PUB00144 ‎(2)‎

• Year: 2006
• Title: Western States Water Council - Breckenridge, CO., July 19-21, 2006
• CWCB Section: Administration
• Description: Western States Water Council - Breckenridge, CO., July 19-21, 2006
• Publications - Doc Type: Water Policy

Western States Water Council
Full Council Minutes

Washington, D.C.
March 29, 2006

.

After WRDA 1986 was enacted, the plan was to pass a bill every two years with a new "menu of
authorized projects." No bill has been passed since 2000, and the pent up demand includes calls for
Corps reforms. There are authorization and appropriation committee battles. WRDA 2006 has passed
the House and been reported by the Senate Committee. It is waiting for floor time. We hope to see it
pass the Senate in the next couple of months.

The President's FY07 budget sustained minimum O&M capabilities, but there are no new
construction starts. There was funding for 750 ongoing projects in FY06, but only funding for a third
that many in FY07. We are looking at a watershed approach to problem solving, and need partners. Our
budget objectives require comprehensive planning and data collection and archiving work. WRDA 1986
was too narrowly focused on local partners and cost sharing for specific projects. It didn't provide for a
watershed approach to planning.

Mr. Stockton said, "I too would like to thank John Keys. The Bureau of Reclamation has been a
super partner with the Corps. Over 500 Interior employees were loaned to the Corps to work on recovery
efforts after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

Questions and Answers

Craig Bell asked about the Corps funding in WRDA.

.

Mr. Stockton explained that with respect to project funding, "...everything we do is a line item."
There is a little money for headquarters (HQ) operations. WRDA' 86 and its cost sharing requirements
took away our ability to look at watersheds, and forced us to focus on specific problems, not national
issues. That's the good news, bad news. However, we now have $4.5 million for watershed work and
have sent a Request for Proposals (RFP) to our divisions and districts. We are now going through the
selection process.

Dave Pope of Kansas had a question about the Corps reform debate.

Mr. Stockton summarized concerns over the elaborate feasibility study process and the need to be
"transparent." The Corps guidance was issued to address concerns. Is their too much focus on
economics? Project feasibility studies involve future predictions of commodity and transportation prices
and costs. "I think we've made a lot of progress. It does take a long time." Proper planning gives the
Administration and Congress choices. The evaluation process covers economic, environmental and
technical feasibility. Some want more external peer review, and a more rigorous economic review. We
are already doing a lot of what is in the proposed bills, but
some requirements proposed are onerous.

Bill Hume of New Mexico asked about the Corps and ESA silvery minnow work along the Rio
Grande proposed by Senator Pete Domenici.

Mr. Stockton responded: "Whoever has the lead, we will work closely with BOR. We don't .
expect to see much change, but don't know what Domenici has in mind."

6