[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 6583, ``BIG SAND WASH PROJECT TITLE TRANSFER ACT''; AND H.R.
6652, TO DIRECT THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO CONVEY CERTAIN
FACILITIES, EASEMENTS, AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY TO THE KENNEWICK IRRIGATION
DISTRICT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, POWER AND OCEANS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
Wednesday, September 5, 2018
__________
Serial No. 115-52
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
31-400 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democratic Member
Don Young, AK Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Chairman Emeritus Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Louie Gohmert, TX Jim Costa, CA
Vice Chairman Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Doug Lamborn, CO CNMI
Robert J. Wittman, VA Niki Tsongas, MA
Tom McClintock, CA Jared Huffman, CA
Stevan Pearce, NM Vice Ranking Member
Glenn Thompson, PA Alan S. Lowenthal, CA
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Donald S. Beyer, Jr., VA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Ruben Gallego, AZ
Scott R. Tipton, CO Colleen Hanabusa, HI
Doug LaMalfa, CA Nanette Diaz Barragan, CA
Jeff Denham, CA Darren Soto, FL
Paul Cook, CA A. Donald McEachin, VA
Bruce Westerman, AR Anthony G. Brown, MD
Garret Graves, LA Wm. Lacy Clay, MO
Jody B. Hice, GA Jimmy Gomez, CA
Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
Daniel Webster, FL
Jack Bergman, MI
Liz Cheney, WY
Mike Johnson, LA
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR
Greg Gianforte, MT
John R. Curtis, UT
Cody Stewart, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
David Watkins, Democratic Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER, POWER AND OCEANS
DOUG LAMBORN, CO, Chairman
JARED HUFFMAN, CA, Ranking Democratic Member
Robert J. Wittman, VA Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Tom McClintock, CA Jim Costa, CA
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Donald S. Beyer, Jr., VA
Doug LaMalfa, CA Nanette Diaz Barragan, CA
Jeff Denham, CA Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Garret Graves, LA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Jody B. Hice, GA CNMI
Daniel Webster, FL Jimmy Gomez, CA
Vice Chairman Raul M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio
Mike Johnson, LA
Greg Gianforte, MT
Rob Bishop, UT, ex officio
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Wednesday, September 5, 2018..................... 1
Statement of Members:
Huffman, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Lamborn, Hon. Doug, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Colorado.......................................... 2
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Statement of Witnesses:
Ewell, Hon. Austin, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Water and
Science, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC... 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
Freeman, Chuck, District Manager, Kennewick Irrigation
District, Kennewick, Washington............................ 23
Prepared statement of.................................... 24
Shawcroft, Gene, General Manager, Central Utah Water
Conservancy District, Orem, Utah........................... 10
Prepared statement of.................................... 12
Winterton, Dex, General Manager, Moon Lake Water Users
Association, Roosevelt, Utah............................... 16
Prepared statement of.................................... 17
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 6583, TO AUTHORIZE THE SECRETARY OF THE
INTERIOR TO CONVEY CERTAIN LANDS AND FACILITIES OF THE BIG SAND WASH
PROJECT, UTAH, ``BIG SAND WASH PROJECT TITLE TRANSFER ACT''; AND H.R.
6652, TO DIRECT THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO CONVEY CERTAIN
FACILITIES, EASEMENTS, AND RIGHTS-OF-WAY TO THE KENNEWICK IRRIGATION
DISTRICT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
----------
Wednesday, September 5, 2018
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:05 p.m., in
room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Doug Lamborn
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Lamborn, Bishop; Huffman, and
Barragan.
Mr. Lamborn. The Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans
will come to order. The Water, Power and Oceans Subcommittee
meets today to hear testimony on H.R. 6583, sponsored by
Committee Chairman Rob Bishop of Utah; and H.R. 6652, sponsored
by Representative Newhouse of Washington.
Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at
hearings are limited to the Chairman, the Ranking Minority
Member, and the Vice Chair. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent
that all other Members' opening statements be made part of the
hearing record if they are submitted to the Subcommittee Clerk
by 5:00 p.m. today.
Without objection, so ordered.
The Committee will consider each bill individually, hearing
all testimony on that bill. If a witness is addressing multiple
bills, the complete testimony will be heard at one time. After
all the testimony is heard on the first bill, Members will have
5 minutes to ask questions on that bill only. We will then hear
from our witnesses on the next bill, and repeat the process.
We will begin with opening statements, starting with myself
for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DOUG LAMBORN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Mr. Lamborn. The Subcommittee meets today to consider two
Bureau of Reclamation title transfer bills that give local
control of critical water facilities and infrastructure to the
local entities that already operate and maintain those
facilities.
Title transfers are often a win-win for the taxpayer and
the local communities that are served by these facilities.
Transferring simple projects, or parts of them, allows water
districts and other local beneficiaries to leverage non-Federal
financing through ownership equity, while simultaneously
decreasing Federal liability.
Facilitating these types of title transfers remains a
priority for this Subcommittee. As some of you are aware, I
have authored a bill, H.R. 3281, which establishes a
streamlined process for administratively conducting title
transfers for uncomplicated, single-purpose water facilities.
The Administration has also transmitted a similar proposal
which aims to do the same.
Both bills we are considering here today, one sponsored by
Chairman Bishop and one by Congressman Newhouse, transfer
facilities to the respective local water managers. In both
cases, as is a general requirement for title transfers, the
recipients are fully willing to repay the balance of the
Federal repayment obligation to receive title to these
facilities. Additionally, both transfers will ultimately
include agreements to ensure that current water deliveries are
held constant throughout and after the transfer.
The Federal Government provided the initial capital
contribution to build the vast majority of early Reclamation
projects. However, the water and power customers who benefited
from the facilities entered into long-term contracts with the
Federal Government to repay their part of the initial taxpayer
investment.
Under the Reclamation law, Reclamation may transfer day-to-
day operational and maintenance responsibilities to project
beneficiaries. However, the title or ownership of any facility
must remain in Federal ownership until Congress enacts
legislation specifically authorizing such a transfer. And that
is why we are here today.
The two bills in front of us support local infrastructure
and give local communities the ability to seek private
financing through equity to improve vital water infrastructure.
Additionally, these transfers can reduce paperwork and staff
time at both the Federal and local levels, and reduce the
Federal backlog of repairs to these facilities, which can
improve the environment and public safety.
I want to thank the witnesses for their willingness to be
here with us today, and I look forward to hearing from our
witnesses today on the local benefits of these title transfers.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lamborn follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Doug Lamborn, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Water, Power and Oceans
The Subcommittee meets today to consider two Bureau of Reclamation
title transfer bills that give local control of critical water
facilities and infrastructure to the local entities that already
operate and maintain those facilities.
Title transfers are often a win-win for the taxpayer and the local
communities that are served by these facilities. Transferring simple
projects--or parts of them--allows water districts and other local
beneficiaries to leverage non-Federal financing through ownership
equity while simultaneously decreasing Federal liability. Facilitating
these types of title transfers remains a priority for this
Subcommittee. As some of you are aware, I have authored a bill, H.R.
3281, which establishes a streamlined process for administratively
conducting title transfers for uncomplicated, single-purpose water
facilities. The Administration has also transmitted a similar proposal
which aims to do the same.
Both bills we are considering here today, one sponsored by Chairman
Bishop and one by Congressman Newhouse, transfer facilities to the
respective local water managers. In both cases, as is a general
requirement for title transfers, the recipients are fully willing to
repay the balance of the Federal repayment obligation to receive title
to these facilities. Additionally, both transfers will ultimately
include agreements to ensure that current water deliveries are held
constant throughout and after the transfer.
The Federal Government provided the initial capital contribution to
build the vast majority of early Reclamation projects, however, the
water and power customers who benefited from the facilities entered
into long-term contracts with the Federal Government to repay their
part of the initial taxpayer investment.
Under the Reclamation law, Reclamation may transfer day-to-day
operational and maintenance responsibilities to project beneficiaries,
however, the title or ownership of any facility must remain in Federal
ownership until Congress enacts legislation specifically authorizing
such a transfer. That is why we are here today.
The two bills in front of us today support local infrastructure and
give local communities the ability to seek private financing, through
equity, to improve vital water infrastructure. Additionally, these
transfers can reduce paperwork and staff time at both the Federal and
local levels and reduce the Federal backlog of repairs to these
facilities, which can improve both the environment and public safety.
I want to thank the witnesses for their willingness to be here with
us today and look forward to hearing from our witnesses today on the
local benefits of these title transfers.
______
Mr. Lamborn. I now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr.
Huffman of California, for 5 minutes for his statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JARED HUFFMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome to our
witnesses. I am glad to be here, examining these two title
transfer bills. These bills before us would authorize the
Federal Government to relinquish ownership of certain Federal
water facilities to local water districts in Utah and
Washington State.
The first bill, H.R. 6583, involving the Uintah--if I am
pronouncing that right--Basin Replacement Project is one that
supplies water for irrigation and municipal and industrial
purposes around Duchesne County, Utah. I look forward to
learning more about this bill, and am grateful that we have
witnesses from the Central Utah Water Conservancy District and
Moon Lake Water Users with us here today.
Next is H.R. 6652, authorizing the transfer of certain
canals and laterals associated with the Kennewick Irrigation
District in Benton County, Washington. Glad that we are hearing
from that irrigation district. I should note also that the
Yakima Nation has been an interested stakeholder. They've been
in contact with my office, and I'm pleased to learn,
apparently, that they have also been in contact with the
irrigation district and some of their concerns have been
incorporated in proposed amendments. So, I want to commend
folks for continuing to work with critical stakeholders. I look
forward to hearing more about that legislation, as well.
Speaking of working collaboratively on title transfers, I
have to note that we have a little unfinished business before
this Subcommittee. The Chairman and I agree on the concept of
title transfers in many cases, and yet we have been dealing
with this issue on a project-by-project, piecemeal basis,
rather than looking at a broader policy framework. And I am
hoping we can maybe follow the lead that the Senate has started
to demonstrate, by trying to establish some broad policy
factors that can guide these decisions, going forward.
The Chairman knows that I have long supported the idea of
making it easier to carry out title transfers, as long as these
transfers preserve environmental protections, abide by our
tribal trust obligations, and ensure fair taxpayer
compensation. In some cases, it is very important to recognize
taxpayers have invested tens of millions of dollars in the
construction of water infrastructure, and it is only fair that
they, the taxpayers, be properly compensated for their
investment before Federal assets are relinquished.
Also critical, I believe that title transfers should do no
harm to tribes, to our Nation's environment, or to other water
users. The Bureau of Reclamation projects and the decisions
about how to operate them can have an enormous impact on the
health of our Nation's native fish and wildlife, including
tribal fisheries. So, those are factors that need to be part of
a, hopefully, bipartisan framework on this issue, going
forward.
And the operation of these projects can determine how river
flows are regulated, whether migrating fish can move
downstream, whether rivers stay at temperatures sufficient to
sustain native fish and wildlife. The projects have to be
operated in a balanced manner that protects the environment, no
matter who owns them, going forward.
As we consider potential reforms, I think we can certainly
make it easier to carry out the non-controversial transfers
that only serve a narrow set of stakeholders, but I do not
support transfers that allow one stakeholder to take sole
ownership of large, multipurpose water projects that are vital
to many stakeholders. Those are just inherently more
complicated, in my view.
I look forward to seeing if we can't find some more common
ground on this issue.
I welcome the witnesses, and with that I yield back, Mr.
Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Huffman follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Jared Huffman, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Water, Power and Oceans
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'm glad to be here today to examine two title transfer bills. The
bills before us would authorize the Federal Government to relinquish
ownership of certain Federal water facilities to local water districts
in Utah and Washington State.
First on the agenda we have H.R. 6583, which would authorize the
transfer of certain features and lands associated with the Uinta Basin
Replacement Project, which supplies water for irrigation and municipal
and industrial purposes around Duchesne County, Utah. I look forward to
hearing more about this bill and I want to thank our witnesses from the
Central Utah Water Conservancy District and Moon Lake Water Users
Association for joining us today.
Next on the agenda we have H.R. 6652, which would authorize the
transfer of certain canals and laterals serving the Kennewick
Irrigation District, located in Benton County, Washington. While I'm
glad we'll be hearing from the Kennewick Irrigation District today, I
should note that the Yakama Nation also has an interest in this
legislation and has been in contact with my office.
I understand that the Yakama Nation's proposed a series of
amendments to H.R. 6652 that aim to preserve tribal rights and
interests. I also understand that the Kennewick Irrigation District's
rightfully agreed to the proposed amendments. I'm glad to hear that
Kennewick has checked in with other stakeholders and is working in a
collaborative manner on this bill. I look forward to hearing more about
this legislation as well.
Speaking of working collaboratively on title transfers, I must note
that an area of unfinished business for us, Mr. Chairman, is finding
agreement on the broader title transfer issue. Republicans and
Democrats in the Senate have come together and reached a compromise on
broad title transfer legislation. I hope we can make the same progress
in this chamber.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, I've long supported the idea of making
it easier to carry out title transfers, so long as those transfers
preserve environmental protections, abide by our tribal trust
obligations, and ensure fair taxpayer compensation.
Taxpayers have invested tens of billions in the construction of our
Nation's water projects. It's only fair that taxpayers be properly
compensation for their investment before Federal assets are
relinquished.
It's also critical that title transfers do no harm to tribes or our
Nation's environment. The Bureau of Reclamation's water projects and
the decisions made about how to operate them have an enormous impact on
the health of our Nation's native fish and wildlife, including tribal
fisheries.
The operation of many water projects determine how river flows are
regulated, whether migrating fish can move downstream, and whether
rivers stay at temperatures sufficient to support the existence of fish
and wildlife. These kinds of water projects must be operated in a
balanced manner that protects the environment.
As we consider potential reforms, I think we can certainly make it
easier to carry out non-controversial transfers that only serve a
narrow set of stakeholders. That being said, I do not support title
transfers that allow one stakeholder to take sole ownership of large,
multipurpose water projects that serve numerous stakeholders.
Large multipurpose water projects, of which there are many across
the West, often need to be operated in a manner that balances sometimes
conflicting stakeholder interests. Transferring ownership to just one
stakeholder would likely result in significant harm to many other
interests impacted by the operation of water projects, including
tribes, fishing groups, power users, and environmental and recreational
interests, to name a few.
I also believe that title transfers must not undermine bedrock
environmental laws like ESA or NEPA. I'm glad to see that both of
today's bills require compliance with ESA and NEPA. That being said,
both bills also approve a title transfer before the NEPA process is
actually carried out.
As we consider both bills, I do want to give some thought to
whether NEPA should be carried out before a final decision is made
about a title transfer. NEPA, after all, is intended to inform decision
making. Given that fact, we may want to leave some limited discretion
with the Interior Department to allow a final decision to be made,
within certain parameters, after the NEPA process is complete.
Nevertheless, I remain open to working across the aisle in a
collaborative manner. I think we can carry out many title transfers
while protecting environmental, tribal, and taxpayer interests. I hope
we can keep working together on this issue, Mr. Chairman. There's
certainly room to improve the existing title transfer process while
keeping important protections in place, and I hope you'll join me in
that effort.
Thank you, I yield back.
______
Mr. Lamborn. All right. I will now introduce our panel of
witnesses.
Our first witness is Mr. Austin Ewell, Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Water and Science for the Department of the
Interior, from Washington, DC; our second witness is Mr. Gene
Shawcroft, General Manager of the Central Utah Water
Conservancy District, from Orem, Utah; our third witness is Mr.
Dex Winterton, General Manager of the Moon Lake Water Users
Association, from Roosevelt, Utah; and our final witness is Mr.
Chuck Freeman, District Manager for the Kennewick Irrigation
District, from Kennewick, Washington.
Thank you all for taking the time to be here. Each witness'
written testimony will appear in full in the hearing record, so
I ask that you keep your oral statements to 5 minutes, as
outlined in our invitation letter to you, and also under
Committee Rule 4(a).
I also want to explain how our timing lights work. When you
are recognized, press the talk button to activate your
microphone. Once you begin your testimony the Clerk will start
the timer and a green light will appear. After 4 minutes, a
yellow light will appear, and at that time you should begin to
conclude your statement. At 5 minutes, the red light will come
on. You may complete your sentence, but I ask that you stop at
that point.
We will now hear testimony on H.R. 6583, starting with the
bill's sponsor and Committee Chairman, Mr. Rob Bishop of Utah.
The Chairman. I'll wait.
Mr. Lamborn. OK. We will now hear from our panel of
witnesses. And, again, if your testimony is broader than just
the first bill, we will still hear your entire statement, but
we would ask that you remain for questions on the other
measures later in the hearing. And those who have testified
only on the first bill will be able to leave after we take up
consideration on the second bill.
Mr. Ewell, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. AUSTIN EWELL, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY
FOR WATER AND SCIENCE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Ewell. Thank you very much. Good afternoon. And also,
thank you to staff for your efforts on this.
Chairman Lamborn, Ranking Member Huffman, and members of
the Subcommittee, I am Austin Ewell, Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Water and Science at the Department of the Interior. Thank
you for the opportunity to provide the Department's views on
two title transfer bills.
The Department has an active title transfer program, and
supports transferring certain reclamation project facilities to
non-Federal entities, particularly in cases where transfers
could create opportunities, not just for those who receive
title, but for other stakeholders and the public, as well.
A streamlined title transfer process for uncomplicated
transfers would create incentives for non-Federal entities to
closely engage with the Bureau of Reclamation to complete the
application process and allow for appropriate transfers to take
place without legislation. This approach is reflected in the
Administration's title transfer legislation proposal
transmitted to Congress this past February.
Let me turn my attention to the two bills before the
Subcommittee.
H.R. 6652, the Kennewick Irrigation District Transfer Act
directs the Department to offer to transfer and convey to the
Kennewick Irrigation District all right, title, and interest of
the United States in and to the Kennewick Irrigation District
Canal within 2 years of enactment of this Act.
The canal includes the entirety of the canal unit of the
Yakima project, including canals, lateral appurtenant works,
and lands which begin at the District's head gate, and extends
approximately 40 miles east of the Columbia River.
The facilities under consideration to be transferred are
currently owned by Reclamation, but responsibility for their
operations and maintenance has been transferred to the
District.
The Department recognizes that the District is a long-time
Yakima project contractor, and that, regardless of canal
ownership, the District would continue to pay their share of
the Yakima project operations and maintenance through their
water service contract.
Reclamation has been working closely with the District on
this title transfer, and we look forward to continuing that
progress.
H.R. 6583, the Big Sand Wash Project Title Transfer Act,
would transfer title to the Big Sand Wash Reservoir and the
other features of the Uintah Basin Replacement Project from the
United States to the Central Utah Water Conservancy District.
The project was authorized in Section 203 of the Central Utah
Project Completion Act to implement specific projects in the
Uintah Basin of Eastern Utah.
The project provides 2,500 acre-feet of irrigation water,
and 3,000 acre-feet of municipal and industrial water, reduces
wilderness impacts, increases instream flows, and improves
recreational opportunities. The project was implemented under a
partnership agreement, whereby the Department provided $64
million of upfrontFederal funding; Central Utah provided $27
million of local funding; and the Utah Reclamation Mitigation
and Conservation Commission also provided additional Federal
funding for environmental mitigation.
Under the project agreements, Moon Lake Water Users
Association agreed to allow its existing private facilities to
be used for the project, but provided no funding. Central Utah
constructed the project features and is responsible for
repayment of the Federal investment, and for operation,
maintenance, and replacement of the project.
The key feature of the project is the Big Sand Wash Dam.
The original dam was owned by Moon Lake, who agreed to the
reconstruction of the dam as part of the project. Under the
project, Central Utah removed and replaced most of the existing
dam. The new Big Sand Wash Dam creates an enlarged reservoir
with twice the original capacity that is shared between Moon
Lake and the project. In order to enlarge the reservoir, the
additional land that would be newly inundated was acquired by
Central Utah, acting as a purchasing entity for the Federal
Government as part of its construction obligation.
I am pleased to say that, over the past several years, the
Department's representatives, along with Central Utah and Moon
Lake, have met with Chairman Bishop's office, working
constructively to resolve these issues. This bill would provide
the means to resolve the outstanding dispute by transferring
title to project facilities, but maintaining project deliveries
under contract. We look forward to continuing our work with the
Committee and local stakeholders to meet the goals of this
legislation.
My written testimony provides the recommended modifications
to both of these transfer bills. We believe that, if structured
properly, transferring title of each of these facilities will
resolve outstanding issues and create opportunities by allowing
the projects to be fully operated by those who best understand
the needs of their communities.
With the modifications in my testimony, the Department
would be pleased to support both bills.
I would be happy to respond to any questions.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ewell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Austin Ewell, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Water and Science, U.S. Department of the Interior on H.R. 6652 and
H.R. 6583
Chairman Lamborn, Ranking Member Huffman, and members of the
Subcommittee, I am Austin Ewell, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Water
and Science at the Department of the Interior (Department). Thank you
for the opportunity to provide the views of the Department on two title
transfer bills, H.R. 6652 and H.R. 6583.
As this Subcommittee knows, the Department has an active title
transfer program and supports transferring certain Reclamation project
facilities to non-Federal entities, particularly in cases where
transfers could create opportunities, not just for those who receive a
title, but for other stakeholders and the public as well. Specifically,
a streamlined title transfer process for uncomplicated transfers
creates incentives for non-Federal entities to closely engage with the
Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) to complete the process and allow
for appropriate transfers to take place without legislation. This
approach is reflected in the Administration's Title Transfer
legislative proposal, transmitted to Congress in February of this year.
Let me turn my attention to the two bills before the Subcommittee
today.
h.r. 6652, the kennewick irrigation district transfer act
H.R. 6652 directs the Department to offer to transfer and convey to
the Kennewick Irrigation District (District) all right, title, and
interest of the United States in and to the Kennewick Irrigation
District Canal (Canal) within 2 years of enactment of this Act. The
Canal includes the entirety of the Canal Unit of the Yakima Project,
including canals, lateral appurtenant works, and lands which begin at
the District's head-gate and extends approximately 40 miles east to the
Columbia River. The facilities under consideration to be transferred
are currently owned by Reclamation, but responsibility for their
operations and maintenance has been transferred to the District.
We believe that if structured properly, the transfer of these
facilities will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Canal's
operations by getting control of the lands and facilities into the
hands of those who best understand the needs of the community. We
believe that the District has effectively managed these facilities for
many years and would be a good and responsible candidate to take title
pursuant to a title transfer agreement that protects the interests of
the District, the local community, the Department, U.S. taxpayers and
other stakeholders.
The Department recognizes that the District is a longtime Yakima
Project contractor and that regardless of Canal ownership, the District
would continue to pay their share of Yakima Project operations and
maintenance through their water service contract.
Mr. Chairman, it is important to note that in most cases,
Reclamation and the entity interested in taking title completes all of
the necessary steps in the title transfer process, including the
development of the terms and conditions of the transfer that protect
the interests of the District, Reclamation and other stakeholders,
before pursuing legislation. Earlier this year, Reclamation and the
District entered into a Memorandum of Agreement which spells out all of
the steps for both analyzing the transfer proposal and then developing
the terms and conditions of the title transfer agreement. We believe
that we are making good progress in that process and are committed to
continuing to do so. However, as currently drafted, this legislation
would authorize the transfer before those steps are completed.
Instead, we recommend that the conveyance be completed pursuant to
a title transfer agreement developed between the Department and the
District. This will enable Reclamation and the District to concurrently
work through the upfront activities, such as holding public meetings to
ensure that the community that could potentially be impacted is aware
of the proposal and has the opportunity to raise questions and have
potential concerns addressed before we get to the legislative process.
We have had situations in previous transfers where stakeholder concerns
were not addressed until after the legislation was enacted which
required that additional legislation be introduced and considered
because the terms and conditions were delineated exclusively in the
legislation, and there was no flexibility to address unanticipated
problems after the fact. So instead of expediting the transfer's
completion, actual facility conveyance was significantly delayed due to
the need for additional legislation. It is our goal in this case to
avoid that.
Further, it is important that the legislation protects the
financial interests of taxpayers. While the District has not completed
its repayment obligation for its share of construction costs of the
Canal, the District is capable and willing to complete the repayment
obligation early to finalize the completion of the title transfer. We
need to accurately account for revenues from other contracts, leases,
and agreements that currently come to the United States but would
transfer to the District under this Act. As yet, that process has not
yet been completed. We recommend that the legislation acknowledge this
requirement. In addition, we recommend that Section 6 of the bill be
revised to authorize, rather than require, Reclamation to provide up to
50 percent of certain costs.
We would be pleased to work with the Committee, the sponsors and
the District on legislative language to reflect these necessary
modifications. In the meantime, we recommend that Reclamation and the
District complete a valuation analysis to ensure that the financial
interests of the United States are protected and that the results be
reflected in the title transfer agreement that is referenced in the
legislation.
Mr. Chairman, Reclamation has been working closely and
collaboratively with the District on this title transfer and we look
forward to continuing that progress.
With these modifications, the Department would be pleased to
support H.R. 6652.
h.r. 6583, the big sand wash project title transfer act
H.R. 6583 would transfer title to the Big Sand Wash Reservoir and
the other features of the Uintah Basin Replacement Project (Project)
from the United States to the Central Utah Water Conservancy District
(Central Utah). The Project was authorized in Section 203 of the
Central Utah Project Completion Act to implement specific projects in
the Uintah Basin of Eastern Utah.
The project provides 2,500 acre-feet of irrigation water and 3,000
acre-feet of municipal and industrial water; reduces wilderness
impacts; increases instream flows; and improves recreation
opportunities. The Project was implemented under a partnership
arrangement whereby the Department provided $64 million of up-front
Federal funding, Central Utah provided $27 million of local funding,
and the Utah Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation Commission also
provided additional Federal funding for environmental mitigation. Under
the project agreements, Moon Lake Water Users Association (Moon Lake)
agreed to allow its existing private facilities to be used for the
project but provided no funding. Central Utah constructed the Project
features and is responsible for repayment of the Federal investment and
for operation, maintenance, and replacement of the Project.
The key feature of the Project is the Big Sand Wash Dam. The
original dam was owned by Moon Lake who agreed to the reconstruction of
the dam as part of the Project. Under the Project, Central Utah removed
and replaced most of the existing dam. The New Big Sand Wash Dam
creates an enlarged reservoir with twice the original capacity that is
shared between Moon Lake and the Project. In order to enlarge the
reservoir, the additional land that would be newly inundated was
acquired by Central Utah, acting as a purchasing entity for the Federal
Government as part of its construction obligation, at a cost of $5.4
million, of which $4.7 million were Federal funds.
Before construction of the Project began, a Warranty Deed of
Easement on appurtenant associated lands was recorded November 15,
2001, under which Moon Lake gave permanent and temporary construction
and inundation easements to the United States for construction of the
Big Sand Wash Dam, dikes, and appurtenant structures. This Deed
included the following language: ``In the event of termination of the
Operating Agreement, all easements granted herein shall automatically
terminate.'' Although this provision of the Warranty Deed was approved
at that time by the Department, our current position is that this
language is not allowed by law for an additional easement to be
acquired for the reservoir lands because the easement would be
defeasible; that is, the easement would no longer exist or at best
become uncertain and subject to challenge should the Operating
Agreement be terminated.
In addition to the Warranty Deed, other agreements, including the
Operating Agreement, were also executed on November 15, 2001, for the
implementation of the Project and the Big Sand Wash enlargement. The
understanding in these agreements is that the land purchased by Central
Utah for inundation would be transferred to Moon Lake subject to a
permanent easement in the name of the United States. Moon Lake has
advocated strongly that the exact language from the Warranty Deed, be
included in land transfer documents.
From the Department's perspective, this presents potential legal
complications because 40 U.S.C. Sec. 3111 requires that any land or
interest acquired by the United States must be sufficient for the
purpose for which the property is being acquired. The purpose of this
acquisition is to have a permanent easement within the expanded
reservoir to store Project water. There is no other option for storage
of that water. Consequently, a defeasible interest is not sufficient
for the purpose of the acquisition. The language Moon Lake has
advocated for could leave the United States without the ability to
store Federal water after a substantial investment of $64 million to
develop the Project. In short, a defeasible easement interest makes the
Federal water supply from the Project uncertain and potentially subject
to re-allocation by a future Moon Lake action or leadership. The
communities and farms served by the Project cannot grow and develop if
they are required to rely upon an uncertain Project water supply.
In addition, as noted above, Central Utah used Federal funds to
acquire certain lands in its name for the purpose of water storage and
conveyance in the enlarged Big Sand Wash facility. These lands are
referred to as ``Acquired Lands'' in the proposed legislation. While
Central Utah may not have had the authority to use Federal funds to
acquire those lands in its name, the legislation also resolves this
issue.
This bill would provide the means to resolve the outstanding
dispute by transferring title to Project facilities but maintaining
Project deliveries under contract.
However, it is important to note that in most cases, the Department
and the entity interested in taking title must complete environmental
compliance activities and negotiate the terms and conditions of the
transfer before pursuing legislation. The Department has been working
with Central Utah closely on this effort and will continue to do so.
Although this proposed legislation, as currently drafted, would
authorize title transfer before those steps are completed, it requires
that all agreements needed to complete those steps be executed prior to
title transfer.
Thus, we recommend that the title transfer be completed pursuant to
the agreements procedure described in the Administration's Title
Transfer legislative proposal. This will enable the Department, Central
Utah, and the other stakeholders to successfully complete all of the
activities and agreements that are necessary as a prerequisite to title
transfer. We have had situations in previous title transfers where
additional legislation was required because the terms and conditions of
transfer were prescribed exclusively in the legislation leaving little
to no flexibility to address unanticipated problems or issues in those
matters.
We would be pleased to work with the Committee, Central Utah, and
the other stakeholders on legislative language to reflect these
necessary modifications.
Mr. Chairman, the Department has been working closely with Central
Utah on this issue and we look forward to continuing that progress. We
believe that if structured properly, title transfer of these facilities
will resolve the outstanding issues and create opportunities by
allowing the project to be fully operated by those who best understand
the needs of the community.
With these modifications, the Department would be pleased to
support H.R. 6583.
This completes my written statement.
______
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you.
Mr. Shawcroft, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF GENE SHAWCROFT, GENERAL MANAGER, CENTRAL UTAH
WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT, OREM, UTAH
Mr. Shawcroft. Thank you. Good afternoon. Chairman Lamborn,
Ranking Member Huffman, and members of the Subcommittee, I
serve as the General Manager for the Central Utah Water
Conservancy District, which is the state agency responsible for
the construction, repayment and maintenance of the Central Utah
Project.
I wish to express gratitude to Chairman Bishop for his
leadership on this legislation.
I am pleased to support H.R. 6583 which transfers title to
the Big Sand Wash Reservoir and related features of the Uintah
Basin Replacement Project to the District and, ultimately, the
local water users. With funding support from the Department of
the Interior, we built the replacement project to provide
additional water for agriculture and M&I use in Duchesne
County, Utah. The project helped to solve problems of access
and needed repair of small, high-mountain lakes located on High
Uintas Wilderness Areas upon which the farmers rely.
The features of the replacement project were constructed by
the District to enlarge Big Sand Wash Reservoir, which is owned
by the Moon Lake Water Users Association, so we could move
their water rights out of the wilderness area and provide a
firmer supplemental supply of water in the county.
The enlarged reservoir also provides new municipal water to
Roosevelt City and other entities through the Duchesne County
Water Conservancy District. The total cost of the project was
$90 million, which funding was provided through a 65 percent
Federal/35 percent District cost-share arrangement.
The replacement project includes the enlarged Big Sand Wash
Dam and Reservoir, which provides an additional 2,500 acre-feet
of irrigation and 3,000 acre-feet of M&I water, Federal water,
that is delivered to the Duchesne County Water Conservancy
District for use by its M&I and agricultural customers.
The enlargement-inundated lands were acquired by the
District at a cost of $5.4 million with both Federal and local
funds. The land acquisition process was very lengthy, and
although construction of the project was completed in 2007, the
final arrangements for the land transfer were not in place
until 2016.
The solution of a title transfer of the Big Sand Wash is to
resolve a dispute over language contained in a warranty deed of
easement on appurtenant lands that was given to the United
States by the Moon Lake Water Users Association. This deed
included the following language: ``In the event of termination
of the operating agreement, all easements granted herein shall
automatically terminate.'' Although the warranty deed with its
original sentence was approved by the Solicitor's Office, the
Department of the Interior's current position is that this
language is illegal and unenforceable, and can no longer be
honored.
The District initially suggested a solution to resolve the
issue, and that was to transfer the land that was purchased by
the District with Federal funding to the Association with a
permanent easement in the name of the United States. The
District prepared the transfer documents, however, the
Association insisted that the easement provided violated the
original agreement.
The Department of the Interior's Solicitor's Office insists
that the original language in the deed would result in a
defeasible interest in land of the United States, which is
illegal and unenforceable, and could leave the United States
without the ability to store supplemental Federal water after a
$90 million investment.
Over the past 3 years, under the direction of Chairman
Bishop, all of the parties, including the Utah office of the
Bureau of Reclamation and the Central Utah Project Completion
Act officials, have been working on a legislative solution. The
bill, as drafted today, is the result of these negotiations.
The District joined the Association and Duchesne County Water
Conservancy District and signed a Memorandum of Agreement,
which is part of the record, which is reflective of the text
associated with H.R. 6583.
This bill is very straightforward. It authorizes the
District to prepay all of the Federal partners' investment, and
that will enable the District to obtain title to these lands
for the purpose of transferring the properties at Big Sand Wash
Reservoir to Moon Lake Water Users Association.
Other features of the project include delivery pipelines to
Duchesne County municipal and industrial customers, and all of
these are specified in agreements that will be necessary in the
bill.
We appreciate your support, and are very supportive of H.R.
6583. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shawcroft follows:]
Prepared Statement of Gene Shawcroft, General Manager, Central Utah
Water Conservancy District in support of H.R. 6583
Chairman Lamborn, Ranking Member Huffman, and members of the
Subcommittee, I serve as General Manager of the Central Utah Water
Conservancy District (District), which is the state agency responsible
for the construction, repayment and maintenance of the Central Utah
Project. I wish to express my gratitude to Chairman Rob Bishop for his
leadership on this legislation. I am pleased to support H.R. 6583 which
transfers title to the Big Sand Wash Reservoir and related features of
the Uintah Basin Replacement Project (UBRP) to the District and
ultimately the local water users. With funding support from the
Interior Department, we built UBRP to provide additional water for
agriculture and M&I use in Duchesne County, Utah. The project helped to
solve problems of access and needed repair of small, high mountain
lakes located in the High Uintas Wilderness Area upon which the farmers
rely.
The features of UBRP were constructed by the District to enlarge
Big Sand Wash Reservoir, which is owned by the Moon Lake Water Users
Association, so we could move their water rights out of the wilderness
area and provide a firmer supplemental supply of water in the County.
The enlarged reservoir also provides new municipal water to Roosevelt
City and other entities through the Duchesne County Water Conservancy
District. The total cost of the project was $90 million, with funding
provided through a 65 percent Federal/35 percent District cost-share
arrangement.
UBRP includes the enlargement of the Big Sand Wash Dam and
Reservoir, which provides an additional 2,500 acre-feet for irrigation
and 3,000 acre-feet for M&I of Federal water that is delivered to the
Duchesne County Water Conservancy District for use by its M&I and
agricultural customers. The enlargement-inundated lands were acquired
by the District at a cost of $5.4 million with both Federal and local
funds. The land acquisition process was very lengthy, and although
construction of the project was completed in 2007, the final
arrangements for land transfer were not in place until 2016.
The solution of a title transfer of the Big Sand Wash Dam is to
resolve a dispute over language contained in a warranty deed of
easement on appurtenant lands that was given to the United States by
the Moon Lake Water Users Association. This deed included the following
language: ``In the event of termination of the Operating Agreement, all
easements granted herein shall automatically terminate.'' This created
an expectation by Moon Lake Water Users Association that at some point
the dam would once again become their property. Although the warranty
deed with this original sentence was approved by the Solicitor's
Office, the Department of the Interior's current position is that this
language is illegal and unenforceable and can no longer be honored.
The District initially suggested one solution to resolve the issue
and that was to transfer the land that was purchased by the District
with Federal funding to Moon Lake Water Users Association with a
permanent easement in the name of the United States. The District even
prepared the transfer documents; however, Moon Lake Water Users
Association insisted that the easement provision violated the original
agreement. The Department of the Interior's Solicitors Office insists
that the original language in the deed would result in a defeasible
interest in land of the United States, which is illegal and
unenforceable, and could leave the United States without the ability to
store supplemental Federal water after a $90 million investment in the
project.
Over the past 3 years, under direction from Chairman Rob Bishop's
office, all of the parties including the Utah offices of the Bureau of
Reclamation and CUPCA officials, have been working a legislative
solution. The bill as drafted today is the result of these
negotiations. The District joined Moon Lake Water Users Association and
Duchesne County Water Conservancy District and signed a Memorandum of
Agreement (attached for the record), which is reflected in legislative
text of H.R. 6583. The bill is very straightforward. It authorizes the
District to prepay all of our Federal partners' investment and that
will enable the District to obtain title to these lands for the
ultimate purpose of transferring the properties at Big Sand Wash
Reservoir to Moon Lake Water Users Association. Other features of the
project that include the delivery pipelines to Duchesne County for its
municipal and irrigation customers will be transferred to those
specific users through the agreements as specified in the bill. All of
these customers will continue to pay the District for the water we sell
them until we recoup our costs. The UBRP facilities are stand alone,
meaning they only serve the water users involved. This makes it ideal
for title transfer.
I believe H.R. 6583 represents the best solution to resolve this
legal dilemma. It returns the Federal Government's money, allows those
who maintain and operate these facilities to obtain title to them, and
resolves a legal conflict between the District and the Department of
the Interior. On behalf of the District, I want to again thank Chairman
Bishop for his support throughout this process and the vitally
important suggestions and contributions of the Interior Department
officials in Utah who helped us develop this solution.
*****
attachment for the record
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
AMONG
CENTRAL UTAH WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT (CUWCD),
MOON LAKE WATER USERS ASSOCIATION (ASSOCIATION),
AND
DUCHESNE COUNTY WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT (DCWCD)
FOR RESOLVING MULTIPLE ADMINISTRATIVE AND OPERATIONAL ISSUES
REGARDING
UINTA BASIN REPLACEMENT PROJECT (UBRP) FACILITIES
This MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT (MOA) is made and entered into this 27th
day of June, 2018 among the Central Utah Water Conservancy District,
355 West University Parkway, Orem, Utah 84058; the Moon Lake Water
Users Association, 263 East Lagoon Street, P.O. Box 235, Roosevelt,
Utah 84066; and the Duchesne County Water Conservancy District, 275
West 800 South, Roosevelt, Utah 84066. Collectively the preceding shall
be referred to as ``the Parties.''
The Parties have agreed to the following concepts, some to be included
in proposed UBRP-specific Title Transfer Legislation (Legislation) and
others not, to resolve multiple administrative and operational issues
regarding UBRP facilities:
Concepts included in the Legislation:
Land
The land acquired for UBRP and held by CUWCD would remain in the name
of CUWCD. The Legislation would authorize the three parcels of land
acquired by the United States for Big Sand Wash Reservoir to be
transferred to CUWCD. After enactment of the Legislation and under a
separate agreement, most of the land acquired by CUWCD and the United
States would be transferred from CUWCD to ASSOCIATION. The land
underlying Utah State Highway 87 would be transferred from CUWCD to the
Utah Department of Transportation. This land transfer would not include
land acquired for mitigation of UBRP, which would remain in the name of
and under the administration of the United States.
Repayment
The Legislation would restate the authority provided under Section 210
of the Central Utah Project Completion Act (CUPCA), found in Public Law
102-575, which allows CUWCD to prepay their municipal and industrial
(M&I) repayment obligation. The Legislation would also allow CUWCD to
prepay its irrigation repayment obligations on a block-notice-by-block-
notice basis. The effect of this authorization would be to remove
Reclamation Reform Act (RRA) requirements from CUWCD and those to whom
it sells water as each block notice is prepaid.
Facilities
The outlet works at Moon Lake Dam, which were modified under UBRP,
would remain as features of the Federal Moon Lake Project. All other
features of UBRP would be transferred from the United States to CUWCD,
including the Big Sand Wash Feeder Diversion, the Big Sand Wash Feeder
Pipeline, and the Big Sand Wash-Roosevelt Pipeline. (See accompanying
Figure 1.1, Uinta Basin Replacement Project Features, for location
information.)
Agreements
Title transfer from CUWCD to ASSOCIATION would be contingent upon the
execution of several agreements in accordance with the Legislation. The
Parties agree that the UBRP Operating Agreement, Agreement No. 01-07-
40-R7020 dated November 15, 2001, shall be preserved as the controlling
document, recognizing that some modification will be necessary.
Title transfer and the execution of the agreements would be contingent
upon the completion of National Environmental Protection Agency (NEPA)
and cultural resource compliance.
The Parties recognize the necessity for a timely, collaborative
approach in preparing and executing the referenced agreements. The
Parties also acknowledge that agreement provisions need to be
implemented in a mutually beneficial, cooperative manner.
Concepts not included in the Legislation:
Water Rights
Section 203(e) ofCUPCA states: ``WATER RIGHTS.--To make water rights
available for any of the features constructed as authorized in this
section, the [United States] Bureau [of Reclamation] shall convey to
[CUWCD] in accordance with [Utah] State law the water rights evidenced
by Water Right No. 43-3825 (Application No. A36642) and Water Right No.
43-3827 (Application No. A36644).''
In accordance with this Section of CUPCA, these water rights have been
assigned to CUWCD. A deed, however, must be conveyed from the United
States to CUWCD to complete the conveyance.
Water Transfer
Although not part of the Legislation, but associated with the title
transfer, would be the potential exchange of a portion or all of the
3,000 acre-feet of UBRP M&I water assigned to DCWCD. All or part of
this M&I water would be exchanged from Big Sand Wash Reservoir to
Starvation Reservoir. Currently, 1,500 acre-feet of this water is being
temporarily used for instream flows under the authority of Section 207
of CUPCA. The water, delivered from Starvation Reservoir, could be used
for instream flows or M&I use. A study and NEPA compliance would need
to be conducted.
Future Transfers
In the future, land, facilities, and a portion of the water rights
transferred from the United States to CUWCD could be transferred from
CUWCD to ASSOCIATION and/or the DCWCD.
IN WITNESS THEREOF, the Parties have thereto caused this MOA to be
executed as of this 27th day of June, 2018.
CENTRAL UTAH WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT
By: Gene Shawcroft, P.E.
General Manager/CEO
MOON LAKE WATER USERS ASSOCIATION
By: Dex Winterton
General Manager
DUCHESNE COUNTY WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT
By: Clyde Watkins
General Manager
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1400.001
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you.
Mr. Winterton, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF DEX WINTERTON, GENERAL MANAGER, MOON LAKE WATER
USERS ASSOCIATION, ROOSEVELT, UTAH
Mr. Winterton. Chairman Lamborn, Ranking Member Huffman,
and members of the Subcommittee, good afternoon. My name is Dex
Winterton, and I am the General Manager of the Moon Lake Water
Users Association. Thank you very much for your time and for
your consideration of H.R. 6583, Big Sand Wash Project Title
Transfer Act.
We would first like to thank Chairman Rob Bishop and his
great staff for getting us to this point. Without Chairman
Bishop's leadership, this resolution would not have been
possible.
Moon Lake Water Users Association is a Utah non-profit
corporation and a mutual irrigation company. The Association's
eight shareholders are non-profit mutual irrigation companies.
The Association was formed in 1934. It provides agricultural
irrigation water to over 75,000 acres in the Uintah Basin,
located in the northeast of Utah.
Over our history, the Association has acquired,
participated in, and built many projects. Among these was the
original private off-stream Big Sand Wash Reservoir, as well as
13 small Depression-era reservoirs in the Uintah Mountains,
inside the area which Congress designated as High Uintas
Wilderness Area in 1984.
Water storage is a precious and scarce commodity in the
Uintah Basin. The priority water rights are tribal. The
mountains are steep with predominately south-facing slopes, so
the majority of the volume of the streamflow comes in a short
amount of time early in the irrigation season. These two
factors mean that, without storage, water right holders like
the Association have insufficient water for mid- to late-season
irrigation.
Federal land ownership has restricted available locations
to store early runoff flows for more productive use later in
the season. As a result of these factors, available storage
volume relative to need in the Basin remains a serious
limitation on productivity. For these reasons, we are always
looking to improve our system by adding storage or improving
facilities and efficiencies.
In the early 1990s, the Association was approached by the
Department of the Interior's CUPCA Completion Office and the
Central Utah Water Conservancy District about including the
enlargement of the Association's privately owned and financed
offstream Big Sand Wash Reservoir as a component of the Uintah
Basin Replacement Project.
The Uintah Basin Replacement Project was authorized in 1992
by passage of what is commonly called the Central Utah Project
Completion Act. While there were benefits for the Association
in allowing the enlargement of Big Sand Wash Reservoir, such as
moving some of our water storage out of the wilderness area,
there was obvious concern about undue Federal control of a
facility that had been entirely built, operated, and completely
paid for by the Association.
Nevertheless, after many years of negotiation, agreements
were reached which would allow for the Central Utah Water
Conservancy District, under Department of the Interior
supervision, to enlarge the Big Sand Wash Reservoir.
These agreements called for the Association to continue
operation and maintenance of the facility and to own fee title
to both the historically-owned Association Big Sand Wash
Reservoir lands, as well as the additional lands to be acquired
for the enlargement, subject to a very specific form of
easement to be held by the United States. Without these
specific conditions being included in the agreement, the
Association would not have agreed to participate in the
enlargement of our reservoir.
In 2001, the U.S. Department of the Interior accepted the
agreed form of easement on historic Association Big Sand Wash
Reservoir lands, which make up the large majority of lands
under the enlarged reservoir, and formally signed the
agreement. The agreement called for the United States to
acquire the additional needed lands to facilitate the
enlargement, then reserve the exact same form of easement that
had previously been given by the Association, and then convey
fee title to the acquired additional lands to the Association.
Over the course of decades, it has been one battle after
another to get the Department of the Interior to live up to the
signed agreement with respect to the Association holding fee
title to the acquired additional Big Sand Wash Reservoir lands
subject only to the agreed form of easement.
We are grateful for the work of Congressman Bishop, who,
through his efforts, brought the parties together. We are also
appreciative of our friends from the Central Utah Water
Conservancy District for their proposed solution of title
transfer as outlined in H.R. 6583.
This bill will allow the Moon Lake Water Users Association
to move forward and secure what was formally agreed to by the
parties in 2001.
We thank the Committee for your time and assistance, and
ask for your support and expeditious consideration of H.R.
6583.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Winterton follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dex Winterton, General Manager, Moon Lake Water
Users Association on H.R. 6583
Chairman Lamborn, Ranking Member Huffman, and members of the
Subcommittee, good afternoon, my name is Dex Winterton and I am the
General Manager of the Moon Lake Water Users Association. Thank you
very much for your time and consideration of H.R. 6583--Big Sand Wash
Project Title Transfer Act.
We would first like to thank Chairman Rob Bishop and his great
staff for getting us to this point. Without Chairman Bishop's
leadership this resolution would not have been possible.
Moon Lake Water Users Association is a Utah non-profit corporation
and a mutual irrigation company. The Association's eight shareholders
are also non-profit mutual irrigation companies. The Association was
formed in 1934. It provides agricultural irrigation water to over
75,000 acres in the Uintah Basin, located in the northeast of Utah.
Over our history the Association has acquired, participated in and
built many projects. Among these was the original private off-stream
Big Sand Wash Reservoir, as well as 13 small depression-era reservoirs
in the Uintah Mountains, an east-west oriented mountain range, the
relevant portion of which Congress designated as the High Uintas
Wilderness Area in 1984.
Water storage is a precious and scarce commodity in the Uintah
Basin. The priority water rights are tribal. The mountains are steep
with predominately south-facing slopes, so the majority of the volume
of the streamflow comes in a short amount of time early in the
irrigation season. These two factors mean water right holders like the
Association have insufficient water for mid to late irrigation season
without storage. Federal and tribal land ownership has restricted
available locations to store early runoff flows for more productive use
later in the season. As a result of these factors available storage
volume relative to need in the Basin remains a serious limitation on
productivity. For these reasons, we are always looking to improve our
system by adding storage or improving facilities and efficiencies.
In the early 1990s, the Association was approached by the
Department of the Interior's CUPCA Completion Office and the Central
Utah Water Conservancy District (CUWCD) about including the enlargement
of the Association's privately owned and privately financed off-stream
Big Sand Wash Reservoir as a component of the Uintah Basin Replacement
Project (UBRP). UBRP was authorized in 1992 by passage of what is
commonly called the Central Utah Project Completion Act (CUPCA). While
there were benefits for the Association in allowing the enlargement of
Big Sand Wash Reservoir for the Association, such as moving some of our
water storage out of the wilderness area, there was obvious concern
about undue Federal control of a facility that had been entirely built,
operated and completely paid for by the Association.
Nevertheless, after many years of negotiation, agreements were
reached which would allow for CUWCD, under DOI supervision, to enlarge
Big Sand Wash Reservoir. These agreements called for the Association to
continue operation and maintenance of the facility and to own fee title
to both the historically owned Association Big Sand Wash Reservoir
lands, as well as the additional lands to be acquired for the
enlargement, subject to a very specific form of easement to be held by
the United States. Without these specific conditions being included in
the Agreement, the Association would not have agreed to participate in
the enlargement of our reservoir.
In 2001, the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) accepted the
agreed form of easement on historic Association Big Sand Wash Reservoir
Lands, which make up the large majority of lands under the enlarged Big
Sand Wash Reservoir, and formally signed the Agreement. The Agreement
called for the United States to acquire the additional needed lands to
facilitate the enlargement, then reserve the exact same form of
easement that had been given by the Association as to the historically
owned Association Big Sand Wash lands, and then convey fee title to the
acquired additional lands to the Association, subject to that easement.
Over the course of decades, it has been one battle after another
after another to get DOI to live up to the signed Agreement with
respect to the Association holding fee title to acquired additional Big
Sand Wash Reservoir lands subject only to the agreed form of easement.
We are grateful for the work of Congressman Bishop who through his
efforts brought the parties together. We are also appreciative of our
friends from CUWCD for their proposed solution of Title Transfer as
outlined in H.R. 6583. This Bill will allow the Moon Lake Water Users
Association to move forward and secure what was formally agreed to by
the parties in 2001.
We thank the Committee for your time and assistance and ask for
your support and expeditious consideration of H.R. 6583.
______
Mr. Lamborn. All right. Thank you all for your testimony on
H.R. 6583. We will take up questions now for that bill, and
then a little bit later we will move into the other bill. I
will now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Mr. Ewell, thank you for being here. As you are aware, I
have put forth a bill, H.R. 3281, which aims to streamline the
title transfer process, in general. In your testimony, you had
mentioned the Administration's proposal, which reflects many of
the ideas in my bill. Do you believe these title transfers, or
parts of them, would be candidates for consideration under
these proposals--your proposal and my bill proposal?
Mr. Ewell. Thank you, Chairman, for the question. Yes, I
believe that portions--at least on the face of it, as it
relates to the particular bill in front of us--would be
applicable. I think the general theme of streamlining is
reflected in both the Administration's proposal, as well as
yours, and, ultimately, the goal of looking toward
uncomplicated, single-purpose projects, to allow for transfer.
And I think, on the face of it, both the bills before us
today have some of those characteristics with some more
complexities related to the Big Sand Wash Project.
Mr. Lamborn. All right. As a followup, I think many of us
see the need for a modernized path allowing for non-Federal
entities to take title to the facilities they operate and
maintain. Can you assure me that you will continue to work with
my office and the entire Committee to ensure that we can
develop a plan to streamline the title transfer process for
appropriate transfers?
Mr. Ewell. Yes, sir. I would be happy to confirm our
interest. It is a priority of the Department of the Interior
and of the Administration to see a successful process
established for streamlining title transfers for projects that
are uncomplicated and make sense for meeting that purpose.
Mr. Lamborn. OK, thank you. Now, we have heard from several
Members on the other side that title transfers must protect the
taxpayer investment in these projects, and that is a concept I
am totally in support of, as well. It is my understanding that
these projects are fully paid off before title is transferred.
So, Mr. Ewell, is it the Bureau's general practice to
finalize title transfer agreements only once a project is
indeed fully paid off?
Mr. Ewell. You are correct. The idea that the project is
repaid prior to any transfer taking place, that would then
include title transfer.
In this case, you have two projects which have remaining
amounts due, based upon the repayment. Those would be repaid
prior to any actual transfer of title.
Mr. Lamborn. Does that leave any taxpayer vulnerability in
the kind of title transfer process that my bill or these
specific bills anticipate?
Mr. Ewell. I don't believe so. The intent is to identify
what amounts are owed, either in the repayment contract, as
well as any other associated revenues due to the United States,
whether it be due to easements or other revenue-generating
streams associated with the ownership of those projects. Those
are all identified in the process with the Memorandum of
Understanding.
Once those are calculated and determined, those amounts are
fully paid in advance, prior to any transfer of title, thus
protecting the interests of the taxpayers.
Mr. Lamborn. OK, thank you.
Mr. Shawcroft and Mr. Winterton, concerns have been raised
to make sure that the environment continues to be protected.
Would there be any lessening of environmental protection if
your stakeholders were to take possession of a property and
take ownership of a property, as opposed to Federal ownership?
Mr. Shawcroft. No, sir. There would be no reduction. Those
agreements in place now are between the Central Utah Water
Conservancy District, the sponsor of the project, and the
Department of the Interior. And those agreements would not
change.
Mr. Lamborn. Mr. Winterton?
Mr. Winterton. No, there has been agreement that nothing
will change, as far as deliveries or instream flow commitments.
Everything remains the same. Just fixing the issue that we have
with the easements is our interest.
Mr. Lamborn. Well, I like the sounds of what we are doing,
whether it is for specific projects or in general. The
government is repaid, the taxpayers are satisfied.
Environmental protections go forward. I like the idea of local
oversight, as opposed to from a distance, like here from
Washington, DC, and I like the fact that taxpayers don't have
any continuing liability, either.
With that, I will turn over for 5 minutes to the Ranking
Member, Mr. Huffman.
Mr. Huffman. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Ewell, welcome to
the Subcommittee. I am going to start with you. I know that
H.R. 6583 requires compliance with NEPA, and I know that the
Bureau has carried out about 30 or so title transfers, as I
understand it. And there has been a NEPA process associated
with all of that.
I am interested in hearing you speak to what kind of issues
came to light during the NEPA process of these previous
transfer processes.
Mr. Ewell. Thank you very much for the question,
Congressman, and it is a pleasure, good to see you again.
Since about 1996, there have been roughly 30 title
transfers which the Reclamation has completed. My understanding
is approximately 2 or 3 of those--besides those 2 or 3, the
remaining 27, 28 of those transfers all were completed with an
EA and a FONSI.
Only one of those actually required a mitigated EA FONSI,
and that was due to the tribal lands that were associated with
the project facilities. Other than that, historically they have
been completed environmentally through the environmental
assessment with the finding of no significant impact.
Mr. Huffman. These were the kind of uncomplicated, single-
purpose projects that we talk about. Is it fair to say, or
would you agree with me that the NEPA process provided an
important way for you to validate that these were not
controversial, and that the title transfer was appropriate for
all the stakeholders involved?
Mr. Ewell. Yes, sir. I believe that is a fair statement. I
think the existing NEPA process, which goes through to identify
what impacts, if any, are associated with the facilities, and
the transfer of those facilities in most cases, the operations
and the facilities themselves remain the same. They just go to,
quite frankly, the districts that are already operating and
maintaining the facilities. This just allows them to now hold
title to those facilities.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you.
For Mr. Shawcroft and Mr. Winterton, a question for both of
you. As I said in my opening remarks, I do support
uncomplicated title transfers if they don't negatively impact
local tribes, fishing groups, power users, environmental, and
recreational interests, et cetera.
As far as you know, are there any objections to this
proposed title transfer from any such stakeholders in your
community?
Mr. Shawcroft. None that I am aware of.
Mr. Huffman. All right. And I would just ask the same of
Mr. Freeman.
Mr. Freeman. No, sir.
Mr. Huffman. OK. Terrific. And I also understand that you
may be considering some additional title transfers involving
other Reclamation assets. You have done a great job working
with the Yakima Tribe and other stakeholders. Are you committed
to continuing that kind of collaborative inclusion and outreach
as you consider other facilities?
Mr. Freeman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Huffman. All right. Thanks.
I have nothing further, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Lamborn. All right. I now recognize Chairman Bishop for
5 minutes.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Shawcroft and Mr. Winterton, let me ask you both the
same question. In your testimonies, you described going back in
history to 2001, when there was an agreement that should have
enabled Moon Lake Water Users Association to retake the title
of the Big Sand Wash Reservoir land, but DOI changed its legal
interpretation and reneged on the deal.
Can you simply describe what impact that had on the
communities in the Basin who rely on these secure water
deliveries?
Let's start with you, Mr. Shawcroft.
Mr. Shawcroft. I am unaware of any impact that has had. The
project has functioned, it has been working well. Mr. Winterton
actually operates that project, and I will let him answer. But
as far as I am concerned, there has not been any impact, as far
as the deliveries have been concerned.
The Chairman. Mr. Winterton?
Mr. Winterton. For me, I think, and for the Association, it
brings about a lot of uncertainty and questions about the
future. This is not the only project that we operate.
As these things move forward, if they can question and
renege, as was said, on these agreements, what else can they
find in other agreements that we handle?
So, that is our biggest concern, security going into the
future, being able to make our deliveries, handling our own
water rights.
The Chairman. To follow up, does this title transfer
alleviate that challenge?
Mr. Winterton. Yes, it should, as long as we can complete
these issues, like we have discussed, and get the easement, as
proposed.
The Chairman. And, once again, the water supply that is
already under contract, that would remain untouched?
Mr. Winterton. Yes.
The Chairman. It would still be available, it would still
be delivered?
Mr. Winterton. Yes.
The Chairman. There has been some question in certain
places simply about the completion of environmental compliance,
if this was actually transferred. Do either of you--once again,
Mr. Winterton first, then Mr. Shawcroft--have any concerns
about the actual compliance with any kind of environmental
regulations, were this transfer to take place?
Mr. Winterton. No. Essentially, operations shouldn't change
in any way, shape, or form. I think the mutual agreement
between the Association and Central Utah Water Conservancy
District is to leave those operations, as far as the agreement
is concerned, in place. I see no concern, moving forward, to
keep those environmental protections in place.
Mr. Shawcroft. I would agree with that. The commitments
that were made are under a Record of Decision, which was
provided on the Uintah Basin Replacement Project. Those
commitments will continue. I see no reason why there would be
any modification at all in any of those environmental
commitments.
The Chairman. It was implied in some of the written
testimony that there might have to be follow-up legislation
because of operating agreements. Do either of you see a need
for that?
Mr. Shawcroft. I do not. I think if the agreements that are
listed and enumerated are completed, there will be no further
legislative action.
Mr. Winterton. Yes, as long as we are making sure these
agreements come together, as long as they come together, then
there shouldn't be any need.
The Chairman. As you two were working out the agreement
that went into this, and making the agreement that you signed
together, was the Utah office of the Bureau of Reclamation
involved in that?
Mr. Shawcroft. They were involved in the discussion and the
negotiation as Mr. Winterton and I and our staff got together.
They were not involved in every meeting, but they have been
involved with all of the communication, everything that has
been in writing they have been involved with, and they have
been very supportive and have been helpful as we have concluded
these negotiations.
The Chairman. So, basically, you have signed off on what we
are attempting to do here.
Mr. Winterton. Yes.
The Chairman. OK, and are supportive of that?
Mr. Winterton. Correct.
The Chairman. Cool.
Mr. Ewell, within the context of this legislation, do you
think there is further language that is necessary?
Mr. Ewell. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman. I
believe that the idea behind the legislation, and especially if
it allows some room should future items be discovered, for
those to be included, I think that the legislation as written
is appropriate.
The Chairman. Thank you. I appreciate that. I also
appreciate the oral testimony that you have given here today. I
think it has been spot on. Written one, eh, but the oral
testimony has been very good.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. I also have some concerns about trying to
follow any Senate pattern that we have, as far as coming up
with an overall standard. If we actually were to follow the
Senate in any kind of possibility, that would basically mean we
do nothing, and then we would follow the Senate standards.
Thank you for your testimony.
Mr. Lamborn. All right, thank you. We have now finished our
consideration of H.R. 6583. Mr. Winterton and Mr. Shawcroft,
thank you for traveling to be here with us today. You are now
excused.
And we will move into discussion on our second and final
bill of the day, H.R. 6652.
Mr. Freeman, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF CHUCK FREEMAN, DISTRICT MANAGER, KENNEWICK
IRRIGATION DISTRICT, KENNEWICK, WASHINGTON
Mr. Freeman. Thank you, Chairman Lamborn, Ranking Member
Huffman, and members of the Subcommittee. I am Charles Freeman,
District Manager for the Kennewick Irrigation District (KID).
With me today are Vice President of my Board of Directors, Mr.
Kurt Huffman and my Land and Water Resource Manager, Seth
Defoe.
KID is a water provider serving the urban and agricultural
customers at the end of the Yakima Basin project in Washington
State.
I want to thank you for holding a hearing on H.R. 6652, the
Kennewick Irrigation District title transfer bill. We
appreciate Congressman Dan Newhouse's leadership on this and
other water infrastructure issues, and I would also like to
thank Chairman Lamborn and other members of the Committee for
their work on the Reclamation Title Transfer and Non-Federal
Infrastructure Incentivization Act.
The KID has been supplying water in the lower Yakima Basin
for over 100 years. Our partnership with the Bureau of
Reclamation began in the 1950s to build much of the canal
system we use today. Since 1958, the District has been
responsible for operation, maintenance, and replacement of the
facilities we hope to take title to. We have a long proven
history of successfully managing and operating our system. The
District is scheduled to conclude its repayment requirements to
Reclamation in 2024, however we are prepared to prepay the
remaining balance of our loan.
H.R. 6652 authorizes the transfer of ownership of the
Kennewick Irrigation District transferred works from
Reclamation to the District. The transferred works include
about 80 miles of canal laterals, associated works, easements,
drains, and waste-ways. The transfer of title would enable the
District to have more direct control over an important
infrastructure asset and can provide added service to our
operations.
The transfer would also benefit the Federal Government by
reducing its liability. And with us prepaying our repayment
loan early, the Federal taxpayer will also see a fiscal
benefit.
The District is committed to going through the title
transfer process in a collaborative manner. As part of this,
the District will go through an environmental assessment under
the National Environmental Policy Act. This process includes
tribal consultation, which Ranking Member Huffman referred to
today.
When the Board of Directors authorized me to investigate
and go forward with the idea of title transfer transferred
works, our first meeting was at the Yakima Nation. I am very
humbled and very pleased with their letter today. We have no
issues with what they are asking; it is just clarification of
what the head gate is, and other terms with respect to the
water right. So, we will continue dialoguing with them, as well
as going through the Endangered Species Act review and National
Historic Preservation Act review, and the hazardous materials
review.
The District and Reclamation have signed an MOA that lists
tasks and environmental reviews associated with the title
transfer process. The costs of these tasks total over $189,000,
of which KID has paid $115,000. The largest expenditures
associated with the title transfer are these reviews. The
District does not object to going through the process. It
should be noted that the project will not change. We are
transferring facilities that have already been constructed, and
that KID has been operating and responsible for for over 60
years. In large part, the title transfer is an exchange of
documents.
Water providers face numerous challenges in their efforts
to supply water, including growing demand, aging
infrastructure, and changing precipitation patterns. Managing
challenges are one of the reasons we are pursuing title
transfer. A title transfer will help make our district as
responsive, innovative, and efficient as possible.
Last year, KID celebrated its centennial anniversary. As
the District looks toward the future, a title transfer will
help ensure reliable and efficient water supplies for the next
century and beyond.
Chairman Lamborn, Ranking Member Huffman, and Congressman
Newhouse, we would like to thank you for consideration and
support in legislation, and for your attention to our Nation's
water infrastructure.
I would be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Freeman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Charles Freeman, District Manager, Kennewick
Irrigation District on H.R. 6652
Chairman Lamborn, Ranking Member Huffman, and members of the
Subcommittee, I am Charles Freeman, the District Manager for the
Kennewick Irrigation District (the District). I want to thank you for
holding a hearing on H.R. 6652, the Kennewick Irrigation District title
transfer bill. We appreciate Congressman Dan Newhouse's leadership on
water infrastructure issues and for introducing the bill. I would also
like to thank Chairman Lamborn and the other members of the Committee
for their work on the Reclamation Title Transfer and Non-Federal
Infrastructure Incentivization Act.
The District has been supplying water in the lower Yakima Basin for
over 100 years. It was first formed as a special purpose district in
1917 and today provides irrigation water to approximately 23,400
landowners across 20,201 acres of land within a 55,000-acre boundary.
In the 1950s, the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) partnered with
local farms to build the canal system we still use today. This system
diverts water from the Yakima River at Prosser Dam. The water travels
11 miles down a diversion canal along the river to Chandler. There
hydraulic pumps send the water up the Horse Heaven Hills to the head of
the main canal.
Since 1958, the District has been responsible for operations,
maintenance, and replacement of our facilities. We have a long proven
history of successfully managing and operating our water system. The
District is scheduled to conclude its repayment requirements to
Reclamation in 2024, however we are prepared to prepay the remaining
balance. Currently, Congress has to specifically authorize title
transfers. This is because Reclamation retains the title or ownership
of the facilities and projects, even after a repayment contract is
completed. Since 1996, Congress has authorized title transfer for 30
projects. H.R. 6652 authorizes the transfer ownership of the Kennewick
Irrigation District's Transferred Works from Reclamation to the
District. The Transferred Works include the canals, laterals, and
appurtenant works and lands, which begin at the District's head gate
and extends approximately 40 miles east to the Columbia River.
The transfer of title would enable the District to have more direct
control of an important infrastructure asset and could provide value
added service to our operations. The transfer will also benefit the
Federal Government by reducing its liabilities and, because we are
willing to prepay our remaining repayment balance, the Federal taxpayer
will also see a fiscal benefit.
When the District recognized that it was in a position to pay off
its obligation to the Federal Government early it decided to move ahead
with title transfer. On August 15, 2017, the District's Board of
Directors approved Resolution 2017-29, authorizing KID staff to engage
Reclamation and our congressional delegation in the title transfer
process. That December, the District and Reclamation agreed to a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to facilitate a title transfer of a
number of works that will be paid off and that the District already
operates and manages. We have greatly appreciated working with
Reclamation through this process.
The District is committed to going through the title transfer
process in a collaborative manner. As part of the MOA the District will
go through an Environmental Assessment (EA) under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This process includes tribal
consultation, and Endangered Species Act Review, a National Historical
Preservation Act Review, and a hazardous materials review.
The MOA with Reclamation lists tasks associated with the title
transfer process, totaling $189,757.00, of which Reclamation will pay
$74,757.00 and KID will pay $115,000.00. The largest expenditures
associated with the title transfer are these reviews, while the
District does not object to these processes we do think it should be
noted that the use of the project will not change, we are transferring
facilities that have already been constructed, and that the District
has been managing these facilities for over 60 years. In large part the
title transfer is an exchange of documents.
On February 14, 2018, I had the privilege of testifying before this
Subcommittee on ``The State of the Nation's Water and Power
Infrastructure.'' My testimony addressed the growing challenges water
providers face in their efforts to supply water including growing
demand, aging infrastructure, and changing precipitation patterns.
Managing these challenges are one of the reasons we are pursuing title
transfer. I believe our district must be as responsive, innovative, and
efficient as possible.
As the District looks toward the future a title transfer will help
ensure reliable and efficient water supplies for the next generation
and beyond.
title transfer and improved infrastructure management
Our community has changed since the District's infrastructure was
initially built to serve the agricultural community. Today, the
District's water deliveries are almost half agricultural land and half
residential areas.
Taking a system designed for agricultural purposes and using it to
supply urbanized customers creates unique challenges for the District.
Unfortunately, Reclamation has not always been timely in meeting the
needs of our community. For example, developers in Kennewick have had
to endure years long waiting times for Reclamation's approval to move
easement lines on properties a developer already owns. The wait has
affected the private development of those properties. Reclamation is a
valuable partner and we believe that H.R. 6652 will ease some of the
burdens it faces and it will benefit the District as well as the
surrounding community.
the future of water in the yakima basin
Last year, KID celebrated its centennial anniversary. The District
has been able to supply water for over a century based on investments
made by prior generations. We are committed to ensuring that the
District is able to supply water for another century, and beyond. To do
that KID must continue to invest in its systems, its operations, and
partnerships with other stakeholders.
Chairman Lamborn and Ranking Member Huffman, thank you for your
consideration of this important legislation and for your attention to
our Nation's water infrastructure. I am confident that with this
Subcommittee's leadership we can successfully complete this title
transfer process and provide the District, its customers, and the
Kennewick community with the flexibility we need to continue meeting
the needs of our water users. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity
to testify. I would be happy to answer any questions.
______
Mr. Lamborn. All right. Thank you for your testimony. You
have done such a good job of explaining things, I don't have
any further questions. I will turn to the Ranking Member and
see if he has any questions.
Mr. Huffman. Nor do I. I appreciate the testimony, and I
have nothing further.
Mr. Lamborn. Chairman Bishop?
The Chairman. Well, I mean, he has to have a question
somewhere. So, how are you feeling?
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Lamborn. I want to thank you, Mr. Freeman and Mr.
Ewell, and the other witnesses who were here earlier for coming
today and sharing with us your valuable and helpful testimony.
Members of the Subcommittee may have additional questions for
you, and we would ask that you would respond to those in
writing, if you receive those.
Under Committee Rule 3(o), members of the Committee must
submit questions to the Clerk within 3 business days following
the hearing, and the hearing record will be open for 10
business days for your responses.
If there is no further business, without objection, the
Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:48 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[all]