other facilities deemed necessary to meet the 

water supply, economic, public health and environmental needs of the reservations, 

including facilities for the tribes, reservation villages, towns and municipalities. Finally, Sections 3(b)(3), 3A(b)(3) and 3B(b)(3) reference the purchase, improvement 

and repair of existing systems. Congress intended for existing water systems to become a part of the Mni Wiconi Project. In fact, the objectives of the Mni Wiconi 

Project cannot be met unless the community systems are connected. Without inclusion of such systems, the Project as intended by Congress and the Tribe would not 

be complete. 

Reclamation has determined the costs for community system upgrades. Overall, the costs for community system upgrades total $26.657 million. Of this, $13.164 million is for OSRWSS. The total for the RSRWS is $11.693 million and for the 

LBSRWS is $1.8 million. 

Upgrades of the cost magnitude proposed by Reclamation for these existing systems were not previously contemplated in the FER or by Reclamation in PL 107- 

367, the 2002 reauthorization of the Mni Wiconi Project Act. Reclamation’s current 

proposal would have the systems in near perfect condition prior to their transfer 

into the Project rather than accepting these currently working systems and improving them as needed over a period of time—when the lifetime of a feature has come 

to an end. S. 684 contains language to direct the transfer of existing community systems to OSRWSS, RSRWS or LBSRWSS as other federal agencies’ funds and Project 

operation, maintenance and replacement funds are applied to the upgrade of those 

systems. 

It does not make sense to hold up completing the Project, which must include 

these existing systems, by requiring the existing systems to be in nearly new condition prior to transfer. Instead, systems should be transferred into the Project and 

a schedule for conducting priority upgrade work should be established using operation, maintenance and replacement (OMR) Project funding. 

An essential new provision in S.684 is the transfer of existing community systems 

to the OSRWSS, RSRWS, and LBRWS within five years of the enactment of S.684 

or three years after the completion of the Secretary’s plan for transfer. The purpose 

of the provision is to ensure the operation, maintenance and replacement of those 

systems at the earliest practical date. In the absence of a transfer, the maintenance 

of those systems will languish and deterioration will accelerate. 

OSRWSS is working to seek funding from other federal agencies such as HUD, 

Rural Development, IHS and EPA to assist in upgrading the existing community 

systems. Two central issues have arisen: (1) the S. 684 language on the community 

system upgrades is needed to direct the agencies to assist; and (2) Reclamation cannot evade its responsibility. Reclamation is still the responsible federal agency, and 

it must adhere to its trust responsibility and fund the costs of community systems 

upgrades (not funded by other federal agencies), a central tenet for ensuring adequate and safe water to the people on the reservation, through the operation, maintenance and replacement program. We support the continuation of operation, maintenance and replacement funding by other agencies that have historically contributed, including HUD and BIA, to reduce funding required from Reclamation. 

S. 684 would direct the necessary other agency assistance for the community systems upgrades and direct that the systems be transferred and the operation, maintenance and replacement monies appropriated to Reclamation under the Act be used 

to improve, repair and replace those systems. These provisions of S.684 are fundamentally important to the completion of the overall Project and for ensuring that 

the Project can function and serve its beneficiaries as intended. 

LIVESTOCK NOT INCLUDED IN FUNDING REQUEST

Water for livestock on the Pine Ridge and Rosebud Reservations was contemplated in the Final Engineering Report and in the original Project authorization 

and subsequent reauthorization. 

OSRWSS has reduced its livestock distribution system from $24.024 million to 

$11.380 million, and OSRWSS has removed its diminished livestock plan from the 

funding needed in the amendment of the Mni Wiconi Project Act. Likewise, Rosebud 

prioritized providing water for direct human consumption and reduced planned livestock water expenditures from $3.930 to less than $150,000. The Rosebud Sioux 
43 

Tribe has developed a collaborative system with operators and the Natural Resource 

Conservation Service to construct individual stock taps. Both Tribes intend to work 

with the Natural Resources Conservation Service and the Bureau of Indian Affairs 

to construct the livestock distribution systems over a period of 15 years. However, 

enactment of S. 684 is needed to direct these agencies to undertake the work and 

fund this important and intended component of the Project. As stated previously, 

the Bureau of Reclamation urged that funding intended for livestock construction 

be used to finance the overhead costs after 2007, and the livestock program was sacrificed for necessary non-construction activities that had not been budgeted. 

ADEQUATE FUNDING FOR OPERATION, MAINTENANCE AND REPLACEMENT FOR EXISTING

MNI WICONI PROJECT FACILITIES

In addition to expressing our support for S. 684, we take this opportunity to raise 

a very important concern of the tribal sponsors: the need for adequate operation, 

maintenance and replacement (OMR) funding. The Mni Wiconi Act clearly sets forth 

the trust responsibility of the United States to ensure adequate and safe water supplies are available to meet the economic, environmental, water supply and public 

health needs of the reservations, and established the framework for Reclamation to 

fund the construction and OMR of the Project, Section 2(a)(5), Section 10(a) and (b). 

The Act authorizes, among other things, the construction, operation and maintenance of municipal, rural and industrial water systems which include the existing 

water systems, Section 3(a), 3A(a) and 3B(a). Reclamation needs to work with the 

OSRWSS, RSRWS and LBRWS to ensure the remaining features of the Project, including the work related to existing community systems, are completed as planned 

and the intended beneficiaries are served. 

The Act’s trust responsibility provision is applies equally to construction and 

OMR. Anything less than sufficient funding for OMR threatens the significant investment of the United States in construction. 

Reclamation needs to work with the OSRWSS to adequately fund OMR of the core 

and distribution systems. The OSRWSS core facilities serve all Project Sponsors, including the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe, Rosebud Sioux Tribe and West River/LymanJones, as well as the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. Reclamation advises us that 

OMR is its first priority. The statutory trust responsibility requires OMR to remain 

at the forefront of Reclamation’s funding obligations. Funding should be adequate 

to ensure a safe drinking water supply for all Project Sponsors. As we move forward, 

the Mni Wiconi Project must remain a Reclamation priority. Our OMR funding 

needs should not be affected by other authorized projects’ construction funding 

needs or by Indian water rights settlements in the years ahead. 

Threatening an unnecessary increase in the costs of OMR for the Mni Wiconi 

Project are the Surplus Water Policies of the Corps of Engineers that would require 

payment for stored water in Lake Oahe. The Corps of Engineers proposes a cost of 

$15-$20 per acre foot of water derived from Pick Sloan storage. The Oglala Sioux 

Tribe believes that the Corps of Engineers policy on surplus water is flawed and 

that the charges potentially require Congress to appropriate more OMR funds for 

the Mni Wiconi Project for payment of Corps of Engineers charges. 

CONCLUSION

The Mni Wiconi Project is like no other in terms of human needs. Mni Wiconi 

means ‘‘water is life.’’ It is unique in that the Act which authorized it acknowledges 

the United States trust responsibility to ensure adequate and safe water supplies 

for the Pine Ridge, Rosebud, and Lower Brule Indian Reservations. S.684 will enable the United States to carry out this trust responsibility by completing the 

Project as contemplated. Without S.684, intended project beneficiaries, some who 

have been waiting for clean water since 1988, will not be served. 

We thank the Committee for its consideration of this important legislation and 

respectfully request that S. 684 moves forward to enactment as soon as possible. 

ATTACHMENT.—SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT OF THE OGLALA SIOUX TRIBE, ROSEBUD

SIOUX TRIBE, LOWER BRULE SIOUX TRIBE AND WEST RIVER/LYMAN-JONES, ON S. 684 

The April 16, 2013, testimony of the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) on S. 

684 has been reviewed and found extremely troublesome. The Agency is subtly 

changing its narrative to not only distance itself from funding of remaining construction but, also, future operation, maintenance and replacement (OMR) of facilities authorized as part of the Mni Wiconi Project. The concern begins with the opening statement that S. 684 will ‘‘. . . expand the scope and authorization ceiling. . ., 
44 

and have significant impacts on the budgets of both Reclamation and the Bureau 

of Indian Affairs.’’ 

First, the $14.308 million in additional construction funds is not an expansion of 

the scope of the Project. It represents an increase in Project funding by 3.0 percent 

or a little more than half of the $26.696 million diverted from construction of the 

Project to cover Reclamation oversight and Project administrative costs due to inadequate Reclamation budgeting and the extension of the construction period from 

2007 through 2013 without additional funding. The $14.308 million in additional 

funds is required to complete the original scope of the drinking water project, not 

to expand it. The Project is only asking to complete the drinking water component 

as contemplated by the Final Engineering Report approved by the Secretary in 

1993. The rest of the Project scope has been diminished (not expanded) to eliminate 

livestock on the Pine Ridge and Rosebud Indian Reservations. Notably, both the 

drinking water and livestock components of the West River/Lyman-Jones system 

were completed without diminishment. By letter dated March 27, 2006, Reclamation 

recommended to our Senate delegation that the livestock component would serve as 

a source of funding for the oversight and administrative costs that were not covered 

when Reclamation prolonged project budgeting from 2007 through 2013. 

Second, and consistent with its approach to construction funding, Reclamation is 

for the first time questioning that the Secretary of Interior would acquire title to 

existing public or tribal water systems to be held by the United States in trust for 

the Tribes. This would alter congressional intent and our understanding and is an 

attempt to withdraw OMR funding for the existing systems that were and are expected to be transferred to the Oglala Sioux Rural Water Supply System, Rosebud 

Sioux Rural Water System and Lower Brule Rural Water System. Reclamation’s assertion would free Reclamation from OMR responsibility as contemplated by Congress in Public Law 100-516. 

Third, Reclamation testified that the Bureau of Indian Affairs has no existing programs or annual appropriations for the construction, repair or upgrading of private 

residences. Perhaps the insertion of the word ‘‘private’’ helps create a half truth. 

The word ‘‘private’’ does not appear in S. 684. Section 3(b)(5) is intended for homes 

eligible for the Bureau of Indian Affairs Housing Improvement Program. We acknowledge the FY 2014 budget of the Bureau of Indian Affairs proposes to eliminate 

the program, which had a $12.6 million value in FY 2013. The Bureau of Indian 

Affairs proposes that HUD funding could be used in the future to replace the former 

Housing Improvement Program, but we deny that the elimination of the program 

is an effective step and recognize that use of HUD funds for the same purpose will 

divert funding from critically needed new housing: 

The budget proposes to eliminate $12.6 million in funding for the Hous- ing Improvement Program. The $650.0 million Housing and Urban Development Native American Block Grant program serves the same population as 

HIP. Tribes who receive HUD funding are not precluded from using that 

funding to provide assistance to HIP applicants. 

(Budget Justifications, The United States Department of Interior, Indian 

Affairs, Fiscal Year 2014, p. IA-0VW-3) 

Finally, as Project Sponsors we support and will work effectively with other agencies to assist in funding community system upgrades and completion of the livestock 

components of the diminished Project. S.684 is needed to facilitate this and is necessary. 

However, the testimony of Deputy Quint convinces us that Reclamation will indefinitely hinder the transfer of those existing systems to the Project as it hindered 

the completion of construction in a timely manner. Reclamation’s purpose is clearly 

to avoid OMR responsibility currently authorized by Public Law 100-516. The mandatory provision to transfer existing community or tribal systems within 5 years of 

enactment with title held in trust by the United States on behalf of the Tribes in 

the Mni Wiconi Project is an essential provision of S. 684 The current authority for 

OMR funding of existing community systems in Public Law 100-516 (the Mni Wiconi 

Project Act) would not be expanded, and S.684 would set the time frame for transfers, assure eligibility for OMR funding and prevent the on-going deterioration of 

facilities in the existing systems caused by Reclamation delays. 

In conclusion, S. 684 is necessary to confirm, as originally intended, that the existing systems will be transferred and upgraded. The Mni Wiconi Project Act intends for these systems to be transferred into the Project and eligible for Reclamation OMR funding. The Project is not a complete Project without them. S. 684 sets 

forth a mechanism to ensure the transfer of the existing systems and includes other 

federal agencies to assist with system upgrades while holding Reclamation to its responsibilities under the Act for these systems. S.684 would also ensure completion 
45 

of Project construction and provide a path for construction of diminished livestock 

distribution systems on the Pine Ridge and Rosebud Reservations. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF G. KEITH DENOS, GENERAL MANAGER, PROVO RIVER

WATER USERS ASSOCIATION, ON S. 211 

Chairman Schatz and Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity 

to submit this testimony for the record in support of S. 211, an amendment to the 

Provo River Project Transfer Act of 2004 (Transfer Act) authorizing the Secretary 

of the Interior to convey the recently enclosed Provo Reservoir Canal to the Provo 

River Water Users Association (Association). 

The Association is the local sponsor of the Deer Creek Division of the Bureau of 

Reclamation’s Provo River Project. The Association is a Utah nonprofit corporation 

organized in 1935 for the purpose of providing a supplemental water supply from 

the Provo River Project to its shareholders, comprised of metropolitan water districts, cities, a conservation district, and mutual water companies and irrigation 

companies. 

A principal feature of the Provo River Project is the Provo Reservoir Canal 

(canal), which extends 21 miles from the mouth of Provo Canyon to Salt Lake County. For many years, the canal meandered through pastures and orchards. By the 

late 1990s, suburban development had surrounded it. Enclosing the canal into a 

pipe offered significant potential new benefits in terms of public safety, water conservation, water quality, in stream flows and recreation. 

In anticipation of the enclosure of the canal (Project), the Association concluded 

that owning the canal and associated project features would be beneficial for many 

reasons, including the facilitation of financing for the Project. For this and other 

reasons consistent with Reclamation’s policy regarding title transfer, the transfer of 

title to the Association of the canal was authorized by Congress with the passage 

of the Transfer Act in 2004 [Public Law 108-382]. 

While ownership of the enclosed canal in fact proved crucial to obtaining partial 

state financing for the Project, a number of factors combined to delay title transfer 

until after completion of the Project. The Project has proceeded as envisioned, with 

Reclamation’s support, but without Reclamation funding. We recently celebrated the 

completion of the construction of the Project on April 5th with a ribbon cutting conducted by Senator Orrin Hatch. 

As you can imagine, the Association was extremely surprised to learn of Reclamation’s decision, both made and communicated to the Association after substantial 

completion, that the Transfer Act of 2004 did not support title transfer. The Transfer Act calls for transfer of the Provo Reservoir Canal, which is defined in the Act 

as the canal and associated land and facilities ‘‘acquired, constructed, or improved 

by the Unites States as part of the Provo River Project, Deer Creek Division...

as in existence on the date of enactment of this Act’’ [October 30, 2004]. The Regional Solicitor for the United States Department of Interior has advised Reclamation that completion of the Project prior to title transfer negates Congress’ authority 

and directive to transfer the canal to the Association, as set forth in the Transfer 

Act, because the newly enclosed pipeline itself was not ‘‘in existence’’ in 2004. 

While the Association strongly disagrees with the Solicitor’s analysis, we do not 

consider it profitable to continue debating Congress’ intent with respect to transfer 

of the newly constructed pipeline. We are confident that Congress with the continued support and assistance of the Bureau of Reclamation Commissioner and the Department of the Interior will move very quickly with passage of S. 211 to amend 

the Transfer Act to resolve the dispute. 

We look forward to working with Reclamation and our other partners to complete 

the transfer of title of the canal and all associated facilities as was contemplated 

in the Transfer Act. 

We are grateful for the leadership and assistance of the Utah Congressional Delegation as well as the Senate Energy Committee in expediting consideration of S. 

211. 

PREPARED STATEMENTS OF THE WESTERN STATES WATER COUNCIL

S. 659

I. INTRODUCTION

The Western States Water Council (WSWC) is a non-partisan policy advisory body 

closely affiliated with of the Western Governors’ Association (WGA). The WSWC 
46 

* Document has been retained in subcommittee files. 

1Kelly Helm Smith., Drought Shifts West on April 23 U.S. Drought Monitor as Heavy Rains 

Drench the Midwest, NAT’L DROUGHT MITIGATION CTR. NEWS (Apr. 25, 2013), http:// 

drought.unl.edu/NewsOutreach/NDMCNews.aspx?id=90. 2 Id. 

3 Hearing on Drought, Fire and Freeze: The Economics of Disasters for America’s Agricultural 

Producers before the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, 113th 

Cong., 1 (Feb. 14, 2013) (statement of Roger Pulwarty, Director, National Integrated Drought 

Information System). 4 Id. at 3. 

5 NAT’L CLIMATIC DATA CENTER, WILDFIRES - ANNUAL 2012 (Jan. 7, 2013), http:// 

www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/fire/2012/13. 6W. GOVERNORS ASS’N, CREATING A DROUGHT EARLY WARNING SYSTEM FOR THE 

21ST CENTURY, preface (2006), http://westgov.org/reports/doc—download/394-creating-adrought-early-warning-system-for-the-21st-century-nidis. 7Pulwarty, supra note 3 at 2 (citing Aon Benfield Reinsurance Group’s Annual Global Climate 

and Catastrophe Report). 8 Id. 

9 U.S. DEP’T OF AG., ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE, U.S. DROUGHT 2012: FARM 

AND FOOD IMPACTS, http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/in-the-news/us-drought-2012-farm-andfood-impacts.aspx#.UXhHzbU4udh 10Pulwarty, supra note 2 at 1; NAT’L CLIMATIC DATA CENTER, supra note 5. 11 U.S. FOREST SERV., WHITEWATER-BALDY COMPLEX FINAL COMMUNITY UPDATE 

(June 28, 2012), http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/gila/news-events/?cid=STELPRDB5377297. 12Pulwarty, supra note 3 at 1, 5. 

represents eighteen western states and WSWC’s members are appointed by their respective governors, and represent their states. Our membership includes senior 

state water managers and administrators. 

Our testimony is based on WSWC Position #347 (attached)*, which strongly supports legislation to reauthorize the Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief 

Act (the Act), Pub. L. 102-250, providing the Bureau of Reclamation with muchneeded tools to respond to record-breaking drought in the West and to work with 

states, tribes, and local communities to plan for future droughts. 

II. DROUGHT IN THE WEST

Drought has been, is, and will be an ongoing fact of life in the arid West. Currently, as shown in the below map from the U.S. Drought Monitor, 47.34 percent 

of the contiguous U.S. is experiencing moderate or worse drought, with abnormally 

dry to exceptional drought conditions covering much, if not all, of every western 

state except Washington.1

Although recent precipitation has somewhat improved drought conditions in the 

Midwest,2 the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reports that 

drought conditions will likely persist in much of the West through July, with 

drought developing or intensifying in some parts of Arizona, California, Nevada, 

New Mexico, Oregon, and Texas. 

These conditions follow the record breaking drought of 2012, which was unique 

in terms of its sudden onset, its persistent dryness and warm temperatures, its 

magnitude of extremes, and the large area it affected.3 For example, over 60 percent 

of the contiguous U.S. experienced moderate to extreme and exceptional drought 

during 2012, with only 1934 comparable in duration and geographic extent.4 Last 

year was also the warmest year on record for the contiguous U.S. over a period of 

record dating back to 1895.5

Not surprisingly, these conditions coupled with the ongoing drought have adversely impacted a broad spectrum of economic, environmental, and other interests 

across the West and the nation as a whole, the effects of which will reverberate for 

years to come. Examples include: 

• According to some estimates, drought costs the U.S. economy between $6 billion 

to $8 billion per year in direct estimated losses,6 with the cost of the 2012 

drought possibly exceeding $35 billion.7

• Agriculture accounted for much of the economic costs of the 2012 drought,8 due 

in part to moderate or worse drought conditions affecting around 70 percent of 

the nation’s crop and livestock production at certain times during the year.9

• For only the third time in over 50 years, wildfires across the country burned 

more than 9 million acres in 2012, causing over $1 billion in damage.10 The 

most damaging fires occurred in the West, including the Whitewater-Baldy 

Complex Fire which burned 297,845 acres in New Mexico’s Gila National Forest.11

• The Colorado River Basin experienced one of its driest years in the 1895-2012 

period of record, with only 44 percent of its annual average runoff.12
47 

13 Id. 14 U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: FACTS AND INFORMATION, (Jan. 4, 2013), http://www.usbr.gov/main/about/fact.html. 

• Skier visits to the 21 resorts that comprise Colorado Ski Country USA were 

down 11.5 percent in 2012, compared to 2011.13

Notwithstanding the severity of these impacts and the relative frequency of 

drought in many parts of the West and the nation, in general, we have too often 

taken a reactive approach to drought, responding on an ad hoc basis to each drought 

crisis as it develops. However, over the years, many western states and federal 

agencies have undertaken more proactive approaches to coordinated planning and 

preparedness intended to avoid or mitigate adverse impacts before they happen. 

In particular, the WGA set an aggressive goal in 1996 to change the way our nation prepares for and responds to drought, with subsequent efforts by the WGA and 

the WSWC to promote a comprehensive, coordinated, and integrated response to 

drought at all levels of government. We have worked with federal agencies, including the Bureau of Reclamation, to promote, proactive, cooperative drought contingency planning and response. 

III. THE RECLAMATION STATES EMERGENCY DROUGHT RELIEF ACT

The Bureau of Reclamation is the nation’s largest wholesale water supplier, providing water to over 31 million people and supplying irrigation water to one out of 

five western farmers.14 Notwithstanding Reclamation’s vital role as a water supplier 

in the West, the Act constitutes the whole of its specific drought response and planning authority. Consequently, failure to reauthorize the Act will limit Reclamation’s 

ability to deliver assistance in response to present drought impacts and also limit 

its ability to provide much needed assistance and technical expertise to states, 

tribes, and other stakeholders as they plan for future drought impacts. 

A. Title I—Assistance During Drought 

Title I of the Act authorizes Reclamation to undertake construction, management, 

and conservation measures during drought to minimize or mitigate damage or loss, 

including authority to act as a ‘‘last resort’’ to aid smaller towns, counties, and 

tribes that lack the financial capacity to address drought impacts on their own. It 

also authorizes Reclamation to acquire water to meet diverse requirements under 

the Endangered Species Act, while at the same time benefiting water users and 

water delivery contractors at a time when they often face significant financial challenges. Other beneficial drought response actions that Reclamation can undertake 

under Title I include: 

• Participation in water banks established under federal law; • Facilitation of water acquisitions between willing buyers and willing sellers; • Acquisition of conserved water for use under temporary contracts; • Making Reclamation facilities available for storage and conveyance of project 

and non-project water; • Making project and non-project water available for non-project uses; and • Acquisition of water for fish and wildlife purposes. 

B. Title II—Drought Contingency Planning 

Title II of the Act responds to Benjamin Franklin’s oft-quoted adage: ‘‘By failing 

to plan, you are preparing to fail.’’ Specifically, it authorizes Reclamation to assist 

and participate in the preparation of drought contingency plans in all 50 states and 

U.S. territories to help prevent or mitigate future drought-related losses. Title II 

also authorizes Reclamation to conduct studies to identify opportunities to conserve, 

augment, and make more efficient use of water supplies that are available to federal 

Reclamation projects and Indian water resource developments to better prepare for 

and respond to drought conditions. 

States have primary authority over the allocation and protection of water resources within their borders. However, the WSWC has long supported integrated 

water resource management and encourages the development of comprehensive 

water plans with state leadership and federal assistance. This includes a comprehensive and integrated response to drought in which states work with federal 

agencies, local communities, and other stakeholders to develop proactive drought 

preparedness and contingency plans. 

Title II authorizes Reclamation to engage in exactly this type of planning, which 

is critical to the social, environmental, and economic well-being of the West. Failure 

to reauthorize the Act will limit Reclamation’s ability to carry out this important 

work. This would deprive states, tribes, and local communities of much needed tech-
48 

nical assistance and expertise at a time when some projections indicate that large 

portions of the West, particularly the Southwest, will become hotter and drier in 

coming years. Many of these areas are also experiencing increasing demands on already scarce water supplies due to rapidly growing populations, environmental requirements, energy resource development, and other factors. As a result, the need 

for effective drought preparedness and contingency plans has never been greater. 

IV. CONCLUSION

The exceptional drought conditions of 2012 and the ongoing drought that covers 

much of the West underscores the need to reauthorize the Act. Reauthorization will 

provide Reclamation with clearer direction and greater flexibility to continue delivering water and much needed financial and technical assistance to states, tribes and 

local communities suffering from record-breaking drought impacts. Reauthorization 

will also facilitate more effective state-based and other grassroots drought preparedness and mitigation efforts. Absent reauthorization, Reclamation will lack this critical authority to provide emergency assistance. The WSWC appreciates the opportunity to submit this testimony and urges the Committee to favorably report and 

the Congress to pass this legislation to reauthorize the Act. 

S. 715

I. INTRODUCTION

The Western States Water Council (WSWC), representing 18 western states from 

Alaska to California and Texas to North Dakota, strongly supports the Authorized 

Rural Water Projects Completion Act (S. 715) as an appropriate and a timely federal 

investment of modest amounts that will minimize long-term federal expenditures, 

create more jobs now, and fulfill long-standing promises and trust responsibilities 

to rural and Tribal communities, some of which date back decades. This testimony 

is based primarily on WSWC Position #343 (attached), which we sent to former 

Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman and Ranking Member Lisa Murkowski in the 

form of a letter on June 8, 2012 in support of similar legislation (S. 3385). We also 

testified in support of that bill and wish to reiterate our support for legislative action to establish a dedicated funding source for the completion of federal rural water 

projects authorized by Congress for construction by the Bureau of Reclamation. Portions of this testimony are also based on WSWC Position #333 (attached), which sets 

forth the WSWC’s long-standing policy in support of using receipts accruing to the 

Reclamation Fund for authorized projects, including the types of rural water 

projects that would receive funding under S. 715. 

II. THE NEED FOR RURAL WATER PROJECTS IN THE WEST

Across the West, rural communities are experiencing water supply shortages due 

to drought, declining streamflows and groundwater supplies, and inadequate infrastructure, with some communities hauling water over substantial distances to satisfy their potable water needs. Moreover, those water supplies that are available to 

these communities are often of poor quality and may be impaired by naturally occurring and man-made contaminants, including arsenic and carcinogens, which impacts their ability to comply with increasingly stringent federal water quality and 

drinking water mandates. At the same time, many rural and Tribal communities 

in the West are suffering from significant levels of unemployment and simply lack 

the financial capacity and expertise to finance and construct needed drinking water 

system improvements. 

Since the 1980s, Congress has authorized Reclamation to address this need by designing and constructing projects to deliver potable water supplies to rural communities in the 17 western states. Furthermore, Congress established Reclamation’s 

Rural Water Supply Program when it enacted the Rural Water Supply Act of 2006 

(Pub. L. 109-451), authorizing the agency to work with rural communities in the 

West, including Tribes, to assess potable water supply needs and identify options 

to address those needs through appraisal investigations and feasibility studies. 

In 2009, the WSWC worked closely with Reclamation to identify sources of information on potable water supply needs in non-Indian rural areas of the West. Reclamation released a draft assessment report on July 9, 2012 (‘‘Draft Report’’) that 

discusses the results of this effort, finding that the identified need for potable water 

supply systems in rural areas of the 17 western states ranges from $5 billion to $8 
49 

1 BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, ASSESSMENT OF RECLAMATION’S RURAL WATER ACTIVITIES AND OTHER FEDERAL PROGRAMS THAT PROVIDE SUPPORT ON POTABLE 

WATER SUPPLIES TO RURAL COMMUNITIES IN THE WESTERN UNITED STATES, 8 

(July 9, 2012), http://www.usbr.gov/ruralwater/docs/Rural-Water-Assessment-Report-and-Funding-Criteria.pdf. 2 Id. 3 - 4. 

3 Id. at 3. 

4 Id. at 5. 

5 U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, RECLAMATION’S FISCAL YEAR BUDGET REQUEST 

IS MORE THAN $1 BILLION (April 10, 2013), http://www.usbr.gov/newsroom/newsrelease/detail.cfm?RecordID=42744. 6GARRISON DIVERSION CONSERVANCY DISTRICT, HISTORY & FEDERAL LEGISLATION: THE PICK-SLOAN MISSOURI BASIN PROGRAM, http://www.garrisondiv.org/ 

aboutlus/historylfederalllegislation/. 7SENATE REP. NO. 105-146, 4 (1997) (accompanying S. 156 and describing the impacts of 

the Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin Program on the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe), http:// 

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-105srpt146/pdf/CRPT-105srpt146.pdf. 

billion, not including another estimated $1.2 billion for specific Indian water supply 

projects.1

The Draft Report notes that there are currently eight active rural water projects 

located in Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, and South Dakota, including the 

Lewis and Clark Rural Water Supply Project, which is located mostly in South Dakota but encompasses parts of the non-Reclamation states of Iowa and Minnesota.2

The report also notes that of eleven rural water projects that Congress authorized 

Reclamation to undertake between 1980 and 2007 (when the Rural Water Supply 

Act was enacted), only four have been completed.3

According to Reclamation, the total amount of Federal funding needed to complete the eight authorized projects is now $2.6 billion, which is substantially higher than 

the $2 billion Congress originally authorized. This increase is due in part to inflation and the rising costs of materials and labor. Nevertheless, the Draft Report estimates that these authorized projects could be completed by 2029 at a total Federal 

cost of around $3 billion, so long as Federal funding reflects the estimates provided 

in the original final engineering reports for each of the authorized projects—about 

$162 million annually. However, at current funding levels of around $50 million annually for construction, Reclamation estimates that some projects could be delayed 

beyond 2063 despite the expenditure of almost $4 billion in Federal funds by that 

point. Moreover, an additional $1.1 billion in Federal expenditures would be needed 

to complete those projects that are not completed by 2063.4 Notably, Reclamation is seeking only $40 million for its rural water program in fiscal year (FY) 2014, a 

significant reduction from current levels.5

III. FEDERAL FUNDING FOR RURAL WATER PROJECTS UNDER S. 715

S. 715 would provide $80 million per year for each of fiscal years 2014 through 

2030 to complete the construction of rural water projects that have already received 

Congressional authorization. Other projects may be eligible for funding if: (1) a feasibility study is submitted to the Secretary of the Interior by September 30, 2012; 

and (2) Congress authorizes the project’s construction after S. 715’s enactment. 

This funding represents a relatively modest Federal investment, compared to the 

increased costs that will likely occur due to construction delays if funding remains 

at current levels. We recognize that there are Federal budget constraints. Nevertheless, such constraints do not negate the Federal responsibility to complete authorized rural water projects, particularly those intended to fulfill in part a solemn Federal promise and trust responsibility to compensate States and Tribes for lost resources as a result of the construction of Federal flood control projects. 

For example, the Garrison Diversion Unit, an altered version of which would receive funding under S. 715, is intended to compensate the State of North Dakota 

for the loss of over 300,000 acres of prime farmland that was lost as a result of the 

construction of the Pick-Sloan Missouri River Basin Program,6 which also inundated 

over 550 square miles of Native American land and displaced more than 900 Native 

American families.7 Additionally, the North Central/Rocky Boys rural water project 

will implement the tribe’s water rights settlement (as codified in Pub. L. 106-163) 

with the United States and the State of Montana. 

Authorizing the increased use of Reclamation Fund revenues to expedite completion of these projects fulfills a financial and moral obligation that some beneficiaries 

have waited decades to see honored. 

It is also important to note that the Federal expenditures provided under S. 715 

would generate significant and actual returns on this investment, including but not 

limited to: 
50 

8THE U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS: MAYORS WATER COUNCIL, LOCAL GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT IN MUNICIPAL WATER AND SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE: ADDING 

VALUE TO THE NATIONAL ECONOMY, i (August 2008), available at: http:// 

www.usmayors.org/urbanwater/documents/ 

LocalGovt%20InvtInMunicipalWaterandSewerInfrastructure.pdf. 9 HDR, INC., THE ECONOMIC AND FISCAL IMPACTS OF CONSTRUCTING THE LEWIS 

AND CLARK RURAL WATER SYSTEM: 2004 STUDY AND 2006 UPDATE, 2 - 3, 63 - 64 

(March 2006), available at: http://www.lcrws.org/pdf/EconomicImpactStudy/ 

EconomicImpactStudy.pdf . See also BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, supra note 1 at 4 (discussing Federal costs for currently authorized rural water projects). 

• National Economic Impacts: According to a 2008 U.S. Conference of Mayors report, one dollar invested in water and sewer infrastructure increases private 

output, or Gross Domestic Product, in the long-term by $6.35. Furthermore, for 

each additional dollar of revenue generated by the water and sewer industry, 

the increase in revenue that occurs in all industries for that year is $2.62.8

• Economic Impacts and Job Creation in Rural Communities: Investments in 

rural water projects have a direct impact on the economies of the communities 

serviced by those projects. For example, a 2006 study by HDR, Inc. on the economic impacts of constructing the Lewis and Clark Rural Water System, which 

would be eligible to receive funding under S. 715, found that the total economic 

impact to South Dakota, Iowa, and Minnesota would total $414.4 million. The 

report also estimates that the project’s construction would directly or indirectly 

create 7,441 jobs. On a yearly basis, this equals the creation of 532 direct and 

indirect jobs with average annual salaries ranging from $25,591 to $33,462. Approximately 72 percent of the economic impacts would be realized in South Dakota, with 17 percent in Iowa and 11 percent in Minnesota.9

• Improved Potential for Economic Development in Rural Areas: The economy of 

every community, especially rural communities, requires sufficient water supplies of suitable quality. Such supplies depend upon adequate water infrastructure. Improving the water infrastructure of the rural and Tribal communities 

that would be affected by S. 715 will improve their ability to attract business 

and develop their economies in ways that are not possible with their current 

water supplies. 

• Improved Quality of Life: The types of water projects that would receive funding 

under S. 715 would meet the same water quality standards as public systems. 

These projects would therefore provide a higher quality of safe drinking water 

and associated health benefits than the water supplies upon which these communities currently rely. 

• Reduced Costs: Rural communities would no longer need to expend limited resources drilling and maintained wells, softening and treating water, or hauling 

water. In addition, these communities would see decreased electrical pumping 

costs. 

• Rural Fire Protection: Rural water systems provide water storage that fire 

trucks can use to assist with rural fire protection. 

• Livestock Use:Rural water projects provide a more reliable and better supply 

of water for livestock. They also have the potential to decrease the impacts of 

livestock grazing on riparian areas by allowing for the delivery of water away 

from these sensitive areas. 

• Increased Property Values: In some areas, the resale value of property may increase with a more reliable, safe, clean and adequate water supply. 

IV. THE USE OF THE RECLAMATION FUND UNDER S. 715

Section 3(a) of S. 715 would provide funding for eligible rural water projects by 

establishing a Reclamation Rural Water Construction Fund (RRWCF) within the 

U.S. Treasury that would be financed from revenues that would otherwise be deposited in the Reclamation Fund (the ‘‘Fund’’). These funds would not be subject to further appropriation, would be in addition to other amounts appropriated for the authorized projects, and should not result in corresponding offsets to other critical Reclamation and Department of the Interior programs. The Secretary of the Interior 

would also invest the portion of these receipts not needed to meet current expenses, 

and the resulting interest and proceeds from the sale or redemption of any obligations would become part of the RRWCF. The RRWCF would terminate in September 

2035, at which point its unexpended and unobligated balance would transfer back 

to the Fund. 

Congress established the Fund when it enacted the Reclamation Act of 1902 (Pub. 

L. 57-161) and it was intended to be the principle means of financing Federal western water and power projects in the 17 western states. As stated in Section 1 of 
51 

10THE APPENDIX, BUDGET OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, FISCAL YEAR 

2014, 631 (April 2013), http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2014/assets/ 

int.pdf. 

the Reclamation Act, the Fund provides monies ‘‘. . .reserved, set aside, and appropriated as a special fund in the Treasury.’’ 

The Fund’s receipts are derived from water and power sales, project repayments, 

and receipts from public land sales and leases in the 17 western states, as well as 

oil and mineral-leasing related royalties. However, the receipts that accrue to the 

Fund each year are only available for expenditure pursuant to annual appropriations acts. Over the years, rising energy prices and declining Federal expenditures 

from the Fund for Reclamation purposes have resulted in an increasingly large unobligated balance. 

According to the Administration’s FY 2014 budget request, actual and estimated 

appropriations from the Reclamation Fund are $872 million for FY 2012 and $873 

million for FY 2013. While these appropriations are projected to decrease to $852 

million for FY 2014, the Fund’s unobligated balance is expected to grow from an actual balance of $10.8 billion in FY 2012 to an estimated $13.3 billion by the end 

of FY 2014.10 Contrary to Congress’ original intent, instead of supporting western 

water development, much of the unobligated balance has gone instead to other Federal purposes. 

The WSWC has long supported using the Fund for its intended purpose of financing western water development, including the types of rural water projects that 

would receive funding under S. 715. As stated in WSWC Position #333, Congress 

and the Administration should: 

[F]ully utilize the funds provided through the Reclamation Act and subsequent acts for their intended purpose in the continuing conservation, development and wise use of western resources to meet western water-related 

needs—recognizing and continuing to defer to the primacy of western water 

laws in allocating water among uses—and work with the States to meet the 

challenges of the future. 

Unlike typical Congressional authorizations that often do not specify a funding 

source and may require more Federal monies in addition to current authorizations, 

the RRWCF would rely on the established stream of receipts and associated interest. Furthermore, as required by Section 3(b)(3) of S. 715, no amounts may be deposited or made available to the RRWCF if the transfer or availability of the 

amounts would increase the Federal deficit. 

It is also important to note that the concept of using receipts accruing to the Fund 

to establish a separate account to finance specific water projects is not new. Specifically, Congress established the Reclamation Water Settlements Fund (RWSF) under 

Title X of the Omnibus Public Lands Management Act of 2009 (Pub .L. 111-11). Like 

the RRWCF, the RWSF consists of receipts transferred from the Fund and provides 

specified levels of funding starting in FY 2020 for a period of 10 years to help finance specified water infrastructure projects that are part of Congressional-authorized water settlements, especially Indian water rights settlements. The WSWC supports the RWSF for the same reason it supported the establishment of the RRWCF 

as proposed in S. 715—the use of these funds furthers the construction of much 

needed water infrastructure in the West in accordance with the Fund’s original intent and purpose. 

V. FUNDING PRIORITIZATION UNDER S. 715

Before expenditures from the RRWCF could be made, Section 3(c)(3) of S. 715 

would require the Secretary of the Interior to develop programmatic goals to ensure 

that the authorized projects are constructed as expeditiously as possible, and in a 

manner that reflects the goals and priorities of the projects’ authorizing legislation 

and the Rural Water Supply Act of 2006. The bill would also require the Secretary 

to develop funding prioritization criteria that would consider: (1) the ‘‘urgent and 

compelling need’’ for potable water supplies in affected communities; (2) the status 

of the current stages of completion of a given project; (3) the financial needs of affected rural and Tribal communities; (4) the potential economic benefits of the expenditures on job creation and general economic development in affected communities; (5) the ability of a given project to address regional and watershed level 

water supply needs; (6) a project’s ability to minimize water and energy consumption and encourage the development of renewable energy resources, such as wind, 

solar, and hydropower; (7) the needs of Indian tribes and Tribal members, as well 
52 

as other community needs or interests; and (8) such other factors the Secretary 

deems appropriate. 

As the WSWC stated in its June 8, 2012 letter, these programmatic goals and 

funding priorities ‘‘. . .should be developed in a transparent manner in consultation 

with the affected communities and States—and should consider existing state water 

plans and priorities.’’ States and the affected communities have on the ground 

knowledge of the facts and circumstances associated with the authorized projects 

that would receive funding under S. 715, and are therefore the most appropriate entities to assist the Secretary in developing these goals and priorities. 

VI. RECLAMATION AND RURAL WATER PROJECTS

Reclamation is well suited to carry out the development and construction of the 

authorized rural water projects that would receive funding under S. 715. These specific projects are already authorized and under construction by Reclamation, which 

has a long history of planning, designing and constructing water infrastructure 

projects in the West. Most other existing federal water quality and supply programs 

typically provide loans, grants, or loan guarantees. However, many smaller and 

poorer rural communities have very limited capacity and little experience to be able 

to design and construct water projects with financial assistance alone. Consequently, they often need the experience and assistance that Reclamation can provide to help assess needs, design, plan, and construct large water infrastructure 

projects. 

VII. CONCLUSION

The expedited construction of authorized rural water projects facilitated by S. 715 

will save the Treasury money in the long run, as costs continue to rise, and fulfill 

Federal obligations in a more timely manner, including Federal tribal trust responsibilities. Postponing spending on this obligation through inadequate or insufficient 

funding levels only increases Federal costs and perpetuates hardships to rural and 

Tribal communities in the West. S. 715 would not only fulfill solemn Federal obligations, but also provide needed economic development and job creation. 

Importantly, the bill would use receipts that are already accruing to the Reclamation Fund for their intended purpose of financing the construction of western water 

projects. 

The WSWC appreciates the opportunity to submit this testimony, and urges the 

Committee to approve S. 715 and work with the States towards its effective implementation. 

ATTACHMENT

WESTERN STATES WATER COUNCIL, 

Murray, UT, June 8, 2012. 

POSITION NO. 343. 

Hon. JEFF BINGAMAN, 

Chairman, Energy and Natural Resources Committee, U.S. Senate, SD-364 Dirksen 

Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 

Hon. LISA MURKOWSKI, 

Ranking Member, Energy and Natural Resources Committee, U.S. Senate, SD-312 

Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. 

DEAR SENATORS: 

On behalf of the Western States Water Council, which represents eighteen states, 

I am writing to express our support for legislative action to establish a dedicated 

funding source for the completion of federal rural water projects authorized by the 

Congress for construction by the Bureau of Reclamation. These projects include components that benefit both Indian and non-Indian rural communities. Many of these 

communities, particularly smaller communities, are struggling to provide adequate 

water supplies to meet the needs of their citizens of a quality consistent with federal 

mandates. 

It is essential that these projects be completed in a timely manner for the benefit 

of these communities in fulfillment of long-standing promises and trust responsibilities, some dating back decades. Another important consideration is the impact on 

the federal budget and economic growth. Accelerated construction scheduling, made 

possible by a more timely federal investment of modest amounts, will minimize 

long-term federal expenditures and create more jobs now. 

With respect to programmatic goals and funding priorities established pursuant 

to directives in any legislation, these should be developed in a transparent manner 
53 

in consultation with the affected communities and States—and should consider existing state water plans and priorities. 

We appreciate the opportunity to express our interests and look forward to working with you to address this important need. 

Sincerely, 

PHILLIP C. WARD, 

Chairman. 

Æ