Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Western States Water Council <br />Water Resources Committee Minutes <br /> <br />Sheridan, Wyoming <br />October 5, 2006 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Barry explained that when a storm event happens where seeding is appropriate, basically you open <br />an envelope that says seed or don't seed. That is one reason for the 5-year duration of testing. It is needed <br />to build a big enough sample that is statistically valid. <br /> <br />Tom Maddock: "What's your data to support the 1 0-15% estimate of increased runoff?" <br /> <br />Bruce: "Those are conclusions of other research programs using both physical and statistical <br />estimates. The American Meteorological Society says 10% is realistic. The $10/acre foot cost estimate is <br />based on only a 10% increase in precipitation long term, also using historical data from the USDA/NRCS <br />SNOTEL monitoring system. There will be some ground absorption, and we will use only 80% of the <br />increased runoff estimated to be conservative. The benefit estimates don't include the value for recreation, <br />hydropower, etc. <br /> <br />"What are we going to learn from your studies, we haven't in other seeded areas?" <br /> <br />Bruce: "The main difference is these are operational programs, not research." <br /> <br />Wyoming's operational plan is unique from past research in that it includes both physical and <br />statistical separate and independent evaluations. You have to look at the whole water budget and the effects. <br />Most of water doesn't condense. Perhaps only 20% condenses with perhaps 30% falling as precipitation. <br />In all, perhaps there is only a 1 % effect on the water budget. The atmospheric side of the water budget <br />recovers faster than the hydrology. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process takes a close <br />look, and there is no appreciable negative impact of a 10% increase in precipitation. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />RURAL WATER SUPPLY ACT: FEDERAL/STATE COLLABORATION <br /> <br />Brenda Burman, Deputy Commissioner, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation briefly described provisions <br />ofthe Rural Water Supply Act (S. 895). The bill has passed the Senate, and there has been a House hearing, <br />but no committee or subcommittee action. Reclamation hopes for action before Christmas to provide new <br />general authority for feasibility and appraisal studies. At present there are prior programmatic criteria for <br />prioritizing projects as provided in Title I. It also requires 50-50% cost sharing of feasibility studies, and <br />requires local sponsors be able to pay 100% of future operation and maintenance costs. Title II provides for <br />loan guarantees. Much of our water resources infrastructure is over 50 years old. How do we address this <br />problem? There isn't enough federal money to go around. The loan guarantee authority is not a fix, but <br />another tool to help solve the problem. Some districts don't have title to their projects, as it is held by the <br />federal government. If a project scores low on budget and appropriations priorities, it may never be funded. <br />The loan guarantee helps non-federal project sponsors secure loans at good interest rates. <br /> <br />The House is expected to make some small changes, and is asking, "Do we have grassroots support?" <br />Your communities should talk to Congress this next month. <br /> <br />Rod Kuharich asked Brenda about the prospects for House action this year, which Brenda projected <br />to be about a 70%-75% chance. Thereafter, a House/Senate conference would be required. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />14 <br />