BOARD01830

• Board Meeting Date: 5/11/1998
• Description: WSP Section - Colorado River Basin Issues - Vallecito Reservoir Transfer Legislation
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

"

.

.

. -

..""''''
~ -'r)!'"":
<~[:~:~ ,co'
P.Il,.,:..
".f~'e.<_:-:, . .

,

1~;08S4e4S'8

- .
APR-2S-1'3S1S

DANIEL H. ISRHE~. P.C.

TO

10: ~6 FROr1

....r:.., ;".;
.r~::':~y.;., '

agreement shall supersede the MOV referred to in Section3(D) of this Act," This will clarify that
the agreement reached between the District and the BIA will supersede the pre~isting MOU for
O/'lCrnring ,h~ f~.,.;uti.. .h... e><.i.... VClI"'''ClI ~ct;tllntallOn ana the tllA.

5) EJevatiQ.I1: The elevation noted in Section 4(3)(1) and Section 4(.:)(5) was incorrectly
identified and should be changed from 7,765 to ~.

In summary. Mr. Chainnan, while the Pine River Project does not meet the definition of a
"simple" project, we believe that the criteria established in our Framework are met by H.R. 37I5
making this project a good candidate for title transfer. And while all the questions have not been
completely answered, the process to date, and that required in the future under this legislation is
open, public, and inclusive. Furthennore, there are numerous safeguards established in H.R.
3715 to protect the public interests and the publie purposes for which this facility has been
construeted.

H.R. 1282. Certain Facilities oftfie Minidoka Project to the Burley Irrigation District.

H.R. 1282 direcf~ tl,,, S"~root""Y ofth. IntCl'io< to ""''''''] IV lhl; llurlt:y rrngat10n UtStrlct (J:lIJJ),
without eonsideration, all right, title and interest of the United States in and to the withdrawn and
, acquired lands, easements, and rights-of-way of or in connection with the South Side Pumping
Division of the Minidoka project.

We believe this projeet may be a good eandidate for transfer, but for the reasons diseussed below,
the Administration strongly objects to H.R. 1282 as drafted. While good progress has been made
in discussions with BID and in amendments to the identical bill (5. 538) in the Senate, those
changes are not reflected in the bill before the Subeommittce today.

first, I would like to provide some history. On March 11, 1996, following their request
Reclamation met ~ith BID to initiate discussions about title transfer and to begin the process to
cooperatively negotiate and craft a proposal to bring to Congress which all parties couId support.
Unfortunately, that process did nnt get vP.ry f"r ~c S, 1921 """' introdueecl in the l()-4tn Con&n'~:>
and discussions eame to an end.

After the 1041h Congress adjourned, Reclamation reinitiated discussions with BID in hopes of
. developing a consensus based proposal. These efforts were short lived as S. 538 and H.R, 1282
were introduced in the I05th Congress. On June 10, 1997, I provided testimOtlY on S, 538 (whieh
was identical to H.R. 1282) before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee,
Subcommittee on Water and Power. The Administration strongly opposed that version of S, 538.
In that testimony, I addressed the main points of concern for the Administration and a number of
other technical issues that needed to be addressed.

.

. Since the introduction of legislation in the I04th and 1 OSth Congresses, a diligent and
<;ooperative effort between Reclamation and BID has bec:n nnp'nin~ 't.\ r..~olv. i..ue. in .hMn

-,. .~_. ---. -

...~.....