[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

H.R. 6060, ENDANGERED FISH
RECOVERY PROGRAMS
EXTENSION ACT OF 2012

=======================================================================

LEGISLATIVE HEARING

before the

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER

of the

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

__________

Tuesday, July 10, 2012

__________

Serial No. 112-119

__________

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
75-009 WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman
EDWARD J. MARKEY, MA, Ranking Democratic Member

Don Young, AK Dale E. Kildee, MI
John J. Duncan, Jr., TN Peter A. DeFazio, OR
Louie Gohmert, TX Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, AS
Rob Bishop, UT Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ
Doug Lamborn, CO Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA Rush D. Holt, NJ
Paul C. Broun, GA Raul M. Grijalva, AZ
John Fleming, LA Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Mike Coffman, CO Jim Costa, CA
Tom McClintock, CA Dan Boren, OK
Glenn Thompson, PA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Jeff Denham, CA CNMI
Dan Benishek, MI Martin Heinrich, NM
David Rivera, FL Ben Ray Lujan, NM
Jeff Duncan, SC Betty Sutton, OH
Scott R. Tipton, CO Niki Tsongas, MA
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Raul R. Labrador, ID John Garamendi, CA
Kristi L. Noem, SD Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
Steve Southerland II, FL Paul Tonko, NY
Bill Flores, TX Vacancy
Andy Harris, MD
Jeffrey M. Landry, LA
Jon Runyan, NJ
Bill Johnson, OH
Mark Amodei, NV

Todd Young, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
Jeffrey Duncan, Democratic Staff Director
David Watkins, Democratic Chief Counsel
------

SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND POWER

TOM McCLINTOCK, CA, Chairman
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, CA, Ranking Democratic Member

Louie Gohmert, TX Jim Costa, CA
Jeff Denham, CA Ben Ray Lujan, NM
Scott R. Tipton, CO John Garamendi, CA
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Vacancy
Raul R. Labrador, ID Edward J. Markey, MA, ex officio
Kristi L. Noem, SD
Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio

------
CONTENTS

----------
Page

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

Statement of Members:
Bishop, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Utah.................................................... 5
Gardner, Hon. Cory, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Colorado.......................................... 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 7
McClintock, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Napolitano, Hon. Grace F., a Representative in Congress from
the State of California.................................... 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Tipton, Hon. Scott R., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Colorado.......................................... 7
Prepared statement of.................................... 8

Statement of Witnesses:
Garlick, Kevin, Energy Director, Provo City Power, Provo,
Utah....................................................... 13
Prepared statement of.................................... 14
Kirkpatrick, L. Randy, Executive Director, San Juan Water
Commission, Farmington, New Mexico......................... 20
Prepared statement of.................................... 21
Payne, Grayford F., Deputy Commissioner for Policy,
Administration and Budget, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C................ 17
Prepared statement of.................................... 18
Raley, Bennett W., Counsel, Northern Colorado Water
Conservancy District, Berthoud, Colorado................... 10
Prepared statement of.................................... 11
Shields, John W., Interstate Streams Engineer, Wyoming State
Engineer's Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming....................... 25
Prepared statement of.................................... 26

Additional materials supplied:
Kuhn, R. Eric, General Manager, Colorado River District.
Letter submitted for the record by The Honorable Scott
Tipton..................................................... 9
List of documents retained in the Committee's official files. 36

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 6060, TO AMEND PUBLIC LAW 106-392 TO
MAINTAIN ANNUAL BASE FUNDING FOR THE UPPER COLORADO AND SAN JUAN FISH
RECOVERY PROGRAMS THROUGH FISCAL YEAR 2019. ``ENDANGERED FISH RECOVERY
PROGRAMS EXTENSION ACT OF 2012.''

----------

Tuesday, July 10, 2012

U.S. House of Representatives

Subcommittee on Water and Power

Committee on Natural Resources

Washington, D.C.

----------

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:59 p.m., in
Room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Tom McClintock
[chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives McClintock, Tipton, Noem;
Napolitano, and Lujan.
Mr. McClintock. The Committee will come to order. The bad
news is that we are an hour late. And for that I sincerely
apologize to all concerned. The good news is we are now not
going to be interrupted by votes. So we can go through from
beginning to end, I think, without interruption.
We are meeting today to hear testimony on H.R. 6060, the
Endangered Fish Recovery Programs Extension Act of 2012. Before
we proceed further, I would ask unanimous consent that Mr.
Bishop of Utah and Mr. Gardner be allowed to sit with the
Subcommittee and participate in the hearing.
[No response.]
Mr. McClintock. Hearing no objection, so ordered. We will
begin with five-minute opening statements by myself and the
Ranking Subcommittee Member. And with that, we will start the
timer.

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

Mr. McClintock. As I said, we have before us H.R. 6060 by
Congressman Bishop. He is joined by a bipartisan group of
cosponsors in the affected States. The bill extends a
cooperative program affecting the Upper Colorado and San Juan
River Basins making it possible for local water and power
authorities to deal with the Endangered Species Act, while at
the same time continuing operations that serve more than 2,300
water and power projects in a 5-State region.
The Colorado River Storage Project is absolutely vital for
the economies of Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, and New
Mexico. And yet the project operates under a sort of Damocles,
the threat of litigation or regulatory excess under the
Endangered Species Act that could catastrophically impact these
projects.
The 106th Congress enacted legislation to allow for a
cooperative agreement between the non-Federal water and power
agencies, the affected States, and the Federal Government to
manage these conflicts and bring some common-sense reforms to
the administration of the Endangered Species Act as it applies
to the CRSP and other projects. Chief among these reforms is to
allow hatchery fish to be counted in the fish restoration
program, a sensible and cost-effective option that is denied in
many other areas.
For example, in the Klamath Region, in my district,
continued efforts are being made to tear down four perfectly
good hydroelectric dams capable of generating 155 megawatts of
hydroelectricity in the name of boosting salmon populations.
But the Iron Gate Fish Hatchery on the Klamath is producing
burgeoning salmon populations--5 million salmon each year,
17,000 of which return as fully grown adults to spawn. But they
are not allowed to be counted for ESA compliance. And if the
dams are removed, the Iron Gate Fish Hatchery can no longer
operate, and then you have a catastrophic plunge in the salmon
populations on the Klamath.
It is this sort of environmental radicalism that the
cooperative agreement here was able to suppress, and has been
renewed and augmented in the 109th and 111th Congresses.
Specifically, H.R. 6060 would continue authorization of this
agreement for the maximum 7 years permitted under House
protocols, the central feature of which is to continue the
cost-sharing arrangements between Federal and non-Federal
agencies, with the non-Federal portion paid by rate-payers who
benefit from these facilities.
The action of the 106th Congress, however, double-counted
local revenues as both funding for fish recovery and, at the
same time, for CRSP loan repayments. Continuing this
arrangement amounts to a Federal match of the Federal match,
adding about $3.5 million a year of red ink to the deficit. The
Congressional Budget Office has flagged this provision. And,
under the pay-go rules of the House, it will have to be offset
by other cost savings when it is brought to the Floor.
Assuming this infirmity can be corrected, the measure adds
important reforms that were notably absent with the House last
visited this issue. It does not ask for Federal appropriations
to pay for the program. It keeps bureaucrats from spending
taxpayer money to lobby on this program. It reduces unnecessary
and duplicative overhead, so that more money can be devoted to
fish recovery. And, most importantly, it provides a sunset and
long-overdue transparency and accountability. In short, this
bill requires results, and I commend Congressman Bishop for his
leadership. This and future congresses still have a lot of work
to do on reforming the Endangered Species Act. But, in the
meantime, this legislation offers some common-sense solutions.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time and recognize
the Ranking Member, Mrs. Napolitano, for five minutes.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McClintock follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Tom McClintock, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Water and Power

We have before us today H.R. 6060 by Congressman Bishop, joined by
a bi-partisan group of co-sponsors in the affected states. The bill
extends a cooperative program affecting the Upper Colorado and San Juan
River Basins, making it possible for local water and power authorities
to deal with the Endangered Species Act while at the same time
continuing operations that serve more than 2,300 water and power
projects in a five state region.
The Colorado River Storage Project is absolutely vital for the
economies of Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico, and yet
the project operates under a sword of Damocles: the threat of
litigation or regulatory excess under the Endangered Species Act that
could catastrophically impact these projects.
The 106th Congress enacted legislation to allow for a cooperative
agreement between the non-federal water and power agencies, the
affected States and the federal government to manage these conflicts,
and bring some common sense reforms to the administration of the
Endangered Species Act as it applies to the CRSP and other projects.
Chief among these reforms is to allow hatchery fish to be counted
in the fish restoration program, a sensible and cost-effective option
that is denied in other areas. In the Klamath Region in my district,
for example, continued efforts are being made to tear down four
perfectly good hydro-electric dams capable of generating 155 megawatts
of hydro-electricity in the name of boosting salmon populations.
The Iron Gate fish hatchery on the Klamath produces 5 million
salmon smolts each year, 17,000 of which return as fully grown adults
to spawn--but they are not allowed to be counted for ESA compliance.
And if the dams are removed, the Iron Gate Fish hatchery can no longer
operate.
It is this sort of environmental radicalism that the cooperative
agreement was able to suppress, and it has been renewed and augmented
in the 109th and 111th Congresses.
Specifically, H.R. 6060 would continue authorization of this
agreement for the maximum seven years permitted under House Republican
protocols (note: this is a Republican leadership rule, not a House
rule), the central feature of which is to continue the cost-sharing
arrangements between federal and non-federal agencies, with the non-
federal portion paid by ratepayers who benefit from these facilities.
The action of the 106th Congress, however, double-counted local
revenues as both funding for fish recovery and at the same time for
CRSP loan repayments. Continuing this arrangement amounts to a federal
match of the federal match, adding $3 1/2 million a year of red ink to
the deficit. The Congressional Budget Office has flagged this
provision. Under the pay-go rules of the House, it will have to be
offset by other cost-savings if and when it is brought to the floor.
Assuming this infirmity can be corrected, the measure adds
important reforms that were notably absent when the House last visited
this issue:
It does not ask for federal appropriations to pay for
this program
It keeps bureaucrats from spending taxpayer money to
lobby on this program
It reduces unnecessary and duplicative overhead so
that more money can be devoted to fish recovery
Most importantly, it provides a sunset and long
overdue transparency
In short, this bill requires results and I commend Congressman
Bishop for his leadership.
This and future Congresses still have a lot of work to do on
reforming the Endangered Species Act, but in the meantime this
legislation offers some common-sense solutions.
______

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

Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, by the way,
happy birthday.
As the Chairman stated, H.R. 6060 authorizes the use of
power revenues as base funding for the two recovery programs in
the Upper Colorado and the San Juan Rivers. We support the
intent of this legislation to recover listed species, while
allowing for water and power operations, which is a win-win for
all. We support the Administration's position and commitment to
the continuation of these programs, and welcome the Majority's
recognition that compliance with the Endangered Species Act
doesn't mean that water and power projects in the West must go
dry or go dark.
As we hear from the witnesses today--and thank you for
being here, all of you--the Upper Colorado River Endangered
Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery
Implementation Program have the dual goals of recovering
populations of endangered fish while providing ESA compliance
for 2,320 water projects. These projects deliver more than 3.7
million acre-feet per year in the States, as recognized:
Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, and New Mexico. It is also important
to note that no lawsuits have been filed on the ESA compliance
for any of these water projects.
The need for the programs is clear. And a hearing on this
legislation is very welcomed. We do, however, have some
concerns regarding the legislation itself. Per Republican
Rules, H.R. 6060 only extends the authorization for the
programs until 2019, conflicting with the program's recovery
goal date of 2023. This date has been recognized in prior
versions of this bill during three consecutive sessions of
Congress, and reflected in the Tribal, State, and local
agreements.
We are also concerned about the limited time left in this
Congress to enact this legislation into law. We recognize
reclamation may already have the authorization to utilize power
revenues specifically for these programs. While we would
welcome this clarification through H.R. 6060, we also believe
that the programs should not come to a halt because of the
question of reclamation's existing authorities and this
Congress's inability to act.
We are also disappointed that H.R. 2064, the Hydro 2.0 Act,
sponsored by Ranking Member Markey and myself was not scheduled
for a hearing. We hope that we will be soon. And we look
forward to working with my colleagues on a schedule for the
future.
Again, welcome to the witnesses, and yield back the balance
of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Napolitano follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Grace F. Napolitano, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Water and Power

Thank you Mr. Chairman.
As the Chairman stated H.R. 6060, authorizes the use of power
revenues as base funding for two recovery programs in the Upper
Colorado and San Juan Rivers. We support the intent of H.R. 6060: to
recover listed species while allowing for water and power operations.
We support the Administration's position and commitment to these
programs. We also welcome the Majority's better-late-than-never
recognition that compliance with the endangered species act does not
mean that water and power projects in the west must go dry or go dark.
As we will hear from the witnesses today, the Upper Colorado River
Endangered Fish Recovery Program and San Juan River Basin Recovery
Implementation Program have the dual goals of recovering populations of
endangered fish while providing ESA compliance for 2,320 water
projects. These projects deliver more than 3.7 million acre-feet per
year in the states of Wyoming, Utah, Colorado and New Mexico.
It is also important to note that no lawsuits have been filed on
ESA compliance for any of these water projects.
The need for these programs is clear and a hearing on this
legislation is welcomed. We do however have some concerns regarding the
legislation. Per Republican rules, H.R. 6060 only extends the
authorization for the programs until 2019, conflicting with the
Program's recovery goals date of 2023. This date has been recognized in
prior versions of this bill during three consecutive sessions of
Congress and reflected in tribal, state and local agreements.
We are also concerned about the limited time left this Congress to
enact this legislation into law. We recognize that Reclamation may
already have the authorization to utilize power revenues specifically
for these programs. While we would welcome this clarification through
H.R. 6060, we also believe that the program should not come to a halt
because of a question of Reclamation's existing authorities and this
Congress's inability to act.
We were also disappointed that H.R. 6024, the Hydro 2.0 Act
sponsored by Ranking Member Markey and myself, was not scheduled for
this hearing. We look forward to working with my colleagues on schedule
for the future. Welcome to our witnesses today. Yield back the balance
of my time.
______

Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
The Chair next recognizes the sponsor of the measure, Mr.
Bishop of Utah.

STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROB BISHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF UTAH

Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member. Let me
just do a couple of things in housekeeping at the very
beginning of this. I want to thank all of those who are
stakeholders who have had a portion and a say in the helping
and crafting this particular bill. This is a bipartisan piece
of legislation from those of us who are in the West.
I ask that letters of support be placed into the record. I
have 19 letters of those. If I could ask----
Mr. McClintock. Without objection.
[NOTE: The letters submitted by Mr. Bishop have been
retained in the Committee's official files. A list of documents
submitted can be found on page 36.]
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Specifically from the Central Utah
Water Conservancy District, the Southern Ute Indian Tribe, the
Utah Waters Association, and also the Bureau of Reclamation has
supported this bill.
I would also like to welcome, specifically from Provo City
Power, Kevin Garlick, who is the energy director there, who
will be testifying on this particular bill. This is one where,
once again, you know, we have an endangered fish recovery
program extension. There are, what, four different types of
endangered fish--kind of fish that actually need to be
protected. If we don't do this, and we lose the control of this
project, then how we manage the water system for the entire
Intermountain West is going to be in jeopardy. So it is one of
those things were we really do have to go forward.
I think, though, as this has been drafted, it has a couple
of areas in which we have tried to make provisions to make sure
that the bulk of the money is actually going to the issue
itself and to the project. We have tried to cut down
administrative overhead and tried to smooth out some of those
areas to at least use the money wisely in this particular area.
So I am proud of that.
So, I want to thank those who are here. I also wish to
apologize that I--by all rights I should stay for the entire
meeting. I have Rules Committee that is going right now. So I
will beg for your--you are not going to give me an apology, are
you? I am just going to have to bolt out without having--
without asking permission----
Mr. McClintock. The Subcommittee will miss you intensely.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Bishop. Oh, thank you. I don't believe any of us. But I
appreciate that. It is very kind of you to say that.
But I thank you for holding the hearing on this. I thank
the witnesses who are going to be here. I think this is
something that we all need for the Intermountain West,
specifically in this particular area. And I think--I hope we
have made some improvements on this bill that actually move us
forward on the entire issue.
And with that, I will yield back the remainder of my time.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
Mr. Gardner?

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

Mr. Gardner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, as
well, to Ranking Member Napolitano and other colleagues on this
Committee for allowing me the opportunity to participate in
this hearing. And I would also like to thank our colleague from
Utah, Mr. Bishop, for introducing the Endangered Fish Recovery
Programs Extension Act of 2012.
The legislation before the Committee today is needed to
protect western water projects, hydropower development, and to
ensure these projects are compliant with the Endangered Species
Act. The bill assists over 2,300 water projects that withdraw
more than 3 million acre-feet of water, while at the same time
protecting 4 endangered species of fish. It also makes
important reforms by cutting overhead and prohibiting travel by
Federal employees. This bill finds common ground and ensures
Endangered Species Act protections continue, while giving the
Bureau of Reclamation the authorization to continue with this
effective and necessary program.
The bill has two main components. First, the
reauthorization of this program keeps water projects in the
Western Region online, and I think that is important. This bill
will help keep Western projects online.
And second, the goal is, by 2019, to delist the Humpback
Chub, Razorback Sucker, Bonytail, and the Colorado Pikeminnow
from ESA restrictions. Another very worthy goal, to delist
these species because of their recovery.
When former Congressman Wayne Aspinall brokered legislation
to create the Colorado River Storage Project in the 1950s and
1960s, he knew the importance of developing water
infrastructure for the West. Through the development of dams,
hydroelectric power plants and water storage projects, we can
preserve the livelihood of rural communities, and help to fight
devastating drought, produce power, and help local businesses.
I had the opportunity earlier this year--thank you very
much to the Chairman again--to participate with this Committee
in a hearing about water storage projects. In the hearing I
expressed the importance of developing new water projects for
surface water storage, because conservation alone cannot meet
the needs that Colorado and the West will face. This is
particularly true this year in the devastating drought
conditions that we face.
Congressman Aspinall knew the difficult challenges on how
to balance conservation needs with traditional demands for
resource development. The legislation before the Committee
strikes the appropriate balance. This program keeps water
projects operating at high capacity while continuing to protect
endangered species. It is an important step, and I am proud to
cosponsor H.R. 6060. And again, thank you to the Chairman and
thank you to the sponsor.
I yield back my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gardner follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Cory Gardner, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Colorado

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank Chairman McClintock,
Ranking Member Napolitano, and my other colleagues on this committee
for allowing me the opportunity to participate in this hearing. I would
also like to thank Mr. Bishop for introducing the Endangered Fish
Recovery Programs Extension Act of 2012.
The legislation before the committee today is needed to protect
western water projects, hydropower development, and to ensure these
projects are compliant with the Endangered Species Act. The bill
assists over 2,300 water projects that withdraw more than 3 million
acre-feet of water, while at the same time protecting four endangered
species of fish. It also makes important reforms by cutting program
overhead and prohibiting travel by federal employees. This bill finds
common ground and ensures ESA protections continue, while giving the
Bureau of Reclamation the authorization to continue with this effective
and necessary program. The bill has two main components: first, the
reauthorization of this program keeps water projects in the western
region online. Secondly, the goal is by 2019, to delist the humpback
chub, razor back sucker, bonytail, and the Colorado pikeminnow from ESA
restrictions.
When former Congressman Wayne Aspinall brokered legislation to
create the Colorado River Storage Project in the 1950s and 1960s, he
knew the importance of developing water infrastructure for the west.
Through the development of dams, hydroelectric power plants and water
storage projects we can preserve the livelihood of rural communities
and help to fight drought, produce power, and help local businesses. I
had the opportunity earlier this year to participate with this
committee in a hearing about water storage projects. In the hearing I
expressed the importance of developing new water projects for surface
storage, because conservation alone cannot meet the water needs that
Colorado and the west will face. Congressman Aspinall knew the
difficult challenges on how to balance rising conversation needs with
traditional demands for resource development. The legislation before
the committee strikes an appropriate balance. This program keeps water
projects operating at high capacity while continuing to protect
endangered species. It is an important step, and I am proud to
cosponsor H.R. 6060. I thank the committee again for allowing me the
opportunity to participate, and I thank the witnesses for being here. I
yield back the balance of my time.
______

Mr. McClintock. Thank you, Mr. Gardner.
Mr. Tipton?

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

Mr. Tipton. Thank you, Chairman McClintock, Ranking Member
Napolitano, for convening today's hearing. And I would also
like to thank Chairman Bishop for his leadership in bringing
forward this critical legislation.
The Upper Colorado and San Juan River Basins provide key
water and power resources to the third congressional district
of Colorado, and other districts in Colorado, Wyoming, Utah,
Arizona, and New Mexico. These rivers are also home to native
fish species at risk of jeopardy findings under the Endangered
Species Act. Such a finding would impose on Western
constituents dramatic losses in water availability and
hydropower production, resulting in lost jobs and increased
power rates at a time when we can least afford it.
The Endangered Fish Recovery Act--Species Fish Recovery Act
of 2012, extending the authorization for the Upper Colorado and
San Juan fish recovery programs will continue much-needed
efforts to recover four endangered fish species, and provide
Endangered Species Act compliance for the Federal, Tribal, and
non-Federal water projects. These programs are supported by a
broad swath of stakeholders from local towns and counties to
environmental groups to private industry, and are excellent
examples of local solutions in lieu of onerous Federal
management and over-regulation.
I am also pleased to see the cost reforms in this
legislation included at the request of Chairman McClintock. By
cutting overhead costs and eliminating inefficient agency
spending, we can help ensure the success of the programs, while
minimizing the taxpayer investment necessary to be able to
achieve that end. I am optimistic that these programs can reach
their goals in the coming years, recover the species at issue,
and safeguard the economic well-being of our communities and
the jobs connected to these efforts.
Thank you. And with that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Tipton follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Scott R. Tipton, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Colorado

Thank you Chairman McClintock for convening today's hearing. I
would also like to thank Chairman Bishop for his leadership in bringing
forward this critical legislation.
The Upper Colorado and San Juan River Basins provide key water and
power resources to the 3rd Congressional District of Colorado and other
districts in Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico. These
rivers are also home to native fish species at risk of a ``jeopardy''
finding under the Endangered Species Act. Such a finding would impose
on western constituents dramatic losses in water availability and
hydropower production, resulting in lost jobs and increased power rates
at a time when we can least afford it.
The Endangered Fish Recovery Act of 2012 extending the
authorization for the Upper Colorado and San Juan fish recovery
programs will continue much needed efforts to recover four endangered
fish species and provide Endangered Species Act compliance for federal,
tribal, and non-federal water projects. These programs are supported by
a broad swath of stakeholders, from local towns and counties to
environmental groups, to private industry, and are excellent examples
of local solutions in lieu of onerous federal management and over-
regulation.
I am also pleased to see the cost reforms in this legislation
included at the request of Chairman McClintock. By cutting overhead
costs and eliminating inefficient agency spending we can help ensure
the success of the programs while minimizing the taxpayer investment
necessary to achieve that end.
I'm optimistic that these programs can reach their goals in the
coming years, recover the species at issue, and safeguard the economic
well being of our communities and jobs connected to these efforts.
______

[A letter submitted for the record by Mr. Tipton from the
Colorado River District follows:]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5009.005

Mr. McClintock. Thank you very much. Now we will hear from
our panel of witnesses. We have a five-minute time limit, as
was outlined in the invitation letter. Monitor that. We have an
electronic timing system. When you are down to one minute you
will have a yellow light. When the light turns red you will
notice that the Members will start fidgeting uncontrollably,
and ultimately start throwing things. So I would suggest you
stop when the red light goes on. Of course, anything that you
have submitted in writing will be reprinted in full in the
Committee's proceedings.
And with that, I am pleased to introduce our first witness,
Mr. Bennett Raley, Counsel from Denver, Colorado, representing
the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, for five
minutes.

STATEMENT OF BENNETT W. RALEY, COUNSEL, NORTHERN COLORADO WATER
CONSERVANCY DISTRICT, BERTHOUD, COLORADO

Mr. Raley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Napolitano, members of the Committee. It is good to be before
this Subcommittee again. This Subcommittee has always treated
me better than I deserved, and I thank you.
I am here to testify in strong support of H.R. 6060. I am
here on behalf of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy
District, which is one of the premier reclamation projects in
the West. It is the project that diverts water from the
headwaters of the Colorado over to the Eastern Plains. It
serves roughly 640,000 acres of some of the most productive
agricultural land in the Nation, and serves around three-
quarter-million people, with a water supply year-round. It is
incredibly important.
The Colorado-Big Thompson Project, which is not a CRSP
project, nonetheless relies on the program that will be
reauthorized by H.R. 6060.
I am also authorized to speak on behalf of the Front Range
Water Council. The Front Range Water Council are the water
utilities that stretch from Pueblo in the south to Colorado
Springs, Denver, Aurora, Northern, clear up to Fort Collins in
the North, the entire front rage of Colorado. That constitutes
80 percent of the population in Colorado. It is roughly 80
percent of the GDP of the State of Colorado. And all of these
entities rely in substantial part on a water supply that is
covered by the program. They have evidenced their strongest
support for it.
I would like to provide a little history as to the intense
need for this program. Back in the 1990s, when I was
representing Northern Colorado, we almost went into a
catastrophe scenario. We were threatened with target flows at
the Utah-Colorado State Line, that, to meet those target flows
for Endangered Species Act purposes, would have frozen all
development in the Upper Colorado River in Colorado, and would
have forced water users on the East and West Slope to put back
in the stream hundreds of thousands of acre-feet of water.
Now, some of the members, hundreds of thousands--given
you--are in systems that are much larger than that--is a small
amount. For Colorado, that is a huge amount. It would have been
a catastrophe. We were close to entering into the litigation
zone. We were able to negotiate the terms of the program. As a
result, we have not had the litigation, as a number of you have
mentioned. So, we are in strong support of this program.
I would like to make two additional points. When we
negotiated and came up with a program in 1999, we very much
intended that this program be reauthorized by Congress
periodically. We thought that was of great value to build the
trust that is necessary to have a functioning program. We
wanted Congress, the Administration, the States, power, the
environmental community, and water users all to join in a
transparent process, and one where it was not a secret, and one
that had support of all the major players.
And so, back in 1999, when we pulled back from the cliff,
we then hoped that Congress would periodically reauthorize this
bill.
I will close by saying that I have had the experience of
dealing with the Endangered Species Act in five States. It
doesn't make me an expert. All I can do is claim survivor
status. In fact, I confess that when I went home to Colorado I
was happy that the Central Valley did not follow me home. I
admit that somewhat of cowardice.
But that experience in five States, what it has taught me
is that if there is a program like this that is mutually
acceptable, it is superior in all respects to the chaos of
litigation. Because the chaos of litigation and a failure of
this program, what it means is it is good for lawyers, and
nothing else.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Raley follows:]

Statement of Bennett W. Raley, Trout, Raley, Montano, Witwer & Freeman,
P.C., Counsel, Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District

Chairman McClintock, Ranking Member Napolitano, Members of the
Subcommittee, it is an honor to be before you today to discuss H.R.
6060. I serve as Counsel to the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy
District. Northern Water is the repayment entity for the Colorado-Big
Thompson Project, which is one of the most successful federal
reclamation projects in the West. Northern Water and its Municipal
Subdistrict also own, operate and are in the process of developing
other major water supply projects in Colorado in the Colorado River and
South Platte River Basins. Approximately 850,000 people live within the
boundaries of Northern Water and its Municipal Subdistrict. Northern
Water and its Municipal Subdistrict provide year-round water supplies
to over 40 municipalities and domestic water supply districts. Northern
Water also delivers water to more than 120 ditch, reservoir, and
irrigation companies that serve thousands of farms and more than
640,000 acres of some of the most productive farmland in the western
United States. Northern Water participates in and supports the Upper
Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program.
My perspective on H.R. 6060 is also shaped by my experience over
the years, with varying levels of intensity, with aquatic and
terrestrial Endangered Species Act issues in Colorado, the Klamath
River Basin, the Central Valley of California and the Middle Rio Grande
in New Mexico, and with ESA-related litigation in federal courts in New
Mexico and Arizona. I have also had some experience with the Multi-
Species Conservation Plan in the Lower Colorado River, the Adaptive
Management Program in the Grand Canyon of the Colorado, the Platte
River Recovery Implementation Program, the Middle Rio Grande Endangered
Species Collaborative Program, and finally, the Upper Colorado River
and San Juan River Endangered Fish Recovery Programs that are the
subject of today's hearing.
I am also authorized to state that the Front Range Water Council,
which includes Aurora Water, Denver Water, Colorado Springs Utilities,
Northern Water, Pueblo Board of Water Works, Southeastern Colorado
Water Conservancy District and the Twin Lakes Reservoir and Canal
Company, is in full support of H.R. 6060. The Front Range Water Council
entities collectively provide a water supply derived from Colorado
River projects covered by the Upper Colorado River Program to
approximately 4 million people and over 900,000 acres of irrigated
lands.
I know that the Members of this Subcommittee and your staff are
very knowledgeable about the Upper Colorado and San Juan Endangered
Fish Recovery Programs, and that the testimony of other witnesses and
the legislative history of this and prior related legislation contain a
complete Program description, so I will focus my testimony on two
points in order to avoid needless repetition.
First, I cannot overstate the importance of the Upper Colorado
River Endangered Fish Recovery Program to Northern Water and the other
Front Range Water Council entities. These entities are in the process
of spending millions of dollars in support of the Program in addition
to the contributions by the States and power customers. These entities
have the obligation and responsibility to provide a safe and reliable
water supply for approximately 80% of Colorado's economy. The Front
Range Water Council entities support the Program because it is the best
way to avoid uncertainty and the economic and social costs experienced
by other areas of the West that have been plunged into chaos by
conflicts between water supply needs and endangered species. The risks
of not having a successful Program are far too great. And as the
Members of this Subcommittee well know, those risks include years of
litigation at best, and potentially a devastating disruption of water
supplies that are critically important to cities, agriculture and
industry.
Many years ago my Congressional testimony was to the effect that in
a perfect world the Endangered Species Act would be repealed and
replaced with a program that does more in the real world to protect
species and their habitat and does less for lawyers and consultants.
However, we do not live in a perfect world, and reauthorization and
reform of the Endangered Species Act as a whole does not appear to be
imminent. As an attorney who has participated in ESA-related litigation
and has the responsibility of advising clients regarding the risks of
litigation under the ESA, I can tell you that my advice to clients who
wish to focus on delivering water instead of spending their time in
court defending their water supplies is to support a reasonable program
that achieves ESA objectives without sacrificing operational
flexibility and yield of their water supply projects. Entities like
Northern Water and the other Front Range Water Council entities have
concluded that programs like the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish
Recovery Program are the best way for them to avoid potentially
catastrophic conflicts under the Endangered Species Act and to continue
to provide safe and reliable water supplies for cities, for farms, and
for industry. I do not mean to suggest that Northern Water and other
water entities will not have scientific and legal defenses to attempts
to use the ESA to interfere with their water supply projects, but the
certainty of the Program is clearly preferable to the uncertainty of
litigation.
Second, my testimony in support of the swift passage and enactment
of H.R. 6060 is also shaped by a portion of the history of the Upper
Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program. While this Program had
been in existence for a number of years, in the late 1990's water users
in Colorado were suddenly confronted with threats to use the Endangered
Species Act to impose ``target flows'' for listed species for the
Colorado River at the Colorado-Utah State line. The threatened target
flows were substantial--under some hydrologic conditions meeting the
target flows would have required no new depletions in the Colorado
River Basin in Colorado and the cessation of hundreds of thousands of
acre-feet of existing diversions. Simply put, we were about to go over
a precipice into the chaos of litigation and court-directed operations
of the Colorado River water supply projects that are the lifeblood of
the State of Colorado.
Things looked quite grim until some of the major water users in
Colorado, Ralph Morganweck, the then-Regional Director of the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service, and leading members of the
environmental community in Colorado developed the trust that was
necessary to develop a mutually acceptable cooperative recovery program
that avoided the looming conflict between water and hydropower projects
and the endangered species in the Upper Colorado River Basin. The Upper
Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program, as currently
constituted and implemented through the 1999 Programmatic Biological
Opinion, was the result of this trust. While not perfect, this Program
has so far survived two record-setting droughts in the Colorado River
Basin and produced continuing gains for the listed species and a means
by which over 2,300 existing and future water-related activities could
receive ongoing Section 7 coverage.
I participated in those negotiations on behalf of Northern Water.
At the time, Northern Water believed that periodic Congressional
reauthorization of the Program was critically important to creating a
sound program that was supported by Congress, the Department of the
Interior, the Upper Colorado River Basin States, water users and power
customers, and the environmental community. As a result, in 2000
Northern Water supported the legislation that was enacted as Public Law
106-392. Today, Northern Water strongly believes that Congress should
reauthorize the Program as was originally contemplated back in 2000.
Your oversight and support of the Program is essential, as the
future success of this Program is dependent on a continuation of the
trust that allowed the Upper Colorado River Basin to avoid the
catastrophic conflicts between endangered species and water development
and use that exist elsewhere in the West. That trust is best preserved
by your continued oversight of the Program and its expenditures.
Northern Water and the Front Range Water Council entities support H.R.
6060, including appropriate measures that are designed to ensure that
the available funds are used in the most effective manner possible.
A failure of the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery
Program will be good for lawyers and not much else. More importantly, a
failure of the Program will put at risk the water supply for 4 million
people and 900,000 acres of irrigated land in the Front Range of
Colorado. Accordingly, Northern Water and the Front Range Water Council
urge the swift passage and enactment of H.R. 6060.
Thank you for allowing me to testify today.
______

Mr. McClintock. Thank you for your testimony.
The Committee next welcomes Mr. Kevin Garlick, Executive
Director for the Provo City Power Department in Provo, Utah.

STATEMENT OF KEVIN GARLICK, ENERGY DIRECTOR,
PROVO CITY POWER, PROVO, UTAH

Mr. Garlick. Chairman McClintock, Ranking Member
Napolitano, members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to
testify today on behalf of Provo City Power and CREDA, which
represents the Colorado River Energy Distributors Association,
in support of H.R. 6060, the Endangered Fish Recovery Programs
Extension Act.
Before I state our reasons for supporting this bill, I
would like to thank Representatives Rob Bishop, Jim Matheson,
and Jason Chaffetz from Utah, and the other original cosponsors
of H.R. 6060, for introducing this bill and working to get this
hearing scheduled today.
Provo City Power is a non-profit, electric municipal
utility that serves over 35,000 electrical customers in the
City of Provo, Utah. CREDA is a non-profit organization that
represents consumer-owned electric utilities, including
municipal utilities like Provo City Power, electrical
cooperatives, State agencies, and the Indian Tribes that
purchase clean, renewable, and hydropower for multipurpose
Federal Colorado River Storage Project. CREDA members include--
utilities currently serving over 4 million electric consumers
in Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming.
The Upper Colorado River and the San Juan River Recovery
Programs, which I will refer to collectively as the RRP, were
authorized to recover four endangered species in the two river
basins: the Colorado Pikeminnow, the Bonytail Chub, the
Humpback Chub, and the Razorback Sucker. The RRP is a multi-
year collaborative effort between the Federal Government, the
Upper Colorado River Basin States, the water and power
customers who benefit from the CRSP, Indian Tribes, and others
to recover these species, while preserving the value of the
Colorado River for water and power development and operations.
I have attached a list of the participants in the RRP
program to my written testimony. The RRP provides compliance
with the Endangered Species Act for over 2,300 water projects
in 5 States, which collectively would draw about 3.7 million
acre-feet of Colorado River water per year, and allows
continued operation of the Flaming Gorge Dam and the Aspinall
unit of the CRSP for water and power delivery. The program has
two funding mechanisms, a capital funding component, and an
annual funding component. The CRSP power customers provide
funding for the RRP from the cell of CRSP hydropower to help
finance both components, as do the Federal Government, the
States, and the water users.
The capital component funds an activity--the capital funds
activities such as the fish hatcheries, the passages and
screens, water acquisitions, and flood plain restorations to
recover the endangered species. Annual funding provides money
for the non-capital funding of the RRP, such as predator
control, public outreach, and administrative expenses,
including program management. The bill before the Subcommittee
today would reauthorize the use of the power revenues for the
annual funding for the RRP through 2019. The use of power
revenues for these purposes originally authorized by Congress
in 2000 expire at the end of 2011.
Absent reauthorization, funding for these non-capital
activities would be at risk, and the success of the program
would be jeopardized. Provo City Power and CREDA believe the
RRP is an excellent example of the private-public cooperation
and collaboration to balance the use of the Colorado River and
restore endangered species. We commend Congress for its
foresight in authorizing the RRP in 2000. We strongly support
H.R. 6060, and hope the Subcommittee will act promptly to move
this bill forward. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Garlick follows:]

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

Chairman McClintock, Ranking Member Napolitano, Members of the
Subcommittee, I am pleased to be here today to testify on behalf of
Provo City Power and the Colorado River Energy Distributors Association
(CREDA) on H.R. 6060, the Endangered Fish Recovery Programs Extension
Act.
Provo City Power is a not-for profit, municipally-owned electric
utility that serves approximately 35,000 retail electric customers in
Provo, Utah.
CREDA is a non-profit organization that represents consumer-owned
electric systems that contract for the delivery of federal hydropower
from the Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP), transmitted over the
federal transmission system of the Western Area Power Administration
(WAPA). The CRSP includes several dams and reservoirs that provide
municipal and industrial (M&I) and irrigation water supplies and
generate clean, renewable hydropower for over 5 million consumers in
six western states.
CREDA members are all non-profit organizations, serving over four
million electric consumers in Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico,
Utah and Wyoming. Members include political subdivisions--like Provo
City Power--electric cooperatives, state agencies, municipalities and
tribal utilities.
CREDA members (listing attached) purchase over 85 percent of the
CRSP hydropower generation, the revenues from which are a primary
funding source of the Upper Colorado River and San Juan River
Endangered Fish Recovery Implementation Programs (Recovery Programs).
CREDA has been an active participant in these Recovery Programs since
their authorization.
The Recovery Programs provide Endangered Species Act (ESA)
compliance for over 2,320 water projects that withdraw about 3.7
million acre-feet of water annually. The goals of the programs are to
recover four endangered fish species--the humpback chub, razorback
sucker, bonytail chub and the Colorado pikeminnow--while continuing
operations and development of water projects in the Upper Colorado
River and San Juan River basins, and operation of the Flaming Gorge Dam
and Aspinall Unit facilities of the Colorado River Storage Project
(CRSP.)

THE COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT (CRSP)
The CRSP was authorized in the Colorado River Storage Project Act
of 1956 (P.L. 485, 84th Cong., 70 Stat. 50), as a multi-purpose federal
project that provides flood control and water storage for irrigation,
municipal and industrial purposes, in addition to the generation of
hydropower. The operations of two of CRSP's features--Flaming Gorge Dam
and the Aspinall Unit--are affected by decisions relating to recovery
of the endangered species in the Upper Colorado and San Juan Basins.
Since the early 1990's, as part of the Recovery Program, studies have
been undertaken to determine endangered fish needs in this regions and
operations of the dams have been adjusted.
Flaming Gorge Dam is on the Green River, a major tributary of the
Colorado River, and is located near Vernal, Utah. Flaming Gorge has
three units producing about 152 MW of generation. In 2007, the Bureau
of Reclamation (Reclamation) finished an environmental impact states
and issued a Record of Decision on the operations of Flaming Gorge Dam,
which is intended to assist in recovery of the endangered fish species.
Changes in the operation of the Flaming Gorge generating units were
estimated in the EIS to impact CRSP hydropower generation by $118.7
million over a 25-year period.
The Aspinall Unit includes three dams and generating units along
the Gunnison River near Gunnison, Colorado. Blue Mesa is the first dam
on the river and has two generating units producing about 97 MW. Morrow
Point is the second dam in the series and consists of two generators
producing a total of 146 MW. Crystal is the final dam and has one 32 MW
generator. Morrow Point and Crystal Reservoirs allow some regulation of
the river flow so that releases from Crystal can be used to regulate
downstream flows as necessary.
Reclamation completed an Environmental Impact Statement on the
operation of the Aspinall Unit, and issued a Record of Decision on May
3, 2012. The changed operations are intended to assist in the recovery
of endangered fish species while maintaining the authorized purposes of
the Unit, and will result in impacts to CRSP hydropower generation.

HISTORY OF THE RECOVERY PROGRAMS
The Recovery Programs were established through Cooperative
Agreements among the Upper Basin States of Colorado, Utah, New Mexico
and Wyoming and federal agencies in 1988 (Upper Colorado) and 1992 (San
Juan) for an initial 15-year period to help recover four species of
endangered fish in the two river basins. In August 2009, the
Cooperative Agreements were extended through 2023.
In October 2000, Congress passed legislation (P.L. 106-392) which
authorized a $100 million capital improvements program. The legislation
required ``matching funds'' for the capital program so that, in the
event State funding for the program ceased, so too would power revenue
funding.
CREDA testified in support of this legislation in both the House
and Senate. The legislation also had the support of the Upper Basin
States, federal agencies and some environmental groups.
The 2000 law also authorized the use of CRSP power revenue funding
for ``base funding'' of activities including operation and maintenance
of capital features, and recovery actions other than capital projects,
including monitoring and research, and program management.
The law states that, ``The utilization of power revenues for annual
based funding shall cease after fiscal year 2011, unless reauthorized
by Congress; except that power revenues may continue to be utilized to
fund the operation and maintenance of capital project and monitoring.''
This partial sunset reduced the availability of annual power
revenue funding from approximately $7.5 million to approximately $4.0
million per year. The shortfall of approximately $3.5 million may
eliminate several ongoing annual activities (such as research and non-
native fish control) needed to maintain ESA compliance.
To date, CRSP power revenues have provided over $79.7 million of
annual, or ``base'', funding.

NEED FOR H.R. 6060
CREDA has been an active participant in the Recovery Programs since
their inception, and believes that the programs are an excellent model
of federal/non-federal collaboration. Efforts towards endangered fish
recovery have had success and continue, but recovery has not been
achieved.
In order for there to be a reliable, certain source of funding for
annual ``base'' funding, H.R. 6060 would extend the authorization for
the Upper Colorado and San Juan Recovery Programs through FY 2019, at
current levels.
As under current law, after 2019 use of annual base funding would
be limited to operation and maintenance of capital projects and
monitoring.
H.R. 6060 would also make the following changes in the program:
Require a report by the Secretary of the Interior in
FY 2018 regarding the status of the species and the use of
power revenues for base funding, in order to provide Congress
with more timely information;
Limit the overhead rate applied to funds transferred
to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service from federal agencies to
3%; and
Limit the use of federal funds by Department of
Interior staff to travel to locations other than their duty
station to advocate for the program.
Provo City and CREDA continue to support the Recovery Programs and
urge passage of H.R. 6060.
______

COLORADO RIVER ENERGY DISTRIBUTORS ASSOCIATION (CREDA) MEMBERSHIP

ARIZONA
Arizona Municipal Power Users Association
Arizona Power Authority
Arizona Power Pooling Association
Irrigation and Electrical Districts Association of Arizona, Inc.
Navajo Tribal Utility Authority (also New Mexico, Utah)
Salt River Project
COLORADO
Colorado Springs Utilities
Intermountain Rural Electric Association
Platte River Power Authority
Tri -State Generation & Transmission Cooperative (also Nebraska,
Wyoming and New Mexico)
Yampa Valley Electric Association, Inc.
NEVADA
Colorado River Commission of Nevada
Silver State Electric Association
NEW MEXICO
Farmington Electric Utility System
Los Alamos County
Tri-State Generation & Transmission Cooperative
City of Truth or Consequences
UTAH
City of Provo
City of St. George
South Utah Valley Electric Association
Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems
Utah Municipal Power Agency
WYOMING
Wyoming Municipal Power Agency
_______________________________________________________________________
Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program Partners
State of Colorado
State of Utah
State of Wyoming
Bureau of Reclamation
Colorado River Energy Distributors Association
Colorado Water Congress
National Park Service
The Nature Conservancy
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Utah Water Users Association
Western Area Power Administration
Western Resource Advocates
Wyoming Water Association
San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program Partners
State of Colorado
State of New Mexico
Jicarilla Apache Nation
Navajo Nation
Southern Ute Indian Tribe
Ute Mountain Ute Tribe
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Bureau of Land Management
Bureau of Reclamation
The Nature Conservancy
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Water Development Interests
______

Mr. McClintock. Thank you for your testimony.
Our next witness is Mr. Grayford Payne, a Deputy
Administrator for Policy Administration and Budget from the
Bureau of Reclamation.

STATEMENT OF GRAYFORD PAYNE, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FOR POLICY,
ADMINISTRATION AND BUDGET, BUREAU OF RECLAMATION, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Mr. Payne. Thank you, Chairman. Chairman McClintock,
Ranking Member Napolitano, and members of the Subcommittee, I
am Grayford Payne, Deputy Commissioner of Policy,
Administration, and Budget at the Bureau of Reclamation. I am
pleased to provide the views of the Department of the Interior
on H.R. 6060, the Endangered Fish Recovery Programs Extension
Act of 2012. With some clarifications, I will summarize today.
The Department supports H.R. 6060. The Upper Colorado River
Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan River Basin
Recovery Implementation Program share the dual goal of
recovering populations of endangered fish, while enabling water
development. Program actions provide Endangered Species Act
compliance for more than 2,300 Federal, Tribal, and non-Federal
water projects depleting 3.4 million acre-feet of water per
year in the Colorado and San Juan Rivers and their tributaries.
The programs expressly authorized under Public Law 106-392
in 2000 were first established under cooperative agreements in
1988 for Upper Colorado and 1992 for San Juan, respectively.
Program partners include the State of Colorado, New Mexico,
Utah, Wyoming, as well as Western Area Power Administration,
Bureau of Reclamation, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of
Land Management, National Park Service, Indian Affairs, along
with Native American Tribes, environmental organizations, water
users, and power customers.
Public law 106-392 provides clear parameters for the use of
the $6 million per year, indexed for inflation, of Colorado
River Storage Project hydropower revenues from Glen Canyon Dam
and other CRSP facilities to support the base funding needs of
the programs. Base funding is used for program management,
scientific research, fish population monitoring, fish stocking,
control of non-native fish, and operation and maintenance of
capital projects.
The Department believes that the CRSP Act of 1956 provides
the underlying authority for the use of hydropower revenues to
support the base funding needs of the program. From that
perspective, H.R. 6060 provides the complementary authority to
continue using power revenues for base funding, in our view.
We understand the program partners' desire for certainty,
and we recognize that P.L. 106-392 provides a good approach to
implementing the programs. For that reason, we support the
complementary use of that authority, and support H.R. 6060. The
Department, however, reserves the right to comment on any
specific funding offsets that may be suggested in order to meet
the Committee's funding requirements. Section 2 of H.R. 6060
would require--would extend the authorization to utilize CRSP
hydropower revenues at the current level, approximately $7.6
million in 2012 dollars through 2019 to support the base
funding needs of both programs.
Section 2 of H.R. 6060 would also direct the preparation of
a second report to Congress on the utilization of hydropower
revenues by 2018, with new requirements that the report
describe the status of listed fish with projected dates for
downlisting and delisting them under the ESA.
Section 3 of the bill would limit rates for cost recovery
by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on transfers from other
agencies. And Section 4 would limit the use of Federal funds
for advocacy by departmental employees.
My written statements speak more fully to these sections of
this legislation, as they pertain more directly to the Fish and
Wildlife Service. I will otherwise defer on addressing these
issues during today's testimony.
In closing, the Upper Colorado River and San Juan River
recovery programs take a successful cooperative approach to
recovering aquatic native fish species, avoiding litigation and
providing ESA compliance to Federal and non-Federal water
users. The continued use of CRSP hydropower revenues is
critical to the ability of these programs to realize their
goal.
This concludes my statement. I would be pleased to answer
any questions at the appropriate time. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Payne follows:]

Statement of Grayford F. Payne, Deputy Commissioner for Policy,
Administration and Budget, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of
the Interior

Chairman McClintock and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Grayford
Payne, Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Administration and Budget at the
Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation). I am pleased to provide the views
of the Department of the Interior (Department) on H.R. 6060, the
``Endangered Fish Recovery Programs Extension Act of 2012.'' With some
clarifications described below, the Department would support H.R. 6060.
The Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and San
Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program (Programs) share the
dual goals of recovering populations of endangered fish while water
development continues to meet current and future human needs. Program
actions provide Endangered Species Act (ESA) compliance for more than
2,300 federal, tribal, and non-federal water projects depleting 3.4
million acre-feet of water per year in the Colorado and San Juan rivers
and their tributaries. The Programs, authorized by Public Law 106-392,
as amended, were established under cooperative agreements in 1988
(Upper Colorado) and 1992 (San Juan) and were funded through the
Colorado River Storage Project Act of 1956 (CRSP). Program partners
include the states of Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming; the
Bureau of Reclamation, Western Area Power Administration, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, and
Bureau of Indian Affairs; Native American tribes; environmental
organizations; water users; and power customers.
Public Law (PL) 106-392 expressly authorized the use of a maximum
of $6 million per year (indexed for inflation) in CRSP hydropower
revenues from Glen Canyon Dam and other CRSP facilities to support the
base funding needs of the Programs through 2011. Base funding is used
for program management, scientific research, fish population
monitoring, fish stocking, control of non-native fish, and operation
and maintenance of capital projects.
Section 2 of H.R. 6060 as introduced would extend the authorization
to utilize CRSP hydropower revenues at the current level (up to $6
million per year adjusted for inflation, or approximately $7.6 million
in 2012 dollars) through 2019 to support the base funding needs of both
Programs. The Program's recovery goals extend to the year 2023 \1\, and
that date has been recognized in prior versions of this bill during
three consecutive sessions of Congress \2\. However we understand that
H.R. 6060's extension to the year 2019 is linked to a limitation in the
House's current rules regarding the length of authorizations for all
programs, and has no linkage to these specific Programs. Section 2 of
the bill would also direct the preparation of a second report to
Congress on the utilization of hydropower revenues \3\ by 2018, with
new requirements that the report describe the status of listed fish
with projected dates for downlisting and delisting them under the ESA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The most recent drafts of the recovery goals (2008) contain the
following time frames for delisting the four endangered fish species:
humpback chub (2016), Colorado pikeminnow (2021), razorback sucker
(2023), and bonytail chub (2023). These documents are currently under
review and final documents are not yet available.
\2\ H.R. 7169 (110th Congress), H.R. 2288 (111th Congress), S. 1453
(111th Congress), and S. 1224 (112th Congress).
\3\ Reclamation submitted the first report pursuant to Section
3(d)(2) of PL 106-392 on April 28, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department believes that the CRSP Act of 1956 provides the
underlying authority for the use of hydropower revenues to support the
base funding needs of the Programs. From that perspective, H.R. 6060
provides complementary authority to continue using power revenues for
base funding in our view. We understand the Program partners' desire
for certainty, and we recognize that PL 106-392 provided a good
approach to implementing the Programs. For that reason we support the
complementary use of that authority and support H.R. 6060. The
Department, however, reserves the right to comment on any specific
funding offset that may be suggested in order to meet the Committee's
funding requirements.
Section 3 of H.R. 6060 would limit the rates of cost recovery by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on any transfers to the agency for
activities associated with the Programs. The Bureau of Reclamation
transfers funds to the Fish and Wildlife Service to conduct work under
the Recovery Programs. With the funds provided by Reclamation, the
Service conducts biological research, monitors fish populations and
their responses to recovery actions, implements non-native fish
control, produces endangered fish for stocking and provides program
management services. The Service charges Reclamation a reduced overhead
rate of 11% for these activities. Fish and Wildlife Service Policy (264
FW 1) and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-25
require that the Service recover full costs of providing goods and
services to private entities, States, tribes, and other government
agencies. This achieves the dual objectives of ensuring that the
service, sale, or use of Service goods or resources are provided to
agencies in a self-sustaining manner; and promoting efficient
allocation of our resources by establishing charges that reimburse the
Service for these activities. Limiting the cost recovery rate to 3
percent would make it impossible for the Service to recover the full
costs of providing these services. We would be happy to work with the
Committee to explore alternative language regarding cost recovery.
Section 4 of H.R. 6060 would direct that no federal funds may be
used for any Departmental employees or detailees to travel to any
locations to ``. . .advocate, lobby, or attend meetings that advocate
or lobby. . .'' for the Programs. Existing law restricts lobbying with
appropriated funds and is applicable to all executive branch agencies,
including the Department. This existing provision makes Section 4
unnecessary and duplicative of existing law.
The Upper Colorado and San Juan River Recovery Programs have been
nationally recognized for their cooperative approach to recovering
aquatic native fish species, avoiding litigation, and providing ESA
compliance to federal and non-federal water users. The continued use of
CRSP hydropower revenues is critical to the ability of these Programs
to realize their goals. There appears to be strong support for this
legislation from the Program's non-federal stakeholders.
This concludes my written statement. I would be pleased to answer
questions at the appropriate time.
______

Mr. McClintock. Great. Thank you for your testimony.
Our next witness is Mr. Randy Kirkpatrick, Executive
Director for the San Juan Water Commission in Farmington, New
Mexico. Welcome.

STATEMENT OF RANDY KIRKPATRICK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
SAN JUAN WATER COMMISSION, FARMINGTON, NEW MEXICO

Mr. Kirkpatrick. Chairman McClintock, Ranking Member
Napolitano, members of the Water and Power Subcommittee, it is
a pleasure to be before you in support of the Endangered Fish
Recovery Programs Extension Act of 2012. Both of the programs,
the Upper Colorado and the San Juan Recovery Program, are
recognized successes.
Today I will focus on the San Juan Basin Recovery
Implementation Program, as others before you will today address
the Upper Basin Program.
I am the Executive Director of the San Juan Water
Commission established in 1986 to develop, administer the
Animas-La Plata Water Project, and plan, protect, and secure
sufficient water supplies for existing and future uses in San
Juan County, New Mexico.
The Commission has participated in the development
implementation of the San Juan Recovery Program for 23 years,
and continues today in working to a successful meeting of the
program goals. And those goals are to conserve the population
of Colorado Pikeminnow and Razorback Sucker in the Basin,
consistent with the recovery goals established under the
Endangered Species Act, and to proceed with water development
and compliance with Federal and State laws, inter-state
compacts, Supreme Court decrees, and Federal trust
responsibility to the Southern Ute Tribe, Ute Mountain Tribe,
Jicarilla Nation, and the Navajo Nation.
Program participants include 12 parties: State, Federal
agencies, environmental interests, Tribes, and water users, a
list of which is on my written testimony. In the San Juan
Basin, 319 projects representing 880,000 acre-feet have met ESA
compliance as a result of this program, including those needed
to meet the Federal settlement of four Native American Tribes--
Nations in the Basin.
The two endangered fish have been recovering since 1990.
The Colorado Pikeminnow has grown from as few as 20 to well
over 2,500 in the San Juan River. The Razorback Sucker,
virtually from none to over 1,200 adults in 2010. The defined
end point for the program is the delist dates for the Colorado
Pikeminnow, 2020, and the Razorback Sucker, 2023.
Following delisting, the Federal Government, States--and
possibly other parties will enter into agreements to prevent
the fish becoming listed again. Cost support for the program
has been provided by a combination of State, power customers,
water users, and the Federal Government. Support has always
been across the board, and continues thus, as evidenced by the
sponsor of the amendment before you today.
Without this amendment, long-term improvements, protection
of the fish status, and our ability to fully develop and use
our already limited water supplies may be in jeopardy. Public
Law 106-392 should be amended to allow continued use of power
revenues for annual base funding of all activities, as
originally authorized.
I appreciate this opportunity to provide this testimony to
the Water and Power Subcommittee. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kirkpatrick follows:]

Statement of L. Randy Kirkpatrick, Executive Director,
San Juan Water Commission, Farmington, New Mexico

My name is Randy Kirkpatrick. I am Executive Director, San Juan
Water Commission, Farmington, New Mexico. I am here to testify in
support of H.R. 6060.
The San Juan Water Commission (Commission) was established in 1986
to receive and administer Animas-La Plata Project water and secure
additional water supplies for existing and future demands for San Juan
County. The Commission holds water rights, monitors water supplies and
collects data. The Commission advocates water resource conservation and
water development. The Commission represents more than 120,000 people
in northwestern New Mexico.
The Commission participated in negotiations initiated in 1989
regarding Endangered Species Act compliance for water projects that
resulted in creation of the San Juan River Basin Recovery
Implementation Program (San Juan Program). The Commission has been
actively involved in implementation of the San Juan Program since its
inception in 1992.
My testimony will focus on the San Juan Program, the benefits of
the Program to federal, non-federal and tribal water users in the San
Juan basin, and the need for H. R. 6060.
I believe you will be receiving or have received letters of support
for H.R. 6060 from numerous non-federal participants in the San Juan
program.

UPPER COLORADO AND SAN JUAN RIVER BASIN RECOVERY PROGRAMS
The programs have the goals of recovering four federally listed
endangered fish species in the Upper Colorado River basin while water
development and management activities proceed in compliance with state
and laws, interstate compacts, tribal water rights, Indian trust
responsibilities of the United States, and the Federal Endangered
Species Act. Activities of the programs provide Endangered Species Act
compliance for more than 2,300 water projects depleting approximately
three million acre-feet per year in the Upper Colorado River and San
Juan River basins, including every Bureau of Reclamation project in the
Upper Basin upstream of Lake Powell, water projects that meet the
United States trust obligations to American Indian tribes, and
literally hundreds of non-federal water projects providing water for
municipal, irrigation, industrial, and recreational uses. No lawsuits
have been filed as a result of ESA compliance for water projects under
the recovery programs.
The programs have been hailed by administrations of both parties
for their successes. In 2000, Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt
referred to the Upper Basin recovery programs as ``an ongoing success
story'' (Colorado River Water Users Association, 2000). Secretary of
the Interior Gale Norton referred to the programs as a national model
of how the Endangered Species Act should be implemented (Colorado Water
Congress, 2006). In 2008, Secretary Dirk Kempthorne awarded the Upper
Basin and San Juan programs the Department of the Interior's
Cooperative Conservation Award for the successful history of
stakeholder collaboration resolving ``seemingly intractable water use
conflicts...''
The programs have substantial grassroots support among
participants. Since the inception of these programs, they have enjoyed
strong support in Congress, as indicated by the substantial bi-partisan
support for H.R. 6060.

THE SAN JUAN RECOVERY PROGRAM
The San Juan Program was established in 1992. The San Juan Program
includes the San Juan River drainage in Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah,
totaling approximately 23,000 square miles. The two goals of the
Recovery Program are:
1) to conserve populations of Colorado pikeminnow and
razorback sucker in the basin consistent with the recovery
goals established under the Endangered Species Act, and
2) to proceed with water development in the basin in
compliance with federal and state laws, interstate compacts,
Supreme Court decrees, and federal trust responsibilities to
the Southern Ute Tribe, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, Jicarilla
Apache Nation, and the Navajo Nation.
The dual goals guide actions by the San Juan Program.
San Juan Program participants include:
Bureau of Reclamation
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Bureau of Land Management
States of Colorado and New Mexico
Jicarilla Apache Nation
Navajo Nation
Southern Ute Tribe
Ute Mountain Ute Tribe
The Nature Conservancy
Water Development Interests
ESA Compliance for Water Depletions in the San Juan Basin
The San Juan Program implements actions to achieve recovery of the
species and provide ESA compliance for Federal, non-Federal and tribal
water development and management activities. These actions avoid
jeopardy, avoid adverse modifications of critical habitat, and provide
measures to minimize any incidental take of endangered fish that
occurs. Federal Reclamation Projects include Navajo Dam, Reservoir, the
Animas-La Plata Project and others. ESA compliance for water projects
in New Mexico, Colorado, and Utah is summarized in the table below:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5009.001

.epsIn addition to in-basin water use, the Recovery Program
provides ESA compliance for the Reclamation's San Juan-Chama Project.
San Juan-Chama diverts 100,000 acre-feet/year of critical water
supplies to Rio Grande basin municipalities, industries, agriculture,
and Native American pueblos in central New Mexico.
ESA Compliance for Tribal Water Projects
Reservations of four Native American tribes are located wholly or
partially within the San Juan basin: Navajo Nation, Jicarilla Apache
Nation, Southern Ute Tribe, and Ute Mountain Ute Tribe. The Secretary
of the Interior has a trust responsibility to assert and protect the
trust water resources of the four tribes in the basin. The San Juan
Program allows the United States to carry out its trust
responsibilities in compliance with the ESA for a number of activities
that benefit the tribes including:
Colorado Ute Settlement
Navajo Water Settlement
Jicarilla PNM Water Contract
Navajo Gallup Pipeline
Navajo Indian Irrigation Project
Jicarilla Water Settlement
The San Juan Program also provides ESA compliance for small water
projects on tribal lands benefitting the tribes.
Recovery of Endangered Fish in the San Juan Basin
The originators of the San Juan Program recognized that factors
other than flows contributed to the endangerment and affect the
recovery of the endangered fish species. To achieve recovery, the
multifaceted Program includes:
provision of water for fish habitat,
habitat development (fish screens, fish passages,
braided reaches),
research and monitoring,
stocking of endangered fish,
controlling non-native fish species, and
water quality protection.
The San Juan Program also includes information/education and
program management components.
Some 180 miles of critical habitat are now accessible to the
endangered fish and other native species due to fish passages.
Hatcheries are producing genetically diverse Colorado pikeminnow and
razorback suckers for stocking to restore these species. The impacts of
introduced non-native species are being reduced. Research and
monitoring continue to evaluate the populations, impacts of recovery
actions on those populations, and the need for scientifically based
adaptive management. When the San Juan Program was initiated, there
were an estimated 20 to 60 Colorado pikeminnow and virtually no
razorback sucker in the San Juan River. The numbers of Colorado
pikeminnow and razorback sucker, once almost gone in the basin, have
dramatically increased as shown in the graphs below.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5009.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5009.003

Razorback sucker and Colorado pikeminnow adult and sub-adult
numbers continue to increase in the San Juan River, showing that the
adult fish are surviving in the system. Both species are also spawning
as evidenced by constant larval fish captures. Juvenile razorback
sucker have been captured indicating that larval fish are surviving.

END DATES FOR RECOVERY PROGRAMS
Recovery of the listed species is the goal of the San Juan Program.
Recovery provides a defined end point for the Program. Recovery is
dependent on the status of the species in both the Upper Colorado and
San Juan river basins. The projected delist date for the Colorado
pikeminnow is 2020. For the razorback sucker, it is 2023. Therefore,
the projected end date for the San Juan Program is 2023. Following
delisting, the Federal government, the states and possibly other
parties will enter into agreements to ensure that conditions resulting
in delisting are maintained so that the species don't become listed
again.

RECOVERY PROGRAMS AUTHORIZING LEGISLATION--P.L. 106-392
P.L. 106-392 was signed into law on October 30, 2000. The law
authorizes the Bureau of Reclamation to provide cost sharing of capital
construction and annual operations for both the Upper Colorado and San
Juan River endangered fish recovery programs. The law recognizes
significant and specific cost sharing contributions to the programs by
the States of Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, and New Mexico, power customers,
and water users for these purposes.
P.L. 106-392 has been amended three times with strong bi-partisan
support. P.L. 107-375 extended the period for capital construction to
2008 for both programs. P.L. 109-183 extended the period for
construction of capital projects for both programs through FY 2010,
authorized an additional $15 million in capital expenditures for the
Upper Colorado River Recovery Program, and recognized an additional $11
million in non-federal cost share contributions. P.L. 111-11 provided
an additional $27 million in federal authority, recognized an
additional $56 million in non-federal contributions, and extended the
funding authority to FY 2023, the expected date for recovery of the
four endangered fish species.

H.R. 6060 Amendments Regarding Authorization of Continued Annual Base
Funding from Power Revenues
Annual base funds from power revenues contribute significantly to
the successful implementation of recovery actions by both recovery
programs, including instream flow identification, evaluation, and
protection; habitat restoration and maintenance; management of
nonnative fish impacts; endangered fish propagation and stocking;
research, monitoring, and data management; public information and
involvement; and program management. Subsequent to passage of P.L. 106-
392, $46,465,562 in power revenue base funds have been expended or
obligated by the Upper Colorado Recovery Program, and $22,269,167 by
the San Juan Recovery Program (2001-2012). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, the four participating states, American Indian Tribes, and
water users also provide additional annual funding and in-kind
contributions for these activities.
The authorization for use of power revenues for annual base funding
of recovery program actions, other than for operation and maintenance
of capital projects and monitoring, ceased as of fiscal year 2011.
The approximate fiscal impacts of reductions in annual base funding
(estimates in fiscal year 2008 dollars) after fiscal year 2011 without
reauthorization are summarized as follows:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5009.004

The fiscal impacts are based on 2011-2011 expenditures by the
two recovery programs. Without reauthorization, annual base funding
from power revenues for nonnative fish management, research, public
information and involvement, and program management would be eliminated
from both recovery programs. This would delay and significantly impede
the recovery programs' achievements in restoring populations of the
endangered fishes. As a result, ESA compliance provided by recovery
program actions for more than 2,300 water projects, as well as future
projects, would not likely continue. ESA compliance depends not only on
implementing recovery actions, but is ultimately and directly linked to
long-term improvement in the status of fish populations.
Continuation of Current Levels of Annual Funding from Other Sources
The language in the existing legislation that base funding and
depletion charges previously agreed upon will be retained: ``Nothing in
this Act shall otherwise modify or amend existing agreements among
participants regarding base funding and depletion charges for the
Recovery Implementation Programs.'' This provides that annual and in-
kind contributions by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the four
participating States, American Indian Tribes, and water users
identified in the original agreements will continue.

RECOMMENDATION REGARDING BASE FUNDING
P.L. 106-392 should be amended to allow continued use of power
revenues through 2019 for annual base funding of all activities as
originally authorized and which are necessary to achieve recovery. The
expected date of recovery of the razorback sucker and bonytail is 2023.
H.R. 6060 implements these recommendations. I recommend that Congress
pass amendments to insure continued base funding at current levels.
H.R. 6060 accomplishes this.
I appreciate the opportunity to provide this testimony to the Water
and Power Subcommittee.
______

Mr. McClintock. Thank you for your testimony.
Our final witness is Mr. John Shields, the Interstate
Streams Engineer for the Wyoming State Engineer's Office from
Cheyenne, Wyoming to testify. Welcome to the Committee.

STATEMENT OF JOHN W. SHIELDS, INTERSTATE STREAMS ENGINEER,
WYOMING STATE ENGINEER'S OFFICE, CHEYENNE, WYOMING

Mr. Shields. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman McClintock,
Ranking Member Napolitano, and members of the Subcommittee. As
the Chairman indicated, my name is John Shields. I work for the
Wyoming State Engineer's office. I have represented Wyoming on
the management committee of the Upper Colorado River Endangered
Fish Recovery Program since the program's initiation.
Wyoming participated in the negotiation of the Upper
Colorado Program, and has participated in implementing it since
it got underway in 1988. I am very pleased to testify in
support of H.R. 6060, the Endangered Fish Programs Recovery
Extension Act of 2012 [sic].
H.R. 6060 addresses the needs of both the Upper Colorado
River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan River
Basin Recovery Implementation Program. Extension of authority
to continue all use of Colorado River Storage Project
hydropower revenues for all annual base funding purposes is
critical to the ability of these programs to realize their
goals to recover the four endangered fish species.
Absent reauthorization, we foresee significant issues
arising with Endangered Species Act compliance for the more
than 2,300 water projects relying on these programs. Failure to
provide full annual base funding would cripple the programs.
The programs face losing about $3 million in funding used for
critically important non-native fish management and control,
scientific research, administrative program management, and
public information activities, as the other witnesses have
described to you today. That $3 million amount is more than 40
percent of the 2 programs' total annual base funding.
Elimination of these recovery activities will impede and
significantly delay the program's ability to restore the four
endangered fish species to self-sustaining population levels,
which is the all-important benchmark to achieve recovery of the
fish. These outcomes are unacceptable to all of the recovery
program's participants. The programs are using innovative,
cost-effective measures to recover the fish, while water
development and management activities proceed in compliance
with State laws, interstate compacts, and the Federal
Endangered Species Act.
The programs have recovery goals containing objective,
measurable criteria for downlisting and delisting the species,
including numeric population goals, and site-specific
management actions necessary to minimize threats. The recovery
goals allow the programs to monitor progress toward achieving
recovery, to assess the effectiveness of management actions,
and to adjust recovery efforts through adaptive management.
Section 4 of the ESA requires status reviews of each listed
species' progress toward recovery each 5 years. The U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service's current five-year reviews include
timelines projecting recovery of the four fish species will
occur by the end of 2023, at which time the programs will end.
The programs have been designed to end when the four fish
species have been recovered. Recovery of the endangered fish
will achieve the ultimate goal of the ESA. Recovery provides
the greatest regulatory certainty for Federal and non-Federal
water development and management activities.
H.R. 6060 should be enacted into law. Enactment will allow
the two recovery programs to continue to use CRSP hydropower
revenues for all annual base funding activities through 2019 at
currently authorized levels. All of the ongoing annual base
funding activities are critical to these programs,
accomplishing the primary goal of recovering the four
endangered fish species by 2023.
I greatly appreciate the opportunity to provide this
testimony supporting the enactment of H.R. 6060, and will be
happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shields follows:]

Statement of John W. Shields, Interstate Streams Engineer,
Wyoming State Engineer's Office

Chairman McClintock, Ranking Member Napolitano, and Members of the
Subcommittee, my name is John Shields. I am the Interstate Streams
Engineer for the Wyoming State Engineer's Office in Cheyenne, Wyoming.
I represent Wyoming on the Management Committee of the Upper Colorado
Endangered Fish Recovery Program. That committee reports to the
Program's governing committee. Wyoming participated in negotiation of
the Program and has participated in implementation of the Upper
Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program since its inception in
1988. I am here to testify in support of H.R. 6060, the Endangered Fish
Recovery Programs Act of 2012, a bill to amend Public Law 106-392 to
maintain annual base funding for the Upper Colorado and San Juan fish
recovery programs through fiscal year 2019.
H.R. 6060 addresses the needs of both the Upper Colorado River
Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the San Juan River Basin Recovery
Implementation Program (Programs). Extension of the authority to
continue use of Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP) hydropower
revenues is critical to the ability of these Programs to realize their
goals. Absent such reauthorization, the Programs face losing more than
$3 million in annual base funding (more than 40 percent of the annual
total) used for critically important nonnative fish management and
control, scientific research, administration/program management and
public information activities. As a result, the Programs' ability to
restore the four endangered fish species to self-sustaining population
levels, which is the all-important benchmark to achieve recovery of the
fish would be both impeded and significantly delayed. In turn, we
foresee that Endangered Species Act compliance being provided for water
projects across the Upper Colorado and San Juan river basins would be
impacted. Both outcomes are unacceptable to all of the recovery
programs' participants.

Upper Colorado And San Juan River Basin Recovery Programs
The Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and the
San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program are using
innovative, cost-effective measures to recover four species of
endangered Colorado River fishes. At the same time, water and
hydroelectric power resources are being managed within state and
federal laws and tribal rights to meet the needs of people in growing
western communities.
The Programs have the goals of recovering the four fish species in
the Upper Colorado River basin while water development and management
activities proceed in compliance with state laws, interstate compacts,
and the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA).
These Programs have recovery goals that provide objective,
measurable criteria for downlisting and delisting the species,
including numeric population goals and a set of specific recovery
activities. The recovery goals allow the Programs to monitor progress
towards achieving recovery, to assess the effectiveness of management
actions, and to adjust recovery efforts through adaptive management.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is required, pursuant to
Section 4 of the ESA, to provide a status review of each listed
species' progress towards recovery each five years. The Service has
projected recovery of the four fish species will occur by the end of
2023, at which time the Programs will end. These timelines to achieve
recovery are found in the recently published five-year reviews for the
Colorado pikeminnow and humpback chub and the in-draft species' status
reviews for the bonytail and razorback sucker. The recovery programs
will end when the four species of endangered fish have been recovered.
The Programs have substantial grassroots support among their
participants, which include the four Upper Basin states (Colorado, New
Mexico, Utah and Wyoming), American Indian tribes (Navajo Nation,
Jicarilla Apache Nation, Southern Ute Tribe and Ute Mountain Tribe),
water users, power customers and environmental organizations. Five
federal agencies (USFWS, Bureau of Reclamation, National Park Service,
and Western Area Power Administration and Bureau of Indian Affairs)
participate in the Programs. These diverse interests continue to
demonstrate that working cooperatively produces far greater results
than independent efforts.
The recovery programs are currently providing ESA compliance for
2,320 federal, tribal, and nonfederal water projects, including every
Bureau of Reclamation project in the Upper Basin upstream of Lake
Powell, water projects that meet the United States' trust obligations
to American Indian tribes, and literally hundreds of non-federal water
projects providing water for municipal, irrigation, industrial, and
recreational uses. No lawsuits have been filed as a result of ESA
compliance under the Programs. The programs use adaptive management to
evaluate and revise management actions as new information becomes
available.

Public Law 106-392 and its Subsequent Amendments
P.L. 106-392, signed into law on October 30, 2000, authorizes the
Bureau of Reclamation to provide cost-sharing for capital construction
and fund annual operations for these two endangered fish recovery
Programs. The law recognizes significant and specific cost-sharing
contributions to the Programs by the States of Colorado, Wyoming, Utah,
and New Mexico, power customers, and water users for these purposes.
P.L. 106-392 has been amended three times with substantial bi-
partisan support in both the House of Representatives and United States
Senate. P.L. 107-375 extended the period for capital construction to
2008 for both Programs. P.L. 109-183 extended the period for
construction of capital projects for the Programs through FY 2010,
authorized an additional $15 million in capital expenditures for the
Upper Colorado Program, and recognized an additional $11 million in
non-federal cost-share contributions. P.L. 111-11 provided an
additional $27 million in authority for federal funding of capital
projects, recognized an additional $56 million in non-federal
contributions, and extended the authority to expend funding for capital
projects through the end of FY 2023, which is the expected recovery
date for the endangered fish species.
Capital project funds have been used to construct hatchery
facilities, fish passages and screens, complete water acquisition
projects and restore floodplain habitat across the San Juan and Upper
Colorado basins. P.L. 106-392 provided for three sources of capital
funds within these programs: federal appropriations (provided within
Reclamation's ``Endangered Species Recovery Implementation Program''
budget line-item) along with $17 million of CRSP power revenues from
CRSP power users and $17 million provided by the States of Colorado,
New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming.
P.L. 106-392 expressly authorized the use of a maximum of $6
million per year (indexed for inflation) of CRSP hydropower revenues to
support the annual base funding needs of the Programs through the end
of fiscal year 2011. As noted, operation and maintenance of the
hatcheries, fish passages, fish screens, and flooded bottomland
facilities, monitoring of the four endangered fish populations, and
nonnative fish management, scientific research, administration/program
management and public information activities are all conducted with
annual base funding.

H.R. 6060 Will Extend Authority to Use Power Revenues For Annual Base
Funding
Annual base funding activities contribute significantly to
successfully completing recovery actions specified in the species'
recovery goals, including instream flow identification, evaluation, and
protection; habitat restoration and maintenance; management of
nonnative fish impacts; endangered fish propagation and stocking;
scientific research, monitoring, and data management; public
information and involvement; and administrative program management. The
USFWS, the four participating states, the four American Indian Tribes,
and water users also contribute--and will continue to provide--
additional annual funding and in-kind contributions for these
activities. The cooperative agreements for both programs reflect that
all participants have committed to the conduct of these Programs
through the end of FY 2023.
The extension of authority to the end of fiscal year 2019 contained
in H.R. 6060 complies with the current House of Representatives'
protocol limiting authorizations to 7 years after the year of
enactment. The recovery programs' participants anticipate the need to
seek an additional extension of authority prior to the end of fiscal
year 2019 based on current projections that each of the four species of
endangered fish will not be delisted (e.g., recovered) until 2023.
Importantly, H.R. 6060 will extend the authority to use CRSP
hydropower revenues through fiscal year 2019 at currently authorized
levels. At that time, authority to use annual base funding for
activities other than operation and maintenance of capital projects and
monitoring will terminate without continuing authorization by the
Congress.

Recommendation: Enact H.R. 6060
H.R. 6060 should be enacted into law. Enactment will allow the two
recovery programs to continue to use CRSP hydropower revenues for all
annual base funding activities through 2019. All of the ongoing annual
base funding activities are critical to these Programs accomplishing
their primary goal of recovering the four endangered fish species by
2023.
I greatly appreciate the opportunity to submit testimony supporting
the enactment of H.R. 6060.
______

Mr. McClintock. Thank you very much for your testimony. We
will now begin Committee questions, also under the 5-minute
rule. And I would like to begin with Mr. Raley.
What would happen if this bill was not passed?
Mr. Raley. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that we would be
plunged into great uncertainty. The original legislation
contemplates reauthorization. And if it is not reauthorized,
from the perspective of the people that I speak for, the water
supply for 4 million and close to a million acres of land will
be put in jeopardy.
Mr. McClintock. Why would it be put in jeopardy?
Mr. Raley. Without a successful program, a robust program,
there will be the opportunity for litigation. And, as I have
learned in other basins, if there is the opportunity, if there
is a weakness or an opening, there are entities that will
litigate simply to bring programs like this to a halt.
Mr. McClintock. But we just heard that the ESA works great.
Look at this project.
Mr. Raley. This program is based on some unique
circumstances. And, unfortunately, I don't believe it can be
replicated everywhere.
Mr. McClintock. Are there lessons we could draw from the
success of this project to modify the ESA in a manner that
would reduce litigation as this agreement obviously has in this
case?
Mr. Raley. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McClintock. Could you give us some examples?
Mr. Raley. Yes. I think that the first lesson is it
requires--and I am not pointing fingers at anyone in
particular--it requires a circumstance where all the players
have an incentive to sit down and work out something that is
workable. And when one of the entities--when one player has the
ability to litigate and litigate on pretty much an infinite
basis, they lose the incentive to sit down and work out
something that is reasonable.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you. Mr. Shields, you have had a lot
of experience with this. What lessons can we draw, from your
perspective?
Mr. Shields. Mr. Chairman, I think that one of the greatest
strengths of this program is that we have established checks
and balances within the governance structures of both the Upper
Colorado and the San Juan Programs. Through a system of checks
and balances, there is a necessity to work toward compromise.
And I would point out, with respect to the Upper Colorado
Program, we actually operate on a unanimous consensus basis
within the management committee's activities. And in making
decisions.
Now, that is inherently inefficient, in the sense that the
majority can't rule. But it forces everyone to compromise, to
work toward the middle and find that common ground that
Representative Gardner mentioned----
Mr. McClintock. One of the provisions that are the result
of that compromise that struck my attention, and that we have
been trying to get, frankly, in other regions without result,
and that is simply counting hatchery fish. What role do
hatcheries play in recovering endangered fish on the Upper
Colorado and San Juan River Basins?
Mr. Shields. Yes, sir. May I please answer that question?
Seven hatchery facilities produce Bonytail, Razorback Sucker,
and Colorado Pikeminnow necessary to meet the annual and long-
range stocking targets of these two recovery programs. Brood
stock and propagation of young are managed to maximize the
genetic diversity of the stock fish to increase the likelihood
that they are going to survive in the wild.
Stock fish count toward recovery goal criteria when they
are reproducing in the wild, and their offspring are surviving
to adulthood.
Mr. McClintock. Well, how is it that you are able to get a
compromise on that matter in this project, but that compromise
has evaded us here in Congress? I have cited one case--there
are many--where hatchery fish are deliberately not counted in
the population counts for ESA purposes. And, in fact, by
ignoring those hatchery fish, they then use that as an excuse
to, in the case of Klamath, tear down perfectly good dams, in
the case of the Central Valley, to dump billions of gallons of
water into the Pacific Ocean. It seems to me that is a very
common-sense approach, counting the damn hatchery fish.
Mr. Shields. I would agree with you, sir. I think the
distinction that is made, though, is that the fish that have
been stocked have to start to reproduce before they are counted
in that population number. And I believe that the circumstances
are such with these ocean-going fish, that that is much more
difficult to do. It is a very good question that you ask, and I
would be happy to augment my answer in writing, sir.
Mr. McClintock. Great. Well, thank you very much. That
concludes my questions. Mrs. Napolitano?
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Raley, I
couldn't agree with you more about cooperation versus
litigation. It gets the job done.
And a question to all of you, and it is in the back of my
mind. I kind of mentioned it to Mr. Barton, is the ability--
would it help to be able to extend it, the deadline, from 2019
to 2023?
Mr. Payne. I am sorry. From Reclamation's standpoint, yes,
it would, because we feel that the 2023 deadline allows us to
fully accomplish our goal of getting these four species out
of----
Mrs. Napolitano. Anybody else?
Mr. Raley. I would add that we welcome Congress's attention
at any time. So a shorter period, it is entirely acceptable.
Mrs. Napolitano. But would it be helpful to be able to
extend it to the end of the recovery, if you will?
Mr. Raley. Congresswoman, perhaps. But not if the extension
removed the oversight of Congress. There is great value in this
program coming back to Congress periodically.
Mrs. Napolitano. Well, assuming, though, that the bill
passes and there is this oversight, you are only going to have
the 2019 deadline. Is it helpful to move to the 2023 deadline?
Would it be beneficial to the parties?
[No response.]
Mrs. Napolitano. You agree now that 2019 is a good
deadline. Would it be helpful to extend it to the full 2023?
Mr. Raley. I will be very blunt, Congresswoman. The ability
to have Congress check in 2019 that the Service and Reclamation
are still committed to recovery by a date certain, so that we
don't reach that point and go, ``Oh, the goal post has moved,''
the ability to have that check in 2019 will be very helpful.
Mrs. Napolitano. Then would it be helpful if there were
language inserted in an amendment, if you will, to ensure that
in 2019 there is a follow-up to have a measurement at that
point, but extend it to 2023?
Mr. Raley. You know, I would want to look at the language.
Mrs. Napolitano. Anybody else?
Mr. Shields. Congresswoman Napolitano, I will not disagree
with anything that Bennett Raley has said to you. Previous
versions of the legislation that is before you today were
drafted with 2023 as the date.
Mrs. Napolitano. Correct.
Mr. Shields. An amendment that would change that would not
be in conformance with the Majority leader's protocol. However,
if your amendment was to leave in place the requirement that
the Secretary of the Interior provide a report to the
authorizing Committees on both the House and Senate side at the
end of Fiscal Year 2018, I would see no harm in that amendment.
Mrs. Napolitano. Well, I will suggest it to the author of
this bill, which--I think he is ready to at least sit down and
talk about it. Anybody else?
Mr. Kirkpatrick. Yes, I would concur with what Mr. Shields
said, that as long as we have the oversight, 2023,
biologically, would be very helpful. We would know when we are
trying to seek recovery. However, we do recognize the rules
that you operate under.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. Mr. Gray Payne, the program is
often talked about from strictly the species restoration. And
what is Reclamation's priority in participating in these
programs?
Mr. Payne. Well, our first priority is definitely for the
delivery of water and power to our customers. That is priority
one for us.
Mrs. Napolitano. And does Reclamation's participation in
these programs allow you to meet the core goals and overall
mission?
Mr. Payne. Well, as I said earlier, our core mission is
providing water and power. And in order to do that, both the
San Juan RRP and the UC RRP provide our ESA compliance, which
then allows the 2,300 projects along the Colorado River Storage
Project to meet their ESA compliance.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. Mr. Garlick, what would be the
impact of power production in the region, if the recovery
programs were not in place?
Mr. Garlick. Well, if there would be an impact on the power
production if there wasn't this recovery program in place.
Obviously, there has been some reduction in the operations of
both the Flaming Gorge Dam and the Aspinall unit in power
production. And if this recovery plan doesn't go forward, we
would expect further reductions, which would be impacts to this
great renewable hydroelectric resource, and would be replaced
with market-priced power from fossil fuels.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you. And, Mr. Tipton?
Mr. Tipton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Raley and Mr.
Garlick, you might want to comment on this, as well. Both of
you represent water and power users who have a direct interest
in avoiding ESA jeopardy. Do these programs in the bill adhere
to the beneficiaries pay principle, where water and power users
pay their way?
Mr. Raley. For power? I am sorry. For water? Yes, sir.
Mr. Tipton. Yes.
Mr. Raley. My clients are spending tens of millions of
dollars to provide resources to the program.
Mr. Tipton. And then my understanding is with this bill we
are also going to see that this is going to actually provide $3
million, an additional $3 million for construction? Is that
correct? Did you follow that in the bill?
Mr. Raley. I apologize, Congressman. I haven't focused on
that portion----
Mr. Tipton. OK, OK. Well, that is fine. Would it be fair to
say, Mr. Raley and Mr. Garlick--and, Mr. Shields, you might
want to comment on this--that if this bill goes through, or
doesn't go through, that water supplied in the State of
Colorado, which I represent, it will impact about 4 million
people, 900,000 acre-feet of irrigated land, and 80 percent of
Colorado's economy, and curtail some power production, and that
is the importance of this legislation?
Mr. Raley. Congressman, actually, those numbers are only a
part. Those numbers are from the Eastern Slope.
Mr. Tipton. Right.
Mr. Raley. And when you add together the beneficiaries on
the Western Slope, the numbers would be simply greater.
Mr. Tipton. Right.
Mr. Garlick. And I would simply add your reference to the
revenues from the power users contribute to about $3.5 million
annually in this program. And so, without that, we would not be
ESA compliant, and have major impacts to the production.
Mr. Tipton. You know, it seems we get a lot of debate on
ESA. And I think everybody is in concert. We want to make sure
that we are getting species recovery.
But, Mr. Raley, would you maybe like to expand maybe a
little more in regards to some of the moves that we need to
have, and perhaps ESA reform, to be able to deal with some of
the challenges of achieving the goal, still delivering the
power that the Bureau of Reclamation is charged with, as well?
Mr. Raley. Yes, sir. I would start with the fact that the
ESA itself doesn't contemplate programs like this. These
programs have been workarounds that have been put in place over
time, sometimes successfully, sometimes not. So a cohesive
authorization for programs to function, and a requirement that
the agencies participate in those programs would be of enormous
value. That would be the first place to start.
Then one could move to the section 7 consultation itself.
And there are any number of suggestions that have been tossed
around in Congress for improving the efficiency of section 7.
And then, because I want to keep my answer short, reduction in
litigation. Litigation is good for lawyers. And putting more
dollars into the species recovery and fewer opportunities for
litigation would be of great value.
Mr. Tipton. I appreciate that. Mr. Shields, the bill that
we are hearing today reduces overhead so that more funding is
dedicated actually to fish recovery and eventually delisting.
Yet Mr. Payne's testimony indicates opposition to overhead
reductions, specifically a reduction in something called
administrative cost fee. Do you have any comment on that?
Mr. Shields. Representative Tipton, the Subcommittee, in
drafting the bill, has exercised professional judgment as to
what is required to get this legislation--and primarily to get
the extension of authority the sufficient votes needed so that
it will pass the House of Representatives. To make it out of
this Committee, first of all.
We have had an arrangement in place for the Upper Colorado
River Recovery Program for over 15 years that has put--that has
cut the overhead rate charged by the Fish and Wildlife Service
in half. If this Subcommittee believes that the overhead should
be further reduced to 3 percent, we are willing to accept that.
Mr. Tipton. Well, would I be correct in saying that such
costs are 11 percent of transfers from the Upper Colorado
Program and 22 percent from the San Juan Program?
Mr. Shields. The San Juan Program recently, through Region
2's concurrence, has had their overhead reduced to 15 percent,
as well. But, as you know, this will make the overhead for both
of these programs a matter of law. This is a global issue with
respect to other types of conservation and recovery programs
across the Western United States. Other programs will continue
to charge at the standard indirect cost recovery rate, which I
believe, sir, is currently 22 percent.
Mr. Tipton. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McClintock. We have had a request for another round of
questions. So let me follow up on Mr. Tipton's point.
Mr. Shields, this basically is an ATM fee, is it not? It is
a fee for transferring funds. There is not a lot of
administrative work involved, is there?
Mr. Shields. The indirect cost recovery rate that is
assessed yields money that is transferred by the Fish and
Wildlife Service to their Washington office and to their
regional office. I am not knowledgeable about the particulars
of what they use those funds for.
Mr. McClintock. What would the justification be for 22
percent overhead for a simple funds transfer?
Mr. Shields. The----
Mr. McClintock. I mean if a bank charged that for an ATM
withdrawal, my suspicion is we would have a revolution on our
hands.
Mr. Shields. You are correct, sir. But I am simply not
qualified to speak on behalf of the Fish and Wildlife Service
with regard to that amount of overhead, and the uses to which
it is applied.
Mr. McClintock. Maybe Mr.----
Mr. Shields. I would be happy to follow up. I have
submitted information in the past to the Subcommittee from the
Fish and Wildlife Service, and I would be happy to submit
additional information, if that would be useful, sir.
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Payne, can you offer any enlightenment
on this subject?
Mr. Payne. Well, sir, I don't want to speak for the Fish
and Wildlife Service, but I will say that normally overhead
costs are--of course they are indirect charges for support
functions back at headquarters, as well----
Mr. McClintock. Yes, but these are funds transfers. What
support functions could possibly justify a 22 percent ATM fee?
Mr. Shields. I completely understand where you are coming
from. I don't know where Fish comes up with their numbers. I
haven't seen their numbers.
Mr. McClintock. Right. Thank you. That does it for me. Mrs.
Napolitano.
Mrs. Napolitano. Well, thank you. Just a very quick one.
And I understand, Mr. Raley, you said that this was touted as a
model, yet the circumstances are quite different. But the
cooperation issue is vital in many of these project agreements
that are working collaboratively.
Is there any message that we in Congress need to take from
everybody coming to the table, the Tribes, the government, the
water entities, all of you? The whole list of them is
impressive. How did you do that? And how can others emulate at
least beginning to bring everybody, as you say, to the table?
Mr. Raley. Congresswoman, I would start with Congress fully
explaining how recovery programs are supposed to work, and to
authorize them across the board, because it is not there. And
we end up with workarounds. And in other basins, it doesn't
work. And I think that Congress paying attention to it and
forcing programs like this would be of great value.
Mrs. Napolitano. Anyone else?
Mr. Kirkpatrick. Ranking Member Napolitano, I will just
give the example of how we in the San Juan Basin came together.
We were working on the development of a water project known as
the Animas-La Plata Project. Certain parties were using the
Endangered Species Act to tort the development of that project
to meet the settlement requirements of the two Ute Tribes in
Colorado, primarily, and water supplies for New Mexico,
including the Navajo Nation. And we were somewhat forced by the
circumstances of the Endangered Species Act to find solutions.
We looked to the north, looked to the Upper Basin Program,
and to the best of ability, developed the same with the
challenge of working together. And to say that was a pretty
process would not be truthful. It was very tense, difficult.
But we decided it was far better to find a solution than it was
to go to court with little chance of success. We had just
followed some other things that we knew about.
And it has to be a common goal to resolve an issue. When we
began this project, we felt the ESA Act was a problem. We found
a solution. And the solution has certainly worked well for us
in our basin. And, as I said, we will see recovery by 2023. And
we have never had a challenge--we are about to conclude the
Navajo settlement, the largest Indian rights settlement in the
United States, as we sit here today. We will be finished by
December of next year with that. We have the two Utes settled.
The Hickory Apache, as well, is settled. So we have settled the
four entities.
I gave to your staffers some maps. And if you look at the
San Juan Basin you will understand why the Native American
involvement is so critical. All right? Thank you. I hope that
helped.
Mrs. Napolitano. Yes, it does. And one of the reasons is I
have been involved with the removal of the uranium tailings in
Moab for years, because the Colorado River provides Southern
California with a third of our potable water. So getting some
of these projects moving and working together cooperatively has
always been something that I have advocated, and hope to see
more of these in this day and age where we utilize more
litigation than we use cooperation. So thank you for your
answer.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Lujan?
Mr. Lujan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. And I want to
thank our witnesses who are with us today, especially our
executive director, Mr. Kirkpatrick, from the San Juan Water
Commission. It is always an honor to see you, sir, someone that
is relentless when it comes to his advocacy for the strength of
our communities, but also for water. It is also an honor to be
in front of you, sir.
With that being said, Mr. Kirkpatrick, I know that you have
some concerns about Reclamation's assertion of the ability to
provide hydropower revenues under their current authority. Can
you tell us a little bit more about why that is a concern?
Mr. Kirkpatrick. Congressman Lujan, it is a pleasure to
speak to you. And responding to that is while we have been
orally informed that the Bureau can, in fact, allocate these
funds, a little bit in the history in the past is before the
San Juan program, actually, they were providing this funding.
We did, in fact, change administrations, and then there was
some concern that the numbers of dollars we were spending were
getting too large. And, therefore, they needed congressional
authorization.
And this program requires certainty through 2023. And
without that certainty, we could still fail. I know the
question was asked earlier why we need this legislation passed.
Having worked on this for those 23 years that I spoke of
earlier, I recognize that we need that congressional
authorization.
While we do trust and respect the managerial staff of the
Bureau of Reclamation, we are not certain that we will have
this money. And any delay--let us be candid; I have been
working on it for 23 years, we have been working on projects as
long as--since 1908, when the Animas-La Plata started, so we
understand how long these projects can take. We don't want a
reversal. A year or two of loss, just like the droughts have
done to us, have slowed us down. We don't need a drought of
money any more than we need a drought of water in the river.
Mr. Lujan. I appreciate that, Mr. Kirkpatrick. And the next
question leads a little bit from there, as well. Do you have
any concerns that the current legislation has changed the
authorization of base funding from power revenues from 2023 to
2019?
Mr. Kirkpatrick. That question was asked earlier. And, yes,
we have some concerns because of that certainty issue.
I also concur with the other witnesses here that we do need
that check and balance from Congress periodically, and with
language that makes clear that will occur. I believe that 2023
would be an adequate date. In fact, I am aware that the similar
legislation in the Senate will have 2023, as we sit here today.
Mr. Lujan. I appreciate that. And, Mr. Kirkpatrick, I
appreciate the maps, as well, that you have put together
pertaining to the importance of these settlements, namely with
the Hickory Apache Nation and the Navajo Nation. But some
things are worth repeating. Can you tell us why the completion
and success of these projects is important to the Tribal
communities of the Navajo Nation and the Hickory Apache Nation
and the integrity of water settlements involving Tribes?
Mr. Kirkpatrick. Those settlements are the final tribal
settlements within the San Juan Basin. And they will give
surety not only to the Tribes that they will have water
supplies adequate for their current and future requirements,
but they equally assure that the existing uses by non-Indians
and any future development of any water by the non-Tribal
parties will also have surety of their water supplies.
One who deals in water in the West understands that Tribes
have a reserve water right that is superior to all other water
rights. In other words, they are normally earlier. And if you
understand the priority system, that is a very critical nature.
In the San Juan Basin--actually, the Navajo Nation's is the
second most senior water right in the San Juan Basin. The one
that is most senior, which is the one we don't hear often
about, is the Mountain Ute Tribe, which has not settled its
rights in New Mexico. They have settled them in Colorado.
So, it is very important to everyone's certainty and the
economic engine that I am sure, Congressman Lujan, you
understand what San Juan Basin has been for New Mexico, that we
do have this certainty of water supply.
Mr. Lujan. I appreciate that, Mr. Kirkpatrick. And, Mr.
Chairman, we appreciate you bringing this hearing, as well, and
the work of Mr. Bishop and that of the Majority and Minority
staff on this. This is an important issue to many of us, and I
hope we can get this one done. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McClintock. Very good. Thank you. I want to thank all
for their testimony today. I want to apologize again for the
delay in the hearing, because of the votes on the House Floor.
We may have members with additional questions for
witnesses, and we would ask that you respond to those in
writing. The hearing record will be open for 10 business days
to receive those responses. And if there is no further
business, without objection the Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:02 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]

The documents listed below have been retained in the
Committee's official files.

Board of Water Works of Pueblo, Colorado--
Letter of Support for H.R. 6060
Central Utah Water Conservancy District--
Letter of Support for H.R. 6060
City of Aurora, Colorado--Letter of Support
for H.R. 6060
Colorado Springs Utilities--Letter of Support
for H.R. 6060
Colorado Water Congress--Letter of Support
for H.R. 6060
Denver Water--Letter of Support for H.R. 6060
Front Range Water Council--Letter of Support
for H.R. 6060
Grand Valley Water Users' Association--Letter
of Support for H.R. 6060
Green River, Rock Springs, Sweetwater
County--Letter of Support for H.R. 6060
Jicarilla Apache Nation--Letter of Support
for H.R. 6060
Northern Colorado Water Conservancy
District--Letter of Support for H.R. 6060
Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District,
Municipal Subdistrict--Letter of Support for H.R. 6060
PNM Resources, Inc.--Letter of Support for
H.R. 6060
San Juan Water Commission--Letter of Support
for H.R. 6060
Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy
District--Letter of Support for H.R. 6060
Southern Ute Indian Tribe--Letter of Support
for H.R. 6060
Southwestern Water Conservancy District--
Letter of Support for H.R. 6060
State of Wyoming--Letter of Support for H.R.
6060
State of Colorado--Letter of Support for H.R.
6060
The Nature Conservancy--Letter of Support for
H.R. 6060
The Uncompahgre Valley Water Users
Association--Letter of Support for H.R. 6060
Tri-County Water Conservancy District--Letter
of Support for H.R. 6060
Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy
District--Letter of Support for H.R. 6060
Utah Water Users Association--Letter of
Support for H.R. 6060
Western Business Roundtable--Letter of
Support for H.R. 6060