[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION'S PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2004 BUDGET
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Wednesday, March 5, 2003
__________
Serial No. 108-2
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
85-419 PS
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
RICHARD W. POMBO, California, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Samoa
Elton Gallegly, California Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Ken Calvert, California Calvin M. Dooley, California
Scott McInnis, Colorado Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Islands
George Radanovich, California Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Jay Inslee, Washington
Carolina Grace F. Napolitano, California
Chris Cannon, Utah Tom Udall, New Mexico
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Mark Udall, Colorado
Jim Gibbons, Nevada, Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Vice Chairman Brad Carson, Oklahoma
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Greg Walden, Oregon Dennis A. Cardoza, California
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona George Miller, California
Tom Osborne, Nebraska Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
Jeff Flake, Arizona Ruben Hinojosa, Texas
Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana Ciro D. Rodriguez, Texas
Rick Renzi, Arizona Joe Baca, California
Tom Cole, Oklahoma Betty McCollum, Minnesota
Stevan Pearce, New Mexico
Rob Bishop, Utah
Devin Nunes, California
VACANCY
Steven J. Ding, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER
KEN CALVERT, California, Chairman
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California, Ranking Democrat Member
George Radanovich, California Calvin M. Dooley, California
Greg Walden, Oregon Jay Inslee, Washington
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona Dennis A. Cardoza, California
Tom Osborne, Nebraska VACANCY
Rick Renzi, Arizona VACANCY
Stevan Pearce, New Mexico VACANCY
Devin Nunes, California Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia,
Richard W. Pombo, California, ex ex officio
officio
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on March 5, 2003.................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Calvert, Hon. Ken, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Napolitano, Hon. Grace, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 5
Statement of Witnesses:
Keys, Hon. John W. III, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation,
U.S. Department of the Interior............................ 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 10
Response to questions submitted for the record........... 30
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION'S PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR
2004 BUDGET
----------
Wednesday, March 5, 2003
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Water and Power
Committee on Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:20 p.m., in
room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Ken Calvert,
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Calvert, Walden, Renzi, Nunes,
Napolitano, Inslee, and Cardoza.
Mr. Calvert. The hearing will come to order.
The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on the
Bureau of Reclamation's proposed Fiscal Year 2004 budget. Since
this is a new session of Congress, let me take this opportunity
to welcome our new Ranking Member, Mrs. Grace Napolitano. Not
only is Grace a good friend, as you know, she is a
distinguished member from the great State of California, and we
are happy to see her in the position she is in.
I would also like to welcome all the members, both old and
new, and hopefully some of our older members will come on by
here pretty soon to our first Subcommittee meeting.
Let me say that I am certainly looking forward to working
with Mrs. Napolitano on several issues in the past Congress and
certainly some issues that are a priority for this Subcommittee
as well as new issues to our members that are important.
So at this point, I would like to have the members in 1
minute or less explain what issues are of interest to them.
This is not an opening statement, so please keep your comments
to a minimum. And I will start with the Republican members of
the Subcommittee, and afterwards Mrs. Napolitano will introduce
her members, who, I am sure, will also express their interests
and what is important to them.
So, with that, Rick Renzi, you are recognized for 1 minute.
Mr. Renzi. Thank you. Rick Renzi from Arizona. Thank you
for coming over today and I look forward to your testimony.
I wanted to mention just a few things that I am
particularly interested in. In rural Arizona, in the highlands,
as you know, water in Arizona, very scarce. Typically the
headwaters of most of the rivers and streams in Arizona exist
up in the mountains of rural Arizona. And what we are finding
is that the water management policies of the past, particularly
with our forests and the overgrowth of our forests, are now
draining that downstream capability.
So I would ask, please, as you move forward through the
next year, that you focus in on the need for there to be a
coherent water policy as it relates to forest health and water.
The more we thin the forests, the more water matriculates down
into the soil and then eventually comes out downstream and
allows our downstream users, our ranchers and our farmers in
Arizona. But without your input and without your kind of using
your bully pulpit to really fight for water supply downstream
as it relates to forest health, then we are going to go without
a real champion. And we need that champion to be used here.
So I just wanted to share that new aspect of how we can
develop more water by thinning our forests and ask you to
please consider that in the future.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman, Mr. Renzi. I apologize.
Mr. Nunes, another Californian.
Mr. Nunes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Commissioner, it is good to see you here, and Mr.
Raley, who is also here, thank you for coming in a few weeks
ago and meeting with me. I just want to reiterate my priority
for the State of California--there has basically been no new
water storage projects built in nearly a generation. And if
this continues to go on, even though I am one of the youngest
Members of Congress, the State of California is going to run
out of water. So if you are going to continue to meet the needs
of urban, environment, and agriculture, we are going to have to
have something done soon. So I have grave concerns about the
CALFED process, and then, of course, you are familiar with, in
my district, the local project on the San Joaquin River, which
I was very glad to see in the omnibus bill. I look forward to
hopefully ensuring that that is fully funded and we can get
past the feasibility study phase--which we haven't been able to
do in 35 years.
So, with that, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
Mrs. Napolitano?
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would defer my
speech at this stage--
Mr. Calvert. Turn on your microphone.
Mrs. Napolitano. But I would like to introduce the newest
member of our Committee hailing from the great State of
California, Mr. Dennis Cardoza, a good friend.
Mr. Cardoza. Thank you, Mrs. Napolitano. It is a pleasure
to be serving with you again. We served in the legislature
together in California, and it is a pleasure to be serving on
this Committee.
As I look around the room and notice that we have seven
members from California, we have several from Arizona and New
Mexico, we have a majority, vast majority, from the West. You
can certainly see that water and resources management issues
are important to our part of the world.
I am very concerned with achieving balance, making sure
that while we protect endangered species that we don't make
people endangered species. I am very concerned about adding new
water resources to California. We are also a thirsty State that
needs more opportunity with regard to water, and I look forward
to working with the Chairman and the Ranking Member on these
issues.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. KEN CALVERT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
We will now begin this hearing, and I want to thank people
for attending, and certainly I see Bennett Raley here today.
Thank you for attending also, and certainly the Commissioner,
and we will begin this hearing at this time.
Growing populations and changing values continue to place
increasing demands on water supplies and river systems,
resulting in water use and management conflicts throughout the
country. These conditions continue to be particularly evident
in the West. Over time, new laws and regulations were put in
place to protect threatened and endangered species, to reduce
or eliminate pollution, and to enhance recreational and scenic
values. These and other factors, including record-setting
droughts and scarce Federal dollars, significantly complicate
water management in the West.
There is greater interest in how to balance resources to
meet these new stresses on existing fully appropriated water
supply. There is great debate on the how the Bureau of
Reclamation will plan for and manage the use of this renewable,
yet sometimes scarce and increasingly sought after, water
resource. Questions over how Reclamation will coordinate water
policy with State and other Federal agencies, whether it is
spending money on the right program, how it meets its ``core
mission'' or what the ``core mission'' is or can be are
important ones which need to be answered.
Water users throughout the West need operational
flexibility, new water storage and expansion of older ones, and
capabilities for reclaiming and reusing water. With its vast
expanse of water resource infrastructure and water management
experience throughout the West, Reclamation will continue to be
a principal player in providing reliable and safe water
supplies for future generations.
There is no single solution that works best for all water
problems. As Reclamation enters the 21st century, it must adapt
to changing circumstances that require a collaborative approach
to resolving water resource management issues. Meanwhile, non-
traditional water supply sources are being demonstrated and
implemented to a greater extent than ever before in response to
an integrated approach to water resources management taking
into account State water rights and institutions.
Our Subcommittee is taking great interest in how
Reclamation meets the goal of finding balanced and integrated
approaches for water resource management. Today's hearing is
one step toward helping the Bureau meet that goal. Throughout
this year, the Subcommittee will continue to examine how
Federal resources can best be spent and coordinated and where
the Federal Government can help protect the environment while
developing new water supplies.
I look forward to working with the distinguished Ranking
Member, Mrs. Napolitano, all Subcommittee members, the Bureau
of Reclamation, and water stakeholders in this endeavor. Today
we have the privilege of hearing from Reclamation's
Commissioner, John Keys, III, who has dedicated his career to
resolving how we can find a balanced water management approach.
I certainly thank the Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation
for being with us today and look forward to hearing from him on
how his agency has prepared to meet these complex and awful--
and often controversial water resource challenges.
And, with that--that wasn't a Freudian slip, I am sure.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Calvert. With that, I will recognize Mrs. Napolitano.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Calvert follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Ken Calvert, Chairman, Subcommittee on Water
and Power
Growing populations and changing values continue to place
increasing demands on water supplies and river systems, resulting in
water use and management conflicts throughout the country. These
conditions continue to be particularly evident in the West. Over time,
new laws and regulations were put into place to protect threatened and
endangered species, to reduce or eliminate pollution, and enhance
recreational and scenic values. These and other factors, including
record setting drought and scarce Federal dollars, significantly
complicate water management in the West.
There is greater interest in how to balance resources to meet these
new stresses on an existing fully appropriated water supply. There is
great debate over how the Bureau of Reclamation will plan for and
manage the use of this renewable, yet sometimes scarce and increasingly
sought after, water resource.
Questions over how Reclamation will coordinate water policy with
state and other Federal agencies; whether it is spending money on the
right program; how it meets its ``core mission'' or what that ``core
mission'' is or can be are important ones which need to be answered.
Water users throughout the West need operational flexibility, new
water storage and expansion of older ones, and capabilities for
reclaiming and reusing water. With its vast expanse of water resource
infrastructure and water management experience throughout the West,
Reclamation will continue to be a principal player in providing
reliable and safe water supplies for future generations.
There is no single solution that works best for all water problems.
As Reclamation enters the 21st century, it must adapt to changing
circumstances that require a collaborative approach to resolving water
resource management issues. Meanwhile, non-traditional water supply
sources are being demonstrated and implemented to a greater extent than
ever before in response to an integrated approach to water resources
management taking into account State water rights and institutions.
Our Subcommittee is taking great interest in how Reclamation meets
the goal of finding balanced and integrated approaches for water
resources management. Today's hearing is one step towards helping the
Bureau of Reclamation meet that goal. Throughout this year, the
Subcommittee will continue to examine how Federal resources can be best
spent and coordinated and where the Federal Government can help protect
the environment while developing new water supplies.
I look forward to working with the distinguished Ranking Member,
Mrs. Napolitano, all Subcommittee members, the Bureau of Reclamation
and water stakeholders in this endeavor. Today, we have the privilege
of hearing from Reclamation's Commissioner John Keys III, who has
dedicated his career to resolving how we can find a balanced water
management approach. I thank the Commissioner of the Bureau of
Reclamation for being with us today, and look forward to hearing from
him on how his agency has prepared to meet these complex and often
controversial water resource challenges.
______
STATEMENT OF THE HON. GRACE NAPOLITANO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I might add
that I agree with your comments. Our members, I am sure, will
be coming in. Most of them are in Committees, and they should
be drifting in, and I would like the opportunity to be able to
introduce them as they come in, as you probably would yours,
too.
Mr. Calvert. Without objection.
Mrs. Napolitano. Mr. Chairman, your comments are so welcome
to my ears, and I congratulate you again once more and again
and again for serving your second term on this Committee. You
have done a very, very credible job in bringing us to where we
are at in many of the issues that are facing our Western
States, not just California. And I look forward to the
opportunity to work with you to help address and hopefully
resolve some of the more critical water and power issues facing
our Western States.
The members, you have heard we have a great working
relationship with Mr. Calvert and his staff, and I do encourage
all our members to be active participants on the Subcommittee.
And that means attending the hearings also. I am being
facetious, but I think we need to drive the point home that if
they are not at the meetings, they are going to miss out on
information that will help them make decisions.
Mr. Keys and Secretary Raley, we appreciate your appearance
before the Committee this afternoon and welcome your testimony.
I am, however, deeply concerned about the Bureau of
Reclamation's budget proposal, and it is apparent to me
resistance to use new and proven technologies to help improve
the quantity and the quality of reliable water supplies through
the West, and quite possibly eventually to the rest of the
Nation. The Bureau was given clear authority from Congress over
12 years ago through Public Law 102-575, enacted in 1992, 11
years ago, to provide technical and financial assistance for
communities that wish to consider water recycling projects as
part of their overall water supply and management programs.
In reviewing the Bureau's proposed budget numbers, it seems
and we can conclude that the administration is openly opposed
or even hostile to water recycling, and that is my view. The
Bureau of Reclamation budget seeks $12.6 million to support the
Federal cost share of Title XVI reuse projects, a very
significant decrease from the congressional appropriation of
$36 million for the 2003 spending bill.
The Bureau proposes also a pot of new money of $11 million
for four new initiatives cited on page 545 of the 2004 budget
appendix book. One of these four initiatives is to expand the
use of science to find a way to reduce the cost of water
desalination and waste disposal, very credible, very
commendable. I think we are still missing the boat in making
sure that we continue recycling water to help States like
California that have to meet Federal mandates.
That said, for the Fiscal Year 2004 the budget documents
have gone so far as to declare that water recycling ``is not
one of Reclamation's core functions.'' This is on page 173 of
the Performance and Management Assessment Book. It just doesn't
make sense. Not only does it go against the 1993 public law
mandated authority given, but also it does not adequately
explain how or why desalination became a core mission over
water recycling or when the decision was made or by whom.
The proposal comes at a time when California is mandated to
live on less water. Texas farmers along the U.S. border are
suffering from severe drought to the water diversion in Mexico,
and farmers are losing literally the farm.
The Bureau of Reclamation has a responsibility and limited
opportunities to use this engineering and water management
expertise to help us solve water problems throughout the
Western States through water recycling, amongst other things.
Why would the agency reject an entire class of projects that
can create new water supplies with minimal environmental impact
and minimal Federal cost sharing? I believe that is 25 percent,
if I remember correctly.
The Bureau budget presents many hard challenges and is
somewhat shocking to the many of us who had hoped that this
administration would at least maintain the status quo in
funding for recycling and desalination. It is unfortunate that
it has chosen not to maintain support for the recycling
projects but, in fact, makes a conscious decision to slash
funding for overall recycling, desalination, conservation, and
other critical rural projects.
Turning their back on water recycling will not only
complicate water management issues throughout the West, but it
will also deliver negative economic and political impacts on
neighboring States. We should all look closely at the budget
priorities and question the intent, and we must have an honest
approach to important budget matters that mean so much to the
millions of the constituency we all serve in the West.
I trust that we will take a more proactive and realistic
approach and that we must have that full funding up front, no
games, for the projects such as we have mentioned before. And I
look forward to working not only with my Chairman but with both
sides and also with the agencies to see where we can come
together to make sure that we best serve all our constituents.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentlelady.
I would like to recognize our witness for today. The
Chairman now recognizes Commissioner John Keys to testify.
Commissioner Keys, your full statement will be submitted for
the record.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN W. KEYS, III, COMMISSIONER, U.S. BUREAU
OF RECLAMATION
Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Napolitano, and members of the
Subcommittee, it is my absolute pleasure to be here with you
today, and I do appreciate this opportunity to sit and talk
with you about our 2004 budget. We think that our budget is a
good one, and I will certainly go into some details with you. I
have with me today Bob Wolf, who is our chief financial manager
for the Bureau of Reclamation, and he is here to help me answer
questions that you may have.
Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the support of the Subcommittee
that you have shown over the past years to work with, and we
look forward to continually working with you and the
Subcommittee to further Reclamation's mission. Your staffs are
first-class, and we have appreciated very much working with
them.
Mr. Chairman, we are in our centennial year. Reclamation
was formed on July 17, 1902, when President Roosevelt signed
the Reclamation Act. We started our centennial year with a nice
celebration at Hoover Dam, and certainly we are trying to show
that we are an agency that will go the next 100 years, at
least, in meeting the water requirements of the Western United
States.
Currently, we are the largest wholesaler of water in the
United States. We are the seventh largest power utility,
operating 348 major dams and 58 power plants. Daily we serve
water to 31 million people and 10 million acres of irrigated
agriculture in the Western United States.
The overall Bureau of Reclamation request for 2004 totals
$878 million in current authority, and from our perspective,
this budget is good news for the West. The request is citizen-
centered and founded on our President's principle of results
rather than procedures. An example is the Western Water
Initiative request for $11 million that I will discuss in more
detail shortly.
Our budget is a fiscally responsible request which will
continue to provide funding to deliver water, provide a stable
source of power for our growing population, keep our dams and
facilities safe, and support sound environmental stewardship
efforts. The Fiscal Year 2004 request for water and related
resources account is $771 million. This will allow us to
continue Reclamation's emphasis on delivering and managing
water and power, two valuable public resources for which we are
responsible.
In cooperation and consultation with the States, tribal and
local governments, along with other stakeholders and the public
at large, Reclamation offers workable solutions regarding water
and power resource issues that are consistent with the demands
for power and water. With the need to pursue cost-effective,
environmentally sound approaches to meeting these demands, the
request continues to emphasize the operation and maintenance of
Reclamation facilities in a safe, efficient, economic, and
reliable manner.
Mr. Chairman, in my prepared statement, there is not a
reference to the Sumner Peck Settlement that I would like to
read into the record that we just received early this morning,
and certainly this affects some of the appropriations that we
had talked with you folks about earlier. The Department of
Justice has concluded that the judgment fund is available for
the payment of the $5 million and $34 million installments due
upon the consent judgment in Fiscal Year 2003. It will make
such a recommendation to the Department of the Treasury.
The Department of Justice has not made a determination as
to the availability or source of funds for future-year
installments. That takes a big cloud off of our 2003
appropriations and how we get our work done for this year.
Mr. Chairman, some highlights of our 2004 program. These
are not in any specific order, but they are the highlights of
our 2004 budget proposal.
The Animas-La Plata Project in Colorado and New Mexico
request is for $58 million for the project and will fund the
construction contracts awarded in 2003 that are associated with
critical path activities for that project. The principal
facilities being worked on and started in 2004 will be the
Ridge Basin Dam and the Durango pumping plant on the Animas
River close to Durango, Colorado. This level of funding is
crucial to complete the construction of this project within the
timeframes required by the Colorado Ute Settlement Act
Amendments of 2000. In December 2000, Congress enacted
legislation to resolve the Colorado Ute Indian Tribes' water
right claims and allowed construction of a smaller Animas-La
Plata Project to proceed.
The Columbia-Snake River Salmon Recovery in Idaho, Oregon,
Montana, and Washington addresses the implementation of
reasonable and prudent alternatives included in two biological
opinions issued in December 2000. We have $19 million in our
budget for that activity.
The Klamath Project in California and Oregon provides
funding for scientific studies and initiatives as a result of
the 2002-2012 biological opinions and for the establishment of
a water bank as required under those same opinions. Funding is
about $21 million, and it will also be used to provide water to
meet the Endangered Species Act compliance.
That water bank is certainly a unique feature of what we
are trying to do in the Klamath Basin. It actually sets up an
amount of water to meet the Endangered Species Act and relives
the rest of the water there of that burden while it tries to
meet the requirements for irrigation of the farmland in the
basin.
The Drought program includes those activities related to
administering the Reclamation States Emergency Drought Relief
Act of 1991, as amended, to undertake activities that will
minimize losses and damages resulting from drought conditions.
The primary focus there for us is on drought contingency plans.
We don't try to solve a drought while we are in it. We try to
plan ahead of time with these contingency plans so that we are
ready for them when they get there.
The California Bay-Delta Restoration Fund Fiscal Year 2004
budget request is $15 million. The funds will be used
consistent with our commitment to find long-term solutions in
improving water quality, habitat and ecological functions, and
water supply reliability, while reducing the risk of
catastrophic breaching of Delta levees. The Fiscal Year 2004
budget contains funds for Bay-Delta activities including
feasibility studies for Shasta Dam raze, for sites reservoir
investigations, for Los Vaqueros reservoir investigations, and
investigations in the San Joaquin Basin. These will be
undertaken within existing statutory authorities for
implementation of Stage 1 activities. These activities are
included in the preferred program alternative recommended by
CALFED and approved by the Secretary of the Interior. The
majority of these funds will specifically address the
environmental water account, storage, and program
administration.
Safety of Reclamation's Dams is one of the Bureau's highest
priorities. About 50 percent of our Reclamation dams were built
between 1900 and 1950. Ninety percent of these dams were built
before the advent of current state-of-the-art technology and
foundation treatment and before filter techniques were
incorporated in embankment dams. We have $71 million in our
program to support that program.
Site security activities are ongoing and funding program
improvements identified in Fiscal Year 2002 and 2003. Since
September 11, 2001, Reclamation has maintained heightened
security at its facilities to protect the public, its
employees, and our infrastructure. The Fiscal Year 2004 request
continues funding for those critical activities under the
categories of critical infrastructure protection and continuity
of operations.
The Western Water Initiative will position the Bureau of
Reclamation to continue its leading role in developing viable,
economical, and sound solutions to the increased demands for
water resources in the West. The budget proposes $11 million
for the activity in Fiscal Year 2004. It will benefit Western
communities that are struggling with increased water demands,
drought, and compliance with the Endangered Species Act. The
four components of the Western Water Initiative are:
No. 1, enhanced water management and conservation
activities. Here we are trying to look at activities that will
stretch existing water supplies by looking at canal linings,
new control facilities and technology, measurement facilities
to help us get a handle on how our waters are being used.
The second element is preventing water management crisis.
That is giving us the opportunity to look 25 years into the
future at where the hot spots might be, and they are tied to
continued growth in our cities. They are tied to requirements
by the Endangered Species Act and other things that are
cropping up that require water and put extra demands on our
facilities. What we are trying to do is look 25 years into the
future, and those demands and requirements that would not be
met with existing facilities.
The third part of the initiative is the expanded science
and technology program. There is the one where we are trying to
take further looks and more focused looks at desalination. We
are also trying to look at adaptive management programs where
we are trying to adapt our facilities and their operations with
the environment to take care of endangered species. A good
example is the Colorado River flow from Glen Canyon through
Grand Canyon.
The third part of that initiative is peer review of
science, taking a hard look at those sciences that we are
developing to be sure that they are consistent with the project
and the environment and what we are trying to do to deliver
water.
The fourth part of the initiative is strengthening the
Endangered Species Act and our ability to work with that act,
working with our own people so that they can get the best out
of the facilities and still meet the Endangered Species Act.
Mr. Chairman, to be successful in dealing with today's
complex water issues, we know that collaboration is the key. We
all must work together to forge workable solutions to find new
ways to meet existing water supplies and make them go further.
This means involved water conservation, improved investments in
science and technology, and modernization of existing
infrastructures. I would be more than happy to provide more
detail to each of these projects and proposals for the record.
In the meantime, I would be more than happy to answer any
questions you might have today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Keys follows:]
Statement of John W. Keys, III, Commissioner, Bureau of Reclamation,
U.S. Department of the Interior
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee, Thank you
again for the opportunity to appear before you today to support the
President's Fiscal Year 2004 budget request for the Bureau of
Reclamation. With me today is Robert Wolf, Director of the Program and
Budget Group.
Our Fiscal Year 2004 request has been designed to support
Reclamation's core mission, as stated in DOI's Strategic Plan:
``Deliver Water and Hydropower, Consistent with Applicable
State and Federal Law, in an Environmentally Responsible and
Cost Efficient Manner.''
Funding is proposed for key emerging projects which are important
to the Department and in line with Administration objectives. The
budget request also supports Reclamation's participation in efforts to
meet emerging water supply needs, to resolve water shortage issues in
the West, and to promote water conservation and improved water
management.
The Fiscal Year 2004 request for Reclamation totals $878.0 million
in gross budget authority, an increase of $23.1 million from the Fiscal
Year 2003 President's Amended Request of January 7, 2003, and a
decrease of $33.3 million from Fiscal Year 2003 Enacted Level. The
request is partially offset by discretionary receipts in the Central
Valley Project Restoration Fund, resulting in net discretionary budget
authority of $847.2 million, a decrease of $24.5 million over the
Fiscal Year 2003 Enacted Level.
Center to this is $11.0 million to launch a Western Water
Initiative that uses collaboration, conservation, and innovation to
make sure every drop of water counts. This initiative will provide a
comprehensive forward-looking water resource management program that
will respond to growing water demands. To be successful in dealing with
today's complex water issues, we know collaboration is the key. We all
must work together to forge workable solutions. We are looking for new
ways to make existing water supplies go further. We must continue to
develop strategies where water can be used more than once in order to
satisfy multiple users and stretch existing water supplies even more.
This means improved water conservation, investments in science and
technology, and modernization of existing infrastructures.
The four major components of the initiative are Enhancing Water
Management and Conservation; Expanding Science and Technology Program;
Preventing Water Management Crisis; and Strengthening Endangered
Species Act (ESA) Expertise.
This budget is good news for the West. Each year Reclamation is
focused on customer value as well as increased accountability and
modernization. This request is citizen-centered and founded on the
Administration's principle of results rather than procedures. It is
also a fiscally responsible request, which will provide funding to keep
our dams and facilities safe, deliver water, provide a stable source of
power for our growing population, and support environmental efforts.
Demonstrated Commitment and Accomplishments
While performing its core mission, Reclamation delivered 10
trillion gallons of water to over 31 million people in the 17 western
states for municipal, rural, and industrial uses. Reclamation
facilities stored over 245 million acre-feet of water, serving one of
every five western farmers to irrigate about 10 million acres of land.
Those irrigated lands produced 60 percent of the nation's vegetables
and 25 percent of its fruits and nuts. As the largest water resources
management agency in the West, Reclamation continues to administer and/
or operate 348 reservoirs, 56,000 miles of water conveyance systems,
and 58 hydroelectric facilities, which generate 42 billion kilowatt-
hours annually.
Reclamation also continues to manage approximately 8.6 million
acres of Federal land, plus another 600,000 acres of land under
easements. In addition, our facilities provide substantial flood
control, recreation, and fish and wildlife benefits. Reclamation and
its employees take very seriously their mission of managing,
developing, and protecting water and related resources in an
environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the
American public.
The Fiscal Year 2004 budget request demonstrates Reclamation's
commitment in meeting the water and power needs of the West in a
fiscally responsible manner. This budget continues Reclamation's
emphasis on delivering and managing those valuable public resources. In
cooperation and consultation with the state, tribal, and local
governments, along with other stakeholders and the public at large,
Reclamation offers workable solutions regarding water and power
resource issues that are consistent with the demands for power and
water. With the need to pursue cost effective and environmentally sound
approaches, Reclamation's strategy is to continue to use the
Secretary's four ``C's:'' ``Consultation, Cooperation and Communication
all in the service of Conservation....'' These principles provide
Reclamation an opportunity, in consultation with our stakeholders, to
use decision support tools, including risk analyses, in order to
develop the most efficient and cost-effective solutions to the complex
challenges that we face.
During the second session of the 107th Congress, both the Committee
and Reclamation's stakeholders accentuated their concerns over the
availability of water two decades from now. Our Fiscal Year 2004
request includes measures that will be utilized to help assure that
water will be available for a growing population when needed. Through
our Western Water Initiative, Reclamation plans to develop a forward
looking water resource management program that will respond to growing
water demand.
Furthermore, funding is proposed for key emerging projects that are
important to the Department and the Administration's objectives. The
budget proposal also supports Reclamation's participation in efforts of
meeting emerging water supply needs, resolving water issues in the
West, promoting water efficiencies, and improving water management.
Moreover, Reclamation's request reflects the need to address an
aging infrastructure and the rising costs and management challenges
associated with scarce water resources. As our infrastructure ages, we
must direct increasing resources toward technological upgrades, new
science and technologies; and preventative maintenance to ensure
reliability; which will increase output, and improve safety.
More and more everyday we see how important water resource needs
are to our state, local and tribal partners. Many states are developing
statewide water plans or drought contingency plans to address resource
utilization and stewardship against the backdrop of large population
increases with the growing concern for sustainable development.
Reclamation, in partnership with other Federal, state, local, tribal,
and private entities, has consistently proven its ability to work with
others to optimize water use. This technical capability is one of our
most valuable resources.
Water and Related Resources
The Fiscal Year 2004 request for the Water and Related Resources
account is $771.2 million. The request provides funding for five major
program activities: Water and Energy Management and Development ($331.3
million); Land Management and Development ($41.3 million); Fish and
Wildlife Management and Development ($90.4 million); Facility
Operations ($176.8 million); and Facility Maintenance and
Rehabilitation ($171.5 million). The request is partially offset by an
undistributed reduction of $40.0 million, in anticipation of delays in
construction schedules and other planned activities.
The request continues to emphasize the operation and maintenance of
Reclamation facilities in a safe, efficient, economic, and reliable
manner, while sustaining the health and integrity of ecosystems that
addresses the water needs of a growing population. It will also assist
the states, tribes, and local entities in solving contemporary water
resource issues.
Highlights of the Fiscal Year 2004 request include:
Animas-La Plata in Colorado and New Mexico ($58.0 million). The
Fiscal Year 2004 request includes $58 million for the project and will
fund the construction contracts awarded in Fiscal Year 2003 that are
associated with critical path activities. This level of funding is
crucial to complete the construction of this project within the time
frames required by the Colorado Ute Settlement Act Amendments of 2000.
In December 2000, Congress enacted legislation to resolve the Colorado
Ute Indian Tribes' water right claims and allowed construction of a
smaller Animas-La Plata Project to proceed.
Columbia-Snake River Salmon Recovery in Idaho, Oregon, Montana, and
Washington ($19.0 million). This program addresses the implementation
of Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs) included in two
Biological Opinions issued in December 2000. The first opinion was
issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) entitled
``Operation of the Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS),
Including the Juvenile Fish Transportation Program, and 19 Bureau of
Reclamation Projects in the Columbia Basin,'' and the second opinion
was issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) entitled
``Effects to Listed Species from Operations of the Federal Columbia
River Power System.''
Those Biological Opinions superseded all previous FCRPS Biological
Opinions and all actions will now be focused toward the new
``reasonable and prudent alternatives (RPA).'' Section 7(a)(2) of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires Federal agencies to consult with
NMFS and the FWS to ensure that agency actions will not likely
jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened species,
or will not adversely modify or destroy their designated critical
habitats.
The FWS Biological Opinion is coordinated with the NMFS Biological
Opinion, and calls for operational changes to the FCRPS, by way of
additional research measures. A substantial majority of the action
items resulted from the NMFS Biological Opinion, while the FWS action
items included significantly increased regional coordination with the
Federal regulatory agencies; aggressive actions to modify the daily,
weekly, and seasonal operation of Federal dams; and the ``off-site
mitigation'' of hydro system impacts.
Klamath Project in California and Oregon ($20.8 million). The
funding will provide for scientific studies and initiatives as a result
of the 2002-2012 biological opinions and for the establishment of a
water bank as required under those same opinions, as well as to provide
water to meet ESA compliance.
The request will also continue funding for studies and initiatives
related to improving water supply and quality to meet agriculture,
tribal, wildlife refuge, and environmental needs in the Klamath River
Basin and to improve fish passage and habitat.
Safety of Dams ($71.0 million). The safety and reliability of
Reclamation dams is one of Reclamation's highest priorities.
Approximately 50 percent of Reclamation's dams were built between 1900
and 1950, and 90 percent of those dams were built before the advent of
current state-of-the-art foundation treatment, and before filter
techniques were incorporated in embankment dams to control seepage.
Safe performance of Reclamation's dams continues to be of great concern
and requires a greater emphasis on the risk management activities
provided by the program.
The Fiscal Year 2004 request of $71.0 million for the Safety of
Dams Program is being made to provide for the reducing of public safety
risks at Reclamation dams, particularly those identified as having
deficiencies. The request provides for risk management activities
throughout Reclamation's Safety of Dams inventory of 362 dams and
dikes, which would likely cause loss of life if they were to fail. Pre-
construction and construction activities for up to 19 of these dams are
identified for funding through the Safety of Dams Program. The Fiscal
Year 2004 request includes $1.7 million for the Department of the
Interior Dam Safety Program.
Site Security ($28.6 million). Since September 11, 2001,
Reclamation has maintained heighten security at is facilities to
protect the public, its employees, and infrastructures. The
supplemental funding in Fiscal Year 2002 was necessary to cover the
costs of site security activities in three principle areas. The first
area was for guards and law enforcement, the second area included
reviews, studies, and analyses, and the third area was for equipment.
The Fiscal Year 2004 request continues funding for those critical
activities under the categories of Critical Infrastructure Protection
and Continuity of Operations.
Drought ($1.1 million). The program includes those activities
related to administering the Reclamation States Emergency Drought
Relief Act of 1991, as amended, to undertake activities that will
minimize losses and damages resulting from drought conditions. The
major component of the program relates to response activities taken
during an actual drought to minimize losses or mitigate damages. The
program also provides for assistance in the preparation of drought
contingency plans.
Desalination of Seawater and Groundwater ($775,000). This program
provides a promising opportunity to expand water supplies for both
coastal and inland areas. The 2004 budget contains increased funding
for desalination research activities aimed at decreasing the cost and
facilitating local implementation of desalination.
Our research activities are carefully chosen to align with the
Department's draft Strategic Plan and are developed in collaboration
with stakeholders. We believe that cost shared research conducted at
existing institutions is the quickest and most economical means to
achieve our ambitious long-term goal of decreasing desalination costs
by 50 percent by 2020.
Sumner Peck Settlement ($34.0 million). The budget request provides
payment to the plaintiffs towards the settlement of Sumner Peck Ranch
Inc v. Bureau of Reclamation.
Western Water Initiative
The new Western Water Initiative will position the bureau in
playing a leading role in developing solutions that will help meet the
increased demands for limited water resources in the West. The budget
proposes $11.0 million, which will benefit western communities that are
struggling with increased water demands, drought, and compliance with
the Endangered Species Act. The Western Water Initiative involves:
Enhanced Water Management and Conservation ($6.9 million). Funding
will be used for the modernization of irrigation delivery structures
such as diversion structures and canals. This will also allow
Reclamation to use existing intrastate water banks where they are
available, and to promote intrastate water banking as a concept to help
resolve future water supply conflicts.
Reclamation will develop alternative ways to balance the existing
demands for water for agricultural, municipal, tribal, and
environmental purposes. Examples include water management tools;
inexpensive and accurate water measuring devices; and computer
technologies that will allow remote sensing and automation. Moreover,
new canal lining material, data collection and analysis systems should
make predicting, managing, and delivering water much more effective.
Preventing Water Management Crisis ($917,000). Funding will enable
us to provide effective environmental and ecosystem enhancements in
support of Reclamation's project operations through proactive and
innovative activities. For example, we are exploring ways of addressing
issues at projects by identifying and integrating long-term river
system ecological needs within the context of regulated river
management.
Pilot projects will be selected from a list of critical areas based
on the potential for cost savings resulting from the development of a
program in advance of the occurrence of a crisis. Pilot projects are
anticipated to include environmental enhancements that provide support
for project operations or optimization of project operations for both
water supply and environmental benefits. For example, in some cases,
water release patterns can be modified to address environmental needs
without impairing the delivery of water for authorized project
purposes.
Expanded Science and Technology Program ($2.7 million).
Reclamation's Desalination Research and Development Program will be
expanded to research cost reduction of water desalinization and waste
disposal. Reclamation has developed much of the current desalinization
technology used around the world today, and will continue to work with
partners in the industry to accomplish this goal.
Funding will also expand the effective use of science in adaptive
management of watersheds. This cooperative effort with the USGS will
assist Reclamation in reaching decisions that are driven by sound
science and research, are cost effective, and are based on performance
criteria.
Funding will also provide for peer review of the science used in
ESA consultations and other environmental documents issued by
Reclamation. The National Academy of Science, USGS, and other Federal
and state entities with science expertise will peer-review the science
used by Reclamation in preparing Biological assessments. This
initiative will improve Reclamation's use of science and technology to
address critical water resource management issues.
Strengthening Endangered Species Act (ESA) Expertise ($458,000).
Funding will be used to strengthen ESA expertise and will produce
identifiable mechanisms in order to achieve continuity in evaluating
biological assessments and/or biological opinions. This initiative will
enable managers to acquire a greater understanding of the purpose,
process and requirements of the ESA as it relates to Federal actions
that are important to carrying out Reclamation's water resources
management mission.
Central Valley Project Restoration Fund
The Fiscal Year 2004 Reclamation budget includes a request for
$39.6 million and is expected to be offset by discretionary receipts
totaling $30.8 million, which can be collected from project
beneficiaries under provisions of Section 3407(d) of the Act. These
funds will be used for habitat restoration, improvement and
acquisition, and other fish and wildlife restoration activities in the
Central Valley Project area of California. This fund was established by
the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, Title XXXIV of P.L. 102-
575, October 30, 1992.
The funds will be used to achieve a reasonable balance among
competing demands for the use of Central Valley Project water,
including the requirements of fish and wildlife, agricultural,
municipal and industrial and power contractors. Reclamation is seeking
appropriations for the full amount of funds of the estimated
collections for Fiscal Year 2004.
California Bay-Delta Restoration
The Fiscal Year 2004 Reclamation budget includes a request for
$15.0 million. The funds will be used consistent with commitment to
find long-term solutions in improving water quality; habitat and
ecological functions; and water supply reliability; while reducing the
risk of catastrophic breaching of Delta levees. Fiscal Year 2004 budget
contains funds for Bay-Delta activities that can be undertaken within
existing statutory authorities for implementation of Stage 1
activities. Those activities are included in the preferred program
alternative recommended by CALFED and approved by the Secretary of the
Interior. The majority of these funds will specifically address the
environmental water account, storage, and program administration.
Policy and Administration
The request for Policy and Administration (P&A) is $56.5 million.
P&A funds are used to develop and implement Reclamation-wide policy,
rules and regulations (including actions under the Government
Performance and Results Act) and to perform functions which cannot be
charged to specific project or program activities covered by separate
funding authority. These funds support general administrative and
management functions.
Loan Program
No funding is requested for any direct loans. Funding of $200,000
is requested for program administration.
Performance Assessment Rating Tool (PART)
During Fiscal Year 2002, all cabinet level agencies reviewed at
least 20 percent of their programs in concert with the Office of
Management and Budget. The Administration conducted these reviews using
PART, a standardized format for program evaluation and management.
Results from the PART process were one of many criteria used in making
budget decisions. The three Reclamation programs that were reviewed
were Hydropower, Water Reuse and Recycling Program (Title XVI), and
Rural Water. Reclamation is currently addressing all deficiencies
identified with respect to each program.
Hydropower was rated ``moderately effective'' and Reclamation has
begun developing long-term goals that will address the identified
issues, such as aging facilities and the need for better performance
measures. The Title XVI program review indicated that the program was
``moderately well managed.'' However, Reclamation's oversight of
individual projects is limited by strong local control, and the PART
findings indicated that there is no clear linkage between Federal
funding and progress towards outcomes.
The Rural Water Supply Projects were rated ``results not
demonstrated.'' Fiscal Year 2004 funding requests for this program has
been reduced due to systemic program weaknesses, such as non-existent
guidelines for eligibility; local cost share and program planning; and
overlaps with other Federal agencies. The Administration intends to
submit legislation this spring, establishing a Reclamation Rural Water
Program with adequate cost controls and clear guidelines for project
development.
President's Management Agenda
Reclamation is engaged in a variety of activities designed to meet
the Department's ``Getting to Green'' Scorecard requirements related to
the President's Management Agenda (PMA). These activities are
concentrated in five major components of the PMA: Expanding E-
Government, Financial Management Improvement, Human Capital,
Performance and Budget Integration, and Competitive Sourcing.
E-Government: Reclamation participates in a one-stop Internet
access that provides citizens information about recreational
opportunities on public lands and participates in the Volunteer.gov
website which provides information on volunteer activities. We also
recently completed an internal review of our web program and are in the
process of implementing the recommendations from the review, including
the development of a common website.
Financial Management Improvement: Reclamation continues to make
progress to ensure that our financial systems are compliant with the
Joint Financial Management Improvement Program core requirements. To
ensure that accurate and timely financial information is provided, our
financial management program uses the Federal Financial System, the
Program and Budget System, and its corporate data base system to report
summary and transactions data on a 24-hour basis.
Human Capital: Reclamation effectively deploys the appropriate
workforce mix to accomplish mission requirements. The use of existing
human resources flexibilities, tools, and technology is in a strategic,
efficient, and effective manner. Our workforce plan addresses E-
Government and Competitive Sourcing and a plan is in place for
recruitment, retention, and development of current and future leaders,
in addition supervisors are encouraged to work individually with
employees to develop Individual Development Plans.
Competitive Sourcing: Reclamation's A-76 Inventory Consistency Team
was established to ensure consistency in inventory reporting. The team
established guidelines for commercial, commercial core, and inherently
governmental functions that are specific to Reclamation's workforce.
Two streamlined studies have been completed for 124 FTE and a tentative
decision has been announced, moreover two additional streamlined
studies are with the Independent Review Official and a preliminary
planning is underway for the Express Review studies scheduled in early
2003.
Performance and Budget Integration: Reclamation continues to issue
joint planning guidance through the Budget Review Committee process to
provide budget targets, priorities, objectives, and goals. A Government
Performance and Results Act (GPRA) planning calendar, including budget
process and major milestones, has been developed. In addition, budget
accounts, staff, and programs/activities are aligned with program
targets.
FY 2002 Accomplishments Highlights and Future Planned Activities
In Fiscal Year 2002, we delivered the contracted amount of water to
our water users, thereby meeting our contractual obligations. However,
severe drought conditions increased demand for water, and in some
cases, the water delivered to the water users was not enough to meet
the increased requirement. If snow pack runoff continues at or below
normal levels and if the drought continues, there will be far less
water to release to our water users during Fiscal Year 2003 and Fiscal
Year 2004.
Reclamation renewed 100 percent of the water service contracts
expiring in Fiscal Year 2002, helping to ensure continued reliable
service. An additional contract that was not planned for was also
renewed for a total accomplishment of 114 percent.
Reclamation also completed Safety of Dams modifications on four
facilities in Fiscal Year 2002, the Caballo, Avalon, Clear Lake and Red
Willow dams. Also, in Fiscal Year 2003, Reclamation anticipates
completing Safety of Dams modifications at Deadwood Dam in Idaho and
Salmon Lake Dam in Washington.
Completion of these modifications improves overall facility
condition by reducing risk and improving safety. In some cases,
completion of the modifications increased Reclamation's ability to
deliver water by removing restricted capacity requirements, and
allowing the reservoir to be filled to full operational capacity, if
needed.
Reclamation's draft cost of power production per megawatt capacity
for Fiscal Year 2002 was $6,855. This amount puts Reclamation within
the upper 25th percent of the lowest cost hydropower facilities.
Reclamation also achieved a 1.3 percent forced outage rate, which
measures the amount of unplanned time out of service. This performance
level is 56 percent better than the industry average forced outage rate
of 3 percent.
By the end of Fiscal Year 2002, Reclamation conducted over 130
reviews of its recreational facilities to determine the state of its
facilities, identify corrective actions, and determine needed
improvements. Also in Fiscal Year 2002, Reclamation's partnerships and
cost-sharing practices allowed Reclamation to complete additional
corrective actions to improve more facilities than originally planned.
This resulted in performance greater than 100 percent completion of the
planned corrective actions.
Reclamation completed 130 percent of its planned site security
improvements. Moreover, funding was used to implement additional high-
priority security improvements at its high-priority facilities, which
was well above the target originally established.
FY 2004 Planned Activities
In Fiscal Year 2004, Reclamation plans to deliver 27.0 million
acre-feet of water for authorized project purposes. In addition, we
will complete the Safety of Dams projects at Wickiup Dam, Keechelus
Dam, Pineview Dam, and Horsetooth Dam. This will reduce total reservoir
restrictions and increase the available storage capacity by 127,300
acre-feet. Reclamation will also complete projects or parts of projects
that have the potential to deliver an additional 42,030 acre-feet of
water, which will naturally be dependent upon water availability and
operations.
Reclamation plans to complete the Escondido and San Elijo Water
Reclamation Program; the Olivenhain Recycled Water Project; the Yuma
Area Water Resource Management Group bifurcation structure; portions of
the El Paso Waste Water Reuse Project; canal linings; and other
salinity reduction projects that increase water availability.
Reclamation also plans to continue ranking within the upper 25th
percentile of low cost hydropower producers, by comparing power
production costs per megawatt capacity, Reclamation plans to achieve a
forced outage rate 50 percent better than the industry average, which
is currently 3 percent. While Reclamation anticipates completing the
baseline condition assessments for 80 percent of the recreation
facilities it manages, it plans to continue to maintain the overall
facility condition rating assessed at the Fiscal Year 2003 baseline
level.
Reclamation intends to ensure that 14 percent of recreation
facilities meet universal accessibility standards, thereby increasing
access to recreation areas to the disabled from 8 percent in Fiscal
Year 2003, in addition to maintaining the annual level of on-the-job
employee fatalities and serious accidents at zero.
Conclusion
This completes my statement. Please allow me to express my sincere
appreciation for the continued support that this Committee has provided
Reclamation. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have at
this time.
______
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
Certainly I am sure you were pleased, as well as the entire
Department of Interior, to hear that the Sumner Peck Settlement
will be done through the judgment fund, as it should be, rather
than out of the Interior budget. And so hopefully that will
allow more flexibility for you this year, and hopefully we can
work out in future years in potentially reallocating some of
those resources.
Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, it is a great relief for 2003, and
it allows us to go ahead with those activities that we had
already identified with you and our constituents.
Mr. Calvert. And I would hope that as we take a look at
those funds that are, in essence, freed up in your budget this
year, you will take another look at--we will work together
looking at Reclamation Title XVI and some other projects that
are certainly important to all of us here in the West.
Mr. Keys. Yes, sir.
Mr. Calvert. I want to talk a little about regulatory
streamlining. Too often, a government or a private entity will
go through a process with one Federal agency and then get
sidetracked by another Federal agency when construction
activities are required. The end result is needless and costly
delays. We see this time and time again.
How difficult has it been for the Bureau to coordinate with
other agencies on construction projects?
Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, we have had excellent cooperation
from the other agencies in the construction projects that we
have underway currently. Currently under construction is the
Animas-La Plata Project in Colorado after years and years of
court debate. We have had good cooperation from both State of
Colorado people and the Fish and Wildlife Service that works
with us in that construction.
The other activities that we have underway in construction
are Safety of Dams Programs, and I will tell you that it takes
work, and we take that work with the other agencies very
seriously. But we have been able to work with them very
closely.
Mr. Calvert. I come from that background, the construction
business, and many communities get involved in, as you are well
aware of, the so-called one-stop shopping where we try to bring
in everyone around the table and work through the process. And
hopefully you do the same as far as all the various Federal
agencies as you begin a project and attempt to get into a
memorandum of understanding with these various organizations
where everyone knows where their priorities are at and that it
does not stop a project once it has been approved.
Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, there are a number of efforts
underway currently that we work with to make that happen. The
Endangered Species Program for the Upper Colorado River Basin
is one that is working very well now, where we have had all of
those agencies together working on the endangered species and
at the same time going ahead with construction on the Animas.
We have the Adaptive Management Program in the river below
Glen Canyon that we are working very closely with.
There is an effort underway in the Lower Colorado River
called the Multi-Species Conservation Program, where we have
all of those agencies pulling together to give us coverage in
all of those activities for the next 50 years. And that is the
kind of activity I think that you are interested in, and we
think that it is the only way to go.
Now, at times, it doesn't happen that way and things get
splintered, but for the time being, we are trying to pull all
those together. We have similar efforts going on in the Snake-
Columbia system in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and certainly we
are trying to do some of those in California.
Mr. Calvert. One other question, and then I will let the
ranking Democrat ask some questions. But one thing on dam
security--and I know that is extremely important, and certainly
homeland security is something we all take very seriously.
However, in a small community in northern California, as you
are well aware, a roadway has been closed on the Folsom Dam. As
you are also aware, I was able to move a bill in the last
Congress which allowed for dam security that would allow the
Department to pay back communities that had to use their funds
for dam security and the rest.
This has put that community certainly in a difficult
situation, but at the same time, we understand we have to do
what is necessary for our own security. But is there any way
that we can work together--and maybe we should meet about
this--in working out some interim solution until we have a
permanent solution, which, of course, I would like you to
become involved in, and that is to find a way that we can put a
bridge structure in to replace that dam transportation system
which has become integral to that community.
Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, there is a vulnerability at Folsom
Dam that if I lived below that dam--and I have a number of
people that I work with that do--I would not be comfortable
with traffic across that facility because of that
vulnerability. And that is why we have closed the traffic
across there.
We are certainly more than happy to work with you and the
other agencies involved to look at alternate routes of
transportation there and work with you on a bridge. I would say
that there are a number of entities that should be involved in
that, and we would certainly look forward to working with you
to get that done.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
Mrs. Napolitano?
Mrs. Napolitano. Commissioner, since I worked in
Sacramento, I knew a little bit about Folsom. We dealt with it
when we were in the State House. And at the time, it was one of
those issues that kept coming up and up, and recently I met
with a group of folks from Folsom, including the police chief
and others, the city folks, the county folks. And it seems
that--you are right, I would be a little hesitant living
downstream of that particular area. But, nevertheless, it is
there, it has been there. That road has been used by the
commuters--for how many decades? And it has been allowed, and I
even told them you have poacher's rights, for that matter,
because you have been utilizing it for so long. I guess the
point being is that we now all of a sudden are closing it and
making it hard for thousands of individuals who come from the
northern area beyond Folsom and are impacting the quality of
life of many of the people in that small community. Somehow we
are saying, well, too bad, tough.
If we had the vision years ago, we probably would have done
something about it then. Apparently nothing was done at the
time, or if it was considered, nothing came to fruition. My
point being is that they have an issue that we need to follow
through, and I did suggest to them that it would have to be a
cooperative work in progress, if you will, of not only the
Federal Government but State government and some of the local
officials to come up with the answer. It isn't just in the
Federal Government's hands, although the decision ultimately
will have to be because it is a dam.
And so I, along with the Chair, look forward to sitting and
trying to figure out how we can come to some kind of a
conclusion that will help both sides.
Mr. Calvert. And potentially we can come up with an interim
solution, maybe providing for additional security along the dam
while we move forward with the long-term solution, which would
be a bridge to replace that. But we don't have to discuss that
at this time. Mrs. Napolitano, your time continues.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. I yield to Mr. Cardoza.
Mr. Cardoza. Thank you, Mrs. Napolitano. And welcome,
Commissioner Keys. I would like to discuss the process or lack
of process in determining the annual California allocation for
South of Delta water users. As you know, the CALFED Record of
Decision states that in the first 4 years of Stage 1 of the
CALFED program, anticipated allocations will be 65 to 70
percent of existing contract totals in normal years. However,
this year, for example, and in many years in the past, which
was released in January, this year's initial forecast predicted
that an allocation would be 55 percent for that South of Delta
area.
Then in February, when a drier forecast was predicted, the
Bureau released a second allocation forecast which actually
increased the allocation to 60 percent.
My question--and while I am glad my folks are getting more
water, how do you explain that in dry conditions that you can
actually have a result of increased supplies for South of Delta
contractors? And what actions is the Bureau taking to reach the
allocation level set forth in the ROD?
Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Cardoza, the prediction of
water supplies in California is one of the most complicated
computations that you will ever see in your life. The
allocation of Central Valley and the State water supplies for a
given year are based primarily on four variables.
First is the forecast of hydrologic conditions, in other
words, the snowpack combined with how much of that we expect to
run off.
The second part of it is the amount of water that is
already in storage as we start the season in the upstream
reservoirs and in St. Louis.
The third part of it is projected targets for the end-of-
year carryover, in other words, how much water do we have to
have there to be sure that we are not digging ourselves a
deeper hole for next year.
And the fourth thing we have to consider are those end-
stream and delta regulatory requirements.
Take all of that and put it together, we start in December
of each year for the State water project and then in February
for the Central Valley project with those initial allocations.
And we pull it all together and make the best guess that we
can, and we correct it as we go along.
I would say that in that dry period last year, some of the
requirements that we had put into the original estimates did
not come true. Maybe we got a better runoff. Even though it
appeared drier, sometimes we can get a runoff that comes
quickly and we will get more water out of it than we do from
the same snowpack when it comes off more gradually. Those kinds
of things enter into an increase in a year like last year.
Certainly, if you would like, I could provide for you for
the record or for you individually a lot better and more
detailed explanation of how we make those forecasts.
Mr. Cardoza. I would appreciate that, Mr. Commissioner,
both for the record and to me personally. I would also like to
know--you know, the Record of Decision was pretty explicit. It
said 70 percent was the goal, and we have not met that in most
years. And so I would like to see what progress you are making
along trying to get to where we can reach the goal in normal
years.
Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Cardoza, we would certainly
include that in the thing and show you the progression as we
have come through the years.
Mr. Cardoza. Thank you. My second issue I would like to
explore is as it relates to wildlife refuge issues under CVPIA.
As you know, the Secretary of the Interior is required to
supply water to specified refuges. The act also states that the
Secretary will diversify sources of water supply to refuges to
minimize the possible adverse effects upon Central Valley
project contractors. Further, the California Record of Decision
requires that a plan be developed to identify alternative
refuge supplies and conveyance.
The reality, however, is that the water for the refuges has
been made available primarily by reallocating it from South of
Delta CVP Ag Service contractors, and efforts to develop the
required plan do not appear to be in place.
My question to you is: Can you describe the Bureau's
intentions for developing such a plan as prescribed by the act?
Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Cardoza, the CVPIA and the act
and how it works with us on supplying that water is based on
one good principle, and that is willing sellers of water.
Certainly there is the base level of supply and the level two
supplies to the refuges, and we have contracted with those
refuges to supply the amounts of water ahead of time.
It also directs us to look for additional water to meet the
remaining portions of the full supply or the level four
supplies. And, again, we look to willing sellers to help us
provide that water supply.
Water users are not giving up water for it. We are
purchasing that water for those level four supplies. Again, it
is much more complicated than I have laid it out for you, and I
would be more than happy to give you a detailed writeup to show
you the different levels of supply and where those are provided
from and how we have--the experience we have had in obtaining
that water from willing sellers. So far, so good. But I know
there are some entities that don't think we have had enough,
but I would certainly supply that sort of detail for the
record.
Mr. Cardoza. Thank you. I appreciate it.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Walden?
Mr. Walden. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Keys, welcome. We are delighted to have you here, and I
appreciate all the work that you are doing. If you could only
make it rain and snow at the appropriate times and the
appropriate places, your job would be a lot easier and so would
mine.
I wanted to thank you for your efforts in the Umatilla
Basin and certainly in the Klamath Basin. Yours and this
administration's have been extraordinary in that respect. As
you know, the Water Bank is coming together this week, and I
understand that there is considerable interest among the
farmers and ranchers in participating in that if yesterday's
activities are any indication. Apparently 500 showed up, and
the office ran out of their 300 application forms.
Obviously, with a 40-percent water supply projected coming
into Upper Klamath Lake, we face another very, very critical
year in the basin. I again appreciate all that this
administration is doing to help. The President has been very
forthright about that.
My question concerns funding. I guess I am encouraged, this
new judgment issue working out favorably for you. Do you
believe that you have the funding necessary within your budget
to continue the very important long-term work while funding
certainly this year's obligation for a Water Bank?
Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Walden, in Fiscal Year 2003 we
are stretched, and we are working very diligently to pull that
money together. So far we have most of it together, and we are
actually doing some shifting around to get us through this
year. Our 2004 proposal does provide adequate money.
The one thing that we are--in 2003, we are finishing up the
construction of the A Canal fish screen, and that certainly
helps us, first off, protect those little fish coming out of
Upper Klamath Lake. And the second thing is we get that big
funding past us, so that helps us out. But we think we have
enough in our 2004 budget to cover us.
Mr. Walden. And that is, what, $10 or $12 million for the A
Canal?
Mr. Keys. Yes, sir.
Mr. Walden. That is an extraordinary construction project.
I don't think most people realize, when you hear about a fish
screen, the size and the complexity of screening the A Canal is
enormous, and your folks have done a great job.
Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Walden, there is one other
aspect of that thing that is absolutely amazing, and that is
that our folks are getting it constructed during this winter
with no loss of service to the irrigation district there. They
are doing a yeoman's job in getting it done.
There is good news and there is bad news. The good news is
we had a great construction season. The bad news is a great
construction season produces 45 percent water supply.
Mr. Walden. Mr. Keys, as you know, last session of Congress
we were successful in passing legislation to provide for
refunds, authorized refunds in the Klamath project. It has been
my belief that people shouldn't have to pay for something they
really didn't get and they had to maintain a system that didn't
deliver water in 2001. Does the Bureau have a way to fund this
year? And if not, is that in your 2004 request or is that
something we need to work on differently?
Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Walden, we did get the
authorization, but at the time we got it we had no funding to
implement with. We do believe in what that authorization does
for us and are certainly trying to find the funding to get that
done.
For the rest of the panel, the refund there is for
operation and maintenance monies that folks paid ahead of time
and then received no water. And like I said, we believe in
that, and when we can find the funds, we will certainly
implement that authorization.
Mr. Walden. So the extent to which we could be helpful in
finding those funds from some source, you would be appreciative
even though you are going to stick with the President's budget
because that is what you are paid to do. So I won't ask you to
comment beyond that.
I have another question, Mr. Chairman, if I could. This
regards the whole TMDL issue as it relates up on the Snake
River and Columbia River systems. Are you engaged in that
discussion and its potential impacts?
Mr. Keys. Yes, sir. Myself and my Assistant Secretary, Mr.
Raley, are both deeply involved in that. It has the potential
of great harm to the power system.
Mr. Walden. I would like to explore that a little further.
I don't know how much--do I have another minute or so, Mr.
Chairman?
Mr. Calvert. If it is a minute, we can do it. How is that?
Mr. Walden. I will make my part short. Could you just
inform this Committee the extent to which this new TMDL
requirement by the EPA, if enforced, the effect that would have
on power production which my friends to the south should be
keenly interested in because if we have any surplus, we would
like to send it your way even though sometimes we don't get
paid for it, mind you. But that is a different issue. Could you
talk about that? This is a critical issue that is just coming
to light.
Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Walden, the TMDL requirement
that Mr. Walden is referring to is the temperature requirement
under TMDL, total maximum daily load. We are still evaluating
the impact on the system. We are working very closely with the
Corps of Engineers. It resulted because the State of Oregon did
not have a system to implement TMDL, so EPA did it for them.
And they have established a--
Mr. Walden. Haven't they established a temperature gradient
that calls for colder water?
Mr. Keys. They have established a quality requirement at
the mouth of the river that is more stringent than at the top
of the river, and rivers normally get warmer as they go down
the river and come through the storage facilities. And that is
the difficulty that we are trying to deal with.
Mr. Walden. Let me cut to the chase, if I could. My
understanding is the potential is there that we could see no
power production out of the Snake River dams if this is in
force fully.
Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Walden, that is worst-case
scenario.
Mr. Walden. Thank you.
Mr. Calvert. Before I move to the next questions, is there
a way, if necessary, to do an emergency declaration to allow
for a change in how you operate those dams based upon this
initial order?
Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, I don't know the answer to that,
but we could certainly consider that.
Mr. Calvert. I appreciate that.
Mr. Inslee?
Mr. Inslee. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I wanted to ask you about the Bureau's--this is kind of a
broader topic, but the Bureau's thinking on global warming and
its implications for snowpack and, therefore, irrigation and
power production. We are just very, very concerned in the
Northwest that the computer models seem to suggest a
significant reduction in snowpack due to global warming in the
next several decades. And inasmuch as it is our electric
battery and our irrigation supply, that could potentially cause
us great grief.
I wonder if you can relate to us what efforts the Bureau
has made to assess the nature of that threat and, two, talk
about either mitigation or, if mitigation doesn't work, what we
ought to be doing about that problem, because it really is of
growing interest in the Northwest.
Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Inslee, we don't have an effort
underway in Reclamation to do that. We do have people that are
working closely with the U.S. Geological Survey, who are
participating in a number of studies on behalf of the
Government to look at global warming. We also have some folks
that are working on studies that are being coordinated with the
National Academy of Science on global warming. But in
Reclamation, we don't have the capability of doing those kinds
of studies.
We are supportive of our sister agencies and certainly
encourage them to do that and would look to the results that
come out of their studies.
Mr. Inslee. Do you think that is a role that you ought to
play? And let me suggest in some nature you should, and let me
tell you why it makes sense to me. You are sort of a service
provider to a lot of folks for both irrigation and power, and
if there is a threat to that supply, I would think that the
Bureau would want to be in some fashion associated with dealing
with that.
Do you think that makes sense if you had the money, or is
it just something that ought to be left to another agency?
Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Inslee, we don't have that kind
of capability in Reclamation. That is why we depend on the
Geological Survey, and we are working very closely with them.
In other words, they represent us. They have the right kinds of
people to deal with those issues. We just don't have that kind
of expertise. We can't afford to keep that kind of expertise on
staff.
Mr. Inslee. Have they given you information about what is
probably going to be happening with snowpack in regard to this
phenomena?
Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Inslee, it is not that precise
yet, and it has not come down to being able to say that this
year's snowpack is less because of global warming and so forth.
Our Department is watching it very closely. They are working
with the USGS and other scientific agencies. We are watching it
closely. It is just not that precise that we can say this
year's snowpack is--
Mr. Inslee. Right. Let me suggest we are never, ever going
to have that degree of precision where you can say any
particular year's snowpack is related to any particular year's
global warming. But I am concerned that if you have not asked
the other Federal agencies to give you predictions of long-term
trends in snowpack that is going to have huge, I believe,
impacts in the Northwest, it would seem that the Bureau would
at least ask these other agencies to advise you so that you can
become prepared with additional storage, if that works, or
other ways of dealing with that on a long-term basis.
So I would encourage you to think in those terms because
you are sort of the service provider to a lot of our
constituents. And if 15 years from now all of a sudden the
snowpack is 30 percent less, which the computer models suggest
it will be--maybe not 15 but 20 to 25 years from now--and the
Bureau hasn't thought about how to deal with that issue, I
think we are really going to be behind the eight ball. So I
would encourage you to at least explore avenues for the Bureau
to try to get those other agencies to help you in your mission,
and I would like to work with you in any regard in that.
Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Inslee, we would certainly do
that. I don't think the other agencies have the ability to
predict. Every time I see the people from the GS, we talk about
it, and we say, ``What is the snowpack going to be?'' And they
say, ``That is your job to predict,'' because we are still--it
is just not that far out there. It is not precise. And I don't
know of any agency that has the ability to predict long term.
Mr. Inslee. Well, I agree with you that there is no way we
can predict in a particular year what the snowpack is going to
be. But I guess what I am getting at, if the long-term trends
are for significant reductions in snowpack, average years, is
that something the Bureau you think should be doing something
about right now to think about, or what do you think?
Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Inslee, we don't know that the
long-term trends are to reduce snowpacks. That is what I am
telling you. We don't know of an agency that has the ability to
predict that.
There are studies underway to see if that is a trend, but
we have not seen those kind of predictions yet.
Mr. Inslee. We will send you some.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Calvert. If I heard the gentleman correctly you might
look into some additional storage, I would be happy to work
with you on that.
Mr. Inslee. Well, you know, that is the problem, because we
don't have that many opportunities.
Mr. Calvert. I will predict we need additional storage. How
is that?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Calvert. With that, I will recognize Mr. Nunes.
Mr. Nunes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Keys, since the last time we spoke, we have authorized
a feasibility study on Upper San Joaquin River. In your
proposed Fiscal Year 2004 budget, you have budgeted $1 million,
yet there are other records that show that you are going to
need $4 million in Fiscal Year 2004. Can you comment on that
and on additional funding that you may need on this specific
project?
Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Nunes, the studies that you are
referring to will be started in Fiscal Year 2003 because of the
CALFED authorization and the funding that came along with that
for authorized studies. The 2004 monies keep that going.
Currently, that is our capability, and certainly if there
are other requirements out there, we would certainly be willing
to work with you. But right now it appears that is what we
need.
Mr. Nunes. OK. It just appears to me that there could be a
possible discrepancy from your proposed Fiscal Year 2004 budget
and what has been budgeted previously to complete the project.
So, as you know, I am very concerned to make sure we have
enough funding to finish the project on time, the feasibility
study.
Another question. I don't know if this is the right time,
but could you comment on the status of CALFED and what your
thoughts are on where the process should go?
Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Nunes, CALFED is a process that
started a number of years ago. We are doing everything that we
can in Reclamation to accomplish work under the authorizations
that we got this year on those storage facilities. Our
Department is still working very closely with other entities to
see if there is support for the CALFED program. And I think at
the proper time our Department will make that decision.
Mr. Nunes. So at this point, you have no decision on
whether or not we should proceed with involvement in the CALFED
process?
Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Nunes, it means that we have to
work very closely with the State of California and all of the
other entities there to be sure that all of us have a bill that
we are all comfortable with. And certainly we have worked with
Members of both the House and the Senate over the years on
different proposals. I think once a proposal is together that
all of us can look at and get behind, I think there are good
possibilities there.
We are fully supportive of the CALFED process. It is just
not--there has not been that vehicle yet that we can all
support. We are supportive of the process, but we would be more
than happy to work with the people from the House or the Senate
on a proposal.
Mr. Nunes. Well, I am supportive of the process also,
except when--the bottom line is--I think, Mr. Chairman, you
know this, you mentioned it--we need new water storage, and
this process has been going on for a decade. I have grave
concerns that we are just barely in the feasibility study
stage, which is, as you know, not even close to the stage of
actually building any new water storage facilities.
Thank you.
Mr. Calvert. Well, we are going to be working on a CALFED
bill, Mr. Nunes, together, all of us, and, by golly, we are
going to--and I am sure your Department is going to love it,
Mr. Keys. And Bennett is going to love it, too.
Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, we will certainly look forward to
working with you on that.
Mr. Calvert. Mrs. Napolitano?
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Commissioner Keys, could you give me a clarification of the
thinking of the Bureau of Reclamation on recycling?
Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Napolitano, recycling is a
good program. The Title XVI program that was authorized 12
years ago certainly is one that the Bureau of Reclamation will
continue to work to construct those projects that you have
authorized and funded and certainly to finish the construction
on those projects that are underway.
The Bureau of Reclamation currently is operating under a
flat budget. In other words, we are looking at no substantial
increases in our overall request, and with all of the other
requirements on the Federal treasury, that is kind of the way
of life for us right now.
There was a little--I know it doesn't seem significant, but
from the official Fiscal Year 2003 to 2004, there was a small
increase in our wastewater reuse and recycling budget. So what
I am saying is that Title XVI is a valid part of our program.
It is doing its job to help stretch water supplies in some of
our States.
It has been part of our program for over 10 years. It was
meant at first to be a pilot and demonstration project to let
us look at new methods for recycling, let us look at new uses
of water, reuses of water. It was not meant to be a grant
program, and certainly that is part of the problem that we get
into.
What we are trying to do is say that we have been at that
10 years, and it is time to look at a--not a total refocus, but
a shift in gears there to look at other technology, the other
technology being desalination, which there seems to be great
demands for our there.
We are working with the local people in California who are
trying to desalt ocean water. We are working with people in the
Plains that are trying to desalt brackish groundwater. One of
the problems in our rural water program is that the current
solution is to drop a pumping plant into the Missouri River,
put a treatment plant on it, and then run pipelines 120 miles
out. And we are trying to find a smaller, more efficient
desalting process that we can put on the ground out there
instead of running these pipelines that far.
In California, we also think that desalting can be a help
in our work with the Colorado River. In other words, if the
State of Nevada, for example, wanted to go to Long Beach and
put some money into their desalting plant and the California
people use water from desalted ocean water and then Nevada
divert a like amount from the Colorado River, that sort of
possibility is out there, and there is interest in that.
So we are trying to find, I would say, the best use of our
scarce funds to do the most good with, in other words, to be as
efficient as we can. And we are trying to improve that
technology for desalination.
Mrs. Napolitano. But, Mr. Commissioner--and I don't want to
seem like I am interrupting, but hasn't recycling proved to be
a win-win in California and other States? It has provided other
States the ability to see that it can work and how it can work.
The fact that a lot of States are going to have a tough time
trying to find a way to get rid of the brine if they go to
desalting or when they go to desalting--which may--I am sure
you are right. We need to find other alternatives, but not
totally wipe out the assistance in recycling. And we have gone
through great lengthy meetings in California over the 4.4 plan,
the Colorado. And it is just something that if we are not able
to continue putting the emphasis on recycling the water, by the
time we get going on desalination in the areas, we will have
already been at the deadline of 4.4 which is now there, unless
Interior and Sacramento get together and are able to work
something out. The point being is that this has been proven, it
works. Yes, you weren't meant to be the total funder. If there
is an issue of matching funds, what is then the adequate--
because in some of the reading information I had, it said the
agency felt that the matching portion of it was inadequate.
What would be adequate? We can't just throw the baby out with
the bath water and say now we are moving to another new
technology. It has been proven, but we have the desalter down
at the bottom of the Colorado River that hasn't been used for
years. I believe there is another one that--and I can't
remember the other one, but there is another one. Why are we
not putting those back on line in areas where we feel maybe we
need to work on the water for the Colorado River water from
Mexico and the U.S. at the mouth of the Colorado.
There are all kinds of scenarios that we can argue about
what is the workable plan. How did the agency get there? Who
made the decision? Did you have input from the communities that
we serve, both you and I, the Bureau and I, and the rest of us?
Because it seems to me that these people are floundering for
answers, and they are coming to us because they can't seem to
understand where the Bureau is going with this new plan.
The other one is the PART, the program assessment rating.
There are questions about how you came up with some of the
ratings and how it is going to help some of the institutions be
able to deliver quality of water. And in terms of drought, you
are correct. We need to--Jay Inslee pointed out we need to look
at it before we get to the point of drought.
Texas, for instance, the ability of the farmers, we should
have had a plan there for them a long time ago. They are really
literally losing the farm. If we have to go and negotiate with
Mexico, then, by all means, let's go to the DOJ.
I am just trying to find answers. How do we get to all
these things? And how do we understand where the Bureau is
heading without us understanding what drove you to that based
on what we are experiencing in our backyard with our
constituencies? Do I make myself clear, or am I muddled enough
for you?
Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Napolitano, I understand very
well what you are saying. We are an old agency that has a very
narrow mission in dealing with water and power in the Western
United States. The Title XVI program was something that was
entirely new to us, and what we worked with cities and entities
to do is to try to prove the wastewater reclamation and reuse
technology. And I think we have done a pretty good job of that.
Mrs. Napolitano. You have done a great job. I am looking at
your website, a copy of your website taken off of it the 4th.
And it reads--and I will read this into the record.
Mrs. Napolitano. Let's see. ``Our evolving mission places
greater emphasis on water conservation, recycling, and reuse;
developing partnerships with our customers, states, and tribes;
finding ways to bring competing''--and then it goes on. It is
still on your website. It is still part of your mission, and it
is still part of the largest portion of your mission. And that
is why I can't understand why that mission is evolving into
something else. It says water reuse and conservation is
another--``water quality works hand-in-hand with our most
important goal of water reuse and conservation.''
And so it is hard for me to understand as an individual who
works with the communities why this is happening without any
input from the locals or from this Committee or information for
us to understand where you are headed and why. And I understand
your budget constraints. We all are facing them, unfortunately,
and I agree with you, we need to work a little closer together.
I just need you to understand that there are a lot of
issues that we have that I am bringing to the table because
they are issues that are being brought to me not only from my
constituents but from other members' constituents not even here
in this Committee.
Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Napolitano, we are certainly
willing to work with you in the future on this. I would tell
you that that is in our website because we are proud of what we
have accomplished with those entities out there.
Mrs. Napolitano. And I agree.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentlelady.
While we are on the subject of Title XVI, I might as well
carry it on a little bit. Obviously, the wonderful thing about
the Government we all serve is that we have three branches, and
so we can all have our disagreements. I suspect that the House
and the Senate may have agreed that Title XVI is part of the
law today, and we may be able to help you out as far as finding
additional funds to continue Title XVI. I think it is very
popular, especially in my home State, but certainly I think as
you know, we have looked into expanding Title XVI just beyond
California at some point in the future. And it is a point that
I want to make because my question is going to be about the
quantification settlement agreement.
As you know, we are under a lot of stress right now to meet
our obligation to use the 4.4 million acre feet that has been
allocated on the Colorado River. And in order to meet that, it
is going to take more than just CALFED, though that is
certainly an important part of the solution. It is going to
take Reclamation. It is going to take desalinization. It is
going to take conservation in a number of ways in order for us
to meet our needs, not just in California but in many States
throughout the West.
And so I don't believe that from my perspective, and I
think the perspective of many folks on both sides of the aisle,
that Title XVI is going to go away. So I think we need to work
together in the future to see if we can work it in a way that
meets the Department's needs and at the same time we can make
some headway.
On the quantification settlement agreement, it seems from
the reports that I have been reading and in talking to various
folks that the four affected agencies may come to an agreement
very soon, hopefully. As you know, in this process it has been
a very complex and complicated deal. And I want to ask the
question: Will the Bureau and the Department commit to work
positively to--I guess in my old real estate vernacular--
``close the deal''? You know, I used to have this saying,
``Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.'' And at this
point, this is extremely important not just to the economy of
California--and certainly it is--but to the economy of the
entire Western United States if California doesn't have
adequate water to meet its future obligations.
And so hopefully if, in fact, these agencies do come to an
agreement, the Department, the Bureau acts proactively to
positively close this transaction. Any comment about that?
Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, the Department of the Interior and
the Bureau of Reclamation are still interested in settling--in
working with the California parties regarding the efforts of
work that we did up until December 31st. The Department is
still willing to meet with California parties at the
appropriate time to consider any proposal. We have actually
offered to meet with all of the States and the parties the 12th
and 13th of this month.
But we have to do those meetings and efforts now in
consultation with the Department of Justice. Many of the issues
involved in the QSA now are subject--are a part of Federal
litigation. But certainly we remain interested and are willing
to meet and try to settle this thing.
Mr. Calvert. Now, I understand--is there any legal
impediment from dealing with anyone--you know, in my old life I
used to get sued all the time and I would meet with those folks
on a regular basis, nevertheless. Is there any legal impediment
for you to meet or talk to or communicate with someone who is
in a lawsuit? For instance, if the Sierra Club is suing you or
some environmental agency is suing you, does that mean you
don't meet with them anymore?
Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, no. We are willing to meet with any
of them at almost any time.
Mr. Calvert. Well, that is important because, you know, we
have got to move this process forward. And I understand that
anytime we deal with water, there is a lot of emotion and hard
feelings and so forth and so on. And I hope there are none in
this case because we must move this deal forward.
Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, we are willing to meet with them. I
think what I was trying to say is we are willing to meet with
them, we just have to take the right people with us now.
Mr. Calvert. Yes. Well, you guys have more lawyers than
most, I suspect. All right. I will leave it at that.
Mr. Cardoza?
Mr. Cardoza. Nothing further.
Mr. Calvert. Mrs. Napolitano?
Mrs. Napolitano. If I may, I would like to go for another
couple of questions. I certainly would ask the Chair to reserve
the right for us to submit questions.
Mr. Calvert. Without objection.
Mrs. Napolitano. From not only our members but from myself.
There have been two studies that have been hanging fire for
a long time. One of them has been the Hardy Phase 2 study. That
is regarding the Klamath River. And the other one has been the
Southern California Comprehensive Water Reclamation and Reuse,
Public Law 102-575 and the comparable study for the San
Francisco Bay area. And this has been not delivered, and I
would like to ask if that could be accomplished as soon as
possible.
Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Napolitano, the study that you
just mentioned on the wastewater reuse in Southern California
is undergoing a revision at this time and should be available
in the near future.
The Hardy Phase 2 study is one that we are still waiting
on. When we get that, it will be submitted to the National
Academy of Science as part of their review of all of the
science in the Klamath Basin on the proposals that have been
made for the Endangered Species Act and the salmon there.
Mrs. Napolitano. I certainly would like to know what the
changes are, because we were privy to some of the information
on the Southern California Comprehensive Water Reclamation and
Reuse, and I would like to know what some of the changes are
because apparently it did indicate a strong view on water
recycling.
Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Napolitano, I will be very
candid with you. When we got the report, there was a lot of
extraneous material there, and we are trying to be sure that it
is concise so that we can all understand what is there.
Mrs. Napolitano. Excellent, and I hope that it is clear to
all of us.
And the other question, one of the ones that has been in
the back of my area has been the San Gabriel Basin restoration
fund. The Bureau has proposed $1.3 million for clean-up
activities. We were allocated $10 million in 2003 and $12
million in 2002. And now the Bureau consistently wipes that
amount out, and David Dreier, Chairman of Rules, consistently
puts it back in. Is this a game we are playing?
Mr. Keys. Mr. Chairman, Mrs. Napolitano, we are not playing
a game. It is just trying to find the right conditions to get
the work done and trying to use our monies most expeditiously.
Mrs. Napolitano. It gets put back in. Why don't we just put
it back in up front?
Mr. Keys. Mrs. Napolitano, it was a new program last year,
and we are certainly trying to get it back in the train.
Mrs. Napolitano. It was--OK, you say new, but it has been
around for a long time.
I will then submit some other questions in writing that I
certainly would like to have information to disseminate to all
of my colleagues.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
With that, I would have some additional questions I will
submit in writing also so we can move on.
[The Bureau of Reclamation's response to questions
follows:]
Chairman Calvert
THE BUREAU AND THE PART PROCESS
1) Question: OMB has implemented its Program Assessment Rating Tool
(PART) to evaluate a program's purpose, management and results to
determine its overall effectiveness. Discuss the relative importance of
the new PART process in setting agency budget priorities, and the role
of the Bureau of Reclamation in conducting PART analyses. Does the
Bureau consult with the OMB in defining its core mission, particularly
during the budget process?
Answer: The PART process plays a significant role in setting agency
budget priorities, as agencies work to implement the results of the
PART ratings. Under the PART program, each agency self-assesses its
programs using a standard tool, and OMB reviews and consults with the
agency in setting a final rating. Reclamation is taking PART ratings
into account in developing budgets for programs that have been rated.
Also, Reclamation develops its overall budget, priorities, and mission
statement in close consultation with the Department and OMB. The PART
tool does not determine budget priorities and requests, but does inform
the budget process.
TITLE XVI FUNDING
2) Question: The Bureau's ``core mission'' states that it is ``to
manage, develop, and protect water and related resources.'' Water
reclamation and reuse are important methods to developing water, yet
the Bureau maintains that these programs are not part of the ``core
mission.'' How does the Bureau define the ``core mission?
Answer: The Bureau's Core Mission, as stated in DOI's Strategic
Plan, is ``to deliver water and hydropower, consistent with applicable
State and Federal law, in an environmentally responsible and cost
efficient manner.'' Although we recognize the importance of funding a
variety of activities within our Water and Related Resources
appropriation, including water reclamation and reuse, Reclamation feels
that we must place a priority on those activities that are central to
our mission.
2b) Question: The fiscal year 04 Title XVI request amounts to $11.5
million, representing a significant reduction over the last two years.
Explain how the Bureau arrived at this funding level given the
importance of providing assistance to projects that are proceeding to
construction that depend on meaningful federal assistance.
Answer: When developing Reclamation's budget we must consider our
entire program and identify priority activities. Because the Title XVI
program supports projects that promise to help alleviate potential
water shortages, our fiscal year 2004 request for Title XVI work is
actually about $1 million above that shown in the fiscal year 2003
amended request. Reclamation is unable to fund all programs within the
existing budget constraints.
WESTERN WATER INITIATIVE
3) Question: What is the genesis of the Western Water Initiative?
What stakeholder involvement did the Bureau seek in formulating the
Western Water Initiative?
Answer: Many parts of the Nation are struggling to deal with a
drought of historic proportions while working with aging facilities
that are of 19th century technology in a 21st century level demand for
water. Recent crises in the Klamath River basin in Oregon and Middle
Rio Grande basin in New Mexico--where farmers, Native Americans, fish
and wildlife all were impacted by the water shortages--vividly
demonstrate the consequences of failing to resolve the problem of
demands for water by people and the environment that exceed the
available supply.
In the Klamath Basin, damaging social and economic impacts in the
community, a decline in fish and wildlife habitat conditions, loss of
traditional practices, and negative impacts to commercial and sport
fishing industries all have been by-products of drought and the related
conflicts over the use of water for farming, tribes, and the
environment,
In the Middle Rio Grande Basin, endangered minnows and drought have
caused conflict over the use of storage water, earmarked for cities and
farms, to improve minnow habitat. The result has been controversial
court decisions that have undermined the water supplies for future
municipal economic and population growth, and future farming and the
environment in the Basin. There is a significant risk that additional
water shortage crises will occur in the short term, mostly in the more
arid parts of the United States, where population growth is the
greatest.
The Western Water Initiative is a strategic approach to predicting,
preventing, and alleviating water conflicts such as these, and will
assist in investing in water supplies that will support the people and
economy in the coming decades. The focus of the Western Water
Initiative is not just on increasing water supplies, but on better
managing the water we have. The Initiative will do this by helping to
develop long-term plans for water management, targeting areas that are
most likely to have water conflicts, working to improve the use of
science and the adoption of adaptive management plans for watersheds,
and helping people Reclamation staff better understand what they must
do to help Reclamation projects meet the requirements of the Endangered
Species Act.
We have heard from many of the water users on Reclamation projects
in the West that they need assistance in improving their ability to
manage water more efficiently. Some water delivery facilities are more
than 60 years old and the modernization of existing infrastructure
could add significant efficiencies to water delivery systems, providing
the flexibility needed to help meet unmet water demands. Many
Reclamation water districts cannot afford to make the improvements on
their own. We have received many requests for state and local entities
to use our science and technology to reduce the cost of desalination.
This Western Water Initiative is responding to these pleas for
assistance, financial and technical, to improving their ability to
stretch water supplies in the West.
SALTON SEA RESTORATION PROJECT
4) Question: The Department of Interior has indicated that it has
carried out its responsibility under the Salton Sea Reclamation Act.
Many others disagree and say that the Department could be doing more to
resolve issues on Salton Sea remediation. Is the Bureau's proposed $1
million for Salton Sea part of a long-term plan to issue a Preferred
Alternative? If not, what are the Department's next steps?
Answer: The Department fulfilled all reporting requirements, as
related to P.L. 105-372 in January of 2000, when former Secretary
Babbitt forwarded to Congress a draft Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report, a Strategic Science Plan, a Draft
Alternatives Appraisal Report, and an Overview and Summary Report.
Since that transmission in January of 2000, we have been continually
refining and analyzing various alternatives to restore the Sea with
particular emphasis on engineering feasibility and cost estimates.
During this time we have also been encouraged by Members of Congress
and others to assess partial restoration alternatives. In January of
2003, we released a Salton Sea Study--Status Report, which further
assesses various past and ``newer'' concepts. The Department will
continue to work closely with the Salton Sea Authority, other federal,
state, and tribal entities to further analyze and refine alternatives
for restoring the Sea.
BUREAU POWER PRODUCTION
5) Question: OMB's PART process rated the Bureau's power program as
``moderately effective.'' Explain this analysis and whether the Bureau
participated in this process.
If you agree with OMB's assessment, what will the Bureau do to
improve how it produces power?
Answer: OMB and Reclamation collaborated on the evaluation of
Reclamation's hydropower program, ultimately resulting in the
``Moderately Effective'' rating. This collaborative effort involved
Reclamation providing to OMB its own, internal assessment of its
program, as well as a large amount of programmatic information. As
perusal of the PART worksheet and summary sheet indicates, OMB found
Reclamation's hydropower program to be generally well-run. However, it
determined that Reclamation's long-term goals and measures were
inadequate. OMB and Reclamation are working together to come up with a
better way of defining Reclamation's long-term vision for its
hydropower program, and of better tracking its progress toward reaching
that vision.
DAM SECURITY AND SAFETY
6) Question: September 11 understandably changed the way Bureau
looks at securing its facilities from terrorist attacks. How is the
Bureau spending site security funds appropriated by Congress?
Answer: Reclamation is using site security funds to maintain a
heightened level of security at facilities by using guards, law
enforcement officers, surveillance, and security patrols, and
implementing physical security improvements and upgrades.
6b) Question: Will it need more funding for site security
improvements, and, if so, will the Bureau continue its policy of not
passing added security costs to its customers?
Answer: Reclamation has prioritized and initiated identified
security upgrades for the 55 most critical facilities where
vulnerability risk analyses have been completed. Many of the initial
security improvements are already in place, and work will continue in
fiscal year 2003 on the remaining programmed improvements. As
additional security risk analyses are completed in fiscal year 2003 and
fiscal year 2004 we will program funds for further identified upgrades.
At this time, we will continue our policy of not passing these added
security costs on to our project beneficiaries.
6c) Question: Does the Bureau have a plan to assist localities
impacted by these security enhancements?
Answer: Our efforts are aimed at protecting the public, our
employees, and our facilities from adverse impacts of terrorist
actions. We do meet with local officials and advise and educate the
public on matters that may impact them.
6d) Question: The Bureau is proposing that Congress raise the
authorization ceiling for the Dam Safety Program. Because of this, the
Bureau maintains that it will not be able to identify fiscal year 05
actions since it does not have an appropriate spending ceiling. Explain
why the Bureau cannot simply identify out year dam safety fixes without
a raise in the Dam safety ceiling.
Answer: Preparing the modifications reports that identify the out
year dam safety fixes requires a commitment by the beneficiaries to
repay their share of the cost of the modifications in accordance with
the Reclamation Safety of Dams Act. The project beneficiaries are
unable to commit to repayment if there is not sufficient authorization
to indicate what the repayment terms will be.
RURAL WATER SUPPLY
7) Question: The Administration argues there is significant overlap
with other Federal rural water program. Where is the Bureau on
establishing guidelines for a rural water supply program such as
eligibility, local cost share and program planning?
Answer: The Department is in the process of drafting legislation
for review by OMB to establish a structured rural water program within
the Bureau of Reclamation. While Reclamation has been directed by
Congress to plan, develop and construct 13 specific and individual
rural water projects since 1980, we have been extremely limited in our
ability to work with the communities that are in need of assistance
prior to the passage of the specific project authority. This has
resulted in inefficiencies and increased costs. The proposed
legislation will address the programmatic shortcomings identified in
the fiscal year 2004 PART analysis of Reclamation's rural water
projects. At this time several different options are being considered
as a means of addressing those weaknesses, and it is premature to
identify any specific actions.
CALIFORNIA WATER DEMANDS
8) Question: California has used more than its share of the
allotted 4.4 million acre feet per year of Colorado River water.
Efforts are underway to reduce southern California's share of Colorado
River water by utilizing Title XVI funding programs. Do you agree that
these programs can help relieve southern California of its water needs?
Answer: Yes. The water produced from Title XVI projects has been
used to eliminate the use of potable water supplies, including Colorado
River water, from activities such as landscaping and heavy industrial
uses and replace those potable supplies with waste water.
8b) Question: If so, why are Title XVI programs not part of the
``core mission?
Answer: When Title XVI passed in 1992, the Act directed the
Secretary of the Interior (Secretary), acting pursuant to the
Reclamation Act of 1902, as amended, to undertake a program to
investigate and identify opportunities for water reclamation and reuse
of municipal, industrial, domestic, and agricultural wastewater, and
naturally impaired ground and surface waters, by the design and
construction of demonstration and permanent facilities to reclaim and
reuse wastewater, and to conduct research, including desalting of the
reclamation of wastewater and naturally impaired ground and surface
waters. The Bureau believes the initial goals of the Act have been met
and we have helped prove that reclaimed water is a viable source of
future water supplies.
Although the Title XVI program does support water recycling
projects that promise to help alleviate potential water shortages,
Reclamation is not the only potential source of such funding and
Reclamation has many important programs that must be funded.
Reclamation is unable to fund all programs within the existing budget
constraints.
OUTSOURCING
9) Question: Section 208 of the fiscal year 03 Omnibus
appropriations bill for the Bureau of Reclamation States: ``The
Commissioner of the Bureau of Reclamation is directed to increase the
use of private sector in performing planning, engineering and design
work for the Bureau of Reclamation projects to 10 percent in fiscal
year 03, and in subsequent years until the level of work is at least 40
percent for planning, engineering and design work conducted by the
Bureau of Reclamation.'' How does the Bureau of Reclamation plan to
outsource?
Answer: While the Bureau of Reclamation fully supports Congress and
the Administration's effort to increase efficiency by increasing
contracting opportunities, this is an area that will require additional
review by the Bureau. We find overly prescriptive language of this sort
may have an adverse effect in actual application. The Bureau currently
contracts out a significant amount of our designing and engineering
work. Increasing beyond these existing levels may not benefit project
beneficiaries and/or the taxpayer.
UNDERFINANCING
10) Question: In the fiscal year 03 Budget, $37.9 million was
included for underfinancing. In the fiscal year 04 Request, $40 million
was included for underfinancing. This figure is based on historical
experience with contract problems, construction issues, weather
problems and environmental compliance issues with projects. Can you
explain what the consequences are to a district that might have been
expecting their full appropriation from Congress and may end up with a
9-15% reduction?
Answer: You are correct that the amount of underfinancing requested
by Reclamation is based on historical experience. The approximately $40
million reduction in the request represents about 4.9% of the total
scheduled program, which could reasonably be expected to be absorbed
during a normal year due to non-budgetary delays. However, the $80
million reduction for underfinancing in the Congress'' fiscal year 2003
Omnibus Appropriations act is in excess of a 9% reduction and will have
negative impacts on work planned. This was the highest level of
underfinancing ever imposed upon the Water and Related Resources
appropriation. Some water users and other Reclamation beneficiaries may
experience delays in work accomplishment due to lack of funding in
fiscal year 2003.
10b) Question: How do they make up for this funding in their
contracts for work?
Answer: Some water users have the ability to borrow funds needed,
or have non-federal funding sources to draw upon. Others may have to
reschedule work or otherwise control the rate of expenditures.
10c) Question: How long does it take for a district to get their
money that Congress has appropriated while the Bureau assesses the
underfinancing ramifications?
Answer: In a normal fiscal year, Reclamation has an appropriation
available from Congress at the start of October, and has completed the
process of identifying likely slippages in accomplishment by the end of
November or December. In fiscal year 2003, however, Reclamation had to
operate under continuing resolutions for nearly five months. Matters
were made even more difficult due to the fact that the underfinancing
approved by Congress was more than double the amount recommended in the
President's Request. Therefore, it will probably not be until April
that the underfinancing can be distributed to the various projects and
programs. We are hopeful that in fiscal year 2004, an appropriation
will be available in a timely fashion, and with an appropriate amount
of underfinancing that can be distributed without causing disruption.
10d) Question: Is this figure spread evenly across the board to
every line in the Bureau's Budget?
Answer: No, underfinancing will first be applied to projects and
programs that are experiencing slippages due to the factors you
mentioned, such as construction issues, weather problems and
environmental compliance issues. A good example is the large reduction
in construction cost achieved by Reclamation's Safety of Dams effort on
Horsetooth Dam in Colorado, where a refined plan to repair the dams
there has saved money. However, the large amount of underfinancing
approved by Congress in the fiscal year 2003 budget will have some
negative impacts on project accomplishment. We recommend that the 4.9%
underfinancing requested in fiscal year 2004 be approved as is, because
that is an amount that we estimate can be absorbed as part of the
normal process.
CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT RESTORATION FUND
11) Question: How does the Bureau plan to determine when any
particular CVPIA mandate or objective is achieved for purposes of that
Act, particularly new long-term contracting and changes to Restoration
Fund payment requirements?
Answer: Our contracting process is on-going. We are in the process
of negotiating new long-term contracts, which will implement the
provisions mandated by the Central Valley Project Improvement Act
(CVPIA). These contracts are for a term of 25 years, and in the case of
irrigation contracts, are renewable for an additional 25-year term,
with continued renewals after each 25-year period, and for an
additional term of 40 years to the extent they are for municipal and
irrigation water. When a renewal contract is signed by both parties
that stage of the process may be viewed as complete.
Reclamation, in coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS), annually reviews the progress made in achieving the
overarching goals set forth under the CVPIA. Based upon the progress
made in achieving both the annual and long-term fish, wildlife and
habitat goals of the program, USFWS and Reclamation determine budget
priorities for executing efforts in the upcoming year. Ultimately,
USFWS will make the determinations as to whether the fish, wildlife,
and habitat mitigation and restoration actions enumerated under the
CVPIA have been accomplished; e.g., USFWS would make the determination
that the fish doubling goals have been achieved as outlined in the
CVPIA.
Payments required under CVPIA are a continuing mandate. In P.L.
102-575, Title XXXIV, CVPIA, Section 3407 requires the Secretary to
assess and collect annual mitigation and restoration payments during
each fiscal year in an amount that can reasonably be expected to equal
the amount appropriated each year to carry out the purposes identified
in the CVPIA. In addition, Section 3407 states that upon the completion
of the fish, wildlife, and habitat mitigation and restoration actions
mandated under Section 3406, the Secretary shall reduce the sums from
$50,000,000 to $35,000,000 per year and shall reduce the annual
mitigation and restoration payment ceiling established under this
subsection to $15,000,000 on a three-year rolling average basis.
Based on the language in Section 3407(d)(2)(A), funding for
activities authorized under CVPIA will continue for the foreseeable
future.
* * * * *
Representative Grace Napolitano
WATER RECYCLING
12) Question: Isn't the low Federal cost-share for water recycling
projects (25%) a cost-effective way for the Federal government to
participate in projects that can produce hundreds of thousands of acre-
feet of water every year?
Answer: By limiting the Federal share to 25 percent of planning,
design, and construction costs and prohibiting funds for operation and
maintenance, Federal participation is a relatively small part of the
total cost of water recycling projects. While Federal participation for
individual Title XVI projects may be limited to 25%, the large number
of these projects, if fully funded, could balloon to a substantial
portion of Reclamation's budget.
13) Question: What is the status of the ``Southern California
Comprehensive Water Reclamation and Reuse'' study required under Title
XVI of P.L. 102-575, and comparable study for the San Francisco Bay
Area Water Recycling Program (BAWRP)? Why won't the Administration
release these reports, which were partially paid for by local water
agencies?
Answer: The Administration is completing its review of the BARWRP
Master Plan. The Southern California report is currently undergoing
final processing through the Department of the Interior for transmittal
to OMB. If approved, the reports will be transmitted to Congress.
14) Question: If by the Administration's own analysis (in the
Program Assessment Rating Tool, or ``PART'' process) water recycling is
``important to meeting the West's future water needs,'' why does the
fiscal year 04 budget request reflect a significant decrease in funding
for these programs? How are the cuts consistent with the conclusion
(from the PART analysis) that these projects ``are especially important
in helping to shift California from its dependence on Colorado River
water?
Answer: The PART process for Title XVI generated extensive
information on program effectiveness and accountability, including the
need for additional performance measures. The principal PART findings
for Reclamation's Title XVI Water Reuse and Recycling program (PART
rating: Moderately Effective) indicate the program is moderately well-
managed, although Reclamation's oversight of individual projects is
limited by the strong degree of local control. Improved performance
measures are currently being developed that should facilitate better
long-term planning and provide a clear linkage between Federal funding
and progress towards outcomes. fiscal year 2004 funds will be directed
to the completion of projects already under construction.
We note that the Administration's fiscal year 2004 Budget requests
$12.68 million for the Title XVI program, an increase of $1.13 million
over the fiscal year 2003 request.
15) Question: How was the new PART process used within the
Administration to set or determine budget priorities for fiscal year
04? Who selected agency programs for the analysis? Why was the Title
XVI water recycling program, hydropower, and the rural water program
selected over all the other Bureau functions?
Answer: During formulation of the fiscal year 2004 budget, the
Administration began using the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) to
identify strengths and weaknesses of programs and to inform budget,
management, and policy recommendations. Under the PART analysis
conducted in 2002, the selected agency programs were considered to be
well-defined functions that covered at least 20 percent of
Reclamation's budget. Reclamation's PARTs for 2002 were also selected
to coincide with analyses of similar programs in other agencies. They
were selected with input from Bureau staff.
16) Question: Was Bureau staff directed to review each Bureau
program and project in accordance with the PART process? Or were these
analyses performed by OMB without agency input?
Answer: OMB worked in consultation with Bureau staff in developing
the projects/programs selected for review, and in carrying out the
analysis. The PART process is collaborative, driven by OMB's
implementation of the President's Management Agenda, but done in close
consultation and coordination with the Bureau. Ultimately, it is
intended to be a useful management tool to all program managers, both
at OMB and in the agency, that will ultimately result in better
accountability to the taxpayer, better program management, and programs
that focus on achieving results.
17) Question: The PART analysis and the Bureau's budget documents
state that the water recycling programs are not part of the Bureau's
``core function.'' Has Congress defined the Bureau's ``core function''
in law? How can you justify the Administration's conclusions about the
``core function'' of the Bureau of Reclamation when water recycling is
clearly stated as an important part of the bureau's mission in at least
three separate locations on the Bureau of Reclamation's current
website?
Answer: Although the Bureau's ``core function'' has not been
defined by law, the Administration's use of the term generally refers
to those programs that focus on water delivery and/or power generation.
The purpose of the water recycling program is to identify and
investigate opportunities for reclaiming and reusing wastewater and
naturally impaired ground and surface water, and to provide financial
and technical assistance to local water agencies for planning and
development of water recycling projects. While in this regard, it is an
important part of the bureau's mission, it does not focus on
Reclamation's core function of delivering water and generating power.
Budget constraints prevented the Bureau from funding this program at a
higher level.
18) Question: Under the PART analysis for Title 16 programs,
Section IV: Program Results, Question 3, the question states: Does the
program demonstrate improved efficiencies and cost effectiveness in
achieving program goals each year? The analysis responds, No. The
program is being administered at a 97% success rate and has little
margin for demonstrating improved efficiencies and cost effectiveness.
Therefore, the PART analysis did not add points towards the total Title
16 score. Are water recycling projects being punished for meeting or
exceeding efficiency criteria under PART process? How do other programs
fare under this criterion?
Answer: No, Title XVI programs are not being punished for meeting
or exceeding these efficiency criteria. Titles XVI, as well as all of
the other programs evaluated, were rated based on all of the criteria
outlined and scored accordingly. One answer or the effect of one answer
would be factored into the overall program evaluation but would not
adversely affect the program's overall score. It is also important to
note that the 97% score refers to the program's ``execution of
necessary cooperative agreements and obligation of appropriated
funds''. The PART found that this is a poor performance measure that
does not focus on outcomes, and does not track program effectiveness or
benefits to the taxpayer and water user.
The Bureau of Reclamation is currently reviewing the PART
evaluation of the Title XVI program in the context of making the
necessary changes to improve the overall program efficiency. New,
outcome-oriented performance measures are under development.
WESTERN WATER INITIATIVE
19) Question: The $11 million request for the Western Water
Initiative includes $458,000 for ``Endangered Species Act Training.''
Isn't this something the Bureau should have been doing all along, since
the ESA was enacted in 1973?
Answer: Reclamation has, of course, been training its employees
with regard to the requirements of the ESA for many years. However,
continuing litigation, new case law regarding the interpretation of the
ESA, new listings and designations of critical habitat, and
increasingly complex section 7 consultations required for the continued
operation and maintenance of Reclamation projects (e.g., the Klamath
and Middle Rio Grande Projects and the Federal Columbia River Power
System) require a much higher degree of training for a larger number of
employees than has been the case in the past. This component of the
Initiative will enable Reclamation to expand ESA training throughout
the Bureau so that it has sufficient expertise to fulfill its ESA
obligations.
20) Question: The new Western Water Initiative contemplates the use
of Federal and state entities with science experience as well as the
National Academy of Sciences to review Reclamation documents, such as
biological assessments for endangered species, before they are
submitted to the Fish and Wildlife Service. Won't this insert a new
layer of outside review, possibly interfering with consultation with
the wildlife agencies? How will the experts be chosen? Will there be
guidelines to ensure that these ``experts'' are truly independent?
Answer: The Western Water Initiative contemplates providing funding
for peer review of science used in Endangered Species consultations and
other environmental documentation. Peer review of science in advance of
preparation of biological assessments can provide us with added
assurance that the right questions were asked, that the right
methodology was used, and that data were appropriately subjected to
quality assurance and quality control procedures. As such, peer review
does not add a new layer to nor interfere with ESA consultation, rather
we believe it helps reduce scientific disagreements that can occur
during consultation and which can bog consultation down. The Department
of the Interior is in the process of developing peer review guidelines;
however, until those are in place we would use generally accepted
practices applied across the scientific community to insure
impartiality. How experts will be chosen will depend on the type and
scope of the issue to be peer reviewed.
KLAMATH
21) Question: Why has the release of the Hardy Phase II report been
delayed?
Answer: The Hardy flow studies were activities directed by the
Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Department of Justice. They would be
the agencies to address this question.
21b) Question: What is the current status of the report?
Answer: The Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Department of Justice
can provide answers regarding the status of the report.
21c) Question: Does the DOI intend to continue Dr. Hardy's contract
and issue the study?
Answer: The Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Department of Justice
can provide answers regarding the continuation of Dr. Hardy's contract
and whether a study will be issued.
21d) Question: When will the report be released and will the BOR
re-consult based on the recommendations?
Answer: Reclamation cannot provide a decision on re-consulting
until completion of the report.
22) Question: Does the budget request for the Klamath Project
include any funding to investigate opportunities for land retirement in
the project service area?
Answer: No funding was requested by the Bureau of Reclamation for
land retirement investigations.
23) Question: Irrigation districts in the Klamath Project, the
Klamath Water Users Association, and the government agencies in the
Klamath Basin are operating under an arrangement that limits the amount
of farmland allowed to be fallowed through government programs that pay
irrigators to fallow land to help conserve water during this drought.
This limit is 20,000 acres, or about 8% of the 230,000 acre Klamath
Project. This fallowing for water conservation seems to be a good
short-term method to help all interests in the Klamath--irrigators,
fishermen, and tribes--manage scarce water supplies during the drought,
but is it appropriate to set a limit of 8%, when it is expected the
project will have only 50% of normal water supplies this year?
Answer: The water bank is not intended to make up for water
shortages resulting from the drought conditions. Rather, it is designed
to meet the specific requirements of the Biological Opinions (BO)
issued by the Fish and Wildlife Service and the NMFS for operation of
the Klamath Project by the Bureau of Reclamation. The 20,000 acre
limitation for land idling was a suggested requirement advanced by the
Klamath Water Users Association in their proposal for a 2003 water
bank. The proposal by the water users was not agreed to as the basis
for the 2003 water bank because of the short time frame for
implementation. Reclamation has not limited itself to a particular cap,
rather it has determined that an appropriate mix of land idling and
ground water makes more sense. Reclamation made an initial
determination that 12,000 acres of land idling would provide
approximately 30,000 acre-feet of water and that an additional 25,000
acre-feet of ground water should be acquired to meet the water bank
requirement of 50,000 acre-feet. Reclamation received offers for
approximately 24,000 acres of land for the land idling program. Working
in conjunction with the Oregon State University agricultural extension
office, Reclamation has used a sophisticated modeling program to
evaluate the lands offered and select properties that, if irrigated,
have the greatest water requirements. In this way, lands selected for
idling will provide the greatest benefit for meeting the BO
obligations.
23b) Question: Who proposed this cap?
Answer: The Klamath Water Users Association in their water bank
proposal suggested limiting the water bank land idling component to
20,000 acre-feet. They also suggested the use of storage and ground
water for meeting the water bank requirements.
23c) Question: Were the economic interests--the fishing interests--
of the Lower Basin considered in this arrangement?
Answer: The water bank is specifically for meeting the BO
requirements of the endangered sucker fish and the threatened Coho
salmon.
DRAINAGE SETTLEMENTS, CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT, CALIFORNIA
24) Question: How does the Bureau propose to fund the $34 million
for the Sumner Peck settlement in fiscal year 2004?
Answer: The $34 million is included in the President's fiscal year
2004 budget.
24b) Question: The Budget Documents indicate that funding to the
Mid-Pacific Region has been increased from $158,776,000 to
$178,876,000, but it is not clear where this money comes from. Given
the recent language included in the fiscal year 2003 appropriations
act, what authorities are now available to the Administration to fund
this settlement?
Answer: Reclamation has been advised that the Department of Justice
has concluded that the Judgment Fund is available for the payment of
the $5 million and $34 million installments due under the consent
judgment, only for Fiscal Year 2003.
25) Question: The Bureau made a payment last fall in partial
settlement of the Britz drainage case. Under what authority was that
payment made?
Answer: The payment was made with the authority of 43 U.S.C. 377b.
25b) Question: Where did the money for this initial Britz payment
come from?
Answer: Reclamation Trust Funds were used for the initial Britz
payment.
SAN GABRIEL BASIN PROJECT
26) Question: The Bureau's budget justification indicates the
completion date for this project is delayed. Were affected Members of
Congress consulted regarding this schedule change? Were funds for this
project used to help finance the Sumner Peck settlement?
Answer: The completion date for the San Gabriel Basin Project was
delayed to 2006 based on a projection of construction schedules for the
Rio Hondo Water Recycling Program and for the San Gabriel Basin
Demonstration Project. The projection represents Reclamation's best
estimate of when the construction work planned by the Central Basin
Municipal Water District and the San Gabriel Basin Water Quality
Authority will actually be completed, based on a comparison of project
schedules and actual accomplishment to date. Due to the nature of the
authorizing legislation, Reclamation has no control over the
construction schedules for these projects, and is only providing the
date that construction is likely be completed. No funds from this
project were used to help fund the Sumner Peck settlement.
* * * * *
Representative Tom Tancredo
FRYINGPAN-ARKANSAS PROJECT
27) Question: I want to ask you a question about legislation that
my colleague Representative Hefley introduced last year, and plans to
introduce again this year concerning reoperation and enlargement of the
Fryingpan-Arkansas project in Colorado. That legislation contained--
among other provisions--an explicit statutory authorization for the
Bureau to enter into longer term ``if and when'' storage contracts with
the City of Aurora to use excess capacity in Pueblo Reservoir. I am
hopeful that the affected parties can reach consensus and move forward
on the bill this session.
Answer: Last summer Reclamation, the District, and Aurora worked in
a collaborative effort to develop language addressing concerns with the
introduced legislation. The resulting substitute bill was forwarded to
the Committee before the end of the last legislative session. We
believe this substitute bill represents a solid compromise, addresses
the concerns of the City of Aurora and promises to be very effective in
helping a number of southern front range entities meet their water
supply demands in upcoming years. The Bureau has expressed its support
for this substitute bill to the proponents and has urged them to
resolve their remaining differences.
28) Question: Moreover, you indicated to me in a response to a
letter I sent to Secretary Norton that the Bureau was examining
existing law to ascertain more precisely the Bureau's authority to
enter longer term storage contracts. Have you and your staff made any
preliminary findings in that regard? My understanding is that the
Department is working on a solicitor's opinion on the matter, and that
the opinion is to be completed in April.
Answer: The Office of the Solicitor is performing a detailed review
of existing Reclamation laws to determine the range of flexibility that
exists that would provide authority to Reclamation to store and convey
non-project water in its facilities. This review will address
Reclamation's authority to enter into storage contracts. We remain on
schedule to complete the review.
We have provided SECWCD and Aurora with letters confirming that
Reclamation does have authority to enter into a long term contract with
Aurora.
29) Question: Finally, in that same vein, the drought has brought
more attention to the water challenges faced by many municipalities--
like the City of Aurora--struggling with the issue of storage.
Specifically, the issue of where these growing cities are going to
store the new water supplies they are fortunate enough to acquire. Are
you looking at the possibility of utilizing the excess storage capacity
in other Bureau facilities across the county?
Answer: Under Title 1 Public Law 102-250, the Reclamation States
Emergency Drought Act, the Secretary of the Interior has the authority
to enter into temporary contracts for the storage and conveyance of
non-project water. However, such contracts have a 2-year maximum term,
and the Governor of the State must request temporary drought
assistance. So far this year, Colorado has been the only state that has
requested a contract under Title 1, for the City of Aurora and City of
Colorado Springs.
Reclamation has broad authority under Title III of the Drought Act
to store and convey non-project water at specific projects: Central
Valley, Cachuma, Ventura River, Truckee Storage, and Washoe Projects.
In addition, Congress has passed some project specific legislation
allowing the storage and conveyance of non-project water at certain
other project facilities: Weber Basin, City of Loveland, and Mancos
Project.
* * * * *
Representative Steve Pearce
Operational Plans
30) Question: What flexibility, or changes, will you make to the
operational plans and flow regimes for the San Juan, Rio Grande, Gila,
and Pecos Rivers due to extended drought?
For the San Juan:
Answer: In response to the current drought conditions, and the less
than average snowpack forecast, Reclamation initiated discussions in
September 2002, with water users on the San Juan River, the Fish and
Wildlife Service and the New Mexico State Engineer's Office to develop
a cooperative solution for ensuring an equitable water supply for all
users on the San Juan in 2003. As a result, recommendations have been
developed and endorsed by all major water users on the system. The
recommendations contain a provision for all water users to share
equally in shortages, if it is determined that a shortage will occur.
The Service supports the shortage-sharing recommendations, and, along
with the San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program, was
involved in developing the language in the recommendations,
specifically as it relates to the endangered fish, the Colorado
pikeminnow and razorback sucker, share in the shortages.
Currently, the most probable inflow forecast anticipates a full
supply will be available to all users. Reclamation plans to operate
Navajo Reservoir in a very efficient manner, and diverters have
committed to operate their systems in a similar efficient manner for
2003.
For the Middle Rio Grande:
Answer: Reclamation will work within its authority to conserve
water when possible. However, the operation of Reclamation facilities
is often constrained by the legal framework of the Rio Grande Compact,
project authorizations, and court orders related to endangered species
issues and water rights. New Mexico is currently operating under
Article VII restrictions of the Rio Grande Compact, which severely
restrict the ability to capture and store native Rio Grande water in
reservoirs upstream of Elephant Butte Reservoir. Endangered species
issues and associated court orders related to the Rio Grande silvery
minnow and the southwestern willow flycatcher require that minimum
flows be maintained through various reaches of the Rio Grande. This
often requires the release of water that otherwise would have remained
stored in upstream reservoirs. To sustain the required flows, water
must often be released during periods of the year when conveyance
losses within the Rio Grande are greatest. Pending legal decisions may
further define the scope of Reclamation's discretion to control the
operation of various diversion and storage facilities within the Rio
Grande Basin.
Operational flexibilities that are being investigated by
Reclamation include: minimizing conveyance losses of waters released
from storage by timing releases to occur during the cooler months of
the year when evapotranspiration losses are at a minimum; reducing
evaporative losses charged to stored water by holding water in the
topographically higher reservoirs; promoting conservation through
technical assistance and training programs provided to agricultural,
municipal, and industrial water users; investigating the concept of
shortage sharing between the Navajo Reservoir and the San Juan-Chama
Project. The San Juan-Chama Project now diverts a portion of water into
the Rio Grand Basin that would otherwise flow into Navajo Reservoir and
the San Juan River.
For the Lower Rio Grande:
Answer: The Bureau of Reclamation has issued a series of
allocations monthly for the 2003 irrigation season. The allocations are
based on the amount of available water in Project storage. The latest
allocation is 14 percent of full allocation for the two irrigation
districts and Mexico. Several meeting have been held to advise the
water users on the allocation and to coordinate releases for efficient
use of the available water supply. The next meeting with Mexico is
scheduled for April 14, 2003.
Projections based on the runoff forecast estimate that we will be
able to allocate between 40 and 50 percent of a full allocation by
August. Water is not allocated until it actually reaches project
storage and Rio Grande Compact Credit waters are accounted for.
For the Pecos River:
Answer: Reclamation is considering modifying the method by which
the Carlsbad Irrigation District moves water from the upper reservoirs
on the Pecos River. Historically, the Carlsbad Irrigation District
would make block releases to move water from Santa Rosa and Sumner Dam
to Brantley Reservoir. Reclamation is considering reducing the duration
of the block releases while maintaining minimum delivery efficiency of
55 percent. No other changes are expected for the Carlsbad Irrigation
District or the Fort Sumner Irrigation District.
For the Gila River:
Answer: In Arizona, the Bureau of Indian Affairs administers the
Gila River in accordance with a strict body of law. Reclamation has no
operational responsibilities associated with the Gila River.
31) Question: How are you going to provide water for the Silvery
Minnow, Gila Trout and other endangered species if there isn't any
water in the rivers? Because there may be no water in New Mexico's
rivers this summer, what kind of alternative means, for example using
our hatcheries to ensure their survival, are you going to use to keep
these fish alive, and allow human uses of the limited water supply?
Answer: Reclamation is currently exploring the option of leasing
water from the Fort Sumner Irrigation District to provide refugia for
the use of the threatened Pecos bluntnose shiner. Reclamation is also
exploring the possibility of leasing water from groundwater pumpers
near Fort Sumner Irrigation District. We currently have approximately
$80,000 available for such agreements. The total need is approximately
$400,000. Reclamation is exploring other funding options.
Reclamation has begun to release supplemental water it has acquired
from willing San Juan- Chama Project contractors through lease
agreements. This water is anticipated to last at least several weeks.
Discussions are ongoing to determine if there are stakeholders
interested in providing water willingly, and in accordance with state
law, to yield additional supplemental water. Given current forecasts,
Reclamation expects that inflow during spring runoff should meet the
needs of both Indian and non-Indian irrigation along with March 17,
2003 Biological Opinion flow requirements. Additional supplemental
water is necessary to remain in compliance with the Endangered Species
Act for the remainder of the year. Reclamation will store water at El
Vado Reservoir to meet prior and paramount needs of Pueblos.
During the course of discussions amongst Federal and non-Federal
parties over the Service's final BO released March 17, 2003, strategies
were developed to share in the responsibilities of ESA requirements.
Absent a ruling from the 10th Circuit Court, Reclamation plans on using
available supplies of supplemental water and exercising its discretion,
as determined under a Federal District Court order, in curtailing
Middle Rio Grande Project diversions to the level needed to remain in
compliance with the BO requirements.
Salvage efforts have transferred over 3500 silvery minnow to
upstream areas and several hundred thousand eggs to rearing facilities.
The Service released 100,000 silvery minnows December 1, 2002, for
augmentation near Albuquerque, New Mexico, which is located higher in
the basin. The Service expects to release another 30,000 fish near
Albuquerque in April. The Collaborative Program continues to develop a
Habitat Restoration Plan that takes into account the greater
availability of water higher in the basin while being sensitive to the
significance of the existing population of silvery minnow in the lower
reaches. The Service's final 2003 BO places an emphasis on habitat
restoration in the upstream reaches. Propagation and augmentation
efforts continue with a goal of expanding silvery minnow populations
throughout the Rio Grande corridor to reduce dependence on downstream
populations of minnows.
* * * * *
Representative Devin Nunes
CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT RESTORATION FUND
32) Question: How much money is currently deposited in the CVPIA
Restoration Fund (fiscal year 03)?
Answer: As of January 31, 2003, $13,365,149 has been deposited into
the Restoration Fund, during Fiscal Year 2003.
33) Question: How much money, in total, has been deposited into the
CVPIA Restoration Fund since the act was signed into law (from
enactment to fiscal year 03)?
Answer: Since P.L. 102-575, Title XXXIV, the Central Valley Project
Improvement Act, (CVPIA) was enacted, $354,998,786 has been deposited
into the CVPIA Restoration Fund.
34) Question: Is there a detailed list of projects that have
benefitted from the CVPIA Restoration Fund?
Answer: Yes, there is a detailed list of projects and programs that
have benefitted from the CVPIA Restoration Fund.
34b) Question: Can you provide that list to myself and the
Committee?
Answer: The list is enclosed.
CALIFORNIA BAY-DELTA
Considering that the Bureau of Reclamation has budgeted $1 million
for the feasibility study on the upper San Joaquin River Storage
Project in fiscal year 04--and considering that the CALFED Surface
Storage Program Estimated Planning Costs estimates that it will cost $4
million in fiscal year 04 for the Upper San Joaquin River Storage
Project.
35) Question: How is the Bureau of Reclamation going to bridge the
gap to complete the study by June of 2006?
Answer: Due to delays in receiving funds in fiscal year 2003 the
completion of the feasibility study has been extended (from June 2006)
to December 2006. The fiscal year 2004 budget amount of $1 million will
be used to continue feasibility study planning activities and
environmental analysis.
* * * * *
Representative Dennis Cardoza
CALIFORNIA BAY-DELTA
As you know, the CALFED Record of Decision states that in the first
four years of Stage 1 of the CALFED Program, anticipated allocation
will be 65-70% of existing contract totals in normal years. However,
this year's initial forecast, released in January, predicted that the
allocation would be 55%. Then, in February when a dryer forecast was
predicted, yet the Bureau released a second allocation forecast, which
annually increased the allocation to 60%.
36) Question: How do you explain that dry conditions can result in
increased supplies for south-of-Delta contractors?
Answer: The water supply for the Central Valley Project (CVP) Water
Service Contractors South-of-Delta is often constrained by export
capability rather than upstream storage and hydrology. Those
constraints include physical capacity limitations, state permit
requirements, and actions using water provided under P.L. 102-575,
Title XXXIV, the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, Section
3406(b)(2)--the 800,000 acre-feet--to provide Endangered Species Act
protection and other fishery benefits. Another factor in making
allocations is the assumed delivery patterns for the south-of-Delta
contractors between the time that CVP storage in San Luis Reservoir is
full and the time at which it reaches a low point near the end-of-
August. Changes to both the export constraints and the delivery pattern
in the February forecast of operations resulted in the increase to the
allocation. More (b)(2) water was assumed to be used for Delta outflow
in February and less for export reductions later in the spring. After
discussions with representatives of the agricultural contractors, we
reduced the deliveries expected to occur during the San Luis Reservoir
drawdown period that afforded much of the increase to allocations.
36b) Question: What actions is the Bureau taking to reach the
allocation level set forth in the ROD?
Answer: Reclamation is looking at actions in cooperation with state
and Federal agencies within the CALFED Bay-Delta Program to improve the
allocations. Those actions may include: use of Environmental Water
Account assets and use of the State's Banks Pumping Plant capacity to
export CVP water supplies. However, due to continued dry conditions in
February, the current March 1st forecast allocations remain at 60
percent to south-of-Delta agricultural water service contractors.
Projected upstream CVP reservoir storages at the end of the water year
may be very near minimum targets. Therefore, achieving the allocation
level in the CALFED Record of Decision will require an improvement in
hydrologic conditions as well as actions to increase exports.
CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT RESTORATION FUND
As you know, the Secretary of the Interior is required to supply
water to specified refuges. The Act also states that the Secretary will
diversify sources of water supply to the refuges to minimize possible
adverse effects upon Central Valley Project contractors. Further, the
CALFED ROD requires that a plan be developed to identify alternative
refuge supplies and conveyance. The reality, however, is that the water
for the refuges has been made available primarily by reallocating it
from south-of-Delta CVP agriculture service contractors and efforts to
develop the required plan do not appear to be in place.
37) Question: Can you describe the Bureau's intentions for
developing such a plan as prescribed in the ACT?
Answer: The Bureau of Reclamation is preparing an update to the
1995 ``Least-Cost CVP Yield Increase Plan.'' This update, the ``Water
Supply Improvement Plan,'' identifies projects intended to reduce the
impacts on south-of-Delta CVP agricultural contractors from provisions
of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act, including Level 2 refuge
supplies, Trinity River restoration flow requirements, and the 800,000
acre feet of yield dedicated to fish and wildlife purposes under
Section 3406(b)(2).
______
Mr. Calvert. I appreciate your attendance here today and answering
our questions, as always, and thank you for coming. We are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:35 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
-