Statement of John W. Keys, III on H.R. 3881

Home Browse Search

http : / /resourcescommittee.house.gov/ 107cong /water /2002mar 19/keyes.htm The Fryingpan - Arkansas Project is a multipurpose project whose authorizing legislation imposes, in addition to authorized Project purposes, legal obligations on Reclamation including compliance with the interstate compact on the Arkansas River between Colorado and Kansas. Therefore, any feasibility study must assess the overall impacts of the proposed re- operation of existing facilities, on contracts, and the impact that the use and operation of planned enlargements of Project facilities might have on other users of Project water and on the interstate compact. H.R. 3881 refers to the Preferred Storage Options Plan (PSOP) Report of September 21, 2000, and the Final PSOP Implementation Committee Report of April 19, 2001, as documents describing the various aspects of proposed enlargements at two reservoirs and the use of excess capacity of existing facilities in delivering these additional water supplies. H.R. 3881 limits the scope of studies it would authorize to only the provisions described in the PSOP reports themselves. These reports, products of considerable effort and forward thinking by the District, were prepared by consultants to the Southeastern Colorado Water Conservancy District and Enterprise Board, and, as such, represent only the District =s interests, and not necessarily those of the Federal government. Because Fryingpan- Arkansas is a Federal multi - purpose Project which Reclamation must operate in compliance with inter -state compact obligations, Reclamation =s role is different from and broader than that of the District and, therefore, the scope of any feasibility studies relating to enlarging Pueblo Dam and Reservoir and Sugar Loaf Dam and Turquoise Lake of the Fryingpan- Arkansas Project must be significantly broader than that proposed in H.R. 3881. While the PSOP studies are very useful in presenting the District =s interests, Reclamation =s role is to analyze the impacts of the proposed action at Pueblo Dam on all the beneficiaries of Project water, as well as on the multiple Project purposes including upland recreational improvements around Turquoise Lake, and on the inter -state compacts. Under Congressional directives and long - standing Reclamation policy, a feasibility study performed by Reclamation must study a range of alternatives to determine the best approach to meeting identified needs. Rather than authorize a District to fund the total cost of the studies, either partly or wholly in the form of services, as proposed in H.R. 3881, the Department recommends that any legislation authorize up to 50% of the total cost of feasibility studies. This would ensure that feasibility studies appropriate for the nature and complexities of the Project are designed, written, and completed to Reclamation =s standards, using the PSOP reports as a foundation expressing the District =s interests, and with a shared ownership of the end product. In this manner, the Secretary, through Reclamation, can ensure that the interests of the public and stakeholders have been considered, to the extent possible, through the public process required by Reclamation law, while sharing the costs with the District consistent with current . Reclamation policy. We estimate the cost of the federal share of such studies to be about $2 million. Congressional Authorization of Construction Section 2 of H.R. 3881 appears to suggest that congressional authorization of a feasibility study may be sufficient to authorize initiation of construction at the Dam, without the need to go back to Congress for additional specific construction authorization. Although this law (the Act of August 4, 1939) is still on the books, it conflicts with how Reclamation has done business for over 30 years. Reclamation encourages the Committee to authorize only an appropriate feasibility study relating to enlarging Pueblo Dam and Reservoir and Sugar Loaf Dam and Turquoise Lake of the Fryingpan- Arkansas Project in Colorado. Reclamation will request that Congress provide for construction authorization if results of the feasibility study justify that work. Legal Precedents The sections of H.R. 3881 dealing with contracts are very complicated and, if enacted, could set many precedents Reclamation -wide. The current language of H.R. 3881 is very prescriptive and could cause unintended and adverse precedents for Reclamation contracts with other entities for excess storage capacity and the delivery of non - project water through project facilities. Reclamation has begun a full legal and policy analysis of the precedent- setting actions set forth in H.R. 3881. When it is completed, 2 of 3 3/20/02 10:17 AM